I!!"#$%&"! U 2.0 Reinventing University Roles in a Knowledge Economy Louis G. Tornatzky, PhD Elaine C. Rideout, PhD I!!"#$%&"! U 2.0 Reinventing University Roles in a Knowledge Economy Louis G. Tornatzky, PhD Elaine C. Rideout, PhD Copyright 2014 Louis G. Tornatzky. All rights reserved. !is work was created for the purposes of advancing public and private discussion related to university innovation, and to advance education and understanding in that "eld. Any person or organization who acquires a paper or electronic version of this work, and who will use it for those purposes, is permitted to freely copy and disseminate the entire volume or chapters thereof. A pdf version is available at: www.Innovation-U.com C!"#$"#% F#$%&#$' ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ vii A()*#&+%',%-%*./ .................................................................................................................................................................... ix I*.$#'0(.1#* ............................................................................................................................................................................................1 C2/%/ Arizona State University....................................................................................................................................................19 Brigham Young University ..............................................................................................................................................39 California Institute of Technology ........................................................................................................................51 Carnegie Mellon University ..........................................................................................................................................69 Clemson University ................................................................................................................................................................91 University of Florida ..............................................................................................................................................................109 Georgia Institute of Technology...............................................................................................................................127 Massachusetts Institute of Technology..............................................................................................................145 North Carolina State University ..............................................................................................................................171 Purdue University .....................................................................................................................................................................191 Stanford University .................................................................................................................................................................205 University of Utah ....................................................................................................................................................................225 S0--2$3 2*' R%(#--%*'2.1#*/ .......................................................................................................................245 A4#0. .5% A0.5#$/ 2*' C#*.$140.#$/ ............................................................................................257 v vi F!&$'!&( No one realized ten years ago how prescient Innovation U would be. Back then, the words economic development and universities rarely appeared together. Now, many economic developers include universities in their asset portfolios, and a large number of university o6cials purposefully interact with their local economies. Innovation U should not claim sole credit for this shi7; it can, however, claim to have raised awareness in a few critical groups and helped build momentum for critical policies. Innovation U 2.0: Reinventing University Roles in a Knowledge Economy enters a very di8erent world than its predecessor. Government o6cials are questioning the role of universities in society. !e economic underpinnings of higher education, for universities and stu- dents, are stressed. Federal support for research is uncertain. Never have so many raised so many questions about the value, purpose, and impacts of higher education, at least in contemporary times. Amid all these questions, the strategies and practices encapsulated in this book present some answers. Innovation U institutions dramatically depict universities as creators of intellectual capital and economic growth. !ey show paths for universities to follow for larger impacts on their region. !e cases are not exhaustive, and certainly there are omissions. Volumes could be written about each university, and many others are accom- plishing remarkable feats. Dr. Lou Tornatzky and his colleagues—fueled not by remuneration, but by an intense belief in the economic power of universities—should be commended for their dedica- tion and quality product. Dr. Tornatzky recently retired from Cal Poly, and this project caps an illustrious career as a teacher, manager, and researcher in all things in technology and policy. Scott Doron Director Southern Technology Council Research Triangle Park North Carolina vii viii A)*"!'+$(,$-$"#% Financial and in-kind support from the following organizations were instrumental in enabling the execution of this project and the early dissemination of the "nal report: !e National Science Foundation, Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program (IIP-1140438) provided monetary support for the research team. !e William R. Kenan Jr. Institute for Engineering, Technology & Science provided monetary support for project execution including dissemination of the "nal report. !e Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, supported Dr. Tornatzky’s sabbatical leave in Research Triangle Park, NC. !e North Carolina O6ce of Science and Technology provided logistical and dissemination support. !e State Science and Technology Institute featured a digital version of the report in its online newsletter, and sponsored a Webinair to present the project to its large constituency. !e Information Technology Innovation Foundation served as a dissemination partner and featured a digital version of the report in its online newsletter. North Carolina State University made o6ce space and support services available for Dr. Tornatzky during his sabbatical leave in Research Triangle Park. A number of individuals made in-kind contributions: Susan Opava, Paul Waugaman and Trent Williams were outstanding in their roles as “critical readers” of dra7 chapters, and suggesting corrections in grammar, style, and substance. Scott Doron, former Director of Southern Technology Council and a long-time collaborator, was a rock of intellectual and organizational contributions of inestimable value to the execution of this project. His faith in what we wanted to do, with no money to start with, kept us going. Denis Gray was one of the authors on the 2002 Innovation U book, but regrettably took a pass on being a co-author on this project. Nonetheless, over the past 18 months he has provided logistical, intellectual, and political assistance that has gone beyond the call of duty and expectations of friendship. He also was a signi"cant ix contributor in the key Introduction and Summary chapters, and co-designed and participated in the Case Selection process. Lynette Tornatzky put up with the senior author’s peaks of creative bliss and anguish, and contributed her graphic design skills to the format of the report. During the case selection process, eight very knowledgeable individuals provided valuable substantive input and contributions of their time as a Project Advisory Committee member: John W. Ahlen, President (retired), Arkansas Science and Technology Authority; Robert D. Atkinson, President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Elizabeth Popp Berman, Associate Professor, University of Albany, SUNY; Barry Bozeman, Arizona Centennial Professor of Public Management and Technology Policy, Arizona State University; Dan Berglund, President & CEO, State Science & Technology Institute; Jacques Koppel, Principal, Koppel Group; Elliott Kulakowski, CEO, Society of Research Administrators International; and James J. Zuiches, Vice Chancellor (retired), North Carolina State University. x I"#&!(.)#/!"* !e suggestion that US universities do in each university case study; and (5) to describe more to pursue and optimize the potential case selection and analysis methodologies that were usefulness of the results of taxpayer-funded used, as well as ones that were avoided, and why. research is not an acclamation that US universities have failed. Instead, it is a I!!"#$%&"! U - '((' suggestion that they can improve and, in Twelve years ago a slim paperback volume was doing so, better advance economic growth completed and widely distributed by the Southern and human welfare. Paraphrasing "om Growth Policies Board (SGPB),1 located in elsewhere in this article, better than it Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. It was was is no excuse for failing to pursue or entitled Innovation U. New University Roles in a even achieve as good as