Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies

Abstract

A new organizational entity has emerged at research universities: the technology transfer office (TTO). TTOs were established to facilitate commercial knowledge transfers from universities to practitioners or university/industry technology transfer (UITT). Despite the potential importance of UITT in fostering technological diffusion and as a source of revenue to the university, there has been little systematic analysis of the role of organizational practices in this process. Thus, we rely on an inductive, qualitative approach to identify the key organizational issues in promoting successful knowledge transfers. Based on 55 structured interviews of 98 UITT stakeholders associated with five US research universities, we conclude that there are numerous impediments to effectiveness in UITT: cultural and informational barriers among the three key stakeholder types (university administrators, academics, and firms/entrepreneurs), TTO staffing and compensation practices, and inadequate rewards for faculty involvement in UITT. Two somewhat surprising results are that many faculty members have decided to circumvent the formal UITT process and that involvement in UITT may actually increase the quantity and quality of basic research. university/industry technology transfer | technology transfer offices | boundary Keywords: spanning | technology commercialization | technology management | knowledge transfer Article: How does the formation of relationships, networks, or boundary spanning behavior affect UITT?

Organizational Factors that Affect the University-Industry Technology Transfer Processes of a Private University

“…According to Siegel et al (2004), the UITT process may encompass a series of stages, including: 1) scientific discovery; 2) scientists' disclosure of the invention to the TTO (or via commercialization and informal TT); 3) evaluation of invention for patenting by the TTO; 4) patent filing by the TTO (in case of a favorable evaluation), involving the scientists; 5) technology marketing/offer by the scientists and TTO to companies or entrepreneurs; 6) negotiation of license; 7) formal (or informal) commercialization.…”

“…The university bureaucracy and inflexibility equally stand as barriers in this process, causing dissatisfactions that keep researchers and company staff away from the TTOs and leading them to set up informal and consulting relationships (Siegel et al, 2004). Much like abroad, the administrative bureaucracy, the slow-moving legal-administrative departments, and the difficulty in establishing a royalty percentage to be paid to universities, combined with the stiff regulations imposed by the Brazilian governmental agencies, at times exclude universities from the formal TT process and from sharing their results (Santana and Porto, 2009).…”

“…Worldwide, researchers and companies have shown to be dissatisfied with the marketing and negotiation skills of TTO teams (Siegel et al, 2004). Selling IP can prove be difficult because new technologies usually cannot be consumed directly, are valuable to few organizations, and solely when applied.…”

“…According to the consultant interviewed, Brazil lacks skilled people to manage intangible academic assets, a problem also found in more developed markets (Siegel et al, 2004;Elfenbein, 2007). Such management involves not only patents, which do not seem to be the first option when protecting new technologies in Brazil , but also the transfer of know-how and other information that may not be necessarily patentable or sellable.…”

Unique Organizational Competencies of Brazilian Technological Innovation Centers

“…The institutional mission symbolizes the steering wheel that guides the center's activities, which can consist of distinct missions, such as: emphasizing the garnering of royalties; developing spinoff companies; and prioritizing academic research (Branca Terra, 2001;Eshan, 2008;Link, Siegel & Bozeman, 2007;Siegel, 2004).…”