Skip to main content
Log in

Opportunity recognition in technology transfer organizations

Five case studies from UK and Italy

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The task of recognizing valuable technological opportunities is crucial for the organizations in charge of transferring technology from universities and publicly funded research institutes to the market. Difficulties in understanding the true commercial potential of an application result in failed subsequent commercialization and excess costs of technology transfer. This paper describes how the task of opportunity recognition is performed in five Technology Transfer Organizations (TTOs). The analyzed TTOs had different degree of independence to the structure of the parent and make use of information and competencies acquired through their formal and informal network ties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. But all IPRs of innovations produced as part of the normal employment agreements so far remained to the professors.

  2. This law was revised in 2004. In the new arrangement, the professor’s privilege is confirmed, but the inventors of patents have a formal duty of informing their institutions. Additionally, the latter have a march-in right in case one of those patents is left unexploited.

References

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D. M., & Shane, S. (1997). A prisoner’s dilemma approach to entrepreneur–venture capitalist relationship. Academy of Management Review, 22, 142–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American Research Universities. Management Science, 48, 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in University spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The tale of university licensing. American Economic Review, 91, 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S., & Scott, J. T. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29, 437–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G. C., & Lott, J. (1995). Have UK venture capitalists a bias against investment in new technology-based firms? Research Policy, 24, 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (1991). High stakes for high-tech entrepreneurs: Understanding venture capital decision making. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 9–20 (Winter).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N., & Nelson, R. R. (1999). The emergence and standardization of University Technology transfer offices: A case study of institutional change, Prepared for 1999 Conference of the International Society for the New Institutional Economics (ISNIE), pp. 16–18, World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, September.

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Management Science, 11(4), 448–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of University start-ups. Management Science, 48, 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in University licensing. Management Science, 48, 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNICO (2003). UK University commercialization survey: Financial year 2002. Belfast: Association for University Research and Industry Links (AURIL).

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Franzoni.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 1 Case studies: description
Table 2 Case studies: summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Franzoni, C. Opportunity recognition in technology transfer organizations. Int Entrep Manag J 3, 51–67 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-0014-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-0014-z

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation