“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 InterTradeIreland All-Island Innovation Conference NUI Galway June 12, 2012
38
Embed
2012.06.12 Research on Academic Entrepreneurship: Lessons Learnt. Part 1
Professor Donald Siegel, University at Albany, State University of New York, presented the keynote address "Research on Academic Entrepreneurship - Lessons Learnt" at the IntertradeIreland All-Island Innovation Programme annual conference 2012, Exploiting Industry and University Research, Development and Innovation: Why it Matters held at National University of Ireland, Galway, 12 - 13 June 2012. Part 1
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
“Research on Academic Entrepreneurship in the U.S. and
of Innovations/R&D is a Key Source of Economic Growth
(Especially Basic Research)/Technology Transfer/Role of
Universities
Technology (Primary) Industry Period Developed University Created Electronic University of 1940s Calculator Pennsylvania Computers Fiber 1960s Optics MIT Telecommunications Stanford, 1970s rDNA California Biotechnology 1980s Supercomputing Illinois Internet Sequencing of DNA/ Human Genome Cal Tech, 1990s Project Johns Hopkins Pharmacogenomics 2000s Nanotechnology UAlbany ?????
Universities, “GPTs”, and The Creation of New Industries
Background Information on
University Technology Commercialization
U.S.-1960’s, 1970’s Decline in Competitiveness
(“Japanese Challenge,” Productivity Slowdown)
Dramatic Changes in U.S. National Innovation Policy
truncations at zero of the N( mi,2u ) distribution
with:
mi = zi
where z is a vector of environmental/
institutional/ organizational factors
Multiple Outputs: Distance Function approach
(can be estimated with Parametric
or Nonparametric Methods)
Multiple Output Distance Function
STARTUP
LICENSE
B
A
LICENSEA
STARTUPA
P( x)
Do(x,y) = min{: (y/ P(x)}
=0A/0B
0
Stochastic Frontier Production Function Model
Stochastic Production Function (Paper-CD, Also TL)
ln(LICENSEi) and ln(STARTUP)
=0+1 ln(RESEARCHi)+2 ln(STAFFi)
+3 ln(LEGALi) + γ11 ln(RESEARCHi)2
+ γ22 ln(STAFFi)2 + γ33 Lln(LEGALi)
2
+ γ12 ln(RESEARCHi)ln(STAFFi)
+ γ23 ln(STAFFi)ln(LEGALi)
+ γ31 ln(LEGALi)ln(RESEARCHi) + Vi - Ui
Determinants of Inefficiency
Ui = 0 + M MEDSCHi + INC INCUBij+ SCI SCIij + AAGE i
+ INDPERCINDi + i
Selected Empirical Studies of
University Technology Licensing
Author(s) Methodology Results
Siegel et al.
(2003)
Productivity of
Licensing-SFA
Organizational and
Environmental Factors Have
Considerable Explanatory Power
Thursby and
Kemp (2002)
Productivity of
Licensing-DEA
Private Universities More Efficient
Thursby and
Thursby (2002)
Productivity of
Licensing-DEA
Growth in Licensing/Patenting
Due to an Increase in the
Willingness of Professors to Patent
and License and Firm Outsourcing
of R&D
Siegel et al.
(2005)
Productivity of
Licensing-SFA
Higher Royalty Shares For Faculty
Associated With Greater Licensing
Income; Land Grant Universities
Are More Efficient
Selected Empirical Studies of
University Technology Licensing
Author(s) Methodology Results
Siegel et al.,
(2003)
Quantitative
Analysis of
Qualitative
Data
Three Key Impediments:
Informational and Cultural
Barriers Between Universities and
Firms (Especially for Small Firms)
Insufficient Rewards for Faculty
Involvement in UITT
TTO Staffing and Compensation
Practices (e.g., High Rate of
Turnover, Insufficient Business/
Marketing Experience)
Siegel et al.
(2006)
Productivity
of Licensing
and Startups
–Distance
Function
U.S, Universities More Productive
Than U.K. Universities;
Universities With Medical Schools
and Incubators More Efficient
Selected Studies of University Science Parks
Author(s) Unit of Analysis Results
Siegel,
Westhead, and
Wright (2003)
Firms Located
on Science
Parks (U.K.)
Firms Located on University Science
Parks Have Higher Research
Productivity Than Comparable
Firms
Westhead and
Storey (1995)
Firms Located
on Science
Parks (U.K.)
Science Park Firms With a Link to
the University Have a Higher
Survival Rate Than Science Park
Firms Without Such a Link
Link and Scott
(2003)
Science Parks
(U.S.)-Based on
Self-Reported
Qualitative
Data
Proximity to a University and
Availability of Venture Capital
Enhance Growth; Science Parks
Enable Universities to Generate
More Publications and Patents,
More Easily Place Graduates, and
Hire Preeminent Scholars
Selected Empirical Studies of University-Based Start-ups and Entrepreneurial Activity at Universities
Author(s) Unit of Analysis Results
Louis,
Blumenthal,
Gluck, and Stoto
(1989)
Faculty
Members in the
Life Sciences
Key Determinant of Faculty-
Based Entrepreneurship: Local
Group Norms; University
Policies and Structures Have
Little Effect
DiGregorio and
Shane (2003)
University-
Based Startups
Two Key Determinants of Start-
up Formation: Faculty Quality
and Equity-Friendly University
Policies
Markman, Phan,
Balkin, and
Gianiodis (2005)
TTOs and
University
Startups
The Most Attractive Licensing
Strategies For Entrepreneurship
Are Least Likely to Favored by
the University (Due to Risk
Aversion and Short-Run Revenue
Maximization)
Selected Empirical Studies of University-Based Start-ups (cont.)
Author(s) Unit of Analysis Results
Zucker, Darby,
and Brewer
(1998)
Relationships
Involving “Star”
Scientists and
U.S. Biotech
Firms
Location of Star Scientists
Predicts Firm Entry in
Biotechnology
Markman, Phan,
Balkin, and
Gianiodis (2004a)
TTOs and
University-Based
Startups
Equity Licensing and Startup
Formation Are Positively
Correlated With TTO Wages;
Siegel et al. (2003) TTOs and Firms TTOs Serve the Needs of Large
Firms More Effectively Than
Those of Small, Entrepreneurial
Companies
Key Quantitative Results
Production Function Models Provide a Good Fit
Results Are Fairly Robust to Single or Multiple Outputs
Staff in the Technology Transfer Office Add Significant Value to the Commercialization Process
No Strong Consensus on Returns to Scale
Bayh-Dole Type Legislation Appears to Have Been “Effective”
Private Universities and Those With Medical Schools
Appear to Be Somewhat More Productive
Key Quantitative Results (cont.)
Property-based Institutions (Incubators and Science
Parks) Appear to Enhance Technology
Commercialization
Incentives Matter (e.g., Royalty Distribution Formula),
But So Do Organizational Practices and Other
Institutional Policies
Universities Are Becoming More “Strategic” in
Technology Transfer (More On That Later) –More
Heterogeneity and Application of Management Theories
to Practice
Key Quantitative Results (cont.)
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 Likely 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, Post-Docs, and Graduate Students in the Specifics of the Entrepreneurial Process, the Role of Entrepreneurs, and How to Interact with the Business/Entrepreneurial Community
Key Stylized Facts From Qualitative Research (cont.)
A Failure to Address These Barriers Will
Induce More Faculty Members and Firms to
Circumvent the TTO and Engage in
“Informal” UITT
University Technology
Transfer/Commercialization/Entrepreneurship
Should be Considered From a Strategic Perspective
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
Unanswered Research Questions (Mainly in the Domains of Management and Economics)
Which Organizational Practices Enhance Performance?
What is the Role of Department/Organizational Culture?
What is the Role of Organizational Structure?
What is the Role of Leadership (“Entrepreneurial Leadership”)?
“Nature vs. Nurture” (e.g., Role of Genetics vs. Environment)
What are the Tradeoffs Associated With Involvement in Academic Entrepreneurship (e.g., Educational, Basic Research)?
Unanswered Research Questions (Mainly in the Domains of Management and Economics)-cont.
Additional Benchmarking Issues (e.g., International Comparisons)
Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Initiatives and Programs
National Level-(e.g., SBIR)
State Level-(e.g., Ben Franklin Technology Partners)
What is the Relationship Between Technology Commercialization and Ethics/Corporate Social Responsibility?
Better Measures of the Private and Social Returns to University Technology Commercialization/ Entrepreneurship (e.g., need better data-most data at the institutional level)
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 Community-Based Initiatives Are Key Complements
Entrepreneurship As An Academic Field
Entrepreneurship (2007) vs. Strategy (1989)
Returns to Studying This Topic Are High (e.g., NSF-IGERT, Kauffman, development)