When does university research get commercialized? Institutional and individual level predictors of commercial outputs from research-council funded projects

We examine the tensions that make it difficult for a research-oriented university to achieve commercial outcomes. Building on the organisational ambidexterity literature, we specify the nature of the tensions (between academic and commercially-oriented activities) at both institutional and individual levels of analysis, and how these can be resolved. We test our hypotheses using a novel dataset of 207 Research Council-funded projects, linking objective data on project outcomes with the perceptions of principal investigators. Results show that the tension between academic and commercial demands is more salient at the level of the individual researcher than at the level of institutions.

[1]  Joshua B. Powers,et al.  University Start-Up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms that Go Public: A Resource-Based View of Academic Entrepreneurship , 2005 .

[2]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences , 2001 .

[3]  E. Mansfield.  Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings 1 This paper was based , 1998 .

[4]  R. Nelson.  The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  C. Gibson,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS , CONSEQUENCES , AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[6]  S. Floyd,et al.  Knowledge Creation and Social Networks in Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Renewal of Organizational Capability , 1999 .

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

[8]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Designing the Innovating Organization , 1982 .

[9]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[10]  Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities , 2002 .

[11]  Larry L. Leslie,et al.  Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University , 1997 .

[12]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital , 2005 .

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

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

[15]  Jason Owen-Smith,et al.  From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities , 2003 .

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

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

[18]  K. Tornquist,et al.  Out of the Ivory Tower: Characteristics of Institutions Meeting the Research Needs of Industry. , 1994 .

[19]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Industry funding and university professors' research performance , 2005 .

[20]  M. Kremer.  Patent Buy-Outs: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation , 1997 .

[21]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[22]  M. Wright,et al.  Spinning Out New Ventures: A Typology of Incubation Strategies from European Research Institutions , 2005 .

[23]  Scott Shane,et al.  The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions , 2003, Manag. Sci..

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

[25]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT: WHO PARTICIPATES AND WHY? , 2003 .

[26]  Subodh P. Kulkarni,et al.  Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal , 1998 .

[27]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital , 2004 .

[28]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

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

[30]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[31]  Adler,et al.  Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system , 1999 .

[32]  Michael A. Stoto,et al.  Entrepreneurs in Academe: An Exploration of Behaviors Among Life Scientists , 1989 .

[33]  Andrea Piccaluga,et al.  Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy , 2000 .

[34]  S. Shane.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[35]  A. Link,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices : An Exploratory Study # , 1999 .

[36]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. , 1997, JAMA.

[37]  Michelle Gittelman,et al.  Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[38]  Alice Lam,et al.  Work Roles and Careers of R&D Scientists in Network Organizations , 2005 .

[39]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[40]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[41]  D. Jorgenson.  The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. , 1963 .

[42]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time. , 1993 .

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

[44]  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 .

[45]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 19651988 , 1995, Review of Economics and Statistics.

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

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

[48]  Previous Work Experience And Organizational Socialization: A Longitudinal Examination , 1995 .

[49]  H. Etzkowitz.  The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages , 1998 .

[50]  B. Clarysse,et al.  A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off , 2004 .

[51]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Academic-Corporate Ties in Biotechnology: A Quantitative Study , 1991, Science, technology & human values.

[52]  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 .