Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
Technology Transfer Offices in Turkish Universities in Comparison
With Europe and the U.S.A.
Rabia Taş*
Technology Transfer Offices (TTO) have gained importance in Turkey since The
Supreme Council for Science and Technology made a decision on supporting
Technology Transfer Offices as an interface by public funding to contribute universityindustry relations, to support commercialization of technology, and to provide logistic
reinforcement for academic researches on December 27, 2011.The definition of
Technology Transfer Office in Turkey can be made as an organization performing the
role of an interface between universities and industry to create knowledge based
economy through this cooperation. Since 2013, 20 TTOs were established within the
structure of universities with the funding support of Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). However, the concept of technology transfer
was used in the U.S.A. in 1940’s and in Europe in 1980’s. Here in this study, the
structure of Technology Transfer Offices in Turkey was analyzed in comparison with
Europe and the U.S.A. by using descriptive screening model. As a result of this study the
current position of TTOs in Turkey was defined, and the results indicated that TTOs in
Turkey will reach the functionality level of their counterparts in the U.S.A and Europe
with the existing environment, staff and public support.
JEL Codes: O30, O31 and O32
Key Words: Technology Transfer Office, university-industry relations, science, technology.
1. Introduction
The concept of technology transfer was first used in 1945 in a report named “Science: The Endless
Frontier” prepared for President Franklin D. Roosevelt by Vannevar Bush. The report was mainly
emphasizing the importance of science and technology in national development. The envision of
Vannevar Bush was supported by US Congress in 1980 by passing the Bayh-Dole Act which
provided an opportunity for the transfer of government-funded research and inventions to the public
for the benefit of the national economy and the prosperity of nation as a whole by turning a
manufacturing-based economy to a knowledge-based economy. Europe, on the other hand, began to
focus on research, technology and development in 1980‟s and 1990‟s.
In Turkey, The Supreme Council for Science and Technology made a decision on supporting
Technology Transfer Offices (TTO). In terms of this decision Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) launched the 1513 Support Program for Technology Transfer Offices
for the first time in 2013 (TUBITAK 1513, n.d.). In 2013 and 2014, totally 20 public universities were
supported within the concept of the program.
*Rabia Taş, R&D and Innovation Coordination Center (ARİNKOM) Technology Transfer Office, Anadolu University,
Turkey. Email : rabiatas@anadolu.edu.tr
1
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
Here in this study, the structure of Technology Transfer Offices in Turkey was analyzed in
comparison with Europe and the U.S.A. The role of TTO‟s was evaluated by addressing the issues of
commercialization of academic studies, enabling universities to use of national and international
funding supports efficiently through projects, supporting the entrepreneurial ideas and creating
effective cooperation between university and industry. As a result of this study the current position of
TTOs in Turkey was defined, and the results indicated that TTOs in Turkey will reach the level of
functionality of their counterparts in the U.S.A and Europe with the existing environment, staff and
public support.
2. Literature Review
The concept of technology transfer (TT) has been discussed and defined by numerous researchers
in literature. Zhao and Reisman (1992) states that technology transfer has been the means towards
economic progress, social development, quality of life, and even of culture and of value systems.
They discuss that due to these missions, TT has been addressed by different disciplines such as
economy, sociology, engineering, and management. They claim that different disciplines offer
different definitions for TT. Therefore; TT can be understood in a limited way from a discipline‟s point
of view.
Geisler (1993) notes in his research that TT doesn‟t have an exact definition, but each existing
definition provides a different part of phenomenon known as technology transfer. Thus, this
phenomenon is multidisciplinary and having plural definitions shows that TT is a field of knowledge
which should be classified in each domain.
Bozeman (2000) states that TT has different definitions depending both on the discipline of research,
and on the purpose of the research. He also claims that even though there isn‟t an approved
definition of technology transfer, the attempts to make a canonical definition helps to understand the
differences among research traditions.
The common point of these definitions is the difference of TT definitions due to research traditions,
fields and purposes. The evolution of this phenomenon also shows differences among countries.
2.1. Technology Transfer Background in Turkey
Upon the foundation of Turkish Republic in 1923, industry became the main focus to support the
nation. Since the investment was made on heavy industry such as sugar refinery and cement plants;
the pace of technologic development was quite slow. Between the years of 1950-1960, private sector
was encouraged to make investments based on technology transfer. During the period of 1960 and
1980, small scale enterprises were established to provoke competitiveness in the fields which
required modern technology. Finally in the end of 1970‟s technology policies began to be discussed;
but the efforts to turn technology into economic and social benefits failed. In the 1980‟s, Turkey was
still focused on investments in industry. Together with the 1990‟s, the investments were directed to
service sector such as communication. The importance of university-industry cooperation and
technology transfer was recognized in 2000‟s. In 2001, The Act of Technology Development Areas
was issued and academicians were given the opportunity to take part in these areas for making
contributions to technology development (Yıldız et al., 2010).
The support mechanisms to help university-industry cooperation and TT changed forms in the
following years. The typology of cooperation in these fields can be categorized respectively as
2
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
general research support, informal research cooperation, contracted research cooperation,
knowledge transfer and training projects, government funded university-industry cooperation projects,
research consortium, university-industry cooperation centers or institutes, business incubators and
technoparks, TTOs and technology transfer interfaces (Kiper et al., 2010).
2.2. Technology Transfer Background in the U.S.A.
Higher education sector and research funding mechanisms experienced an expansion in the U.S.A.
after the Second World War. This expansion created an opportunity to increase the scientific and
research output of universities. Following this development, the need to transfer these outcomes to
industry through R&D, design, production and marketing, and the need for government science policy
arose (Sharma et al., 2006).
The need for commercializing the outputs in industry created the need to make public policies in this
field. In 1945, Vannevar Bush presented a report to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The report,
“Science: The Endless Frontier”, was also a political document which shaped post-war government
policy for scientific research and development (Kevles, 1977). The report was supported by policy
makers and turned into an Act which contributed to the economic development of the U.S.A. The
emphasize on university-industry relations and TT made by the US Congress in 1980 with The Patent
and Trademark Law Amendments Act, P.L. 96-517, known as Bayh-Dole Act. The main goal of this
Act was to license government funded research outcomes to industry for economic and social
development (Friedman and Silberman, 2003). Following the contributions of Bayh-Dole Act, the
number of patenting and licensing practices increased, and this policy initiative gave acceleration to
TT in the U.S.A. (Mowery et al., 2001).
2.3. Technology Transfer Background in Europe
The Second World War and its outcomes proved that industry on its own cannot be enough to
develop countries and their economies. Therefore the need for knowledge based social and
economic progress should be followed and achieved. Being the heart of industrial revolution during
18th and 19th century, Europe became a world leader in many sectors. However as the global
conditions changed, Europe realized that a new model should be followed to maintain its economic
welfare.
European Union has numerous institutions addressing science and technology issues. Being one of
these institutions European Commission is responsible for making law proposals and managing EU
policies as well as EU funds (European Commission, n.d.). Before the structure of EU Commission
was officially established, Europe adapted two strands of activities during 1980‟s and 1990‟s. First
one of these activities was “Research, Technology and Development” networks to create science and
technology infrastructure. The second activity was regional development supported by “structural
funds” to support less favored regions in terms of science and technology. Together with these
activities, Europe aimed at developing knowledge based economies in advanced Europe countries
and developing the less science intensive countries to participate in the future innovative systems
(Leydesdorff et al., 2002). Today European Commission and its policies shape funds and
frameworks in terms of TT.
3
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
3. The Methodology and Model
In order to make comparison between TTO structure in Turkey, the U.S.A. and Europe; the
descriptive screening model was used. “Descriptive screening model includes a research approach
based on defining past and/or existing conditions,” (Karasar, 1998, p. 80). By using this model, the
existing structures were defined and compared to determine the indications of these comparisons
and future expectations for Turkish TTO structuring.
4. The findings
4.1. Structure of Technology Transfer Offices in Turkey
Technology Transfer Offices working within the bodies of Turkish universities are working as an
interface with the aim of creating knowledge through innovation and transferring this knowledge to
the public for the benefit of economic and social development.
Universities eligible to apply for 1513 Support Program for TTOs launched by TUBITAK were
evaluated through their proposals. Following the application and evaluation, TUBITAK has granted
the awards to establish TTOs to 10 universities in each year since 2013.
The aims of TTOs in Turkey can be defined as follows:
 To function as a bridge between university and industry in and around their cities.
 To lead academicians, students, industry agents, and entrepreneurs with R&D ideas for working in
cooperation to create a shared value.
 To manage the process through which knowledge turns into an economic value.
 To improve entrepreneurship culture and R&D potential.
The benefits of working with a TTO can provide the following facilities:
 To transfer the research results and knowledge gained in university to industry.
 To define the competitive products or knowledge required by industry, and share these findings
with university.
 To ensure coordination for the purpose of creating products those provide economic and social
benefits.
 To support industry for benefiting from universities‟ infrastructure and laboratories in terms of R&D
projects.
 To make contribution for creating awareness for intellectual property rights and entrepreneurship
culture among academicians, students and industry agents.
TTOs in Turkish universities work under 5 modules that are managed by TTO Manager and TTO
Project Coordinator. Anadolu University is among the first 20 universities supported by TUBITAK
1513 Support Program for Technology Transfer Offices (ARINKOM TTO, n.d.). The TTO model in
Turkey will be defined on the example of Anadolu University R&D and Innovation Coordination
Center (ARINKOM) TTO. The 5 modules of ARINKOM TTO are stated as follows:
4
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
Module 1: Awareness, Introduction, Education and Training Services
 Introduces TTOs to academic staff and industry agents.
 Provides services to create awareness among industry and all the other focus groups to make
them benefit from TTO services.
 Serves as a communication channel between industry agents, academicians and students.
 Promotes quality, source and opportunities of university.
Module 1 aims at providing awareness among academicians, industry agents, student and society in
terms of the benefits of university-industry cooperation to reach a knowledge and science based
economy. This module organizes meetings to introduce TTO model and to create a networking
environment. It also offers education and training services for the related parties including the TTO
staff in the fields of innovation, technology transfer and R&D.
Module 2: Services for Promoting Support and Funding Programs




Makes announcement of national and international project funds.
Matches support and funding programs with researchers and industry agents.
Provides support for writing and implementing national and international projects.
Works in cooperation with university and industry in terms of networking services.
Module 2 is basically working on promoting the sources of national and international funding support
programs. In addition to making announcements to academicians, industry agents and students;
Module 2 provides technical guides for the related parties to write and submit project proposals
through which the researchers can attain funding for their studies. Therefore; TTO supports
academic studies of university staff to turn their ideas into tangible outcomes that can be
commercialized in future.
Module 3: Project Development/Management Services (University-Industry Cooperation)




Analyses the needs of industry towards competitive knowledge and products.
Brings researchers and industry agents together on a common platform.
Coordinates contracted projects.
Facilitates the use of university infrastructure and opportunities.
Module 3 brings academicians and industry agents together to overcome industrial problems through
contracted projects. Thanks to this module university-industry cooperation are strengthened,
academic studies are commercialized, R&D culture is introduced to industry agents such as SMEs,
and seeds of knowledge based economy are planted.
Module 4: Management of Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Services
 Manages the IPR policies and implementation.
 Defines the patentability of research outcomes.
5
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
 Provides services in terms of the commercialization of patents.
Intellectual Property Rights are protected by law and regulations such as 551 numbered Patent
Decree Law, 556 Trademark Decree Law and 554 numbered Industrial Design Decree Law (Turkish
Patent Institute, n.d.). However; awareness towards these rights is insufficient. Especially the
research phase before the registration and application process is not effectively used. To overcome
these problems, Module 5 carries out awareness activities and organization. In addition to giving
information, the module provides technical assistance for filling forms and other requirements of
beneficiaries.
Module 5: Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Incorporation Services
 Encourages academicians and students to start up their own companies in order to bring new
technologies and products into economy.
 Popularizes entrepreneurship culture in and around university.
 Supports company formation process.
 Offers consultancy services to all entrepreneurs with R&D ideas containing marketing, legal
transactions and management procedures.
Module 5 promotes the best way to open up one‟s own company through different instruments such
as government incentive programs. Entrepreneurship among academicians and students is
supported with the services provided by this module. There are different ways of support
mechanisms for entrepreneurs such as angel investors, venture capital and incubators. However
these mechanisms are not common and well established in Turkey. Therefore; government
incentives that are offered as grants are the most preferred forms of start-ups. These government
agents such as KOSGEB Small and Medium Enterprises Development Organization (KOSGEB,
n.d.), TUBITAK (TUBITAK, n.d.), Technology Development Foundation of Turkey (TTGV, n.d.) and
Ministry of Science, Technology and Industry (Republic of Turkey Ministry, n.d.) have various
programs to offer grants. Promoting these grants and giving technical assistance to beneficiaries are
given by Module 5.
4.2. Structure of Technology Transfer Offices in the U.S.A. in Comparison With
Turkey
In the United States important advances in applications have emerged from university-industry
collaboration. After the Second World War, universities became not only the research base, but also
the sources of research funding. In the 1960‟s federal academic research funding actors such as
Defense Department authorized universities to patent and license their research results under the
terms of Institutional Patent Agreements (IPAs). IPAs were prepared and signed together with a
university and a federal funding agency. However the Bayh-Dole Act replaced the IPAs and the
performers of federally funded researches were given permission to file for patents and to get
licenses through universities. This Congressional support gave acceleration to university-industry
relations. According to the report of The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), the
number of TTOs in the universities increased from 25 in 1980 to 200 in 1990 (Mowery et al., 2001).
6
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
The effects of Bayh-Dole Act led US universities to make research, to get patent rights of their
research outcome and to license their patent in collaboration with industry. Therefore; in the U.S.A.
the name of Technology Transfer Offices are actually revised as Technology Licensing and Transfer
Offices. In Turkey, the funding of TTOs is provided by government; while in the U.S.A. the licensing
revenues of the universities provide the main source of funding for TTO services.
Upstill and Symington (2002) claim that mainly three modes of technology transfer are available.
Figure 1 shows these modes. The TTOs in the U.S.A. have achieved to successfully perform all three
modes, while TTOs of Turkish universities have accomplished mode 1 and working on developing
university-industry relations to achieve mode 2 and 3.





Mode 1
Non-Commercial Transfer
seminars/field workshops
informal contacts
publications
secondments
staff exchanges and training





Mode 2
Commercial Transfer
collaborative research
contract research
consulting
licensing and sale of IP
technical services
INDUSTRY
UNIVERSITY
Figure 1: Modes of Technology Transfer Between University and Industry
Mode 3
New Company Generation
 direct spin-offs
 indirect spin-offs
 technology transfer companies
The U.S. universities with TTOs aim at transferring research results to commercial application. They
collect invention and patent information from researchers and make market research to
commercialize these patents through licensing. When the matching is completed, university receives
the return from companies in accordance with their contribution. In comparison, Turkish universities
with TTOs first promote national and international research funding programs to researchers. Then
they monitor the outcomes of these researches to determine whether they can be evaluated in terms
of IPR or not. They lead researchers to apply for patent and/or IPR protection instruments. When the
researchers protect their intellectual rights, TTOs look for appropriate markets to license these
patents or to start a university-industry collaboration which ends up with a contracted project. If the
7
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
researcher asks for opening up his/her own company, then TTO leads them to entrepreneurship
instruments.
There are numerous reasons behind these two different TTO structures, but two of these results
come to the fore. One of them is the legal procedures and policies related with technology transfer. In
the US, Congressional support allowed universities to patent and license their research outcomes;
while Turkish Patent Institute established in 1994 and the Protection of Patent Rights became
effective in 1995 together with 551 numbered Patent Decree Law. The other one is the culture in
general terms. The research culture in US universities and Turkish universities are different from
each other. In Turkey most universities began their journeys as basic higher education institutions
seeking pure scientific studies. In time they evolved into research universities making projects and
creating value added outcomes. Today these universities are getting familiar with technology transfer
and commercialization of academic researches through TTOs. In the US, research universities began
to perform this culture long before Bayh-Dole Act. For example; University of California has required
its employees to report their patentable inventions to the University since 1926 (University of
California Technology Transfer, 1994).
TTO structure in Turkey is formed to start from creating awareness to reach the level of advanced
use of technology transfer modes. Even though the year gap between the technology transfer
application between Turkey and the U.S.A. is extensive; Turkey is determined to experience a steady
and fast development in technology transfer thanks to government support and universities bent
upon working in the field of technology transfer.
4.3. Structure of Technology Transfer Offices in Europe in Comparison With
Turkey
European Union is based on networking among national governments, corporations and other
agencies across borders. Therefore; partnership relations play an important role in order to carry out
innovative initiatives such as technology transfer. European Commission and European Parliament
look for possibilities to reinforce networks, and provide legislation to confirm emerging developments
(Leydesdorff, 2002). European Council also supported this approach with Lisbon Strategy to make
Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy through knowledge and innovation in 2000.
European Union supports innovative initiatives and technology transfer. European Commission
provides funds for scientific research programs such as Horizon 2020. During the New Industrial
Policy Communication on 10 October 2012 in Brussels, European Commission Vice President
Antonio Tajani said: “We cannot continue to let our industry leave Europe. Our figures are crystal
clear: European industry can deliver growth and can create employment. Today we tabled the
conditions for the sustainable industry of the future in Europe, to develop the investments needed in
new technologies and to rebuild a climate of confidence and entrepreneurship. By working together
and restoring confidence, we can bring back industry to Europe,” (European Commission Press
Release, 2012). The determination of Commission and its support mechanism provide opportunities
for European researchers to become a part of networks, clusters and research groups to create new
technologies in Europe.
European Union supports technology transfer, but technology transfer intermediaries such as TTOs
don‟t have a specific form of services. Each country and region has its own approach for technology
transfer. For instance; The University of Namur, Belgium, has a TTO and has well defined missions
such as managing intellectual property, university-companies interactions, innovation transfers and
8
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
spin-offs creation, legal analyses and advices, drafting research agreements (University of Namur
TTO, n.d.). Another example of TTO in Europe is University of Oxford, the UK. The University of
Oxford has a Limited Company named Isis Innovation established in 1988 (isis-innovation.com, n.d.).
Isis Innovation provides services under the titles of patents and licensing, creating spin-out
companies, Isis Angels Network, Oxford University consulting and Isis Enterprise. This technology
transfer company has its own methods for offering services. Since there are different forms of TTOs
and different methods used in the process, European Commission established European Technology
Transfer Offices Circle. European TTO Circle aims at bringing public research organization together
to shape the technology transfer landscape in Europe (European Technology Transfer, n.d.).
In Europe, the necessary policies and regulations are provided to perform technology transfer.
Especially comparisons with the U.S.A. and Japan play an important role to develop supporting
mechanisms in Europe to reach their goal of being world leader as a knowledge-based economy. In
comparison with Europe, regulations and legal aspects of complications are mostly handled as
practices bring out problems on the issue in Turkey. On the other hand, TTOs in Turkey are more
organized than their European counterparts in terms of their roles in university-industry relations.
Even though each one of them has their specific activities, the first 20 universities supported by
TUBITAK use the same concept in their services. This uniformity supports the idea of TTO. Both
industry agents and academicians know what TTO means and what it offers. However in Europe,
different countries use different models and provide different services.
European TTOs also emphasize the commercialization of scientific outcomes. European universities
are well known for their scientific studies and researches. However; they lag behind in terms of
turning these researches and their outcomes to innovations and competitive advantage which is
called as “European Paradox” (Dosi et al., 2006). When compared with Europe, Turkish universities
also share similar problems. Academicians carry out successful studies and researches which turn
into international papers. However; using IPR instruments and commercializing the outcomes of
these researches aren‟t common practices in Turkey as well. Therefore; both European TTOs and
Turkish TTOs need to increase their efforts to create value added outcomes of these researches of
scientists.
9
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
5. Summary and Conclusions
Global changes keep on affecting social and economic conditions. Developing knowledge based
economies and societies are today‟s most required qualities of countries. Some countries have
already achieved this requirement while the others are improving themselves. Technology Transfer
Offices are the interfaces working on supporting the infrastructure of knowledge based economies.
The U.S.A. first used the term of technology transfer in 1945. Europe realized the need for
technology transfer in late 1980‟s and 1990‟s. In Turkey, the importance of university-industry
relations was emphasized in 2000‟s. Despite the time differences, Turkey has catched the trend and
took necessary steps to improve itself in accordance with the changing conditions of the world.
Technology Transfer Offices, supported by TUBITAK under the program called 1513 Support
Program for Technology Transfer Offices play an important role in Turkish development agenda. In
conclusion; TTOs and similar private and/or public institutions working on technology transfer, R&D,
innovation and university-industry relations will be able to help Turkey to turn its powerful and solid
industry infrastructure into a technology and knowledge based system. TTOs in Turkey will also
reach the functionality level of their counterparts in the U.S.A. and Europe with the existing
environment, staff and public support.
References
ARINKOM TTO, n.d. Available from: <http://arinkom.anadolu.edu.tr>. [10 May 2014].
Bozeman, B 2000, “Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and
Theory”, Research Policy, vol. 29, no. 4-5, pp. 627-655.
Dosi, G, Llerena, P, & Labini, MS 2006, “The relationships between science, technologies and their
industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called „European
Paradox‟”, Research Policy, vol. 35, no. 10, pp.1450-1464.
European Commission, n.d. Available from:
< http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm>. [15 May 2014].
European Technology Transfer Offices Circle, n.d. Available from:
<https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/tto-circle>. [10 May 2014].
Friedman, J & Silberman, J 2003, “University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and
Location Matter?”, Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 17-30.
Geisler, E 1993, “Technology transfer: Toward mapping the field, a review, and research directions”,
Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 18, no. 3-4, pp. 88-93.
Industrial revolution brings industry back to Europe, 2012. Available from:
<http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1085_en.htm?locale=en>.
[8 May 2014].
Karasar, N, 1998, Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
10
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
Kevles, DJ, 1977, “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy,
1942-1945: A Political Interpretation of Science--The Endless Frontier”, Isis, vol. 68, no. 241,
pp. 4-26.
Kiper, M, 2010, Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliğinde Önemli Bir Araç: Teknoloji Transfer Arayüzleri, İşkur
Matbaacılık, Ankara.
KOSGEB, Republic of Turkey Small and Medium Enterprises Development Organization, n.d.
Available from:
< http://www.kosgeb.gov.tr/Pages/UI/Default.aspx>. [13 May 2014].
Leydesdorff, L, Cooke, P & Olazaran, M, 2002, “Technology Transfer in European Regions:
Introduction to the Special Issue”, Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 5-13.
Mowery, DC, Nelson, RR, Sampat, BN & Ziedonis AA, “2001, The growth of patenting and licensing
by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980”, Research
Policy, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 99-119.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology, n.d. Available from: <
http://www.sanayi.gov.tr/Default.aspx?lng=en>. [15 May 2014].
Sharma, M, Kumar, U & Lalande, L, 2006, “Role of university technology transfer offices in university
technology commercialization: Case study of the Carleton University Foundry Program”, Journal
of Services Research, vol. 6, special issue, pp. 109-139.
TUBITAK, The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, n.d. Available from: <
http://tubitak.gov.tr/en>. [15 May 2014].
TUBITAK,
1513
TTO
Support
Program,
n.d.
Available
from:
<http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/destekler/sanayi/ulusal-destek-programlari/icerik-1513-teknolojitransfer-ofisleri-destekleme-programi>. [5 May 2014].
Turkish Patent Institute, n.d. Available from:
< http://www.tpe.gov.tr/portal/default_en.jsp>. [10 May 2014].
TTGV, Technology Development Foundation of Turkey, n.d. Available from:
< http://www.ttgv.org.tr/en>. [15 May 2014].
University of California Technology Transfer 1994, Ad Hoc Technology Transfer Advisory Committee
Report. Available from:
< http://www.ucop.edu/ott/genresources/adhoc.html>. [12 May 2014].
University of Namur TTO, n.d. Available from:
< https://www.unamur.be/en/research/valorisation/ttoffice>. [12 May 2014].
Upstill, G & Symington, D 2002, “Technology transfer and the creation of companies: The CSIRO
experience”, R&D Management, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 233–239
11
Proceedings of 6th Annual American Business Research Conference
9 - 10 June 2014, Sheraton LaGuardia East Hotel, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-1-922069-52-8
Yıldız, B, Ilgaz, H & Seferoğlu, SS 2010, “Türkiye'de Bilim ve Teknoloji Politikaları: 1963‟den 2013‟e
Kalkınma Planlarına Genel Bir Bakış”. Paper presented at Akademik Bilişim 2010 Conference,
Muğla University, Muğla.
Zhao, E & Reisman, A 1992, “Toward meta research on technology transfer”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 13-21.
12