“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
Outline
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
Technology
(Primary)
Industry
Period Developed
University
Created
Electronic
University of
1940s Calculator
Pennsylvania
Computers
Fiber
1960s
Optics
MIT
Telecommunications
1970s
rDNA
1980s Supercomputing
Stanford,
California
Illinois
Biotechnology
Internet
Sequencing of DNA/
Human Genome
Cal Tech,
1990s
Project
Johns Hopkins Pharmacogenomics
2000s Nanotechnology
UAlbany
?????
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
Innovation
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
Value?
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
Policies
 Universities Increasingly Focusing on the Entrepreneurial
Dimension (Evidence Mixed on Success of University Based
Startups)
 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
Creation
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
Compensation)
 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
Community
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
Personnel
 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)