Modernizing federal technology transfer metrics

Abstract

Nearly 40 years ago Congress laid the foundation for federal agencies to engage in technology transfer activities with a primary goal to make federal laboratory research outcomes widely available. Since then, agencies generally rely on universal metrics such as licensing income and number of patents to measure the benefit of their technology transfer program. However, such metrics do not address the requirements set by the current and previous administrations, which require agencies to better gauge the effectiveness and return on investment of their technology programs. Here we evaluate two metrics, filing ratio and transfer rate, and empirically evaluate these metrics using data from Department of the Navy's most transactionally active laboratory, as well as recently released agencyreported data available from the FY 2015 annual technology transfer report (15 U.S.C. Section 3710). We additionally propose other federally-relevant metrics for which agency data are not currently available. Results presented here indicate that these modernized metrics may potentially fulfill the requirements set by executive guidance. The study findings also point out to other metrics that are relevant to practitioners, program managers, and policymakers in the evaluation of technology transfer programs for better measurement of effectiveness, efficiency, and return on investment.

Scientific publications at U.S. federal research laboratories

“…Much of the literature on CRADAs is reviewed inChen, Link, and Oliver (2018).35 SeeChoudhry and Ponzio (2020).…”

An Analysis of Factors Affecting Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Transactional Efficiency

“…Relative to academic technology transfer, the literature on federal practices is extremely limited (Bozeman 2013;Howieson et al 2013;Chen, Link, and Oliver 2018). We found a complete absence of data on process metrics at the federal laboratory level (Tran and Kocaoglu 2009;Choudhry and Ponzio 2020). A few studies have investigated potential factors impacting university technology transfer office performance, and studies such as Siegel, Waldman, and Link (2003) and Mora-Valentin, Montoro-Sanchez, and Guerras-Martin (2004) have proposed several important contextual and organizational factors affecting transactions.…”

“…Agencies tend to report anecdotal success stories or softer economic impact studies in the absence of input and process metrics. Based on the current metrics contemplated under the statute, it is difficult to gauge a program's effectiveness and return-on-investment (Anadon et al 2016;Choudhry and Ponzio 2020).…”

“…In that plan, the Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes an aspirational 60-day CRADA execution process time for diligent private sector partners (Department of Energy 2011;Harrer and Cejka 2011). Process measurements, such as those proposed by the DOE and elsewhere (Choudhry and Ponzio 2020), are particularly valuable to understanding the real-world practice of technology transfer, with transactional efficiency-that is, the bureaucratic time it takes to execute a transaction once researchers are ready to advance the partnership-being a chief metric.…”

Models, Processes, and Roles of Universities in Technology Transfer Management: A Systematic Review

“…Beyond the walls of the university, technology transfer from research institutes and other laboratories with government funding continues to take on new dimensions of improvement as time goes by. As noted by Choudhry and Ponzio (2019), technology metrics that have existed since the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act are no longer effective, nowadays. Most of these foundations require inputs that upgrade them and prepare them to meet the current technological needs of society.…”