Supply-Side Innovation and Technology Commercialization

The majority of research and practice tends to conceptualize innovation as a vertically coupled, intra-organizational process. We expand this perspective by conceptualizing innovation as a vertically decoupled, inter-organizational process and by studying the role of research universities as suppliers of discoveries to this market for innovation. We combined logic from agency and real options theories to explain why the outcomes of technology commercialization are a function of licensing strategies, the autonomy of technology licensing offices (TLOs), and the incentives bestowed on scientists, research departments, and TLO officers. We rely on data from licensing surveys, interviews with 128 TLO directors, and - for convergent validity - from web-based searches of the TLOs of American universities and the US Patent and Trademark Office. Results suggest that commercialization outcomes (in this case, revenue and start-up creation) are enhanced when TLOs employ diverse licensing strategies, TLOs enjoy greater autonomy, universities share revenues with scientists' departments, and universities compensate TLOs officers well. Results also show that late entrants - typically underperforming universities - inflate royalty shares to scientists as a means to rectify their commercialization record. We conclude with a discussion of this study's contribution to the literature on innovation and technology commercialization.

[1]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Joel West,et al.  Commercializing Open Science: Deep Space Communications as the Lead Market for Shannon Theory, 196073 , 2008 .

[3]  David B. Balkin,et al.  Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer , 2005 .

[4]  E. Mansfield.  Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations , 1995 .

[5]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[6]  Peter T. Gianiodis,et al.  Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market , 2005 .

[7]  J. Storey,et al.  Managers' Theories About the Process of Innovation , 2004 .

[8]  W. Powell,et al.  The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity , 2003 .

[9]  David C. Croson,et al.  Information Policy: Shaping the Value of Agency Relationships , 2001 .

[10]  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 .

[11]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change , 1984 .

[12]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

[13]  Henry Mintzberg.  The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management , 1990 .

[14]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[15]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[16]  UMMARY D ESCRIPTIONS OF THE P RIMARY V ARIABLES ’ S OURCES,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF R & D EXPENDITURES ON NEW FIRM FORMATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH , 2002 .

[17]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Academic research and industrial innovation , 1991 .

[18]  John Child,et al.  Organizations Unfettered: Organizational Form in an Information-Intensive Economy , 2001 .

[19]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[20]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[21]  Dovev Lavie.  The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-Based View , 2006 .

[22]  Mike Wright,et al.  Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies , 2005 .

[23]  Roberto Mazzoleni,et al.  How Do University Inventions Get into Practice ? , 2000 .

[24]  J. Hulland,et al.  Managing An Organizational Learning System By Aligning Stocks and Flows , 2002 .

[25]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Incentives and Invention in Universities , 2003 .

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

[27]  A. Jaffe,et al.  Evidence from Patents and Patent Citations on the Impact of Nasa and Other Federal Labs on Commercial Innovation , 1997 .

[28]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  CUSTOMER POWER, STRATEGIC INVESTMENT, AND THE FAILURE OF LEADING FIRMS , 1996 .

[29]  Peter T. Gianiodis,et al.  Factor-Market Rivalry , 2009 .

[30]  M. Brewer,et al.  Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises , 1994 .

[31]  A. Link,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage In Informal University Technology Transfer , 2007 .

[32]  Maryann Feldman,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[33]  James R. Johnson.  Technology transfer and Universities , 1988 .

[34]  Mike Wright,et al.  Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies , 2003 .

[35]  M. Wright,et al.  Research and Technology Commercialization , 2008 .

[36]  Mike Wright,et al.  The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications , 2005 .

[37]  Richard A. Jensen,et al.  The Disclosure and Licensing of University Inventions , 2003 .

[38]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Multitask Principal–Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design , 1991 .

[39]  Gary J. Young,et al.  Product-Line Management in Professional Organizations: an Empirical Test of Competing Theoretical Perspectives , 2004 .

[40]  Gideon D. Markman,et al.  Full-Time Faculty or Part-Time Entrepreneurs , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[41]  An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage In Informal University Technology Transfer , 2006 .

[42]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  What Is Not A Real Option: Considering Boundaries for the Application of Real Options to Business Strategy , 2004 .

[43]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Alliances in Biotechnology: A System of New Product Development , 2004 .

[44]  Mike Wright,et al.  From Human Capital to Social Capital: A Longitudinal Study of Technology–Based Academic Entrepreneurs , 2007 .

[45]  C. Hill,et al.  The Performance of Incumbent firms in the Face of Radical Technological Innovation , 2003 .

[46]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[47]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[48]  Joseph Friedman,et al.  University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter? , 2003 .

[49]  Rita Gunther McGrath.  Falling Forward: Real Options Reasoning and Entrepreneurial Failure , 1999 .

[50]  Scott Shane,et al.  Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? , 2003 .

[51]  Alice Lam.  Knowledge Networks and Careers: Academic Scientists in Industry-University Links , 2007 .

[52]  HolmqvistMikael.  Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration Within and Between Organizations , 2004 .

[53]  Oliver Hart,et al.  Implicit Contracts Under Asymmetric Information , 1983 .

[54]  M. Wright,et al.  Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications , 2007 .

[55]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[56]  Jennifer F. Reinganum.  The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion , 1989 .

[57]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions , 2001 .