Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches

Litan, Robert E.; Mitchell, Lesa; Reedy, E. J.

doi:10.1086/ipe.8.25056198

Cited by 62 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is despite evidence that shows that only few universities use this model with appreciable intensity and success (Litan et al 2008), as it suitable to a limited number of scientific fields (Harabi 1995;Brouwer and Kleinknecht 1999). Moreover, the focus is strongly on patents and copyright licenses: little attention is paid to other intellectual property rights (design rights, trademarks) and to many non-proprietary types of intellectual property that universities produce (materials and artefacts not protected by intellectual property rights, or protected by open source or creative common licenses) (Andersen et al, 2012;Baghurst and Pollard, 2009).…”

Section: Ip Incomementioning

confidence: 95%

Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

Rossi

Rosli

2014

Studies in Higher Education

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The issue of what indicators are most appropriate in order to measure the performance of universities in knowledge transfer (KT) activities remains relatively under-investigated. The main aim of this paper is to identify and discuss the limitations to the current measurements of university-industry KT performance, and propose some directions for improvement. We argue that university-industry KT can unfold in many ways and impact many stakeholders, and that, especially in highly differentiated university systems, choosing indicators focused on a narrow range of activities and impacts might limit the ability of universities to accurately represent their KT performance. Therefore, KT indicators should include a variety of activities and reflect a variety of impacts, so as to allow comparability between different institutions and avoid the creation of undesirable behavioural incentives. To illustrate these issues empirically, we discuss the case of the United Kingdom's Higher Education -Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey.

show abstract

Section: Ip Incomementioning

confidence: 95%

Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

Rossi

Rosli

2014

Studies in Higher Education

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If this regime changes significantly, the related design principle will also need to be revised. A completely different IP regime may indeed imply that universities can develop lean procedures and systems that avoid additional decision-making layers, in order to speed up the technology commercialization process and shorten cycle time (Litan, Mitchell and Reedy, 2007).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Research Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating University Spin‐Offs: A Science‐Based Design Perspective^*

Burg

Romme

Gilsing

et al. 2008

J of Product Innov Manag

161

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic entrepreneurship by means of university spinoffs commercializes technological breakthroughs, which may otherwise remain unexploited. However, many universities face difficulties in creating spinoffs. This article adopts a science-based design approach, to connect scholarly research with the pragmatics of effectively creating university spinoffs. This approach serves to link the practice of university spinoff creation, via design principles, to the scholarly knowledge in this area. As such, science-based design promotes the interplay between emergent and deliberate design processes. This framework is used to develop a set of design principles that are practice-based as well as grounded in the existing body of research on university spinoffs. A case-study of spinoff creation at a Dutch university illustrates the interplay between initial processes characterized by emergent design and the subsequent process that was more deliberate in nature. This case study also suggests there are two fundamentally different phases in building capacity for university spinoff creation: first, an infrastructure for spinoff creation (e.g. including a collaborative network of investors, managers and advisors) is developed, that then enables support activities to individual spinoff ventures. This study concludes that, to build and increase capacity for creating spinoffs, universities should:1. create university-wide awareness of entrepreneurship opportunities, stimulate the development of entrepreneurial ideas, and subsequently screen entrepreneurs and ideas by programs targeted at students and academic staff; 2. support start-up teams in composing and learning the right mix of venturing skills and knowledge by providing access to advice, coaching and training; 3. help starters in obtaining access to resources and developing their social capital by creating a collaborative network organization of investors, managers and advisors; 4. set clear and supportive rules and procedures that regulate the university spinoff process, enhance fair treatment of involved parties, and separate spinoff processes from academic research and teaching; 5. shape a university culture that reinforces academic entrepreneurship, by creating norms and exemplars that motivate entrepreneurial behavior. These and other results of this study illustrate how science-based design can connect scholarly research to the pragmatics of actually creating spinoffs in academic institutions.2

show abstract

“…Similar results are reported Meyer (2003), Saragossi et al (2003), and Azagra and Llerena (2003). Moreover, there are also results indicating that the degree of technology transfers is hampered by a system where the universities can appropriate the research findings (Rod 2006, Litan et al 2007). Arundel and Bordoy (2006) extend the argument to the discussion to involve the so called "European paradox", i.e.…”

Section: Previous Research: a Selected Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic entrepreneurship: social norms, university culture and policies

Braunerhjelm

2007

Sci. and Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is a shift in intellectual property rights to universities the key instrument in increasing commercialization of publicly funded research? How much can actually be learned from the U.S. system, disregarding the ongoing debate as to whether the U.S. do actually outperform Europe in terms of commercializing university based research? Taking Sweden as a role model I claim that this policy will not work. This allegation stems from the analysis of a unique database giving individual university researchers view on participation in commercialization of public research, their commercialization experiences, and the obstacles researchers claim exist to increase academic entrepreneurship. Despite researchers positive attitudes towards engaging in commercial activities, the university culture, weak incentive structures and badly managed support facilities impede the creation of efficient links to markets. I conclude that measures must be taken at primarily the national level, but also at the university level, to enhance commercialization activities.

show abstract

Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches

Abstract: Executive Summary

Cited by 62 publications

References 12 publications

Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

Creating University Spin‐Offs: A Science‐Based Design Perspective^*

Academic entrepreneurship: social norms, university culture and policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches

Abstract: Executive Summary

Cited by 62 publications

References 12 publications

Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom

Creating University Spin‐Offs: A Science‐Based Design Perspective*

Academic entrepreneurship: social norms, university culture and policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Creating University Spin‐Offs: A Science‐Based Design Perspective^*