The Role Of Government In Technology Transfer And Comercialization Pdf
File Name: the role of government in technology transfer and comercialization .zip
Select a CoP through the quick access menu on the left or browse our directory using the following options:.
- Technology Transfer and Commercialisation
- Does America Need a Technology Policy?
- The Roles of Government in the Commercialization of Technology Based Firms
- Role and reality: technology transfer at Canadian universities
Subscription price IJTTC is a refereed journal that provides an authoritative source of information in the field of knowledge and technology transfer and diffusion, as well as commercialisation and related disciplines. IJTTC aims to disseminate knowledge and establish channels of communication between policy makers, executives in industry, commerce and related business, and also experts in relevant research and academic institutions. The IJTTC publishes: original papers; review papers; case studies; conference reports; briefs and reports and news; book reviews and notes.
Technology Transfer and Commercialisation
As such, the raw data analyzed for this study cannot be provided in the context of this article. The — survey data used for this study was obtained as part of an institutional membership University of Kentucky. Background: A large number of highly impactful technologies originated from academic research, and the transfer of inventions from academic institutions to private industry is a major driver of economic growth, and a catalyst for further discovery.
However, there are significant inefficiencies in academic technology transfer. In this work, we conducted a data-driven assessment of translational activity across United States U.
From this analysis, we provide recommendations to guide technology transfer policy making at both the university and national level. Licensing Activity Survey, we defined a commercialization pipeline that reflects the typical path intellectual property takes; from initial research funding to startup formation and gross income. We use this pipeline to quantify the performance of academic institutions at each step of the process, as well as overall, and identify the top performing institutions via mean reciprocal rank.
The corresponding distributions were visualized and disparities quantified using the Gini coefficient. Results: We found significant discrepancies in commercialization activity between institutions; a small number of institutions contribute to the vast majority of total commercialization activity. By examining select top performing institutions, we suggest improvements universities and technology transfer offices could implement to emulate the environment at these high-performing institutions.
Conclusion: Significant disparities in technology transfer performance exist in which a select set of institutions produce a majority share of the total technology transfer activity.
This disparity points to missed commercialization opportunities, and thus, further investigation into the distribution of technology transfer effectiveness across institutions and studies of policy changes that would improve the effectiveness of the commercialization pipeline is warranted.
The transfer of inventions from academic institutions to private industry is a major driver of economic growth and human welfare. Broadcom, Google, Akamai, Yahoo, Biogen, Bose, and Genentech represent just a handful of pioneering companies with academic roots Kenney, Technology-driven progress demands not only the development of new inventions, but also their dissemination throughout society. Our national capacity to fuel growth and improve human well-being through new technologies depends on our ability to pass these technologies through a commercialization pipeline.
This national need for an efficient and effective technology handoff between academia and industry motivated our analysis of the current United States U. Licensing Activity Survey , we characterized the performance of research organizations across different steps of the technology transfer process.
Our findings indicate that the translational abilities of research organizations across the U. To begin addressing this gap, we surveyed initiatives aimed at improving technology transfer and propose remedies for observed disparities in institutional performance. The AUTM Licensing Survey solicits responses annually from around institutions, including universities, hospitals and research institutions, to quantify the total technology transfer activity at these institutions.
These metrics are derived from a set of core questions that AUTM deems essential for assessing transfer and licensing activity. We use this commercialization pipeline to measure and compare relative levels of technology transfer activity at different institutions, and at different steps along the pipeline. The distributions of each metric across every surveyed institution are visualized as linear and log histograms, as well as empirical cumulative distributions, in Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 2.
Each step in this pipeline corresponds to a metric in the AUTM survey. We use the health of the pipeline as a proxy for the overall health of the U. We chose this scoring system to identify institutions with consistently high performance across the commercialization pipeline while avoiding heavily penalizing anomalous weak performances in just a single metric.
Given value x i for institution i and x j for institution j, we calculate G, the Gini Coefficient, such that:. The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion used to assess inequality in a population. A high Gini coefficient indicates high levels of inequality where, in this case, a few institutions contribute a substantial amount of total translational activity.
Conversely, a low Gini coefficient indicates that each institutions contributes an equal share. Our goal was to understand how much each institution contributed to each step of the commercialization pipeline and to determine any notable overall trends in U. Histograms Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 2 of contributions from each institution along the commercialization pipeline reveal highly skewed distributions.
The distributions of each metric are generally well approximated by a log-normal fit. Note that the x-axes is on a log scale and therefore the significant skew in the distribution is not immediately apparent. The effectiveness of a log-normal fit decreases towards the end of the commercialization pipeline Startups and Adjusted Gross Income.
The majority of institutions contribute a small amount to overall technology transfer regardless of how activity is measured Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure 3. Importantly, this trend is robust to normalization by research expenditures, which indicate that differences in research funding do not explain the gap in productivity Supplementary Figure 3. A small number of institutions contribute to the majority of commercialization activity.
We identified the 25 top-performing institutions by sorting all top-performing institutions by the average of their reciprocal ranking at each step in the commercialization pipeline Table 1. Most organizations that perform well do so across the entire commercialization pipeline, indicating strong and broad technology transfer abilities e. On the other hand, some organizations excel in only specific parts of the commercialization pipeline e. Bar plots show the mean value over the years under consideration for each institution for each step in our commercialization pipeline.
We extended this analysis by calculating the Gini coefficient, a measure of statistical dispersion that is often used to quantify income inequality Gini, In this analysis, a low Gini coefficient indicates that each institution is contributing roughly equally to U. As shown in Figure 3 and Supplementary Figure 3 , high levels of inequality exist throughout the pipeline.
For context, the Gini coefficient of patents issued in the U. Census Bureau. We believe this indicates that the majority of U. Many of the top performing institutions have invested significant effort and resources in supporting entrepreneurs at each stage of the commercialization pipeline. Top performing institutions have ensured continuity in their support structure to enable the efficient and effective translation and development of both institute-owned and student-created intellectual property.
Table 2 highlights active programs at MIT and Harvard, two top performing translational institutions. Our summary of these initiatives span university incubators, student organizations, university venture capital funds and business plan competitions Table 2.
The shaded regions denote which areas of the pipeline each program most directly addresses. The overview of successful programs Table 2 provides a blueprint for universities that would like to foster improved technology transfer and innovation. While some of these programs would require a significant undertaking on the part of the university, many can be achieved in a straightforward and lightweight manner via the support of student-led activities and partnership with government and private organizations.
Examples of grassroot student groups that have launched many new programs exist at both MIT and Harvard. The Harvard Biotechnology Club runs an incubator program to develop and translate academic research. These programs represent student-led efforts that require little to no university expenditure or resources. Expense, time, infrastructure, and the lack of partnerships are among the most common barriers to research commercialization and alleviating these bottlenecks allows more inventions to enter the marketplace Vanderford et al.
Programs to increase support for inventors at less well performing institutions to file disclosures, pursue patent prosecution, and seek licensing deals could significantly boost translational output. Sharing best practices from the leaders in technology commercialization may help bring more new technologies to market. One salient feature of the top-performing institutions is their broad portfolio of commercialization-focused initiatives.
Individually, these projects typically target only a few steps on our commercialization pipeline for example, business plan competitions target the latter stages of the technology transfer process. However, the best performing universities have a large number of these efforts which, in aggregate, fully span the commercialization pipeline. This observation indicates a potential strategy for improvement of those less well served technology transfer pipelines; specifically, the cultivation of commercialization focused initiatives, such as incubators, business plan competitions, innovation prizes, law clinics, and student organizations.
The value of these efforts goes beyond their immediate impact. For example, although when taken at face value, a business plan competition may seem to serve only the winning team, its merit truly stems from bringing together students, entrepreneurs, investors, and the media in a constructive setting. The resources required for such projects are small, and, given the disparity in commercialization, potential societal benefits are vast.
A clear barrier to effective commercialization of university technology is the widespread lack of access to experienced, motivated, and well-resourced technology transfer offices TTO. Many institutions are unable to support a comprehensive TTO, hampering efforts to introduce new technology into industry.
The use of consultants can help alleviate some shortcomings, but faces its own barriers to widespread adoption AUTM Technology Transfer Practice Manual. Alternatively, a coalition of institutions could create a third-party technology licensing organization whose charter is to serve the technology transfer needs of those institutions. Like a sports agent, this third-party organization would use its expertise to strike technology transfer deals between institutions and licensees, freeing universities to focus on their strengths.
Funded directly by the institutions and, in part, by licensing revenue, this organization would have the necessary resources and freedom to hire top-tier technology transfer professionals who can effectively interface between stakeholders in industry and in academia, while negotiating on behalf of the parent institutions.
These teams would work to creatively package and license technologies to maximize their utility to society, as well as to assure that the parent institutions receive a fair return on their investment. Operating outside of the university, this organization would be free to make decisions much more quickly than traditional TTOs. Similarly, its employees would be incentivized to work in the best interest of the parent institutions by ensuring the process is both efficient and maximizes value for all stakeholders.
This outsourced model of technology transfer speaks towards the latent need for more efficient, properly incentivized, and more widespread efforts to commercialize academic research and development efforts. As the U. We believe this disparity points to missed commercialization opportunities, which we as a society are paying for by missing out on potentially highly impactful innovations. Supplementary Figure 1. Histograms of each step in the commercialization pipeline shown in Figure 1. Supplementary Figure 2.
Histograms of each step in the commercialization pipeline shown in Figure 1 with a log x-axis. Supplementary Figure 3. Quantized and normalized distribution for each step in the commercialization pipeline. The shaded bars represent the percentage of the total of each category owned by institutions in percentiles indicated.
The authors correctly point out that this is a skewed industry, with the top performing schools in any given category contributing more than their share of returns. Page 1. The selection of top 10 institutions in the initial analysis and then expanding to top 25 institutions is somewhat arbitrary.
Page 3. This data is coming from institutions of all sizes that vary according to the research dollars as well as the overall size of institutions. For an objective analysis the data needed to be normalized along those lines. Some of the stages described by the authors in Figure 1 are metrics that can be manipulated. For example the number of patents applied for and issued really are not metrics of measuring efficiency or impact of an office. Large number of patents can be applied for and granted, the real measure of performance will be the number of patents that are licensed.
The approach of creating a composite metric is a good one, rather than just looking at the revenue number.
Does America Need a Technology Policy?
Reforms in national research systems aiming to increase technology transfer andcommercialization of university research have become a significant policy. Regarding theachievement of the United States US in the s, the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development OECD governments, including Japan, have considered and implementedvarious policies to revitalize the national innovation system toward a network-based approach. The purpose of this approach was to increase and encourage university technology transferactivities and support university commercialization. This literature review of technology transfer and commercialization in Japaneseuniversities is based on papers published between and The papers were obtainedby querying EconLit, Academic Search Complete, and Business Source Complete usingkey-words: university technology transfer, university industry collaboration, and universityentrepreneurship. This study analyzes Japanese university technology transfer from an aspectof external legal environments and then summarizes the impact on the University IndustryCollaborations UICs following the enactment of UIC policies in the late s. Major findingsinclude that the policy initiatives had a positive impact on increasing Japanese universitytechnology transfer.
Technology Commercialization: Indian University Perspective. Pradeep Srivastava 1 , Sunita Chandra 2. Email: drpradeep19 gmail. To whom all correspondance be addresed. Technology transfer is the complete, enabling disclosure of advancement in Science and technology, sufficient for its unfettered use and improvement. Universities and institutions of high end research and learning are the focus of such knowledge economy. University-industry partnerships in the field of Science and technology are complex and develop through a large number of mechanisms.
The Roles of Government in the Commercialization of Technology Based Firms
Knowledge transfer makes it possible for technology or knowledge developed for one purpose to be applied and used elsewhere or used for a different purpose. Scientific discoveries and inventions suit many uses, and scientists and engineers add to the stock of knowledge through their discoveries. As knowledge and human capital accumulate and disseminate widely, new discoveries and innovations build on those that came before. Significant feedback mechanisms often complex and numerous may magnify the ultimate impact of innovation activities.
Not a MyNAP member yet? Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The most widespread mechanism for technology transfer is publications and presentations of technical findings at conferences, workshops, tutorials, webinars, and the like. The importance of those activities cannot be overstated.
Role and reality: technology transfer at Canadian universities
The efforts of the Government of India GOI aim to create socially useful innovation through university-industry technology transfer. The objective of the study is to examine and understand enabling factors and barriers for technology transfer among Indian universities. The study covers three key aspects: 1 the awareness and practice of patents and research commercialization among Indian academia, 2 comprehending strategies adapted to commercialize research activities, and 3 barriers in university-industry technology transfer TT. A self- assessed structured methodology is contemplated and applied.
From semiconductors to supercomputers, jumbo jets to HDTV, technology is probably the single most important factor driving the evolution of global competition. The accelerating pace of technological innovation is spawning new businesses, transforming old ones, and redefining the rules of competitive success. Little wonder, then, that the national debate about the competitiveness of U.
transfer becoming a commercial success in developing countries, especially in the Indonesian context. The purpose of this paper is to identify technology commercialisation activities in. Indonesia. initiated at the levels of university, government research institution, and corporate. org/INTUNIKAM/Resources/KAM_northcornwallnt.org
As such, the raw data analyzed for this study cannot be provided in the context of this article. The — survey data used for this study was obtained as part of an institutional membership University of Kentucky. Background: A large number of highly impactful technologies originated from academic research, and the transfer of inventions from academic institutions to private industry is a major driver of economic growth, and a catalyst for further discovery. However, there are significant inefficiencies in academic technology transfer. In this work, we conducted a data-driven assessment of translational activity across United States U.
The Journal of Innovation and Knowledge JIK focuses on how we gain knowledge through innovation and how knowledge encourages new forms of innovation. Not all innovation leads to knowledge. Only enduring innovation that can be generalized across multiple fields creates theory and knowledge. JIK welcomes papers on innovations that improve the quality of knowledge or that can be used to develop knowledge.
These articles have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication but are pending final changes, are not yet published and may not appear here in their final order of publication until they are assigned to issues. Therefore, the content conforms to our standards but the presentation e. Additionally, titles, authors, abstracts and keywords may change before publication. Articles will not be published until the final proofs are validated by their authors.
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: Ajagbe Published Engineering World applied sciences journal. The Commercialization of Technology Based Firms TBFs have been acknowledged to play an increasingly significant role in economic development and has been regarded as an engine of growth that gingers rapid industrialization, generates revenue, wealth creation and employment generation.
Technology transfer offices TTOs play a central role in the knowledge translation and commercialization agenda of Canadian universities. Despite this presumed mandate, there is a disconnect between the expectations of government and research institutions which view TTOs' primary role as the promotion of profitable commercialization activities and the reality of what TTOs do. Interviews with professionals at Canadian TTOs have revealed that, at their best, TTOs support the social and academic missions of their institutions by facilitating knowledge mobilization and research relationships with other sectors, including industry; however, this does not always produce obvious or traditional commercial outputs. Thus, the existing metrics used to measure the success of TTOs do not capture this reality and, as such, realignment is needed.
Техники сновали по комнате. Что-то подсказывало Сьюзан, что они близки к разгадке. - Мы можем это сделать! - сказала она, стараясь взять ситуацию под контроль. - Из всех различий между ураном и плутонием наверняка есть такое, что выражается простым числом. Это наша главная цель.
Шеф службы обеспечения систем безопасности спустился с подиума подобно грозовой туче, сползающей с горы, и окинул взглядом свою бригаду программистов, отдающих какие-то распоряжения.