Session II: Effects of University Patenting and Licensing on Commercialization Lessons Learned From Recent Quantitative and Qualitative Research on the “Effectiveness” of University-Industry Technology Transfer Donald Siegel Professor of Industrial Economics University of Nottingham (Joint with Al Link)

Research on UITT (cont.) I Will be Drawing on Evidence From: p Our Own NBER/Sloan Papers/Projects p Papers Appearing in Recent Special Issues of the Journal of Technology Transfer on “Organizational Issues in University-Industry Technology Transfer” (featuring papers by R. Nelson, M. Thursby, J. Thursby, B. Hall, A. Link, J. Scott, M. Feldman, I. Feller, L. Zucker, M. Darby, J. Adams, W. Powell, S. Maital, P. Stephan, R. Morgan, N. Rosenberg, D. Blumenthal, … )

Goals of Our Projects p Improve our Understanding of the UITT Process p Assess and “Explain” Relative Productivity in UITT p Identify Organizational Practices that can Potentially Enhance UITT

Research Tactics p Quantitative Methods-Constructed Estimates of the Relative “Productivity” of 113 Universities with Regard to Licensing p Qualitative Methods-Inductive Analysis to Explore Organizational Issues, Based on Structured Interviews of UITT Stakeholders (teamed up with management professors to conduct qualitative analysis)

Licensing Production Function LICENSE = f (INVDISC, STAFF, LEGAL) where LICENSE = licensing agreements or revenue INVDISC = Invention disclosures STAFF = TTO staff LEGAL = (external) legal expenditures We Also Need to Account for Environmental and Institutional Factors That Are Not Typically Included in a Production Function.

Key Quantitative Results Production Function Model Provides a Good Fit Licensing Agreements-Constant Returns to Scale Licensing Revenue-Increasing Returns to Scale Staff in the TTO Add Significant Value to the Commercialization Process Environmental Factors Do Not Explain a Large Percentage of the Variation in Relative Productivity-Hence, Organizational Practices May be Important

Qualitative Methods p Field Research-55 Structured, In-Person Interviews of 100 UITT Stakeholders (Academic and Industry Scientists, University Administrators, Managers, and Entrepreneurs) at 5 Research Universities p Stratified Sample, Consulted Neutral Third Parties in an Attempt to Select Interviewees with Different Perspectives

Qualitative Findings (Relevant to Bayh-Dole) Key Impediments to UITT: p Informational and Cultural Barriers Between Universities and Firms (Especially for Small Firms) p Insufficient Rewards for Faculty Involvement in UITT p TTO Staffing and Compensation Practices (High Rate of Turnover, Insufficient Business/ Marketing Experience, Possible Need for Incentive Compensation)

Qualitative Findings (cont.) Conclusions p A Failure to Address These Barriers Will Induce More Faculty Members and Firms to Circumvent the TTO and Engage in “Informal” UITT p UITT Should be Considered From a Strategic Perspective

Strategic Implications of UITT-Formulation Issues p Setting Institutional Goals/Priorities p Resources Devoted to UITT p Choices Regarding Technological Emphasis p Strategic Choices Regarding Modes of UITT: p Licensing p Startups p Sponsored Research p Other UITT Mechanisms that are focused more Directly on Stimulating Economic Development (e.g., Science Parks)

Strategic Implications of UITT-Implementation Issues p Improving Information Flows p Organizational Design/Structure p HRM Practices-Staffing/Compensation of TTO Personnel p Reward Systems for Faculty Involvement in UITT (perhaps including P&T) p Implementation Issues Regarding Modes of UITT p Different Ways of Structuring Licensing Agreements p Academic vs. Surrogate Entrepreneurs p Different Ways to Manage University-Based Science Parks

Additional Policy Questions pWhich Organizational Practices/Institutional Policies Enhance UITT Performance? p What are the Tradeoffs Associated With Involvement in UITT (e.g., Educational, Basic Research)? p What is the Relationship Between UITT and Ethics/Corporate Social Responsibility?