2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

21
267
2
29

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 382 publications
(337 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
21
267
2
29
Order By: Relevance
“…It confirms partially the results of previous studies (e.g. Thursby and Kemp, 2002;Chapple et al, 2005), while contrasting with the findings in Siegel et al (2003) and Siegel et al (2008). However, in France, this negative effect is ascribed to an excessive "local competition" presumably concentrated on the medical school and the university-related hospital.…”
Section: Second Stage: Assessing the Impact Of Factors Affecting Tto supporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It confirms partially the results of previous studies (e.g. Thursby and Kemp, 2002;Chapple et al, 2005), while contrasting with the findings in Siegel et al (2003) and Siegel et al (2008). However, in France, this negative effect is ascribed to an excessive "local competition" presumably concentrated on the medical school and the university-related hospital.…”
Section: Second Stage: Assessing the Impact Of Factors Affecting Tto supporting
confidence: 83%
“…Previous studies on the performance of TTOs (e.g., Siegel et al, 2003Chapple et al, 2005, Siegel et al, 2008 investigated the presence of returns to scale at local level with the aim of finding whether an increase or reduction of the scale could improve the efficiency of the unit. They showed that TTOs are more likely to work at constant or decreasing returns to scale.…”
Section: Preliminary Consideration: Testing the Returns To Scale Of Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The measures equally weight six indicators of technology transfer effectiveness: (i) the number of invention disclosures, (ii) the number of US patent applications filed, (iii) the number of technology licenses and options executed, (iv) the number of technology licenses and options yielding income, (v) the number of start-up companies spun off the university and (vi) the total amount of technology licensing royalties earned per year. Most works on technology transfer involving university (e.g., Bray and Lee, 2000;Liu and Jiang, 2001;Chapple et al, 2005) highlight the complexity of the process involving highly complex, recursive and dynamic activities combined with a range of diverse and often conflicting stockholders.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Journal Acworth (2008) Research Policy Albors et al (2006) Journal of Technology Transfer Bach et al (2002) Journal of Technology Transfer Backman et al (2007) R&D Management Bathelt et al (2010) Technovation Becker & Gassmann (2006) Journal of Technology Transfer Bessant (1999) Research Policy Bianchi et al (2011) R&D Management Boehm & Hogan (2014) Journal of Technology Transfer Cacciatori (2008) Research Policy Chapple et al (2005) Research Policy Daellenbach & Davenport (2004) Journal of Technovation Kingsley et al (1996) Research Policy Lal (1999) Research Policy Leitch & Harrison (2005) R&D Management Link & Scott (2004) Journal of Journal of Technology Transfer Roessner et al (2010) Journal of Technology Transfer Ruan et al (2014) Technovation…”
Section: Appendix 1 -Overview Of Themes and Articlesmentioning
confidence: 99%