IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v47y2022i5d10.1007_s10961-022-09947-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New technology transfer metrics for the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Hall

    (National Institute of Standards and Technology)

Abstract

New technology transfer metrics relevant to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are presented in this paper. From a public sector management perspective, these metrics are important because they extend the current measures of technology transfer to include metrics that are unrelated to the size of the federal laboratory in question. This extension allows for a more meaningful comparison of some aspects of technology transfer activities at federal laboratories with differing sizes, missions, and policies. This paper applies proposed measures of technology transfer to data on NIST’s technology transfer activities, compares these metrics across multiple organizations, provides suggestions for the interpretation of these metrics, describes limitations of these metrics, and suggests areas for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Hall, 2022. "New technology transfer metrics for the National Institute of Standards and Technology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1573-1583, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:47:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10961-022-09947-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-022-09947-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-022-09947-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-022-09947-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Walter & Christoph Ihl & René Mauer & Malte Brettel, 2018. "Grace, gold, or glory? Exploring incentives for invention disclosure in the university context," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1725-1759, December.
    2. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    3. Albert N. Link & Cody A. Morris & Martijn van Hasselt, 2019. "The impact of public R&D investments on patenting activity: technology transfer at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 536-546, July.
    4. Markman, Gideon D. & Gianiodis, Peter T. & Phan, Phillip H. & Balkin, David B., 2005. "Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1058-1075, September.
    5. Baglieri, Daniela & Baldi, Francesco & Tucci, Christopher L., 2018. "University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 51-63.
    6. Mark A. Lemley & Robin Feldman, 2016. "Patent Licensing, Technology Transfer, and Innovation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 188-192, May.
    7. Zvi Griliches, 1958. "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(5), pages 419-419.
    8. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    9. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    10. Hsu, David W.L. & Shen, Yung-Chi & Yuan, Benjamin J.C. & Chou, Chiyan James, 2015. "Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 25-39.
    11. Giummo, Jesse, 2010. "German employee inventors' compensation records: A window into the returns to patented inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 969-984, September.
    12. Chuchu Chen & Albert N. Link & Zachary T. Oliver, 2018. "U.S. federal laboratories and their research partners: a quantitative case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 501-517, April.
    13. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    14. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    15. James D. Adams & Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Research Productivity in a System of Universities," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 49-50, pages 127-162.
    16. Jisun Kim & Timothy Anderson & Tugrul Daim, 2008. "Assessing University Technology Transfer: A Measure Of Efficiency Patterns," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(04), pages 495-526.
    17. Albert N. Link, 2020. "Invention, Innovation and U.S. Federal Laboratories," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 19917.
    18. Caldera, Aida & Debande, Olivier, 2010. "Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1160-1173, November.
    19. Thursby, Jerry G & Jensen, Richard & Thursby, Marie C, 2001. "Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 59-72, January.
    20. Berbegal-Mirabent, Jasmina & Lafuente, Esteban & Solé, Francesc, 2013. "The pursuit of knowledge transfer activities: An efficiency analysis of Spanish universities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 2051-2059.
    21. Kieren Marr & Phillip Phan, 2020. "The valorization of non-patent intellectual property in academic medical centers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1823-1841, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael J. Hall & Albert N. Link & Matthew Schaffer, 2022. "An economic analysis of standard reference materials," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 1847-1860, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vidita Choudhry & Todd A. Ponzio, 2020. "Modernizing federal technology transfer metrics," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 544-559, April.
    2. Laura Kreiling & Ahmed Bounfour, 2020. "A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1718-1747, December.
    3. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Lee, Kyootai & Jung, Hyun Ju, 2021. "Does TTO capability matter in commercializing university technology? Evidence from longitudinal data in South Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    5. Arman Yalvac Aksoy & Catherine Beaudry, 2021. "How are companies paying for university research licenses? Empirical evidence from university-firm technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2051-2121, December.
    6. Giuri, Paola & Munari, Federico & Scandura, Alessandra & Toschi, Laura, 2019. "The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 261-278.
    7. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    8. Esteban Lafuente & Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, 2019. "Assessing the productivity of technology transfer offices: an analysis of the relevance of aspiration performance and portfolio complexity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 778-801, June.
    9. Battaglia, Daniele & Landoni, Paolo & Rizzitelli, Francesco, 2017. "Organizational structures for external growth of University Technology Transfer Offices: An explorative analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-56.
    10. Jisun Kim & Tugrul Daim, 2014. "A new approach to measuring time-lags in technology licensing: study of U.S. academic research institutions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 748-773, October.
    11. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    12. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    13. O’Kane, Conor, 2018. "Technology transfer executives' backwards integration: An examination of interactions between university technology transfer executives and principal investigators," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 64-77.
    14. Conor O’Kane & James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Sara Walton, 2021. "The brokering role of technology transfer offices within entrepreneurial ecosystems: an investigation of macro–meso–micro factors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1814-1844, December.
    15. Soares, Thiago J. & Torkomian, Ana L.V. & Nagano, Marcelo Seido, 2020. "University regulations, regional development and technology transfer: The case of Brazil," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Modic, Dolores & Suklan, Jana, 2022. "Multidimensional experience and performance of highly skilled administrative staff: Evidence from a technology transfer office," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    17. Soares, Thiago J. & Torkomian, Ana L.V., 2021. "TTO's staff and technology transfer: Examining the effect of employees' individual capabilities," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    18. Nugent, Annita & Chan, Ho Fai, 2023. "Outsourcing university research commercialization to a sophisticated technology transfer office: Evidence from Australian universities," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    19. Benjamin Yeo, 2019. "What Drives University Technological Innovation Outcomes? A Re-Vitalised Investigation," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-28, September.
    20. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Brigida Blasi & Carmela Anna Nappi & Sandra Romagnosi, 2022. "Quality of research as source and signal: revisiting the valorization process beyond substitution vs complementarity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 407-434, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:47:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10961-022-09947-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.