A new approach to measuring time-lags in technology licensing: study of U.S. academic research institutions

This paper contributes to measurement of licensing performance of U.S. research institutions by suggesting an approach for identifying time-lags in the licensing process. Licensing is a multi-state process starting with a disclosure, and resulting in intermediate outcomes such as patents, licensing agreements, and licensing income. The time duration among these variables is critical in understanding which investment is responsible for which outcome. This study develops a statistic procedure estimating time-lag coefficients among licensing variables using an unstructured regression model (OLS). The procedure is applied to 46 U.S. academic research institutions using the licensing survey data from 1991 to 2007 by Association of University Technology Manager. The results present individual time-lag relationships between each pair of licensing variables.

[1]  Jerry G. Thursby,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing , 2002, Manag. Sci..

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

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

[4]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  University Licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act , 2003, Science.

[5]  A. Pakes,et al.  Does Federal Research Funding Increase University Research Output? , 2003 .

[6]  A. Link,et al.  Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. , 2004 .

[7]  Allen McDowell.  From the Help Desk: Polynomial Distributed Lag Models , 2004 .

[8]  Matthew Rafferty,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act and University Research and Development , 2007 .

[9]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992 , 2002 .

[10]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Evaluating cost efficiency in central administrative services in UK universities , 2006 .

[11]  Andrew T. Levin,et al.  Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties , 2002 .

[12]  José L. Encarnação,et al.  Technology transfer systems in the United States and Germany : lessons and perspectives , 1997 .

[13]  E. Mansfield.  Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings1 , 1998 .

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

[15]  Timothy R. Anderson,et al.  ASSESSING UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: A MEASURE OF EFFICIENCY PATTERNS , 2008 .

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

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

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

[19]  Shirley Almon.  The Distributed Lag Between Capital Appropriations and Expenditures , 1965 .

[20]  Vladimir Arčabić,et al.  Applied Econometric Time Series, Walter Enders, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010, treće izdanje, 531 str. , 2012 .

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

[22]  W. Enders.  Applied Econometric Time Series , 1994 .

[23]  P. Benneworth.  Academic Entrepreneurship and Long-Term Business Relationships: Understanding ‘Commercialization’ Activities , 2001 .

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

[25]  E. Encyclopedia,et al.  Association Of University Technology Managers , 2014 .

[26]  A. Kapczynski,et al.  Addressing Global Health Inequities: An Open Licensing Approach for University Innovations , 2005 .

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

[28]  H. Theil.  Introduction to econometrics , 1978 .

[29]  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 .

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

[31]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole Rise of Patenting at American Universities , 2001 .

[32]  Ken Guy,et al.  Collaborative, pre-competitive R&D and the firm , 1995 .

[33]  Dallas S. Batten,et al.  Polynomial distributed lags and the estimation of the St. Louis equation , 1983 .

[34]  Iris Geva-May,et al.  Higher education and attainment of policy goals: Interpretations for efficiency indicators in Israel , 2001 .

[35]  David Zilberman,et al.  Offices of Technology Transfer: Privatizing University Innovations for Agriculture , 1998 .

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

[37]  D. Trune,et al.  University Technology Transfer Programs: A Profit/Loss Analysis , 1998 .

[38]  Sean Flanigan,et al.  Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) Licensing Survey: Data Overview , 2007 .

[39]  J. Westerlund.  Some cautions on the use of the LLC panel unit root test , 2006 .

[40]  M. Feldman,et al.  Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances , 2007 .

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

[42]  Richard Florida,et al.  The Role of the University: Leveraging Talent, not Technology. , 1999 .

[43]  Simon Marginson,et al.  The assessment of universities in Argentina and Australia: Between autonomy and heteronomy , 2002 .

[44]  L. Madden,et al.  A Distributed Lag Analysis of the Relationship Between Gibberella zeae Inoculum Density on Wheat Spikes and Weather Variables. , 2007, Phytopathology.

[45]  Magnus Henrekson,et al.  Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Policies Towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property , 2003 .

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