Academic literature on the topic 'Commercialization of University Research'

The Chinese government is propelling commercialization of university research as a strategy to boost industrial innovation and upgrade economic structure. Nanjing, the national third largest hub of science and technology (S&T) resources, was selected in 2009 as the only pilot city for comprehensive S&T institutional reform. Based on in-depth key informant interviews, site visits and documents collected from multi-sources, this study examines the framework conditions as well as specific mechanisms of university research commercialization in Nanjing. This research also strives to broaden and deepen the existent literature on university-industry liaison in China, which is detected as empirically narrow, theoretically thin and analytically shallow. Following an introduction (chapter 1) and a literature review (chapter 2), a China-specific model to analyze regional/local innovation is designed based on a critical review of the development trajectory of innovation theories (chapter 3). Employing this theoretical tool, the multi-layer policies, institutions and programs set up by multi-scalar governments to govern innovation and technology commercialization in Nanjing are depicted and interrogated (chapter 4). At a conceptual level, this multi-layer framework apparatus displays a pattern of “hierarchical amplification”, which the author argues has led to propensities of overcapacity, irrationality and “mission creep” in China’s efforts at boosting innovation. Empirically, four sets of university-affiliated research commercialization channels operating under the multi-layer framework in Nanjing are studied – 1) university technology transfer offices, 2) enterprise-college-institute cooperation platforms, 3) university science parks, and 4) university spin-off companies (chapter 5). This thesis concludes by summarizing the research and identifying impediments in the current university research commercialization regime (chapter 6).

With the increase of awareness and focus on university research commercialization, much research had been conducted to investigate this subject. It was revealed that because universities were not traditionally built to serve the purpose of commercialization, many obstacles existed in the path of university research commercialization. Historically, research had largely focused on identifying critical factors that impacted the performance of commercialization. However, it was not clear how those findings could be systematically incorporated into the commercialization improvement plan of individual cases. This research intended to fill this gap and provide a framework that could be used by most universities to access and improve their research commercialization process. A case study of a U.S. land-grant university was conducted and a narrative approach was mainly used as the method of data analysis. Under the scope of a single-case study, four sub-studies were conducted to address the goals of this research. First, a framework was developed that incorporated theories of existing research and the value stream map of lean management. Interviews with the intellectual property office and faculty were conducted to determine if the theoretical framework was applicable. It was found that the framework fitted well with the current process of university research commercialization. After that, a survey that covered a sample size of 1110 researchers at the targeted university was conducted to investigate the importance of different resources at different stages of the process. Resources that were under investigation were grouped into four categories: technical, human, social, and financial resources. This research identified the most important resources for research commercialization were industrial connections (social resource) and assistance from the intellectual property (IP) office (human resource), with industrial connections playing a more importance role at the beginning of the process and the IP office from the stage of patent application. To assess organizational characteristics of the targeted university, interviews were conducted with 22 faculty, three representatives from the administration, one representative from the intellectual property office, and one representative from an external organization. Six criteria derived from previous research were used to guide the assessment: (1) expenditures on research and development (RandD), (2) intellectual property policy, (3) research field, (4) key individuals, (5) commitment to innovation, and (6) networking with external relations. It was found that the targeted university had strong evidence of the advantages of expenditures on RandD and research field, however, it was relatively weak in the other four characteristics. The last part of the research involved interviews with two companies for the purpose of developing a best practice for research commercialization with the examples from the industry. Recommendations to improve targeted university's research commercialization were developed based on findings of the research.<br>Ph. D.

Background and Research Problem: Universities are complex and diversified institutions playing an active role in society. Besides education and research universities are now assigned a new role of commercialization of academic research. There is pressure on universities to act as a bridge for transfer of knowledge to industries and generate resources. As this role of commercialization is comparatively new for the universities so they face challenges and difficulties in managing commercialization along with education and research. In order to overcome these challenges some support structures has been introduced in the form of Technology Transfer Office (TTO) or Industry Liaison Office (ILO). As the role and support structures are new, so there is a need to develop such a managerial system which can better integrate the activities related to commercialization of academic research.   Research Purpose: This is a case study of Umeå University conducted to understand and evaluate the commercialization activities and functioning of support structures. The specific purpose is to investigate and suggest that, how universities having support structures but lacking success stories and track records, should manage its commercialization activities.   Method: Qualitative research methods are used and semi-structured interviews have been conducted from eight respondents. Umeå University has been used as a case study. Concluding Comments: On the basis of this study we would like to comment that, Umeå University is committed to perform its third role of contribution towards society and there is adequate infrastructure available in terms of support structures. But still as this role is new for the university and carrying on commercialization activities while insuring freedom of research is a challenging task. So, a detailed evaluation of existing support structures and reorganization of their existing activities is required. It may also require better understanding and communication of the concept of commercialization, generation of new ideas and a greater attention, both from the support structures and central management of the university.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, 2006.<br>"June 2006."<br>Includes bibliographical references.<br>This dissertation is composed of three essays. In the first essay, I build a model of the choice and timing of entry into commercial activities by an academic research team, and analyze the returns and costs of these activities. I compare the behavior and performance of the academic team to an industrial research team. The two teams are assumed to differ in their objectives, governance modes, and incentive systems. I show that, while in some cases academic scientists are more reluctant to commercialize research, in other cases they may commercialize faster than profit-seeking firms would - and perform less basic research. Academic and non-academic scientists also select different projects, and this may explain the good performance of 'academic entrepreneurs' found in several empirical studies. In the light of these results, I interpret the mixed evidence on the success of, and the arguments in favor and against, the involvement of universities into business-related research activities. In the second essay, I define a model of a firm's choice of whether to conduct research in-house or to outsource it to academic research teams.<br>(cont.) I exploit the fact that companies and universities have different missions, and model the different authority structures implied by different organizational choices in the conduct of research. Outsourcing a project to a university allows a firm to commit not to terminate or alter a scientifically valuable project before completion. This commitment is potentially valuable for the firm in an environment where scientific value and economic value may not coincide, and scientific workers are responsive to the incentives defined by their community of peers. I then formulate some empirical predictions about the kind of research activities firms will outsource to universities, and activities on which they will exert stronger control. I confront these hypotheses with empirical evidence from a sample of industry-university research agreements, as well as from other analyses and case studies, and find patterns consistent with my model. In the third essay, I analyze the restrictions on publication and control over the research agenda for universities and other 'open-science' research organizations, in a sample of biotechnology research contracts where the sponsor party is a for-profit company.<br>(cont.) I find that stronger publication restrictions appear to be more frequent in projects concerning earlier phase research and projects with longer duration. Research teams based in hospitals have significantly lower publication delays. Longer project duration is also strongly correlated with higher authority of the sponsoring firm over the direction of research. Teams in more prestigious research organizations tend to be subjected to lesser control by the sponsor company.<br>by Nicola Lacetera.<br>Ph.D.

Thesis (S.M.)--Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology; and, (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology and Policy Program, 2004.<br>Vita.<br>Includes bibliographical references (leaf 72).<br>This thesis is part of a larger body of research being undertaken by Dr. Fiona Murray and colleagues examining value creation and sharing between and among the three principal players in the commercialization of academic biomedical research: universities, biotech firms, and big pharma. The Recombinant Capital database provided access to contracts for biomedical technology licensed from academe to biotech, and also subsequent contracts that included that same technology from biotech to big pharma. These two contracts comprise a contract "pair". Importantly, these contract "pairs" were unredacted, that is., all parts of the contracts, including the commercial terms, were available. This thesis will lay the foundation for later work by examining the contracts between university and biotech, from the University's point of view. The goal is to identify factors that give the university more power in a pricing negotiation, and that predict higher economic value for the contract. The Specific Aim is to determine if certain University factors have a significant effect on predicting the economic value of the university-biotech licensing agreement. Four groups of readily quantifiable factors that contain attributes that might add power to the University in its pricing negotiation with the Biotech firm were identified: Institutional factors, Single Inventor factors, Aggregate factors, and Invention factors. The hypothesis is that at least one of these factors will have a significant effect on predicting the value of the licensing agreement, as determined using ordinary- and multiple-linear regression models. In formulistic terms, the null- and test-hypotheses are: (HO) no factor has a significant effect on predicting economic value, and (HI) at least one<br>(cont.) one factor has a significant effect on predicting economic value. A multiple regression model of the factors as explanatory variables for the economic value of the license revealed that two independent university factors significantly predict economic value of the contract. These combined factors account for 64% of the variance of the dependent variable (in excess of control), and have coefficients that are significant (p < 0.001). The results are discussed in the context of its importance to university technology transfer officers, biotech firms and venture capitalists.<br>by Richard George Wehby.<br>S.M.

Since the late 1990s the government of Malaysia has increased emphasis on its Intensification of Research in Priority Areas (IRPA) program, focusing scientific research in universities and government research institutes (GRIs) on activities most likely to enhance national economic performance. The IRPA’s main purpose is to fund commercially viable research for the benefit of business. However, its 2001 mid-term review showed its rates and volumes of commercialization and technology transfer (CTT) to be inadequate. This study aimed to explain the perceived low rate of adoption and commercialization of scientific knowledge in manufacturing in Malaysia by exploring the actions of companies, universities and GRIs. Two main models of technical change, the Technik and the STH ones, were used. Fieldwork was carried out in Malaysia. Purposive sampling led to selection of 60 interviewees: 23 managers and professionals from companies, 17 scientists, eight Technology Transfer Office officers, six senior research administrators, three venture capitalists, two journalists and a politician. The interviews were open-ended. It was seen that research findings were not always relevant to company interests, and companies often preferred their own or adopted, sometimes reverse-engineered, technology. Government CTT funds did not help much in with design, prototypes and pilot plants. Inadequate communication and lack of trust influenced the low uptake of research findings. The commercial relevance of much scientific research was questioned. More government support for company risk-taking appeared to be needed. Differences in attitude and poor understanding of policies and principles tended to contribute to low uptake. Managers, professional, scientists, Technology Transfer Officers, senior research administrators, venture capitalists needed more flexibility, knowledge and skills to respond to profit-driven research findings. A specifically Malaysian approach to CTT was advocated.