Optimizing outcome in the university-industry technology transfer projects

• Autorzy: Alavi H. , Hąbek P.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12914/MSPE-04-02-2016

Warianty tytułu

PL

Optymalizacja wyników w projektach transferu technologii z uczelni do przemysłu

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Transferring inventions of academic scientists to private enterprises for the purpose of commercialization is long known as University-Industry (firm) Technology Transfer While the importance of this phenomenon is simultaneously raising in public and private sector, only a part of patented academic inventions succeed in passing the process of commercialization. Despite the fact that formal Technology Transfer process and licencing of patented innovations to third party is the main legal tool for safeguarding rights of academic inventors in commercialization of their inventions, it is not sufficient for transmitting tacit knowledge which is necessary in exploitation of transferred technology. Existence of reciprocal and complementary relations between formal and informal technology transfer process has resulted in formation of different models for university-industry organizational collaboration or even integration where licensee firms keep contact with academic inventors after gaining legal right for commercialization of their patented invention. Current paper argues that despite necessity for patents to legally pass the right of commercialization of an invention, they are not sufficient for complete knowledge transmission in the process of technology transfer. Lack of efficiency of formal mechanism to end the Technology Transfer loop makes an opportunity to create innovative interpersonal and organizational connections among patentee and licensee company. With emphasize on need for further elaboration of informal mechanisms as critical and underappreciated aspect of technology transfer process, article will try to answer the questions of how to optimize knowledge transmission process in the framework of University-Industry Technology Transfer Projects? What is the theoretical basis for university-industry technology transfer process? What are organization collaborative models which can enhance overall performance by improving transmission of knowledge in University- Firm Technology Transfer process?

PL

Przenoszenie wyników badań naukowych do przedsiębiorstw prywatnych w celu komercjalizacji określane jest jako transfer technologii z uczelni do biznesu. Podczas gdy znaczenie tego zjawiska rośnie zarówno w sektorze publicznym, jak i prywatnym, tylko części opatentowanych innowacji akademickich udaje się przechodzić proces komercjalizacji. Pomimo faktu, że formalny proces transferu technologii i licencjonowania opatentowanych innowacji jest głównym narzędziem prawnym zabezpieczającym prawa twórców wynalazków w komercjalizacji swoich projektów, nie jest on wystarczający do przekazania wiedzy ukrytej, której posiadanie jest niezbędne w trakcie eksploatacji przenoszonej technologii. Istnienie wzajemnych i uzupełniających się relacji między formalnym i nieformalnym procesem transferu technologii spowodowało powstanie różnych modeli współpracy uczelni z przemysłem, a nawet integracji, gdzie przedsiębiorstwa licencjobiorców utrzymują kontakt z twórcami wynalazców akademickich po uzyskaniu prawa do komercjalizacji opatentowanego wynalazku. Autorzy niniejszego artykułu twierdzą, że mimo konieczności przejścia przez proces legalnego przekazania prawa do komercjalizacji wynalazków, nie jest on wystarczający do pełnego przekazania wiedzy w procesie transferu technologii. Brak wydajności w funkcjonowaniu formalnego mechanizmu zamykającego proces transferu technologii rodzi możliwość tworzenia innowacyjnych relacji interpersonalnych i organizacyjnych pomiędzy posiadaczem patentu a firmą licencjobiorcy. Podkreślając potrzebę dalszego opracowywania nieformalnych mechanizmów jako krytycznych i niedocenianych aspektów procesu transferu technologii, w artykule autorzy starają się odpowiedzieć na następujące pytania: W jaki sposób zoptymalizować proces przekazywania wiedzy w ramach projektów transferu technologii z uczelni do przemysłu? Jakie są teoretyczne podstawy relacji w procesie transferu technologii z uczelni do przemysłu? Jakie istnieją modele współpracy, które mogą prowadzić do poprawy całkowitych wyników poprzez usprawnienie przekazywania wiedzy w procesie transferu technologii z uczelni do biznesu?

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Technology Transfer; Patent; Tacit Knowledge; University-Firm Organizational Relations

PL

transfer technologii; patent; wiedza ukryta; powiązania organizacyjne uczelnia-firma

• Wydawca: STE GROUP
• Czasopismo: Management Systems in Production Engineering
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: nr 2 (22)
• Strony: 94--100
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 61 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Alavi H.

• Tallinn University of Technology Akademia Tee 3, Tallinn 12618, ESTONIA

autor

Hąbek P.

• Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Management and Organization, Institute of Production Engineering ul. Roosevelta 26, 41-800 Zabrze, POLAND

Bibliografia

• [1] Agrawal. „University-to-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Literature Review and Unanswered Questions”, in International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 3 (4), December 2001, pp. 285-302.
• [2] Agrawal. „Engaging the Inventor: Exploring Licensing Strategies for University Inventions and the Role of Latent Knowledge”, in Strategic Management Journal, vol. 27(1), January 2006, pp. 63-79.
• [3] N.S. Argyres and J.P. Liebeskind. „Privatizing the Intellectual Commons: Universities and the Commercialization of Biotechnology”, in Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 35(4), May 1998, pp. 427- 454.
• [4] Arora. „Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights and the Market for Know-How”, in Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 4(1), 1995, pp. 41-60.
• [5] R.L. Beck. „Competition for Patent Monopolies”, in Research in Law and Economics, vol. 3, 1981, pp. 91- 100.
• [6] J. Bessen. „Patents and the Diffusion of Technical Information”, in Economics Letters, vol. 86(1), January 2005, pp. 121-128.
• [7] D. Blumenthal. „Academic-Industrial Relationships in the Life Sciences”, in New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 349(25), December 2003, pp. 2452-2459.
• [8] D. Blumenthal et al., „Participation of Life-Science Faculty in Research Relationships with Industry”, in New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 335(23), December 1996, pp. 1734-1738.
• [9] Bozeman. „Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory”, in Research Policy, vol. 29(4-5), April 2000, pp. 627-655.
• [10] D.L. Burk and B.H. McDonnell. „The Goldilocks Hypothesis: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights at the Boundary of the Firm”, in University of Illinois Law Review, vol. 2007(2), 2007, pp. 575-636.
• [11] Burstein and D. Bok. Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education, Princeton University Press, 2003.
• [12] CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUP Int'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
• [13] W.M. Cohen and D.A. Levinthal. „Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation”, in Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35(1), March 1990, pp. 128-152.
• [14] H.M. Collins. „The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks”, in Science Studies, vol. 4(2), April 1974, pp. 165-185.
• [15] Ch.A. Cotropia. „The Folly of Early Filing in Patent Law”, in Hastings Law Journal, vol. 61(1), November 2009, pp. 72-82.
• [16] R. Cowan and D. Foray. „The Economics of Codification and the Diffusion of Knowledge”, in Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 6(3), February 1997, pp. 595- 622.
• [17] Di Gregorio and S. Scott. „Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-Ups Than Others?” in Research Policy, vol. 32(2), February 2003, pp. 209-227.
• [18] R.S. Eisenberg. „Academic Freedom and Academic Values in Sponsored Research”, in Texas Law Review, vol. 66, March 1988, pp. 1363-1404.
• [19] R.S. Eisenberg. „Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use”, in University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 56, 1989, pp. 1017-1086.
• [20] M. Feldman et al., „Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities”, in Management Science, vol. 48(1), January 2002, pp. 105-121.
• [21] B.M. Frischmann. „Commercializing University Research Systems in Economic Perspective: A View from the Demand Side”, in University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Process, Design, and Intellectual Property, G.D. Libecap, Stamford (CT): JAI Press, pp. 155-186.
• [22] J.C. Fromer. „Patent Disclosure”, in Iowa Law Review, vol. 94(2), February 2009, pp. 539-606.
• [23] R.J. Gilson et al., „Contracting for Innovation: Vertical Disintegration and Interfirm Collaboration”, in Columbia Law Review, vol. 109(3), April 2009, pp. 431-502.
• [24] Gorga and M. Halberstam. „Knowledge Inputs, Legal Institutions, and Firm Structure: Towards a Knowledge Based Theory of the Firm”, in Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 101(3), April 2007, pp. 1123-1144.
• [25] Hippel. „Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation”, in Management Science, vol. 40(4), April 1994, pp. 429-439.
• [26] T.R. Holbrook. „Possession in Patent Law”, in Southern Methodist University Law Review, vol. 59(1), January 2006, pp. 126-131.
• [27] J. Howells. „Tacit Knowledge. Innovation and Technology Transfer”, in Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 8(2), June 1996, pp. 91-106.
• [28] H. Irwin and E. More. „Technology Transfer and Communication: Lessons from Silicon Valley, Route 128, Carolina's Research Triangle and Hi-Tech Texas”, in Journal of Information Science, vol. 17(5), October 1991, pp. 273-280.
• [29] C. Jansen and H.F. Dillon. „Where Do the Leads for Licenses Come From? Source Data from Six Institutions”, in Industry and Higher Education, vol. 14(3), June 2000, pp. 150-156.
• [30] R. Jensen and M. Thursby. „Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions”, in American Economic Review, vol. 91(1), March 2001, pp. 240- 259.
• [31] M. Kenney. Biotechnology: The University Industrial Complex, New Haven(CT): Yale University Press, 1986.
• [32] E.W. Kitch. „The Nature and Function of the Patent System”, in Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 20(2), October 1977, pp. 265-290.
• [33] B. Kogut and U. Zander. „Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology”, in Organization Science, vol. 3(3), August 1992, 383-397.
• [34] Krattiger et al. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, MIHR and PIPRA, 2007.
• [35] L.R. de Larena. „The Price of Progress: Are Universities Adding to the Cost?”, in Houston Law Review, vol. 44, July 2006, pp. 1373-1375.
• [36] P. Lee. „Contracting to Preserve Open Science: Consideration-Based Regulation in Patent Law”, in Emory Law Journal, vol. 58(4), October 2009, pp. 889-976.
• [37] P. Lee. „Transcending the tacit dimension: Patents, relationships, and organizational integration in technology transfer”, in California Law Review, vol. 100(6), December 2012, pp. 1503-1572.
• [38] R.L. Lieberwitz. „The Marketing of Higher Education: The Price of the University's Soul”, in Cornell Law Review, vol. 89, March 2004, pp. 763-800.
• [39] K. Lim. „The Many Faces of Absorptive Capacity: Spillovers of Copper Interconnect Technology for Semiconductor Chips”, in Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 18(6), December 2009, pp. 1249-1284.
• [40] Lockett et al., „Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies”, in Small Business Economics, vol. 20(2), March 2003, pp. 185-200.
• [41] G.D. Markman et al., „Entrepreneurship and University-Based Technology Transfer”, in Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 20(2), March 2005, pp. 241-263.
• [42] Marshall. Principles of Economics, 8th ed., London: Macmillan and Co., 1920.
• [43] R.P. Merges. „Of Property Rules, Coase, and Intellectual Property”, in Columbia Law Review, vol. 94(8), December 1994, pp. 2655-2673.
• [44] D.C. Moweryt et al., Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act, Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press, 2004.
• [45] Murray. „Innovation as Co-evolution of Scientific and Technological Networks: Exploring Tissue Engineering”, in Research Policy, vol. 39(8-9), December 2002, 1389-1403.
• [46] J.E. Oxley. „Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: A transaction cost approach”, in Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, vol. 13 (2), 1997, pp. 387-409.
• [47] W.W. Powell. „Inter-organizational Collaboration in the Biotechnology Industry”, in Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 152(1), March 1996, pp. 197-215.
• [48] J.B. Powers and P.P. McDougall. „University Start-Up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms That Go Public: A Resource-Based View of Academic Entrepreneurship”, in Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 20 (3), May 2005, pp. 291-311.
• [49] E. Press and J. Washburn. „The Kept University”, in Atlantic Monthly, vol. 285(3), March 2000, pp. 39-54.
• [50] S.B. Seymore. „The Teaching Function of Patents”, in Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 85(2), 2010, pp. 621- 669.
• [51] T. Sichelman. „Commercializing Patents”, in Stanford Law Review, vol. 62(2), January 2010, pp. 341-413.
• [52] D.S. Siegel et al., „Toward a Model of the Effective Transfer of Scientific Knowledge from Academicians to Practitioners: Qualitative Evidence from the Commercialization of University Technologies”, in Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, vol. 21(1- 2), March-June 2004, pp. 115-142.
• [53] H.T. Stelfox et al., „Conflict of Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists”, in New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 338(2), January 1998, pp. 101 -106.
• [54] P.M. Swamidass and V. Vulasa. „Why University Inventions Rarely Produce Income? Bottlenecks in University Technology Transfer”, in The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 34(4), August 2009, pp. 343-363.
• [55] L.G. Zucker and M.R. Darby. „Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation: Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry”, Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 93(23), November 1996, pp. 12709-12716.
• [56] L.G. Zucker et al., „Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises”, in The American Economic Review, vol. 88(1), March 1998, pp. 290- 306.
• [57] L.G. Zucker et al., „Commercializing Knowledge: University Science, Knowledge Capture, and Finn Performance in Biotechnology”, in Management Science, vol. 48(1), January 2002, pp. 138-153.
• [58] D.J. Teece. „Technology Transfer by Multinational Firms: The Resource Cost of Transferring Technological Know-How”, in The Economic Journal, vol. 87(346), June 1977, pp. 242-261.
• [59] J.G. Thursby and M.C. Thursby. „Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University-Industry Licensing”, in Contemporary Economic Policy, vol. 22(2), April 2004, pp. 162-178.
• [60] D.J. Triggle. „Patenting the Sun: Enclosing the Scientific Commons and Transforming the University – Ethical Concerns”, in Drug Development Research, vol. 63 (3), November 2004, pp. 139-149.
• [61] J. Washburn. „Big Oil Buys Berkeley: The BP-UC Berkeley Research Deal Pushes Academic Integrity Aside for Profit”, in Los Angeles Times, 24 March 2007.

Uwagi

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.