Learning in university technology transfer offices: transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research

University Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) need a wide range of abilities to facilitate commercial exploitation of research outputs; however, we know relatively little about how these important abilities are developed and refined over time. We draw on practice-based studies of learning to create a novel conceptualization of learning processes and their outcomes in TTOs and show that this conceptualization of learning provides new empirical insights into how learning in TTOs shapes their commercialization practice. We investigate learning-in-practice in case studies of six UK TTOs and find two approaches to commercialization, namely transactions-focused practice and relations-focused practice. We find that both practices co-exist and co-evolve in some TTOs while other TTOs are predominantly transactions-focused. For the latter the development of a relations-focused approach is difficult, but possible if there is strategic direction and if sources of inertia are removed by TTO directors. Given that evolving practice cannot be fully explained by informal learning processes, we suggest that so far separate streams of practice-based literature on learning and strategizing should be brought together. The implications for further investigations of TTO abilities and some recommendations for policy and practice are discussed.

[1]  B. Godin The Linear Model of Innovation , 2006 .

[2]  Joshua B. Powers,et al.  Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies , 2005 .

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

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

[5]  T. Allen,et al.  Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities , 2005 .

[6]  Gerard George,et al.  Learning to be Capable: Patenting and Licensing at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation 1925-2002 , 2005 .

[7]  Silvia Gherardi,et al.  Egg dates sperm: a tale of a practice change and its stabilization , 2011 .

[8]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[9]  Ole Hanseth,et al.  Conflicting epistemic cultures and obstacles for learning across communities of practice , 2008 .

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

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

[12]  Richard N. Cardozo,et al.  Effectiveness of university technology transfer: an organizational population ecology view of a maturing supplier industry , 2011 .

[13]  L. Melin,et al.  Micro Strategy and Strategizing: Towards an Activity‐Based View , 2003 .

[14]  Christopher Koliba,et al.  “Communities of Practice” as an Analytical Construct: Implications for Theory and Practice , 2009 .

[15]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[16]  Paula Jarzabkowski,et al.  Strategic Practices: An Activity Theory Perspective on Continuity and Change , 2003 .

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

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

[19]  J. Brown,et al.  Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective , 2001 .

[20]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer , 2005 .

[21]  Dominique Philippe Martin,et al.  Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices , 2013 .

[22]  T. Burgess,et al.  Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit , 2013 .

[23]  F. Blackler Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation , 1995 .

[24]  R. Rothwell Towards the Fifth‐generation Innovation Process , 1994 .

[25]  Richard Whittington,et al.  Practices of Strategising/Organising: Broadening Strategy Work and Skills , 2006 .

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

[27]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Cognitive Distance in and Between Communities of Practice and Firms: Where Do Exploitation and Exploration Take Place, and How Are They Connected? , 2008 .

[28]  James Faulconbridge,et al.  Exploring the Role of Professional Associations in Collective Learning in London and New York's Advertising and Law Professional-Service-Firm Clusters , 2007 .

[29]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing , 2002, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[30]  David Seidl,et al.  Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice Research Agenda: Towards Taller and Flatter Ontologies , 2014 .

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

[32]  Elisa Mattarelli,et al.  The role of networks of practice, value sharing, and operational proximity in knowledge flows between professional groups , 2006 .

[33]  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 .

[34]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  The Role of Academic Technology Transfer Organizations in Improving Industry Science Links , 2005 .

[35]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[36]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[37]  Robert E. Litan,et al.  Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches , 2007, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[38]  H. Etzkowitz Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations , 2002 .

[39]  R. Veugelers,et al.  Licensing of University Inventions: The Role of a Technology Transfer Office , 2007 .

[40]  Dagmara Weckowska,et al.  Learning the ropes of the commercialisation of academic research : a practice-based approach to learning in knowledge transfer offices , 2013 .

[41]  A. N. Leont’ev The Problem of Activity in Psychology , 1974 .

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

[43]  J. Braithwaite,et al.  How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature , 2011, BMC health services research.

[44]  Nicholas Theodorakopoulos,et al.  Intermediation for technology diffusion and user innovation in a developing rural economy: a social learning perspective , 2014 .

[45]  David Zilberman,et al.  University Research and Offices of Technology Transfer , 2002 .

[46]  A. Pettigrew,et al.  Strategizing and Organizing: Change as a Political Learning Process, Enabled by Leadership , 2006 .

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

[48]  Mike Wright,et al.  ASSESSING THE RELATIVE PERFORMANCE OF UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN THE US AND UK: A STOCHASTIC DISTANCE FUNCTION APPROACH , 2008 .

[49]  Fabrice Pirnay,et al.  A stage model of academic spin-off creation , 2002 .

[50]  Jonathon E. Mote,et al.  The laws of the markets , 2000 .

[51]  Mike Wright,et al.  The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications , 2007 .

[52]  A. Amin,et al.  Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice , 2008 .

[53]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  A policy for enhancing the disclosure of university faculty invention , 2013 .

[54]  Odd Jarl Borch,et al.  University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities , 2010 .

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

[56]  B. Martin,et al.  Special issue: emerging challenges for science, technology and innovation policy research: a reflexive overview , 2009 .

[57]  Nicolai J. Foss,et al.  Building Micro-foundations for the Routines, Capabilities, and Performance Links , 2007 .

[58]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[59]  Florian A. A. Becker-Ritterspach,et al.  Bringing context and structure back into situated learning , 2014 .

[60]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Does the Learning Value of Individual Failure Experience Depend on Group Level Success? Insights from a University Technology Transfer Office , 2013 .

[61]  D. Teece,et al.  The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction , 1994 .

[62]  S. Gherardi Practice-Based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in Organizations , 2000 .

[63]  B. Lomov The Problem of Activity in Psychology , 1982 .

[64]  M. Aanestad,et al.  Challenging expertise: On power relations within and across communities of practice in medical innovation , 2010 .

[65]  N. Baldini,et al.  Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy , 2010 .

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

[67]  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 .

[68]  Paul M. Swamidass,et al.  Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer , 2009 .

[69]  A. Salter,et al.  The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review , 2001 .

[70]  Larry M. Dooley,et al.  The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions , 2011 .

[71]  M. Perkmann,et al.  University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda , 2007 .

[72]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[73]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[74]  Nabil Amara,et al.  Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models , 2013 .

[75]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[76]  David V. Gibson,et al.  BTP—Best Transfer Practices. A tool for qualitative analysis of tech-transfer offices: A cross cultural analysis , 2013 .

[77]  J. Wertsch The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology , 1981 .

[78]  Nicholas Theodorakopoulos,et al.  Transferring technology from university to rural industry within a developing economy context: The case for nurturing communities of practice , 2012 .

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

[80]  Jacky Swan,et al.  Project work as a locus of learning : the journey through practice , 2008 .

[81]  David J. Collis,et al.  Research Note: How Valuable are Organizational Capabilities? , 1994 .

[82]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .