Models for university technology transfer: resolving conflicts between mission and methods and the dependency on geographic location

The conversion of university research into economic growth is vital for the future of many nations. In order to improve the efficiency of this transfer, we have looked at the effectiveness of technology transfer activity in the USA. Our research indicates that universities that are not located in a region with a supportive innovation system should modify their mission and methods for technology transfer. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the authors develop an overview of the problem and recommend three new strategies for effective technology transfer including the application of regional dynamic knowledge networks.

[1]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

[2]  Henry S. Rowen,et al.  The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 2000 .

[3]  J. Howells.  Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography , 2002 .

[4]  Herb Brody,et al.  Seven thinkers in search of an information highway , 1994 .

[5]  Harvey Goldstein,et al.  Assessing the Regional Economic Development Impacts of Universities: A Review of Current Approaches , 2007 .

[6]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .

[7]  J. Howells.  Regional Systems of Innovation , 1999 .

[8]  K. Weick,et al.  Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. , 1993 .

[9]  Kenneth W. Koput,et al.  The Spatial Clustering of Science and Capital: Accounting for Biotech Firm-Venture Capital Relationships , 2002 .

[10]  Max S. Baucus,et al.  The Council on Competitiveness , 1992 .

[11]  Manuel Trajtenberg,et al.  AS A SOURCE OF COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGY : A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSITY PATENTING , 1965 – 1988 , 1995 .

[12]  Harvey Goldstein,et al.  The Economic Development Impacts of Universities on Regions: Do Size and Distance Matter? , 2006 .

[13]  Jan G. Lambooy,et al.  The transmission of knowledge, emerging networks, and the role of universities: An evolutionary approach , 2004 .

[14]  Martin Kenney,et al.  Venture Capital, High Technology and Regional Development , 1988 .

[15]  Martin Kenney,et al.  Venture capital-financed innovation and technological change in the USA , 1988 .

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

[17]  A GEOGRAPHY OF THE VENTURE CAPITAL INDUSTRY IN THE U. S. , 1987 .

[18]  Maryann P. Feldman.  The geography of innovation , 1994 .

[19]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Syndication Networks and the Spatial Distribution of Venture Capital Investments1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  M. Kenney.  Understanding silicon valley : the anatomy of an entrepreneurial region , 2000 .

[21]  D. Dougherty,et al.  Team play: Heedful interrelating as the boundary for innovation , 2004 .

[22]  Edward B. Roberts,et al.  Overcoming Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructures for Academic Spin-Off Ventures , 2004 .

[23]  Ilan Oshri,et al.  Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

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

[25]  Kevin Morgan,et al.  The Regional Innovation Paradox: Innovation Policy and Industrial Policy , 2002 .

[26]  Charles Edquist,et al.  Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges , 2004 .

[27]  J. Metcalfe.  Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework , 1995 .

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

[29]  D. Wegner.  Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind , 1987 .