Technology Commercialization

João Pereira
November 2021

1
 Program

1. University commercialization of technology and its challenges

2. Intellectual property: sale, licensing, venture creation and informal

technology transfer

3. Commercialization of technology: strategy, innovation diffusion,

technology adoption and open commercialization

2
 1. University commercialization of technology
and its challenges

1. The process of technology transfer and commercialization

2. The entrepreneurial university

a) The challenges of multidisciplinary teams

b) Academic versus Private entrepreneurship

c) Bayh-Dole Act and academic entrepreneurship

3
 Challenges and issues of
multidisciplinary commercialization teams

SCIENTISTS BEHAVING BADLY? CONFLICTS IN MULTIDISCIPLINARY

COMMERCIALIZATION PROJECT TEAMS
Angus I. Kingon, Ted Baker and Roger Debo
In Hoskinson, Sherry; Thursby, Marie; Libecap, Gary D. (2010), Boundaries and Disciplines: University Technology Commercialization in the Idea Age, in Advances in
the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth (eds.), Emerald Publishing

4
 Challenges and issues of
multidisciplinary commercialization teams
The authors examined 59 commercialization projects (250 team members
involved) at one U.S. university, supplemented by a similar number of
projects at other universities in the United States and Europe, applying well-
established ideas about distinctive ‘‘thought worlds,’’ including both
cognitive and motivational factors to understand patterns of selective
perception and issue prioritization.

Resulting analysis allows to draw tentative conclusions regarding

improved management practices aimed at managing the conflicts and
improving university commercialization initiatives. 5
 The Framework

The basics of the proposed framework are very simple:

• They assume that key members of multifunctional teams inhabit different

thought worlds based on their positions in the university’s role
structure and their professional preparation for these roles

• They also assume that distinctive differences among different thought

worlds lead to differences in selective perception and prioritization of
issues, which in turn shape patterns of behavior

6
Thought Worlds and Motivations

7
Thought Worlds and Motivations

8
Thought Worlds and Motivations

9
Thought Worlds and Motivations

10
 The motives and the outcomes

1. ‘‘I Want to Run this Company’’ – Overly Self-Serving Motivation

2. ‘‘I Do Science’’ – The Clash of Ostensibly Pure and ‘‘Impure’’ Motives

3. ‘‘I Know and You Don’t’’ – Colliding Thought Worlds

4. Master and Servant – An Unsavory Stew of Cognition and Motivation

11
 Major Learning Outcomes from the Project
1. Most of the conflict has involved the scientists who were collaborating
with the commercialization teams, but not tightly coupled into the teams.
(Sometimes scientists do behave badly!)

2. In most cases, conflicts could be managed, and processes and direct

interventions were effective.

3. Where it became apparent that conflicts were not manageable, they

usually involved senior scientists with deeply embedded thought
worlds. (These leopards could not change their spots!)

12
 Major Learning Outcomes from the Project
4. It emerged that, on occasions, a mix of a little arrogance and a little
greed, subtle enough to not be readily apparent, could lead to conflict
and disruption of the commercialization project.

5. There was relatively little conflict within the teams, and we argued that
this was due primarily to the extensive supporting process designed to
set common goals and expectations, and to provide guidance in the
case of the inevitable ambiguities. It is equally clear that ‘‘structural
solutions’’ would not be sufficient to manage the conflicts described in
this investigation.
13
 Specific Recommendations

14
 1. University commercialization of technology
and its challenges

1. The process of technology transfer and commercialization

2. The entrepreneurial university

b) Academic versus Private entrepreneurship

15
 Stakeholders and organizations preferences and the
commercialization of academic research

Paper

DIFFERENT YOKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS: INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES,

INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS, AND THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
Riccardo Fini and Nicola Lacetera
In Hoskinson, Sherry; Thursby, Marie; Libecap, Gary D. (2010), Boundaries and Disciplines: University Technology Commercialization in the Idea Age, in Advances in the Study of
Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth (eds.), Emerald Publishing

16
 Stakeholders and organizations preferences and the
commercialization of academic research
Summary of the paper
Review the literature: how the peculiar missions, rules, and incentive
systems in the scientific community affect the process and outcomes of
the commercialization of academic research.
Focus on how the peculiar institutional logics of academia determine the
decision of academics to commercialize their research, and how these
logics affect the outsourcing of research from firms to academic
laboratories, as well as the attempts of firms to reproduce academic
incentive systems within their research labs by allowing their researchers to
publish and offering them financial rewards based on their standing in the
scientific community.
17
 Are Academic and Non-Academic
entrepreneurship different?
A key difference between academic organizations and business
organizations, even when engaged in comparable research
commercialization, is:

• the different rules and incentives in the two environments,

and, potentially,

• the individual differences in the agents involved.

18
 Different Rules and Incentives

Major differences of Academic versus Private entrepreneurship in terms

of rules and incentives:

• Who has the decision power over projects (internal authority structure)

• The “Publish or perish” paradigm (rewards and non-economic

incentives)

19
 (Some) Conclusions relating Scientists and
Academic Entrepreneurship
1. Academic scientists derive direct benefit from the performance of
research with no direct economic value.
2. They find it too costly to abandon the research activities that generate
the highest peer recognition in the scientific community.
3. They tend to start their companies or license their findings very early.
4. Multidisciplinary research, while more instrumental in increasing the
benefit of commercialization, may not be consistent with how the peer
review system works because the academic reward and organizational
systems are based on disciplines and departments.

20
 (Some) Conclusions relating Scientists and
Academic Entrepreneurship
5. Academic researchers will tend to forsake commercial projects with
positive but low commercial value and will pursue the purely scientific
alternative. By contrast, company scientists tend to be more willing to
undertake these marginal projects with economic and potentially social
value.
6. Scientific and commercial incentives may collide; reforms of reward
criteria for academic scientists and the promotion of multidisciplinary
research, for example, may help to avoid premature commercialization
and reach a balance between science and industry.

21
 Specific Recommendations

22
 1. University commercialization of technology
and its challenges

1. The process of technology transfer and commercialization

2. The entrepreneurial university

a) The challenges of multidisciplinary teams

b) Academic versus Private entrepreneurship

c) Bayh-Dole Act and academic entrepreneurship

23
 Bayh-Dole Act

The Bayh–Dole Act (1980) new default rule that allowed nonprofit organizations
and small businesses to own, as a routine matter, patents on inventions resulting
from research sponsored by US federal government. It allocated ownership of
patent rights to contractors rather than to government funding agencies.

It was later imitated in Europe and all over the world as:

• Uniform law for all universities

• Incentive to the commercialisation of university-based technologies

• Enabler of faster transfer of technology from universities to market

24
 Bayh-Dole Act and academic entrepreneurship
Globally, universities updated their missions, supporting not only the
development and diffusion of knowledge, but also transferring results to the
market:

• TTO’s in service

• Internal rules for disclosing results and IP protection

• Promotion of entrepreneurship

• Development of closer ties with industry

25
 The entrepreneurial university, new challenges

Yes, BUT:

• Much of the literature examining the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act has been
based on the impact on patenting and licensing activities emanating from TTOs.
Studies based on data generated by those offices of technology transfer,
suggest a paucity of entrepreneurial activity from university scientists in
the form of new startups.

26
 The entrepreneurial university, new challenges

• The primary goal of Bayh-Dole Act was to promote the commercial development
and utilization of federally funded inventions. Universities seem to be focused
exclusively on revenue generation: their behaviour as patent seekers, patent
enforcers, and patent policy stakeholders often works against the
commercialization and is difficult to explain or justify on any basis other
than the pursuit of revenue.

27
In reality …

28
 Literature

Does the university tech transfer system need an overhaul? |

Sifted
29
 Literature
Aldridge, T. T., & Audretsch, D. (2017). The Bayh-Dole act and scientist entrepreneurship. In Universities and the
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Eisenberg, R. S., & Cook-Deegan, R. (2018). Universities: The Fallen Angels of Bayh-Dole?. Daedalus 2018; 147 (4): 76–
89
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic
entrepreneurship. Research policy, 40(8), 1045-1057

30
 Program

1. University commercialization of technology and its challenges

2. Intellectual property: sale, licensing, venture creation and informal

technology transfer

3. Commercialization of technology: strategy, innovation diffusion,

technology adoption and open commercialization

31