IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268828.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the role of R&D collaborations and non-patent IP policies in government technology transfer performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies (1999–2016)

Author

Listed:
  • Iman Hemmatian
  • Todd A Ponzio
  • Amol M Joshi

Abstract

Around the world, governments make substantial investments in public sector research and development (R&D) entities and activities to generate major scientific and technical advances that may catalyze long-term economic growth. Institutions ranging from the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the French National Centre for Scientific Research to the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centers conduct basic and applied R&D to create commercially valuable knowledge that supports the innovation goals of their respective government sponsors. Globally, the single largest public sector R&D sponsor is the U.S. federal government. In 2019 alone, the U.S. government allocated over $14.9 billion to federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), also known as national labs. However, little is known about how federal agencies’ utilization of FFRDCs, their modes of R&D collaboration, and their adoption of non-patent intellectual property (IP) policies (copyright protection and materials transfer agreements) affect agency-level performance in technology transfer. In particular, the lack of standardized metrics for quantitatively evaluating government entities’ effectiveness in managing innovation is a critical unresolved issue. We address this issue by conducting exploratory empirical analyses of federal agencies’ innovation management activities using both supply-side (filing ratio, transfer rate, and licensing success rate) and demand-side (licensing income and portfolio exclusivity) outcome metrics. We find economically significant effects of external R&D collaborations and non-patent IP policies on the technology transfer performance of 10 major federal executive branch agencies (fiscal years 1999–2016). We discuss the scholarly, managerial, and policy implications for ongoing and future evaluations of technology transfer at federal labs. We offer new insights and guidance on how critical differences in federal agencies’ interpretation and implementation of their R&D management practices in pursuit of their respective missions affect their technology transfer performance outcomes. We generalize key findings to address the broader innovation processes of public sector R&D entities worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Iman Hemmatian & Todd A Ponzio & Amol M Joshi, 2022. "Exploring the role of R&D collaborations and non-patent IP policies in government technology transfer performance: Evidence from U.S. federal agencies (1999–2016)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-29, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268828
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268828
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268828&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268828?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van de Vrande, Vareska & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert, 2009. "External technology sourcing: The effect of uncertainty on governance mode choice," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 62-80, January.
    2. Robert Kneller & Marcel Mongeon & Jeff Cope & Cathy Garner & Philip Ternouth, 2014. "Industry-University Collaborations in Canada, Japan, the UK and USA – With Emphasis on Publication Freedom and Managing the Intellectual Property Lock-Up Problem," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Joana Costa & Ana Rita Neves & João Reis, 2021. "Two Sides of the Same Coin. University-Industry Collaboration and Open Innovation as Enhancers of Firm Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Felin, Teppo & Zenger, Todd R., 2014. "Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 914-925.
    7. Kivimaa, Paula, 2014. "Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1370-1380.
    8. Ying Wu & Wen Huang & Li Deng, 2021. "Does social trust stimulate university technology transfer? Evidence from China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-13, August.
    9. Haemin Dennis Park & Daniel Tzabbar, 2016. "Venture Capital, CEOs’ Sources of Power, and Innovation Novelty at Different Life Stages of a New Venture," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 336-353, April.
    10. Amesse, Fernand & Cohendet, P., 2001. "Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1459-1478, December.
    11. Lee, Yong S., 1996. "'Technology transfer' and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 843-863, September.
    12. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike (ed.), 2015. "The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226178349, October.
    13. Shane, Scott, 2004. "Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 127-151, January.
    14. Rachelle C. Sampson, 2004. "The Cost of Misaligned Governance in R&D Alliances," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 484-526, October.
    15. Ping Zhou & Robert Tijssen & Loet Leydesdorff, 2016. "University-Industry Collaboration in China and the USA: A Bibliometric Comparison," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
    16. Shapira, Philip & Youtie, Jan & Yogeesvaran, K. & Jaafar, Zakiah, 2006. "Knowledge economy measurement: Methods, results and insights from the Malaysian Knowledge Content Study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1522-1537, December.
    17. Rajeev K. Goel & Devrim Göktepe†Hultén, 2018. "Academic leadership and commercial activities at research institutes: German evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(5), pages 601-609, July.
    18. Baccini, Leonardo & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2012. "Legislative fractionalization and partisan shifts to the left increase the volatility of public energy R&D expenditures," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 45571, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Thomas Keil & Markku Maula & Henri Schildt & Shaker A. Zahra, 2008. "The effect of governance modes and relatedness of external business development activities on innovative performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 895-907, August.
    20. Arvanitis, Spyros & Kubli, Ursina & Woerter, Martin, 2008. "University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1865-1883, December.
    21. Guerzoni, Marco & Raiteri, Emilio, 2015. "Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 726-747.
    22. Tania Bubela & Jenilee Guebert & Amrita Mishra, 2015. "Use and Misuse of Material Transfer Agreements: Lessons in Proportionality from Research, Repositories, and Litigation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, February.
    23. Axel Philipps, 2013. "Mission statements and self-descriptions of German extra-university research institutes: A qualitative content analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(5), pages 686-697, April.
    24. Baccini, Leonardo & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2012. "Legislative fractionalization and partisan shifts to the left increase the volatility of public energy R&D expenditures," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 49-57.
    25. Corredoira, Rafael A. & Goldfarb, Brent D. & Shi, Yuan, 2018. "Federal funding and the rate and direction of inventive activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1777-1800.
    26. Joshi, Amol M. & Hemmatian, Iman, 2018. "How do legal surprises drive organizational attention and case resolution? An analysis of false patent marking lawsuits," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1741-1761.
    27. David Mowery & Arvids Ziedonis, 2007. "Academic patents and materials transfer agreements: substitutes or complements?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 157-172, June.
    28. 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.
    29. Pablo Galaso & Adrián Rodríguez Miranda, 2021. "The leading role of support organisations in cluster networks of developing countries," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(7), pages 902-931, August.
    30. Papaioannou, Theo & Watkins, Andrew & Mugwagwa, Julius & Kale, Dinar, 2016. "To Lobby or to Partner? Investigating the Shifting Political Strategies of Biopharmaceutical Industry Associations in Innovation Systems of South Africa and India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 66-79.
    31. David Allison, 1982. "Technology transfer in the navy: The historical background," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 55-72, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Albats, Ekaterina & Alexander, Allen T. & Cunningham, James A., 2022. "Traditional, virtual, and digital intermediaries in university-industry collaboration: exploring institutional logics and bounded rationality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Chris Young, 2017. "A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 923-956, August.
    3. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Evila Piva & Mike Wright, 2016. "Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 589-607, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Li, Ying & Van de Vrande, Vareska, 2009. "The dual role of external corporate venturing in technological exploration," MPRA Paper 26488, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2010.
    6. Véronique Schaeffer & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Julien Pénin, 2020. "The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 31-55, February.
    7. Heeyong Noh & Sungjoo Lee, 2019. "Where technology transfer research originated and where it is going: a quantitative analysis of literature published between 1980 and 2015," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 700-740, June.
    8. Rajeev K. Goel & Devrim Göktepe-Hultén, 2018. "What drives academic patentees to bypass TTOs? Evidence from a large public research organisation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 240-258, February.
    9. Delorme, Donatienne, 2023. "The role of proximity in the design of innovation intermediaries' business models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    10. Cavallo, Angelo & Burgers, Henri & Ghezzi, Antonio & van de Vrande, Vareska, 2022. "The evolving nature of open innovation governance: A study of a digital platform development in collaboration with a big science centre," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Etzkowitz, Henry & Zhou, Chunyan, 2021. "Licensing life: The evolution of Stanford university's technology transfer practice," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    12. Narayanan, V.K. & Yang, Yi & Zahra, Shaker A., 2009. "Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 58-76, February.
    13. Alejandro Bengoa & Amaia Maseda & Txomin Iturralde & Gloria Aparicio, 2021. "A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1514-1550, October.
    14. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2008. "Externally commercializing technology assets: An examination of different process stages," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 445-464, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Tahir Hameed & Peter Von Staden & Ki-Seok Kwon, 2018. "Sustainable Economic Growth and the Adaptability of a National System of Innovation: A Socio-Cognitive Explanation for South Korea’s Mired Technology Transfer and Commercialization Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-26, May.
    17. Shiri M. Breznitz & Qiantao Zhang, 2020. "Determinants of graduates’ entrepreneurial activity," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1039-1056, December.
    18. Polzin, Friedemann & von Flotow, Paschen & Klerkx, Laurens, 2016. "Addressing barriers to eco-innovation: Exploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional innovation intermediaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 34-46.
    19. David A. Kirby & Hala H. El Hadidi, 2019. "University technology transfer efficiency in a factor driven economy: the need for a coherent policy in Egypt," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1367-1395, October.
    20. James A. Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly, 2018. "Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 545-557, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0268828. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.