Technopolis Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Knowledge Transfer from Public Research Organisations Science and Technology Options Assessment STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment This project has been carried out by Technopolis Group. AUTHORS Erik Arnold Paula Knee Neil Brown Zsuzsa Jávorka Flora Giarracca Sabeen Sidiqui RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATORS Miklós Györffi and Theodoros Karapiperis Science and Technology Options Assessment Directorate G: Impact Assessment and European Added Value DG Internal Policies European Parliament Rue Wiertz 60 - RMD 00J008 B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact STOA or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in September 2012 Brussels, © European Union, 2012 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/default_en.htm DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Knowledge Transfer from Public Research Organisations Final Report IP/A/STOA/FWC/2008-096/LOT8/C1/SC9 November 2012 PE 488.798 Abstract This study describes knowledge transfer from European universities and institutes to industry, focusing on the role of the Industrial Liaison / Technology / Knowledge Transfer Office function. It explores practices in European institutions and compares these with international ones, especially from the USA. The project is based upon a comprehensive literature review and a programme of detailed case studies of knowledge transfer strategies and practices. It addresses the wide range of knowledge transfer activities undertaken by public research organisations, in addition to IP exploitation and their different effects on innovation in the business sector. It presents a model of the transition of PROs' knowledge transfer strategies from pure technology transfer based only on IP to a broader role in knowledge transfer and ultimately to a two-way process of knowledge exchange between PROs and indust ry and wider society. The report presents a number of policy options to support this process. PE 488.798 Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations Table of Contents Summary 1 Report Highlights – Key Findings 5 1. Introduction 9 2. Methodology 11 3. How Innovation Occurs 12 3.1 Models of Innovation 12 3.2 Firms use of external knowledge 14 3.3 Relationships and networks 15 3.4 Patterns of innovation in different sectors 16 3.5 Summary 19 4. The Role of PROs in Innovation 20 4.1 Knowledge transfer mechanisms 20 4.2 Relative importance of different knowledge transfer mechanisms 23 4.3 Is there any conflict between KT mechanisms? 26 4.4 The effects of knowledge transfer 28 4.5 Summary 30 5. The Role of Knowledge Transfer Offices 33 5.1 Economic theory underpinning the KTO function 34 5.2 The emergence and expansion of academic KTOs 37 5.3 PRO knowledge transfer strategies 41 5.4 Remit and role of KTOs 44 5.5 Organisational structures and governance 49 5.6 Resources 55 5.7 Costs and benefits of operating KTOs 55 5.8 Assessing performance: knowledge transfer metrics 60 5.9 Good practice 63 5.10 Pan-European knowledge transfer 64 5.11 Summary 66 6. Analysis 67 6.1 The three phases of development of a PRO knowledge exchange mission 67 6.2 Where are European PROs in the journey? 68 6.3 Barriers to achieving an embedded knowledge exchange mission 70 7. Summary and Conclusions 73 7.1 Knowledge exchange is required to support innovation 73 PE 488.798 2 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment 7.2 Creating an embedded knowledge exchange mission takes time 75 7.3 Barriers to knowledge exchange remain 76 8. Policy Options 78 Appendix A Glossary 87 Appendix B Research Questions and Case Study Sample 88 Appendix C Importance of Different KT mechanisms 91 Appendix D Taxonomy of Innovation Policies 97 Appendix E Analysis of Patenting Patterns of European PROs 99 Table of Figures Figure 1 National innovation systems model....................................................................14 Figure 2 Taxonomy of sector innovation............................................................................18 Figure 3 Knowledge transfer mechanisms.........................................................................21 Figure 4 Types of knowledge...............................................................................................22 Figure 5 Types of knowledge transferred by each KT mechanism.................................22 Figure 6 Effects of KT mechanisms .....................................................................................31 Figure 7 University patenting 1978-2008 as a percentage of patenting at the USPO ...38 Figure 8 Examples of law/regulatory changes enabling knowledge transfer at PROs ...................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 9 Ownership of IPR in European Universities and other PROs .........................41 Figure 10 European countries with legal/ regulatory /policies in place to promote KT ...................................................................................................................................................42 Figure 11 Responsibilities of KTOs in the sample.............................................................45 Figure 12 PROs and the breadth of activity in terms of KT mechanisms ......................48 Figure 13 Organisational structures of KTOs ....................................................................49 Figure 14 Advantages and disadvantages of KTO organisational structure.................52 Figure 15 ASTP survey 2008: percentage of KT outcomes by the leading 10% of PROs ...................................................................................................................................................56 Figure 16 USA university licensing income (2010) ...........................................................58 Figure 17 PRO income from knowledge transfer mechanisms (UK) .............................60 Figure 18 Metrics used by the annual UK survey of knowledge transfer in HEIs .......61 Figure 19 Newly developed metrics in the Netherlands (not yet implemented) .........62 Figure 20 Membership of ProTon Europe by country......................................................64 Figure 21 KICs planned activities for innovation support and entrepreneurialism ....65 Figure 22 Transition from two to three missions ..............................................................68 Figure 23 Glossary of terms..................................................................................................87 PE 488.798 3 Knowledge Transfer From Public Research Organisations Figure 24 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: Industry (Bekkers et al, based on table 1)......................................................................................................................................92 Figure 25 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: Industry (Cohen et al, based on table 4)......................................................................................................................................93 Figure 26 Relative importance of KT mechanisms: PRO (Bekkers et al, based on table 1) ...............................................................................................................................................95 Figure 27 Frequency of KT mechanisms: PRO (Agrawal, based on table 3) ..................96 Figure 28 Frequency of KT mechanisms: PRO (Martinelli et al, based on table 3)........96 Figure 29 Supply side............................................................................................................97 Figure 30 Demand side.........................................................................................................98 Figure 31 Top ~100 European Universities, by country.................................................100 Figure 32 Applicant search criteria and search results (2000-2010), ‘top’ European Universities............................................................................................................................102 Figure 33 Total number of patents granted, ‘top’ European Universities by year .....106 Figure 34 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ European Universities (2000- 2010), by IPC Section............................................................................................................106 Figure 35 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ European Universities (2000- 2010), by IPC Sub-Section....................................................................................................107 Figure 36 Total number of patents granted to the ‘top’ European Universities (20 00- 2010), by selected IPC Classes.............................................................................................1 08 Figure 37 Total number of patents granted in the ‘top’ IPC classes in 2000-2 and 2008- 10.............................................................................................................................................109 Figure 38 IPC sub-sections where universities have a high proportion of their patents within the category...............................................................................................................111