Presentation - Rochester Institute of Technology

“Research on Academic Entrepreneurship in the U.S. and
Europe: Lessons Learned and a Research Agenda”
Professor Donald Siegel
Dean-School of Business
University at Albany, SUNY
President, Technology Transfer Society
Editor-Journal of Technology Transfer
Co-Editor-Academy of Management Perspectives
NSF Engineering Globalization Workshop
May 17, 2012
Shameless Self-Promotion: Plugs For Technology
Transfer Society/Journal of Technology Transfer
Summary of Key Research Quantitative and
Qualitative Results
 Lessons Learned
 Agenda for Additional Research
Universities, “GPTs”, and The Creation of New Industries
Period Developed
University of
1940s Calculator
1980s Supercomputing
Sequencing of DNA/
Human Genome
Cal Tech,
Johns Hopkins Pharmacogenomics
2000s Nanotechnology
William Baumol-The Free Market Innovation MachineAnalyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism
 Routine/Systematic Innovation-Large Firms
 Entrepreneurial Innovation-Small Firms
 “David and Goliath Symbiosis”-Joint Efforts of
Individual Entrepreneur and Large Industrial
Firm  Unprecedented Wealth Creation
 Siegel (2006)-Universities Increasingly Developing
and Nurturing Startups; Also Linking Small and
Large Firms Who Engage in Entrepreneurial
Research on Institutions and Agents Involved in
Academic Entrepreneurship
Agents and Institutions
 University Scientists
 Industry Scientists
 Entrepreneurs
 Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers
 University Technology Transfer Offices
 Science Parks
 Incubators/Accelerators
 Firms That Interact With Universities
 Venture Capital Firms
Selected Research Questions
 How Does the Process of University Technology
Commercialization/Academic Entrepreneurship Work?
 Which Universities “Perform” Best?
 What is the Role of the TTO?
 How Should We Measure Performance?
 Which Factors “Explain” Variation in Relative
Performance? (e.g., Incentives, Organizational, and
Environmental Factors)
 Do Incubators/Accelerators and Science Parks Add
Interdisciplinary Research on Institutions and Agents
Involved in Academic Entrepreneurship
Indicators of Output/Performance
 Invention Disclosures
 Patents
 Number of Licensing Agreements
 Licensing Revenue
 Research Productivity of Industry Scientists/Firms
 Research Productivity of University Scientists
 “Productivity” of Universities in Technology Transfer
 Start-Up Formation
 Survival
 Employment Growth
 Changes in Stock Prices
Key Results for University and Regional Policymakers
 Bayh-Dole Appears to Have Been “Effective”
 TTO Staff Add Significant Value Because Scientists Are
Not Disclosing Inventions
 Important for TTOs to Help Academics Study University
Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer
 Private Universities and Those With Medical Schools
Appear to Be Somewhat More Productive
 Universities Are Becoming More “Strategic” in Technology
Transfer (More on that later) –More Heterogeneity and
Application of Management Theories to Practice
Key Results for University and Regional Policymakers (cont.)
 Property-based Institutions (Incubators and Science
Parks) Appear to Enhance Commercialization
 Incentives Matter (e.g., Royalty Distribution Formulas),
But So Do Organizational Practices and Institutional
 Universities Increasingly Focusing on the Entrepreneurial
Dimension (Evidence Mixed on Success of University Based
 Academic Entrepreneurs Are Not Less Productive in Their
Academic Research After Commercialization
 Foreign-Born Scientists Are More Like to Become
Academic Entrepreneurs
 Social Networks of Star Scientists Key for New Firm
Key Stylized Facts From Qualitative Research
Major Impediments to University Technology Transfer:
 Informational and Cultural Barriers Between
Universities and Firms (Especially for Small Firms)
 Insufficient Rewards for Faculty Involvement in
Technology Transfer at Some Institutions, Especially
w.r.t. Entrepreneurial Activity
 Technology Transfer Office Staffing and Compensation
Practices (High Rate of Turnover, Insufficient Business/
Marketing Experience, Possible Need for Incentive
 Education/Training is Needed for Faculty Members, PostDocs, and Graduate Students in the Specifics of the
Entrepreneurial Process, the Role of Entrepreneurs, and
How to Interact with the Business/Entrepreneurial
Strategic Implications of University Technology Transfer
/Academic Entrepreneurship-Formulation Issues
 Setting Institutional Goals/Priorities
 Resources Devoted to University Technology Transfer
Choices Regarding Technological Emphasis
 Strategic Choices Regarding Modes of University
Technology Transfer:
 Licensing
 Startups
 Sponsored Research
 Other Technology Transfer Mechanisms That are
Focused More Directly on Stimulating Economic
Development (e.g., Incubators and Science Parks)
Strategic Implications of University Technology Transfer
/Academic Entrepreneurship-Implementation Issues
 Improving Information Flows
 Organizational Design/Structure
 HRM Practices-Staffing/Compensation of TTO
 Reward Systems for Faculty Involvement in University
Technology Transfer (perhaps including P&T- e.g., 6/06-Texas A&M)
 Implementation Issues Regarding Modes of University
Technology Transfer
Different Ways of Structuring Licensing Agreements
Academic vs. Surrogate Entrepreneurs
 Different Ways to Manage University-Based
Incubators and Science Parks
Personal Reflections Based on
Studies of Academic Entrepreneurship
 We Need More Detailed Exploration of the Nature of the
Connection Between Entrepreneurial Firms and the
University, Including the Role of Property-Based Institutions
(i.e., Incubators/Accelerators & Science/Technology Parks
 What is The Relationship Between Academic
Entrepreneurship and Federal/National Labs (The “Last
Frontier” of Technology Transfer)
 We Need More Detailed Analysis of Technology Transfer
Strategy Implementation
Personal Reflections Based on
Studies of Academic Entrepreneurship (cont.)
 Strong Need to Enhance Incentives for Faculty Members to
Be Engaged in Entrepreneurial Activity (and Perhaps For
Successful Ones to Serve As Mentors)
 Important to Increase Participation/Success of Women &
Minorities in Academic Entrepreneurship (as we found in
the NRC Evaluation of SBIR)
 Entrepreneurship Research, Education, and CommunityBased Initiatives Are Key Complements
 Entrepreneurship As An Academic Field
Entrepreneurship (2007) vs. Strategy (1989)
Returns to Studying This Topic Are High (e.g., NSFIGERT, Kauffman, development)