The Evolving State-Of-The-Art in Technology Transfer Research
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Policy 44 (2015) 34–49 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research Policy jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respol The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: ଝ Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model a,∗ b c Barry Bozeman , Heather Rimes , Jan Youtie a Center for Organizational Research and Design, Arizona State University, United States b Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, United States c Enterprise Innovation Institute and School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The purpose of our study is to review and synthesize the rapidly evolving literature on technology transfer Received 2 December 2013 effectiveness. Our paper provides a lens into relatively recent work, focusing particularly on empirical Received in revised form 18 March 2014 studies of US technology transfer conducted within the last 15 years. In doing so, we update and extend Accepted 23 June 2014 the Contingent Effectiveness Model of Technology Transfer developed by Bozeman (2000). Specifically, Available online 28 July 2014 we include the growing interest in social and public value oriented technology transfer and, thus, the contingent effectiveness model is expanded to consider this literature. We categorize studies according Keywords: their approaches to measuring effectiveness, draw conclusions regarding the current state of technology Technology transfer transfer evaluation, and offer recommendations for future studies. Public policy Research © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Theory 1 1. Introduction technology transfer. Using the same structure facilitates com- parison of the pre- and post-2000 technology transfer literature. Technology transfer continues to be a popular topic among Further, we categorize studies according their approaches to mea- not only researchers, but also among managers and entrepreneurs suring effectiveness, draw conclusions regarding the current state trolling the academic literature and hoping for usable knowledge. of technology transfer evaluation, and offer recommendations for As is the case for so many popular research topics, especially those future studies. addressed by the researchers from numerous, diverse disciplines, Since Bozeman’s previous study, the broader technology the research findings and theory developments in technology transfer literature has been expanding rapidly in several major transfer evolve rapidly. Our paper provides a lens into relatively directions. First, there have been many studies of government recent work, focusing particularly on the last 15 years. laboratory and research centers, especially those located European In 2000, Bozeman published in this journal a comprehensive nations. During the period covered in Bozeman’s earlier review, state of the art review of domestic technology transfer literature. the majority of studies focused on US laboratories and research Our study updates and extends this review, with an emphasis, centers. A second trend is that the vast majority of the post-2000 although not an exclusive one, on the US technology transfer pol- technology transfer literature focuses on transfer from university icy and program context, and research about these policies, and settings or from multi-organizational research centers or consortia programs. In doing so, the paper employs a modestly revised (many of which are anchored by or housed entirely in universities). version of the Contingent Effectiveness Model of Technology Trans- A third trend is that non-linear technology transfer mechanisms fer used in the earlier paper. The model has by this time been have been put forth and analyzed to a greater extent. Bradley adapted or applied directly in scores of analyses or evaluations of et al. (2013) developed rich descriptions and sets of literature around these non-linear mechanisms. These authors highlight four such non-linear mechanisms: (1) reciprocal relationships among ଝ The research was supported by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Tech- nology under a under a subcontract from VNS Group, Inc. The opinions expressed in 1 this monograph are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any The Contingent Effectiveness model has been used in application or as a concep- government agency, or Arizona State University, the University of Georgia, Georgia tual framework in a wide variety of articles, ranging from industrial ecology to higher Tech, or VNS Group, Inc. education innovations to transfer of vaccines (see for example Ramakrishnan, 2004; ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 4806866336. Albors et al., 2006; Albors-Garrigos et al., 2009; Mohammed et al., 2010; Kitagawa E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Bozeman). and Lightowler, 2013; Hendriks, 2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.008 0048-7333/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. B. Bozeman et al. / Research Policy 44 (2015) 34–49 35 university–industry- and government actors (Etzkowitz and transfer, how they are doing it, what is being transferred and to Leydesdorff, 2000); (2) “multiversity” approaches in which many whom. sub-units and programs of the university can interact with The term “contingent” is key in both the original and revised companies in diverse ways (Kerr, 2001); (3) open innovation model because of the assumption that technology transfer by (Chesbrough, 2003) in which the university can both acquire definition includes multiple parties and these parties generally and distribute unused intellectual property; and (4) open source have multiple goals and, ergo multiple effectiveness criteria. Effec- approaches (such as the Creative Commons) in which knowledge tiveness is considered in terms of multiple criteria including (1) transfer extends to collaborators through standards creation and out-the-door (was anything transferred?), (2) market impact, (3) tacit knowledge sharing and for which the technology transfer economic development, (4) political advantage, (5) development office can serve as a broker. of scientific and technical human capital, and (6) opportunity cost This current review of technology transfer evaluation stud- considerations. The revised model, shown in Fig. 2, adds an addi- ies focuses chiefly on empirical research, including qualitative tional effectiveness criterion: public value. research, and has a US orientation, albeit not an exclusive one. Our primary data source was articles pertaining to evaluation of 2.1. The addition of the public value criterion technology transfer programs or policies that appeared in scholarly journals concerning technology, policy and management such as The addition of the Public Value criterion arises from the recog- The Journal of Technology Transfer, Research Policy, Organization nition that transfer agents, particularly public sector transfer agents Science, Technovation, Research Evaluation, The Journal of Higher but others as well, are housed within agencies and organizations Education, Evaluation and Program Planning, Regional Studies, Tech- that are themselves in pursuit of broad public-interest goals. Thus, nological Forecasting and Social Change, Minerva, R&D Management, their endeavors are motivated, influenced, and directed by ever- and International Journal of Technology Management. We emphasize changing constellations of public values (Jørgensen & Bozeman, post-2000 literature in this paper except in those cases where 2007). For example, each federal laboratory operates within a an allusion to previous literature is necessary for clarifying our federal agency or department which in turn functions under the understanding of research trajectories. To this end, we have also auspices of a mission to further some aspect of the public inter- been guided by several technology transfer literature reviews (e.g. est. As a case in point, part of the mission of the U.S. Department Adomavicius et al., 2008; Agrawal, 2003; Tran and Kocaoglu, 2009; of Agriculture (USDA) is to “promote agriculture production sus- Protogerou et al., 2012; Bradley et al., 2013). tainability that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed Two criteria for exclusion of articles were applied to this search. others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our First, much of the technology transfer literature continues to focus Nation’s natural resources” (USDA, 2013). Consequently, one means on international relations and owner technologies, often focused by which to judge USDA technology transfer successful is if the on relationships between nations and sometimes groups of firms. transfer in some way furthers the agency’s mission. Indeed, many We do not examine the international technology transfer litera- federal agencies include narratives of technology transfer success ture, though we do consider cross-national transfers among peer stories in their annual reports, and often these success stories cen- 2 firms. Second, we also do not include the great many single case ter on social impacts of agency technology transfer activities. In study papers resident in the gray literature in this review, albeit we this way, evidence demonstrates tacit acceptance by practitioners acknowledge the importance of such gray literature in the field of that public value is an important criterion for evaluating technology assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer. Evaluations that transfer activity in some realms. appear in gray literature only are not always