ASSESSING UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: A MEASURE OF EFFICIENCY PATTERNS

There have been very active and significant studies done in the area of university technologies transfer (UTT). One interested topic among them is to measure performance of the UTT. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has been regarded as a proper approach to measure the university technology transfer efficiency (UTTE). However, current studies stay in identifying efficient and inefficient universities and related output or input variables which could contribute to improve their efficiencies. This study is intended to understand further how the universities recognized efficient are different and the changes of their performance over years. For this purpose, this study proposes a new approach, the efficiency pattern diagram, to identify changing patterns of the technology transfer of 17 efficient universities out of 51 US universities from 2001 to 2004. Five efficiency patterns are identified by this study: "newly emerging", "strengthening", "strong", "weakening", and "declining". The properties of each pattern and limitations of the approach are discussed with verification of the pattern by extending them to 2005.

[1]  Jill Ann Tarzian Sorensen,et al.  Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated––defining an access metric , 2008 .

[2]  Sukanya Kemp,et al.  Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing , 2002 .

[3]  R. Lowe,et al.  Who Develops a University Invention? The Impact of Tacit Knowledge and Licensing Policies , 2006 .

[4]  Shanthi Gopalakrishnan,et al.  Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: the role of key organizational factors , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[5]  Mike Wright,et al.  University Spin-Out Companies and Venture Capital , 2006 .

[6]  Aldo Geuna,et al.  The Role of University Spinout Companies in an Emerging Technology: The Case of Nanotechnology , 2006 .

[7]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge , 2006 .

[8]  Albert N. Link,et al.  University Technology Transfer: An Introduction to the Special Issue , 2008 .

[9]  Branco Ponomariov,et al.  Effects of university characteristics on scientists’ interactions with the private sector: an exploratory assessment , 2008 .

[10]  M. Bray,et al.  University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions , 2000 .

[11]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities , 2001 .

[12]  Richard T. Harrison,et al.  Maximising the Potential of University Spin-Outs: The Development of Second-Order Commercialisation Activities , 2005 .

[13]  B. Sampat.  Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole , 2006 .

[14]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[15]  W. A. Spivey,et al.  Coordinating the technology transfer and transition of information technology: a phenomenological perspective , 1997 .

[16]  L. P. Randazzese,et al.  Exploring university-industry technology transfer of CAD technology , 1996 .

[17]  Vangelis Souitaris,et al.  Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research , 2008 .

[18]  D. Aigner,et al.  P. Schmidt, 1977,?Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models,? , 1977 .

[19]  A. A. del Campo,et al.  The transfer and commercialization of university-developed medical imaging technology: opportunities and problems , 1999 .

[20]  David H. Coursey,et al.  Technology transfer in US government and university laboratories: advantages and disadvantages for participating laboratories , 1992 .

[21]  Donald S. Siegel,et al.  Organizational Issues in University-Industry Technology Transfer: An Overview of the Symposium Issue , 2001 .

[22]  Seungwoo Seo,et al.  Recommendations from the commercialization of government-sponsored telecommunications R&D with multiple development cycles in Korea , 1998 .

[23]  Michael D. Santoro,et al.  Facilitators of Knowledge Transfer in University-Industry Collaborations: A Knowledge-Based Perspective , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[24]  Brendan Galbraith,et al.  Defining and improving technology transfer business and management processes in university innovation centres , 2005 .

[25]  David Bennett,et al.  University to business technology transfer—UK and USA comparisons , 2007 .

[26]  Mike Wright,et al.  Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence , 2005 .

[27]  T. Daim,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer , 2007 .

[28]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: 'The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with' , 2003 .

[29]  A. Link,et al.  Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration , 2003 .

[30]  C. Palmberg.  The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers , 2008 .

[31]  A. D. Heher.  Return on Investment in Innovation: Implications for Institutions and National Agencies* , 2006 .

[32]  W. Meeusen,et al.  Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production Functions with Composed Error , 1977 .