ERIC ED607509: Knowledge Based View of University Tech Transfer--A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

2020·0.62 MB·English

by  ERIC

administrative
sciences
Article
Knowledge Based View of University Tech
Transfer—A Systematic Literature Review
and Meta-Analysis
CloviaHamilton1,*,†andSimonP.Philbin2,†
1 DepartmentofTechnologyandSociety,SUNYKorea,Incheon21985,Korea
2 NathuPuriInstituteforEngineeringandEnterprise,LondonSouthBankUniversity,103BoroughRoad,
LondonSE10AA,UK;[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† Theseauthorscontributedequallytothiswork.
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)
Received: 29July2020;Accepted: 28August2020;Published: 1September2020
Abstract: Researchandtechnologycommercializationatresearch-intensiveuniversitieshashelped
todevelopprovincialeconomiesresultinginuniversitystartups,thegrowthofothernewcompanies
andassociatedemployment. Universitytechnologytransferoffices(TTOs)overseetheprocessof
technologytransferintothecommercialmarketplaceandtheseorganizationalunitscanbeconsidered
inthecontextofenablingeffectiveknowledgemanagement. However,whatenablesproductiveTTO
performancehasnotbeencomprehensivelyresearched. Therefore,thisresearchstudyadoptedthe
knowledge-basedviewasthetheoreticalconstructtosupportacomprehensiveinvestigationinto
thisarea. Thiswasachievedthroughemployingasystematicliteraturereview(SLR)combinedwith
arobustmeta-analysis. TheSLRidentifiedaninitialtotalof10,126articlesinthefirststepofthe
reviewprocess,with44studiesincludedinthequantitativesynthesis,and29quantitativeempirical
studiesselectedforthemeta-analysis. Theresearchstudyidentifiedthattherelationshipbetween
TTOknowledgemanagementandknowledgedeploymentaswellasstartupbusinessperformanceis
whereTTOssecurethestrongestreturns.
Keywords: universitytechnologytransfer;technologytransfer;technologycommercialization;patent
licensing;systematicliteraturereview(SLR);knowledge-basedview(KBV)
1. Introduction
ThebiologistsLubertStryer(UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA,USA)andAlexanderGlazer
(Stanford University) pioneered the use of phycobiliproteins found in marine algae as fluorescent
markers. Sixmonthslater, StanfordUniversityenteredintoarelationshipwithtwoprivatesector
organizationstopatentthisinventionandbecomeinvolvedindevelopingacriticaltoolforbloodand
cancerdiagnosticscreening. Intheensuing30years,researchuniversitieshavebeeninthebusinessof
licensingpatentedinventionsandenteringintonewbusinessventures(Wiesendanger2000). Thereare
manyexamples. Theartifactsofthisprocessarewellknownanduniversitydevelopedproductsand
technologiesincludethefollowingselectedexamples(seeTable1): MIT’ssolarpower,(Eschner2017),
GeorgetownUniversity’sCT(computedtomography)scans(Langer2012),theUniversityofRochester
MedicalCenter’spivotalfluvaccine(Hauser2015;Wentzel2008),ClarkUniversity’srockettechnology
(ClarkUniversity2019),CornellUniversityMedicalSchool’sseatbelts(Rong2016),IndianaUniversity’s
Breathalyzer(Woo2002),andtheUniversityofFlorida’sGatorade(Martin2007).
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62;doi:10.3390/admsci10030062 www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 2of28
Table1. Examplesofsignificantinventions/technologiesoriginatingatuniversities.
Year Inventor Invention University Source
RobertHutchings
1926 Rockettechnology ClarkUniversity (ClarkUniversity2019)
Goddard,Physicist
MariaTelkes, SolarPowerusingthe
1940s Biophysicistand crystallizationofasodium MIT (Eschner2017)
engineer sulfatesolution
RobertBorkenstein,
1954 Breathalyzertest IndianaUniversity (Woo2002)
ForensicScientist
RogerGriswaldand CornellUniversity
1955 Three-pointcarseatsafetybelt (Rong2016)
HughDeHaven,Pilot MedicalSchool
RobertCade, Universityof
1965 Gatorade (Martin2007)
Nephrologist Florida
RobertS.Ledley, Georgetown
1973 FullBodyCTScanner (Langer2012)
Physicist University
DavidSmith, FluVaccine:Conjugate
Pediatrician;Porter vaccinetechnologyledtothe
Universityof
Anderson,Chemist; creationofvaccinesagainst (Wentzel2008;Hauser
1983 RochesterMedical
RichardInselPediatric Hemophilusinfluenzaetypeb 2015)
Center
Immunologist;and (Hib),pneumococcus,and
MedicalCenterTeam meningitis.
SincetheMorillActof1862establishedlandgrantuniversitiesintheUnitedStates,theyhave
servedasresearchhubs,althoughthisdidnotnecessarilyresultinsignificantlevelsoftechnology
beingtransferredfromuniversitiestoindustry. In1980,theU.S.CongresspassedtheBayh–DoleAct
(U.S.Congress1980),whichalloweduniversitiestoobtainownershiptitlestoinventionscreatedwith
governmentfundedresearch. Theprocesswastypicallymanagedbytechnologytransferoffices(TTOs).
These offices are tasked with the development of processes and policies regarding patenting and
licensingoftheuniversity’sinventions. Technologytransfercanberegardedasasubsetoftechnology
management(Hamilton2017a,2017b). BesidesTTOs,thereareotherorganizationalunitsinvolvedin
researchadministration,suchasofficesofsponsoredprograms,projectmanagementoffices(PMOs),
andresearchgrantoffices(RGOs).
Inrecentyears,PMOshavebeenabletoserveasadvisorysupporttoindustry,academic,and
end-userconsortia. Inthiscase, directivetypePMOsassistwithgrantpreparation, negotiationof
intellectualpropertyprovisions,innovationmanagement,researchcommercialization,andstakeholder
management(WedekindandPhilbin2018).
Sincethe roleof TTOs istoenable thecommercialization oftechnicalinnovations, a growing
numberofresearchershaveexamineddifferentaspectsofthissubject,includingtheeffectofuniversity
policiesandstructuresonacademicentrepreneurship(SeashoreLouisetal.1989). Morespecifically
researchershaveinvestigatedthefollowingaspectsofTTOsandthesubjectoftechtransfer:
• Thefeaturesofuniversitiesthatgeneratethemostspin-offs(LockettandWright2005).
• Factorsthatenhanceuniversitytechtransfer(FriedmanandSilberman2003).
• Whether or not internal and external factors explain the efficiency of university tech transfer
(Siegeletal.2003).
• ThelevelofefficiencythatuniversityTTOsintheU.K.exhibit(Chappleetal.2005).
• Thedifferencebetweenfor-profitversustraditionalnon-profitTTOs,technologylicensingfor
equitystrategies,andsponsoredresearchlicensingstrategies(Markmanetal.2005a).
• Theoptimalincubationmodelsforacademicspin-offs(Clarysseetal.2007).
• ThemostefficientTTOs(Curietal.2012).
• Whattechnologytransferspecialistspayattentionto(Hamilton2015;HamiltonandSchumann
2016).
• WhichTTOsaremorelikelytogetbetterresults(González-Perníaetal.2013).
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 3of28
2. LiteratureReview
2.1. ResourceBasedView(RBV)ofCompetitiveStrategy
Although there is an expansive level of TTO research, there remains significant ambiguity
surrounding the determinants of TTO performance. For instance, one study showed that
TTO performance in the creation of startups is strengthened by the presence of human capital
(VanLooyetal.2011), while another study found that the presence of human capital had little or
noeffectinrelationtostartupformations(Hülsbecketal.2013). Thisexemplifiesthelackofclarity
regardingthemorelikelyenablersofstrongTTOperformance. Therefore,itisplausiblethatutilizinga
theoreticalframework,suchastheresource-basedview(RBV)ofthefirm(Barney1991;Rumelt1984;
Warnerfelt1984),willbeusefulindescribingwhichTTOattributesaredirectlyrelatedtoperformance.
TheRBVpositsthatwhenorganizationspossessstrategicresourcesthatarevaluable,rare,andhardto
imitate,theyaremorelikelytoenhanceperformanceandprovidethebasisforcompetitiveadvantage.
The RBV resource categories include tangible and intangible assets as well as organizational
capabilities. Organizational capabilities refer to tangible and intangible assets that enable an
organization (in this case the university) to take full advantage (also known as leveraging) of its
other resources (Barney 1991). Within the context of technology transfer, strategic capabilities are
researchanddevelopment(R&D)policies,skills,andprocessesthatincentivizecommercialization. The
resourcesthataremostlikelytounderpincompetitivesuperiority(referredtoasstrategicresources)
are intangible assets and organizational capabilities as they are rare and inimitable (i.e., difficult
to imitate). An organizational culture that embraces innovation and commercialization would be
extremelydifficulttoreplicateintheshorttermduetoitscausalambiguity(i.e.,howdotheydoit?)
andpathdependency(i.e.,noshort-cutsorquickfixes). Establishingsuchaculturerequiresthatrivals
wouldhavetofollowthesameseriesofstepstomatchorimitatetheorganization’scapability—it
wouldtaketimeandeffort. Forthesamereason,formsofintellectualproperty(suchaspatentsand
trademarks)arepotentiallystrategicresources(BarneyandAsli2001).
Accordingtoaslightlydifferentperspective,theRBVfurtherproposesthathuman(e.g.,scientists),
organizational(e.g.,positivereputation,plans,andsystems),andphysical(e.g.,labsandfacilities)
resourcesmaybenecessary,butinsufficient,fororganizationstoperformathighlevelsiftheyare
easy to imitate (Barney 1991). Moreover, these resources are connected with processes to enable
organizationalcapabilities. UsingtheRBVlens,astudyofuniversity-industryresearchcollaboration
revealedthreetypesofcollaborationcapabilities,namely: (1)technical,includingknowledge,facilities,
andtheawarenessofhowpublishedresearchrelatestoindustryneeds; (2)commercial,including
projectmanagement,intellectualpropertyrights,andindustrialresearchcontractingskills;and(3)
social,includingleadership,trust,andnegotiationskills(Philbin2012). However,thesecapabilitiesand
thecorrespondingresourcesalsoneedtobemanaged,integrated,anddeployed(SirmonandHitt2003).
Theymustbeleveragedintoorganizationalcapabilities.
2.2. EvolutionoftheKnowledge-BasedViewofStrategy
Knowledgeisdefinedasthecontinuousprocessofmanagingknow-howinordertoanticipate
existingandfutureneeds,exploitresources,anddevelopnewopportunities(Priceetal.2013). This
capabilitybecomesinternalized,shared,accumulated,andusedintheprocessofknowledgeintegration.
Oncethiscapabilityisleveraged,anorganizationcanachievecompetitiveadvantage(Grant1996a,
1996b) and this is the Knowledge-Based View (KBV) of strategy. Consequently, the current study
examinestheroleoffourcontextualKBVvariablestothemanagement,integration,anddeploymentof
technologytransfer. Theessentialelementsareproposedasfollows: (1)knowledgemanagement;(2)
deploymentofresources;(3)externalfinancialinvestmentsforsponsoredresearchanddevelopment;
and(4)physicalinfrastructurelocationsfortheR&Dtotakeplace.
Inthelate1970s,economicanalystsandpolicy-makerswerestudyingwaystoimprovedataon
theratesofreturnfromindustrialinnovations. Examining17casestudies,itwasdiscoveredthat,for
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 4of28
certaininnovations,imitationcanbemuchcheaperthaninnovation(Mansfieldetal.1977). Laterinthe
1990s,withregardtothedevelopmentoftheknowledge-basedview,otherresearchersstudiedhow
firmscandeterimitationbyinnovation. Theydevelopedamoredynamicviewofhowfirmscreate
newknowledge(KogutandZander1992).
Knowledgeflowisinherentlyapublicgoodandtheexistenceoftechnology-basedresearchefforts
byotherfirmsmayallowafirmtoachieveresultswithlessresearcheffort. Theimportanceofthis
spilloverphenomenonwasstudiedbylookingattheaverageeffectthatotherfirms’R&Dhasonthe
productivityofafirm’sownR&D.CircumstantialevidencerevealedspilloversofR&Dfromseveral
indicatorsoftechnologicalsuccess(JaffeandTrajtenberg1996).
Furtherresearchonknowledgeflow,technology,andabsorptivecapacitywasconductedusing
datafrom31intensivecasestudiesofresearch,development,anddemonstration(RD&D)projects
sponsoredbyanenergyauthority. Theseresearchersdevelopedatechnologytransferprocessmodel
and a technology absorption process model. Although the goal of these projects was hardware
development,theoutputinmostcaseswasnewknowledge. Theresearchersfoundthatthebenefits
fromtheuseofnewknowledgewashigherthanthebenefitsofusingthehardwarethatwasdeveloped
(Kingsleyetal.1996).
Buildingontherelationalview,socialcapital,andknowledge-basedtheories,researchersdefined
technologycommercializationasknowledgeexploitation. Theyproposedthatsocialcapitalfacilitates
external knowledge acquisition in key customer relationships and that knowledge mediates the
relationshipbetweensocialcapitalandknowledgeexploitationforcompetitiveadvantage. Indeed,
socialcapitalhasbeenfoundtobeakeyenablingfactortosupporttheprocessofuniversity-industry
researchcollaboration(Philbin2008). Moreover,Yli-Renkoetal. (2001)surveyed180youngtech-based
firms in the U.K. The results indicate that social interactions and network ties are associated with
greaterknowledgeacquisition;andknowledgeacquisitionispositivelyassociatedwithknowledge
exploitation. Onefindingwasthatthegreaterayoungtechnology-basedfirm’sknowledgeacquisition
formsakeycustomerrelationship,thehigherthenumberofnewproductsdevelopedbytheyoung
technology-basedfirmbecomesasaresultofthatrelationship(Yli-Renkoetal.2001).
Furthermore, researchers advanced the knowledge-based view of the firm by using a
knowledge-based approach to integrate ideas about knowledge inheritance and employee
entrepreneurship;andtoconstructatheoryofspin-outformationanddevelopment. Theyinvestigated
howindustryincumbents’knowledgecapabilitiesaffecteditsspin-outsinthecomputerdiskdrive
industryandfoundthatincumbentswithbothstrongtechnologicalandmarketpioneeringknow-how
generatefewerspin-outsthanfirmswithstrengthinonlytechnologicalormarketknow-how. Also,an
incumbent’sknowledgecapabilitiesatthetimeofaspin-out’sfoundingpositivelyaffectthespin-out’s
knowledge capabilities and its probability of survival. The researchers concluded that firms need
to strategically invest resources in both value creation and appropriation rather than specialize to
thedetrimentofacomplementarycapability. Inregardtostartups,theresearchersconcludedthat
knowledge is inherited, and a firm’s founder is the more effective agent of transfer than a hired
employee(Agarwaletal.2004).
Literatureonknowledgeintegrationwasfoundtobeprimarilyfocusedonproductcomponent
technologiesandconsideredthedivisionoflaboranddivisionofknowledge(Brusonietal.2009,2001;
Takeishi2002). Thiswasextendedtoprocesscomponenttechnologieswhenresearchersconsideredthe
commercializationofnewproductinnovationinthecomputermemoryindustry(KapoorandAdner
2012). Theyassessedtheeffectivenessoffirmboundarychoicesinsolvingthisproblemaccordingto
thespeedwithwhichfirmssolvethisproblem.
NickersonandZenger(2004)extendedthecomparativelogicoftransactioncosteconomicstothe
knowledge-basedviewwithaproblem-solvingperspectiveofthetheoryofthefirm(Nickersonand
Zenger2004). KapoorandAdner(2012)extendedNickersonandZenger’s(2004)theorybyarguing
thatfirmsmaybenefitfrominvestmentsintheknowledgegainedfromoutsourcedactivities;theyalso
linkedproblemcomplexitytothenatureoftechnologicalchangeunderlyingproductinnovation.
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 5of28
Withrespecttopastapplicationsoftheknowledge-basedview,noneoftheseresearchstudieshave
appliedtheknowledge-basedviewtoasystematicliteraturereviewofuniversitytechnologytransfer.
Moreimportantly,thesepriorstudiesgivecredencetothepositionthattheknowledge-basedviewisan
idealanalyticallenstoapplywhenstudyingtheuniversitytechnologycommercializationphenomenon.
Thestructureofthispaperisasfollows. Aftertheintroductionandinitialdiscussionoftheroleof
theTTOaswellasintroductorymaterialontheRBVandKBVstrategyframeworks,thereisfurther
discussionofsupportingtheoryalongwithhypothesisdevelopment. Thisisfollowedbythemethod,
whichisbasedonasystematicliteraturereview(SLR)andincludesdatacollectionandmeta-analysis.
The meta-analysis allows findings from extant research to be combined so that sampling error is
minimized,andthatestimatesofrelationshipsmorecloselyapproximatethosefoundinthepopulation.
Thisisfollowedbytheresults,conclusions,andfuturework.
3. TheoreticalFrameworkandHypotheses
AconceptualmodelwasdevelopedforuniversitytechnologytransfersuccessbasedontheKBV
strategyframework(seeFigure1). Theconceptualmodel’sconstructs,definitionsandsamplemeasures
areshowninTable2. Themodelshowsinputsintotheuniversitytechnologytransferprocess. These
aretheresourceinputs. AKBVofuniversitytechnologytransferinvolvesviewingtheprocessfrom
thelensthatTTOsrequireknowledgemanagement,knowledgedeployment,knowledgeintegration,
andexternalinvestmentstosucceed. Itwasimperativetoidentifyresearchstudieswithempirical
measurementsofresourcesthatmightbeimportant.
Table2providesdetailsontheinputsandoutputsoftheuniversitytechnologytransferprocess.
Theseoutputsareentrepreneurialspin-offbusinesses(i.e.,startups)thatmaybeformed(Hülsbeck
etal.2013;Markmanetal.2005a;PowersandPatricia2005;Rogers2000;VanLooyetal.2011)and
relatedlicensingagreements(Chappleetal.2005;Powers2003;PowersandPatricia2005;Rogers2000;
Siegeletal.2003;Sineetal.2003;SwamidassandVenubabu2009). Theremayalsobelicensingdeals
withestablishedsmallbusinessenterprisesorlargercorporations. Indeed,theprimaryperformance
measuresforTTOshavetraditionallybeenlicensingrevenues(CarlssonandFridh2002;Chappleetal.
2005;Hoetal.2014;Lockettetal.2005;Markmanetal.2005a;Powers2003;PowersandPatricia2005;
Rogers2000;Siegeletal.2003).
Thecontextandpopulationinthefollowingresearchquestionsforthisstudyistheuniversity
TTOsandtheirstaffs,respectively. AccordingtotheKBV,thefollowinghypothesesweretestedwith
themeta-analyticalsystematicliteraturereview(SLR)reportedinthispaper:
• ResearchQuestion1: IsKnowledgeManagementpositivelyrelatedtoTTOperformanceintheareas
ofpatenting,licensing,andgeneratingstartups?
• ResearchQuestion2: IsKnowledgeDeploymentpositivelyrelatedtoTTOperformanceintheareasof
patenting,licensing,andgeneratingstartups? Resourcessuchasinventiondisclosures,patent
applications,andpatentsareevidenceofknowledgedeployment.
• ResearchQuestion3: IsKnowledgeInfrastructurepositivelyrelatedtoTTOperformanceintheareas
of patenting, licensing, and generating startups? Herein, knowledge infrastructure includes
havingthepresenceofincubatorsandmedicalschools.
• ResearchQuestion4: AreExternalInvestmentspositivelyrelatedtoTTOperformanceintheareasof
patenting,licensing,andgeneratingstartups?
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 6of28
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 28
University Technology Transfer
Process
Knowledge Infrastructure
Supports Faculty Researchers in
Research Labs + Medical Schools + Incubators
Faculty Invention
Disclosure
K
n
o
TTO w
l
Invention Disclosure e
d
Evaluations: g
e
Patentable or D
e
Marketable? No p
l
Yes or No? o
y
m
e
n
Yes t
Patent Filing & Protection
Patent Marketing to Existing Businesses or
Knowledge
Startups
Management
by
TTO Patent Licensing to Existing Businesses or
and
Startups
Legal
Resources
Royalty Revenue
Collection

Figure 1. Conceptual Model for University Technology Transfer based on the Knowledge Based View
Figure1. ConceptualModelforUniversityTechnologyTransferbasedontheKnowledgeBasedView
(KBV).
(KBV).

Theexistingliteratureisextendedbytestingthefourhypothesesrelatedtotheseresearchquestions.
RegardingKnowledgeManagement,studieswerefoundwhichempiricallymeasuredTTOstaffsizesin
termsof: fulltimeequivalents(FTEs)(CarlssonandFridh2002;Chappleetal.2005;Hülsbecketal.
2013;Markmanetal.2005b;PowersandPatricia2005;Siegeletal.2003;VanLooyetal.2011);TTOlegal
expenditures(Chappleetal.2005;Siegeletal.2003);andTTOage(Chappleetal.2005;Markmanetal.
2005b;PowersandPatricia2005). Ithasbeenidentifiedthatthereisanadverseeffectonmanaginga
highvolumeoftechnologyandtheabilityoftheTTOtocommercializesuchahighvolumeofactivity
whenthenumberofinventiondisclosuresperTTOstaffmemberswereinvestigated(Sineetal.2003).
IthasalsobeenreportedthatnotsurprisinglyhiringmoreTTOstaffleadstobothahighernumberof
licensesandincreasedlicensingactivity(Chappleetal.2005;SwamidassandVenubabu2009). Yet,
spending more on external legal assistance had an insignificant impact on the number of licenses
whilegeneratingapositiveimpactonlicensingrevenuegeneration(Chappleetal.2005). Moderate
correlationshavebeenreportedbetweeninventiondisclosuresandTTOsize(Hülsbecketal.2013).
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 7of28
Moreover, patenting experience and TTO staffing has been found to be positively correlated with
startupbusinessformations(LockettandWright2005).
Table2. DefinitionsandSampleMeasuresofKBVconstructs.
ConstructsImpactingthe
Definitions SampleMeasures Studies
TechTransferProcess
INPUT
(CarlssonandFridh2002)
(Chappleetal.2005)
(Hülsbecketal.2013)
TTOstaffsize(FTEs) (Markmanetal.2005b)
Universities’TTOstaffandlegal (PowersandPatricia2005)
KnowledgeManagement (Siegeletal.2003)
resourceswhichsupport
(KM) (VanLooyetal.2011)
knowledgemanagement
(Chappleetal.2005)
TTOage (Markmanetal.2005b)
(PowersandPatricia2005)
(Chappleetal.2005)
TTOlegalexpenditure
(Siegeletal.2003)
(Sineetal.2003)
(Cardozoetal.2011)
(CarlssonandFridh2002)
(Chappleetal.2005)
Inventiondisclosures
(Hülsbecketal.2013)
(Rogers2000)
(Siegeletal.2003)
Universities’internal (SwamidassandVenubabu2009)
KnowledgeDeployment(KD) organizationalresourceswhich
(Cardozoetal.2011)
supportknowledgedeployment
(CarlssonandFridh2002)
Patentapplicationsfiled (Hoetal.2014)
(Rogers2000)
(SwamidassandVenubabu2009)
(Cardozoetal.2011)
(Hülsbecketal.2013)
Patentsowned
(PowersandPatricia2005)
(VanLooyetal.2011)
Universities’internal PresenceofanIncubator (Markmanetal.2005b)
KnowledgeInfrastructure(KI) infrastructureresourceswhich Presenceofamedical (PowersandPatricia2005)
supportknowledgeintegration school (VanLooyetal.2011)
(Chappleetal.2005)
RegionalGDP
(Hülsbecketal.2013)
(Chappleetal.2005)
RegionalR&Dintensity
(Lockettetal.2005)
(Chappleetal.2005)
ExternalInvestments(EI) Regionalexternalinvestments
(Hoetal.2014)
(Hülsbecketal.2013)
Totalresearchfunding
(Lockettetal.2005)
(PowersandPatricia2005)
(VanLooyetal.2011)
(Hoetal.2014)
Industryfunding
(PowersandPatricia2005)
OUTPUT
Overallperformance
including:
Outcomesoftheuniversity
Performance(Perf) Licensesexecuted;
TTO’sactivities
Licensingrevenues;
Startupsformed
Licensesexecuted; (Chappleetal.2005)
License(Lic)
Licensingrevenues (SwamidassandVenubabu2009)
Startups(Start) Startupsformed
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 8of28
Hypothesis1(H1). KnowledgeManagementispositivelyrelatedtoTTOperformanceintheareasofpatent
licensingandgeneratingstartups. KnowledgeManagementischaracterizedbytheTTOFTEs,TTOage,and
TTOexpendituresforlegalassistance.
InregardtotheKnowledgeDeploymentoforganizationalresources,inventiondisclosures(Cardozo
etal.2011;CarlssonandFridh2002;Chappleetal.2005;Hülsbecketal.2013;Rogers2000;Siegeletal.
2003;Sineetal.2003;SwamidassandVenubabu2009);patentapplicationsfiledbytheTTO(Cardozo
etal.2011;CarlssonandFridh2002;Hoetal.2014;Rogers2000;SwamidassandVenubabu2009)and
universityownedpatents(Cardozoetal.2011;Hülsbecketal.2013;PowersandPatricia2005;Van
Looyetal.2011)havebeenmeasured.
Hypothesis2(H2). KnowledgeDeploymentispositivelyrelatedtoTTOperformanceintheareasofpatenting,
licensing, and generating startups. These resources are faculty invention disclosures, university patent
applicationsanduniversitypatentsowned.
WithrespecttoKnowledgeInfrastructure,thepresenceofmedicalschoolsandincubatorshasalso
beenstudied(Markmanetal.2005a;PowersandPatricia2005;VanLooyetal.2011). Asexpected,
inventiondisclosureshavebeenfoundtobeexplainedprimarilybytotalresearchfunding(Carlsson
andFridh2002). Moreover,inventiondisclosureshavebeenfoundtohavetheexpectedpositiveand
highmagnitudecorrelationswithlicensingrevenuegeneration(Siegeletal.2003; Sineetal.2003).
However,TTOFTEswerefoundtobestatisticallyinsignificantwithrespecttoinventiondisclosures.
Nevertheless,ithasbeenreportedthathigherlevelsofinventiondisclosuresortotalresearchfunding
leadstohighernumbersoflicensesorhigherlicensingincome(Chappleetal.2005). Previousresearch
hasindicatedthatthereisnorelationshipbetweentherevenueauniversity’sTTOgeneratesandthe
patentapplicationsandinventiondisclosureratio(Cardozoetal.2011). However,patentapplications
havebeenfoundtobepositivelyrelatedtofundingandtolicensing(Hoetal.2014).
Closephysicalproximityhasbeenfoundtobeastrongpredictorofinterdisciplinaryco-authorship
andco-inventionties(Claudeletal.2017). Therefore,measuringtheco-authorshipofscientificpapers,
itwasfoundthatpoliciesthatencourageinterdisciplinarycollaborationsinacancerresearchcenter
aresuccessfulwhencoupledwithmentorshipandpilotfunding. Thus,financialinvestmentsarealso
important(Faganetal.2018). Inaddition,ithasbeensuggestedthatuniversityspinoffscanbenefit
fromhavingaccesstouniversityresources,knowledgeandsupportwhenthesefirmsmaintainlinkages
totheuniversity. Inastudyof551spinoffsfromItalianuniversities,itwasdiscoveredthatgeographic
proximity moderates the impact of university equity ownership linkages on market performance.
Therewasevidencethatincreasinggeographicproximitystrengthensthepositiveeffectofuniversity
equityownershipinthesespinoffs(Bolzanietal.2020).
Withrespecttouniversityequityownership,astudyoflinkagesbetweenuniversityandstart-up
activityat116universitiesprovidedevidencethatuniversityequitypolicyandpoliciesregardingthe
distributionofroyaltieshaveasignificantimpactonstart-upactivity. Yetthepresenceofanincubator
did not have an impact on start-up activity (Di Gregorio and Scott 2003). Further, with regard to
proximity,inacasestudyofnine(9)organizationsinItaly,Therewere54interviewswith54employees
intheacademicresearchanduniversity-industryarenaThisqualitativestudyrevealedevidencethat
TTOs, university incubators, and collaborative research centers relied on activities that increased
differentdimensionsofproximitybetweentheiractors. Theresearchalsoshowedthatthecomplexity
oftheknowledgebeingtransferredmayinfluencethetypeofactivitiesthatdifferentintermediary
organizationsimplement(Villanietal.2017).
Hypothesis3(H3). KnowledgeInfrastructureispositivelyrelatedtoTTOperformanceintheareasofpatenting,
licensing,andgeneratingstartups. Again,KnowledgeInfrastructureisindicatedbythepresenceofincubators
andmedicalschools.
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 9of28
Within the context of TTOs, External Investments are characterized by total research funding
(Chappleetal.2005;Hoetal.2014;Hülsbecketal.2013;Lockettetal.2005;PowersandPatricia2005;
VanLooyetal.2011),regionalGDP(Chappleetal.2005;Hülsbecketal.2013),regionalR&Dintensity
(Chappleetal.2005;Lockettetal.2005)andindustryfunding(Hoetal.2014;PowersandPatricia2005).
Past research has indicated that research-intensive universities that secure more research funding
generatemoreTTOincome;andthatTTOagehasbeenfoundtobepositivelyassociatedwithresearch
funding(Cardozoetal.2011). Inthisregard,Cardozoetal. (2011)foundthatinstitutionswithmedical
schoolsreceivedtwicetheamountofresearchfunding. Thepresenceofamedicalschoolhasbeen
foundtobepositiveandsignificantforlicensingincomegeneration(Chappleetal.2005).
Hypothesis4(H4). ExternalInvestmentsarepositivelyrelatedtoTTOperformanceintheareasofpatent
licensingandgeneratingstartups.
4. PriorLiteratureReviews
Overthepast20years,therehavebeenseveralliteraturereviewsrelatedtouniversitytechnology
transfer;Bozeman(2000);Agrawal(2001);Rothaermeletal. (2007);O’Shea(2007);O’SheaO’Sheaetal.
(2008);DjokovicandVangelis(2008);GeunaandAlessandro(2009);Grimaldietal. (2011);Perkmannet
al. (2013);KirchbergerandLarissa(2016);KochenkovaandRosa(2016);Schmitzetal. (2017);Miranda
et al. (2018); Fini et al. (2018); Mathisen and Rasmussen (2019); Fini et al. (2019); and Bengoa et
al. (2020). Rothaermeletal. (2007)studied173articlesin28academicjournalsbetween1981and
2005. However,whileRothaermel’sverycomprehensive100-pagestudyincludedabriefdiscussion
of the productivity of technology transfer offices, it is now dated and primarily only focused on
academicentrepreneurship. Otherreviewsofacademicspin-offsandentrepreneursincludeDjokovic
andVangelis(2008);Grimaldietal. (2011);Schmitzetal. (2017);Mirandaetal. (2018);andMathisen
and Rasmussen (2019). Note that technology transfer occurs primarily in three ways: (1) transfer
oftechnologytoanacademicentrepreneur’sstart-up;(2)transfertonon-academic-entrepreneur’s
start-up;and(3)transfertoawell-establishedbusinessentity. Thus,thereviewstudiesofacademic
entrepreneursandspin-offsdonotcaptureallofthepossibletransfersoftechnology.
Further, Perkmann et al. (2013) conducted a review of the literature which broadly included
researchengagementsdefinedasresearchcollaborationsmoregenerally. Oneofthefutureresearch
agendasdiscoveredintheGrimaldietal. (2011)reviewwastheneedforansweringhowindicationsof
performancecombine“withinaninstitutiontoobtain[a]completeviewofresearchcommercialization”.
Schmitzetal. (2017)notedthatanumberofpaststudieshaveindicatedaneedfor“moresystematicand
holisticstudies”. Finietal. (2018)notedthatthereisalreadyextensive,availableuniversitytechnology
commercialization data. However, there is a need for “more systematic and rigorous research
on the societal impact of science commercialization ... and societal returns to public investment
in science” (Fini et al. 2018). An investigation of these investments in can be achieved with the
combinationoftheknowledge-basedviewtheoreticalframework,asystematicliteraturereviewand
empiricalmeta-analysis.
Althoughthepastreviewstudiesmakevaluablecontributions,thelimitationsoftheprevious
reviewsarenotedinTable3. Thus,thereisjustificationfortheneedforthisnewsystematicliterature
reviewandmeta-analysis.
Adm.Sci.2020,10,62 10of28
Table3. Summaryofmethodsusedinpastreviewsoftheliterature.
Authors(Year) TimePeriodAnalyzed NumberofArticlesReviewed Database(s) Shortcomings
Thisseminal,traditionalliteraturereviewis
nowdatedandfocusesprimarilyon
“particularlyimportantfindingsbutalsomore
Bozeman(2000) 1987–1999 75references Nomention recentones... [and]chieflyonempirical
research”.Thus,thisapproachisabiased
selection.
Thistraditionalliteraturereviewisnowdated
Agrawal(2001) 1979–2000 26references Nomention andwasnotsystematicanddidnotincludea
meta-analysis.
Thistraditionalliteraturereviewisnowdated
ProquestABI/Inform,Business andfocusesprimarilyonacademic
Rothaermeletal.(2007) 1981–2005 173records
SourcePremier,EconLit entrepreneurship;italsodoesnotincludean
empiricalmeta-analysis.
Thisisnotareviewarticle.However,itisan
O’Shea(2007);O’Sheaetal. empiricalstudyofuniversityspinoffsand
1988–2005 24references Nomention
(2008) includesaseminaltraditionalliteraturereview
ofuniversityspinoffliterature.
102records(60primarilyfocused
onspin-offsand42secondarily ABI/Inform,BusinessSource Thisstudyisnowdatedandfocusesprimarily
DjokovicandVangelis(2008) 1990–2006 onacademicentrepreneurship;anddoesnot
includingtechtransferandother Premier,ScienceDirect
includeanempiricalmeta-analysis.
techbasedfirms)
Thisstudyisentitleda‘critical’reviewofthe
1982–2009(basedonthe literature;butdidnotuseanunbiased
GeunaandAlessandro(2009) 86referenceswereincluded Nomention
publicationdatesofreferences) systematicmethodology;itdoesnotincludean
empiricalmeta-analysisandisnowdated.
Thisstudyisanassessmentofacademic
entrepreneurshipresearchdidnotusean
1986–2011(basedonthe
Cardozoetal.(2011) 102referenceswereassessed Nomention unbiasedsystematicmethodology;itdoesnot
publicationdatesofreferences)
includeanempiricalmeta-analysisandisnow
dated.
EBSCO(EconLit);andmanual Whilethisisasystematicliteraturereview,only
searchofResearchPolicy, onedatabasewasincluded;themanualsearch
Perkmannetal.(2013) 1980–2011 413foundrecordsfilteredto36 JournalofTechnologyTransfer of3journalscanbeconstruedasarbitraryand
andTechnovationforyears biased;itdoesnotincludeanempirical
1989-2011 meta-analysisandthestudyisnowdated.