Full-Time Faculty or Part-Time Entrepreneurs

When agents originate and develop inventions, new discoveries, or scientific breakthroughs, do all residual cash flows go to principals - the risk bearers who own the infrastructures, systems, and the productive assets? This research addresses this question, focusing on university scientists who essentially bypass their institutions when they privately sell or license discoveries made at laboratories of said institutions directly to the market. Using a random sample of 54 U.S. universities and 23 394 faculty members, the study shows that bypassing activity is reduced when universities rely on autonomous technology licensing offices (TLOs) and when faculty departments receive greater shares of the royalties from the licensing of said discoveries. Conversely, bypassing activity is increased with more valuable discoveries and heightened entrepreneurial activities on university campuses.

[1]  W. Powell,et al.  To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer , 2001 .

[2]  Peter W. Roberts,et al.  Integrating Transaction Cost and Institutional Theories: Toward a Constrained-Efficiency Framework for Understanding Organizational Design Adoption , 1997 .

[3]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Scale, scope, and spillovers: the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. , 1996, The Rand journal of economics.

[4]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[5]  D. Mowery,et al.  Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer , 1996 .

[6]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  Martin Kenney,et al.  The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford , 2004 .

[8]  A. Jaffe.  Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[9]  R. Coff.  When Competitive Advantage Doesn't Lead to Performance: The Resource-Based View and Stakeholder Bargaining Power , 1999 .

[10]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[11]  A. Cameron,et al.  Econometric models based on count data. Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests , 1986 .

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

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

[14]  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 .

[15]  H. Demsetz,et al.  Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization , 1975, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[16]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[17]  M. Wright,et al.  Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom , 2003 .

[18]  Emre Ozdenoren,et al.  Intermediation in Innovation , 2005 .

[19]  Brian E. Becker,et al.  HIGH PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS AND FIRM PERFORMANCE : A SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS , 1998 .

[20]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[21]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing , 1999, The New Economic Sociology.

[22]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Valuable Patents , 2003 .

[23]  Scott Shane,et al.  Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[24]  J. Liebeskind,et al.  Privatizing the Intellectual Commons: Universities and the Commercialization of Biotechnology , 1998 .

[25]  R. Nelson,et al.  On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope , 1990 .

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

[27]  Joanna Poyago-Theotoky,et al.  Universities and Fundamental Research: Reflections on the Growth of University–Industry Partnerships , 2002 .

[28]  Gideon D. Markman,et al.  Patents as Surrogates for Inimitable and Non-Substitutable Resources , 2004 .

[29]  Paul DiMaggio.  Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory , 1988 .

[30]  Z. Griliches.  The Search for R&D Spillovers , 1991 .

[31]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

[32]  Bikash Bhadury,et al.  Pay satisfaction of R&D personnel in manufacturing organizations: The role of career comparison process , 1997 .

[33]  Wilbur Chung,et al.  Resource-Seeking Agglomeration: A Study of Market Entry in the Lodging Industry , 2004 .

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

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

[36]  Kevin Barraclough,et al.  I and i , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[38]  Tom Nicholas,et al.  Was Electricity a General Purpose Technology? Evidence from Historical Patent Citations , 2004 .

[39]  O. Williamson.  Opportunism and its critics , 1993 .

[40]  D. Guest.  Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda , 1997 .

[41]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Organizational designs for R&D , 2002 .