Presentation - Rochester Institute of Technology
Download
Report
Transcript Presentation - Rochester Institute of Technology
“Research on Academic Entrepreneurship in the U.S. and
Europe: Lessons Learned and a Research Agenda”
Professor Donald Siegel
Dean-School of Business
University at Albany, SUNY
President, Technology Transfer Society
Editor-Journal of Technology Transfer
Co-Editor-Academy of Management Perspectives
NSF Engineering Globalization Workshop
May 17, 2012
Outline
Shameless Self-Promotion: Plugs For Technology
Transfer Society/Journal of Technology Transfer
Summary of Key Research Quantitative and
Qualitative Results
Lessons Learned
Agenda for Additional Research
Universities, “GPTs”, and The Creation of New Industries
Technology
(Primary)
Industry
Period Developed
University
Created
Electronic
University of
1940s Calculator
Pennsylvania
Computers
Fiber
1960s
Optics
MIT
Telecommunications
1970s
rDNA
1980s Supercomputing
Stanford,
California
Illinois
Biotechnology
Internet
Sequencing of DNA/
Human Genome
Cal Tech,
1990s
Project
Johns Hopkins Pharmacogenomics
2000s Nanotechnology
UAlbany
?????
William Baumol-The Free Market Innovation MachineAnalyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism
Routine/Systematic Innovation-Large Firms
Entrepreneurial Innovation-Small Firms
“David and Goliath Symbiosis”-Joint Efforts of
Individual Entrepreneur and Large Industrial
Firm Unprecedented Wealth Creation
Siegel (2006)-Universities Increasingly Developing
and Nurturing Startups; Also Linking Small and
Large Firms Who Engage in Entrepreneurial
Innovation
Research on Institutions and Agents Involved in
Academic Entrepreneurship
Agents and Institutions
University Scientists
Industry Scientists
Entrepreneurs
Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers
University Technology Transfer Offices
Science Parks
Incubators/Accelerators
Firms That Interact With Universities
Venture Capital Firms
Selected Research Questions
How Does the Process of University Technology
Commercialization/Academic Entrepreneurship Work?
Which Universities “Perform” Best?
What is the Role of the TTO?
How Should We Measure Performance?
Which Factors “Explain” Variation in Relative
Performance? (e.g., Incentives, Organizational, and
Environmental Factors)
Do Incubators/Accelerators and Science Parks Add
Value?
Interdisciplinary Research on Institutions and Agents
Involved in Academic Entrepreneurship
Indicators of Output/Performance
Invention Disclosures
Patents
Number of Licensing Agreements
Licensing Revenue
Research Productivity of Industry Scientists/Firms
Research Productivity of University Scientists
“Productivity” of Universities in Technology Transfer
Start-Up Formation
Survival
Employment Growth
Changes in Stock Prices
Key Results for University and Regional Policymakers
Bayh-Dole Appears to Have Been “Effective”
TTO Staff Add Significant Value Because Scientists Are
Not Disclosing Inventions
Important for TTOs to Help Academics Study University
Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer
Private Universities and Those With Medical Schools
Appear to Be Somewhat More Productive
Universities Are Becoming More “Strategic” in Technology
Transfer (More on that later) –More Heterogeneity and
Application of Management Theories to Practice
Key Results for University and Regional Policymakers (cont.)
Property-based Institutions (Incubators and Science
Parks) Appear to Enhance Commercialization
Incentives Matter (e.g., Royalty Distribution Formulas),
But So Do Organizational Practices and Institutional
Policies
Universities Increasingly Focusing on the Entrepreneurial
Dimension (Evidence Mixed on Success of University Based
Startups)
Academic Entrepreneurs Are Not Less Productive in Their
Academic Research After Commercialization
Foreign-Born Scientists Are More Like to Become
Academic Entrepreneurs
Social Networks of Star Scientists Key for New Firm
Creation
Key Stylized Facts From Qualitative Research
Major Impediments to University Technology Transfer:
Informational and Cultural Barriers Between
Universities and Firms (Especially for Small Firms)
Insufficient Rewards for Faculty Involvement in
Technology Transfer at Some Institutions, Especially
w.r.t. Entrepreneurial Activity
Technology Transfer Office Staffing and Compensation
Practices (High Rate of Turnover, Insufficient Business/
Marketing Experience, Possible Need for Incentive
Compensation)
Education/Training is Needed for Faculty Members, PostDocs, and Graduate Students in the Specifics of the
Entrepreneurial Process, the Role of Entrepreneurs, and
How to Interact with the Business/Entrepreneurial
Community
Strategic Implications of University Technology Transfer
/Academic Entrepreneurship-Formulation Issues
Setting Institutional Goals/Priorities
Resources Devoted to University Technology Transfer
Choices Regarding Technological Emphasis
Strategic Choices Regarding Modes of University
Technology Transfer:
Licensing
Startups
Sponsored Research
Other Technology Transfer Mechanisms That are
Focused More Directly on Stimulating Economic
Development (e.g., Incubators and Science Parks)
Strategic Implications of University Technology Transfer
/Academic Entrepreneurship-Implementation Issues
Improving Information Flows
Organizational Design/Structure
HRM Practices-Staffing/Compensation of TTO
Personnel
Reward Systems for Faculty Involvement in University
Technology Transfer (perhaps including P&T- e.g., 6/06-Texas A&M)
Implementation Issues Regarding Modes of University
Technology Transfer
Different Ways of Structuring Licensing Agreements
Academic vs. Surrogate Entrepreneurs
Different Ways to Manage University-Based
Incubators and Science Parks
Personal Reflections Based on
Studies of Academic Entrepreneurship
We Need More Detailed Exploration of the Nature of the
Connection Between Entrepreneurial Firms and the
University, Including the Role of Property-Based Institutions
(i.e., Incubators/Accelerators & Science/Technology Parks
What is The Relationship Between Academic
Entrepreneurship and Federal/National Labs (The “Last
Frontier” of Technology Transfer)
We Need More Detailed Analysis of Technology Transfer
Strategy Implementation
Personal Reflections Based on
Studies of Academic Entrepreneurship (cont.)
Strong Need to Enhance Incentives for Faculty Members to
Be Engaged in Entrepreneurial Activity (and Perhaps For
Successful Ones to Serve As Mentors)
Important to Increase Participation/Success of Women &
Minorities in Academic Entrepreneurship (as we found in
the NRC Evaluation of SBIR)
Entrepreneurship Research, Education, and CommunityBased Initiatives Are Key Complements
Entrepreneurship As An Academic Field
Entrepreneurship (2007) vs. Strategy (1989)
Returns to Studying This Topic Are High (e.g., NSFIGERT, Kauffman, development)