Activities and models of university technology transfer

Author/s Alessandra Colombelli, Elettra D’Amico, Emilio Paolucci, Riccardo Ricci
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2018/3 Language Italian
Pages 18 P. 10-27 File size 409 KB
DOI 10.3280/ES2018-003002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Universities perform different technology transfer activities to fulfil their ‘third mission’ of contribution to economic development. We analyse these with an explorative quantitative survey interpreting the results with scientific literature. We find the following university technology transfer activities: research commercialization, entrepreneurship education, creation of an entrepreneurial climate, support to technology development, start-up creation and growth, and academic engagement. We investigate the heterogeneity in the accomplishment of these activities with a quantitative survey undertaken within a Task Force on Innovation of the association of universities Cesaer and we find three main models of university technology transfer. A first one with a mature model, a second one with an incomplete model, and a third one with a developing model with a central, secondary and quasicentral role in the ecosystem where they reside respectively.

Keywords: Universities Technology Transfer Activities, Models of University Technology Transfer, Entrepreneurial University

  1. Alexander A.T., Martin D.P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(1): 38-49.
  2. Amezcua A.S., Grimes M.G., Bradley S.W., Wiklund J. (2013). Organizational sponsorship and founding environments: a contingency view on the survival of business-incubated firms, 1994-2007. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6): 1628-1654.
  3. Autio E., Kenneth M., Mustar, P., Siegel D., Wright M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7): 1097-1108.
  4. Becattini G. (1990). The Marshallian district as a socio-economic notion.
  5. In: Pyke F., Becattini G., Sengenberger W., eds. Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Cooperation in Italy. Geneva: International Institute for Labor Studies.
  6. Bozeman B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4): 627-655. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1
  7. Bradley S.R., Hayter C.S., Link A.N. (2013a). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6): 571-650. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1191-9_11
  8. Bradley S.R., Hayter C.S., Link A.N. (2013b). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4): 349-381.
  9. Cesaroni F., Piccaluga A. (2016). The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: towards the third mission in Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4): 753-777.
  10. Cooke P. (1997). Regions in a global market: the experiences of Wales and Baden-Wurttemberg. Review of International Political Economy, 4(2): 349-381. DOI: 10.1080/096922997347814
  11. D’Este P., Patel P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(9): 1295-1313.
  12. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industrygovernment relations. Research Policy, 29(2):109-123.
  13. 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4. Etzkowitz H., Webster A., Gebhardt C., Terra B.R.C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2): 313-330.
  14. Geuna A., Muscio A. (2009). The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Minerva, 47(1): 93-114.
  15. Grimpe C., Hussinger K. (2008). Formal and Informal Technology Transfer from Academia to Industry: Complementarity Effects and Innovation Performance. ZEW Discussion Papers. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-36708-3
  16. Hayter C.S., Link A.N. (2015). On the economic impact of university proof of concept centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1): 178-183. DOI: 10.1177/1476127016680564
  17. Isenberg D.J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6): 40-50. DOI: 10.2307/256548
  18. Jensen R., Thursby M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1): 240-259.
  19. Klein K.J., Sorra J.S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1055-1080. DOI: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240103
  20. Kuratko D.F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5): 577-598.
  21. Link A.N., Siegel D.S., Bozeman B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4): 641-655.
  22. Maia C., Claro J. (2013). The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5): 641-650.
  23. Markman G.D., Siegel D.S., Wright M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8): 1401-1423.
  24. O’Connor A. (2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4): 546-563.
  25. Perkmann M., Tartari, V., McKelvey M., Autio E., Broström A., D’Este P., Fini R. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2): 423-442.
  26. Philpott K., Dooley L., O’Reilly C., Lupton G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4): 161-170. DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00051-4
  27. Porter M. (1998). On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  28. Rauch A., Hulsink W. (2015). Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behaviour. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2):187-204.
  29. Siegel D.S., Wright M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink. British Journal of Management, 26(4): 582-595. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12116
  30. Singh J.V., Tucker D.J., House R.J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2): 171-193. DOI: 10.2307/2392787

Alessandra Colombelli, Elettra D’Amico, Emilio Paolucci, Riccardo Ricci, Attività e modelli universitari di trasferimento tecnologico in "ECONOMIA E SOCIETÀ REGIONALE " 3/2018, pp 10-27, DOI: 10.3280/ES2018-003002