A new perspective to explore the technology transfer efficiencies in US universities
Universities play a critical role in the complex technology transfer process that facilitates technology transformation from pure research activities to commercialization. The literature has recently focused on whether universities are efficient in this process. With a two-stage perspective, this study explores the required capabilities for universities to be efficient in technology transfer process. To explore the efficiencies in different stages of technology transfer, we apply a 2-stage process DEA method. The model considers 2 inputs, 2 intermediate variables, and 3 output variables from the Association of University Technology Management database. These variables represent funding resource, patenting activities, and licensing and entrepreneurships. Technology transfer in the 2-stage perspective includes the research innovation stage and the value creation stage. The results show that achieving efficiency in the 2 technology-transfer stages requires many different innovation capabilities; thus, most efficient universities only perform efficiently in one of the two stages. When mapping the relative site of universities in the reference network, we found that efficient universities in the research innovation stage are in a more centralized location than those in the value creation stage. By contrast, in the value creation stage, efficient universities can be identified as different reference groups for specific inefficient universities. The network visualization also helps to explain that universities must consider their relative advantages and capabilities to reach efficiency goals in different stages. The comparison between the large-scale group and the small-scale group also showed that a resource scale is critical for universities to accumulate different required capabilities for efficiencies in both stages. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 39 (2014)
Issue (Month): 2 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/journal/10961/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Leopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2000.
"A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models,"
Journal of Applied Statistics,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(6), pages 779-802.
- Simar, L. & Wilson, P.W., 1998. "A General Methodology for Bootstrapping in Nonparametric Frontier Models," Papers 9811, Catholique de Louvain - Institut de statistique.
- Friedman, Joseph & Silberman, Jonathan, 2003. "University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 17-30, January.
- Sampat, Bhaven N., 2006. "Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 772-789, July.
- Golany, B & Roll, Y, 1989. "An application procedure for DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 237-250.
- 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.
- Chen, Yao & Cook, Wade D. & Li, Ning & Zhu, Joe, 2009. "Additive efficiency decomposition in two-stage DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 1170-1176, August.
- Guan, Jiancheng & Chen, Kaihua, 2012. "Modeling the relative efficiency of national innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 102-115.
- Kao, Chiang & Hung, Hsi-Tai, 2008. "Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 653-664, August.
- Padmore, Tim & Gibson, Hervey, 1998. "Modelling systems of innovation: II. A framework for industrial cluster analysis in regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 625-641, February.
- Chapple, Wendy & Lockett, Andy & Siegel, Donald & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 369-384, April.
- Wendy Chapple & Andy Lockett & Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2004. "Assessing the Relative Performance of U.K. University Technology Transfer Offices: Parametric and Non-Parametric Evidence," Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0423, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.
- Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
- Thursby, Jerry G. & Kemp, Sukanya, 2002. "Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 109-124, January.
- Gideon D. Markman & Peter T. Gianiodis & Phillip H. Phan & David B. Balkin, 2004. "Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do Incentive Systems Matter?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 29(3_4), pages 353-364, 08.
- Shih-Fen S Chen, 2005. "Extending internalization theory: a new perspective on international technology transfer and its generalization," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 36(2), pages 231-245, March.
- Powers, Joshua B. & McDougall, Patricia P., 2005. "University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 291-311, May.
- Donald S. Siegel & Reinhilde Veugelers & Mike Wright, 2007. "Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 640-660, Winter.
- W. Cooper & Shanling Li & L. Seiford & Kaoru Tone & R. Thrall & J. Zhu, 2001. "Sensitivity and Stability Analysis in DEA: Some Recent Developments," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 217-246, May.
- Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-1171, September.
- Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2002. "Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 90-104, January.
- Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2000. "Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," NBER Working Papers 7718, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- 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.
- O'Shea, Rory P. & Allen, Thomas J. & Chevalier, Arnaud & Roche, Frank, 2005. "Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 994-1009, September.
- Donald Siegel & Mike Wright & Wendy Chapple & Andy Lockett, 2008. "Assessing The Relative Performance Of University Technology Transfer In The Us And Uk: A Stochastic Distance Function Approach," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7-8), pages 717-729.
- Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 2000. "Theory and Application of Directional Distance Functions," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 93-103, March.
- Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
- Cook, Wade D. & Liang, Liang & Zhu, Joe, 2010. "Measuring performance of two-stage network structures by DEA: A review and future perspective," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 423-430, December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:39:y:2014:i:2:p:247-275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.