1 / 40

University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and

University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and IC 2 Institute PRESENTED TO Colombian Industry Networks July 4, 2009. Dr. Elsie Echeverri-Carroll Research Professor and Director Economic Development IC 2 Institute

hannah-long
Download Presentation

University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and IC2 Institute PRESENTED TO Colombian Industry Networks July 4, 2009 Dr. Elsie Echeverri-Carroll Research Professor and Director Economic Development IC2 Institute e.carroll@mail.utexas.edu

  2. University-Industry Links—Literature Review • Reamer A, Icerman L, Youtie J (2003) Technology Transfer and Commercialization—Their Role in Economic Development. Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, http://www.eda.gov/ImageCache/EDAPublic/documents/pdfdocs/eda_5fttc_2epdf/v1/eda_5fttc.pdf • Ankrah, SN (2007) University-Industry Inter-organizational Relationships for Technology /Knowledge Transfer: A Systematic Literature Review, ISSN nr 1743-6796, Leeds University Business School. http://lubswww.leeds.ac.uk/researchProgs/fileadmin/user_upload/ANKRAH1.pdf • Agrawal, Ajay (2001) University-to-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Literature Review and Unanswered Questions” International Journal of Management Review, Vol 3, Issue 4, pp. 285-302. • Feldman MP and Breznitz SM (2009) “The American Experience in University Technology Transfer” In McKelvery M and Homen M (Eds) Learning to Compete in European Universities. Edward Elgar Publishing.

  3. Who Benefit from Stronger U-I Links? The University of Texas The Austin Technopolis

  4. U-I Links—Characteristics of the Firm • “absorptive capacity” = Firm’s R&Dt-n (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) • “absorptive capacity” = Firm’s connectedness to the open science community (e.g. Public R&D; co-authored papers with scientists outside the firm) (Cockburn and Henderson 1998, Lim 2000) IBM Research in Austin University of Texas $11.1 million in funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to Collaborate super chip (2003) $1 million gift to computer engineering 2007 AMD Austin

  5. Firm’s Patent Productivity • Firm’s links with community of science (Lim 2000) • Firm’s links with start university scientists (Zucker et. al. 2000) Firm’s patents productivity = # of important patents • Universities • Other Firms • R&D Labs • 2.Start university scientists • Sponsoring research • Participating in Research consortia • Partnering with other companies 1. Community of Science Firm A Firm B

  6. Firms’ Characteristics • What we know for the United States “There are differences in the degree to which firms are capable of effectively utilizing university research to their benefit and these differences vary systematically with the degree to which firms are connected to the university” (Agrawal 2001)

  7. Firm Characteristics • What we do not know • We have only begun to investigate the various mechanism by which knowledge is transferred to firms from the universities • Feldman and Breznitz (2009): • Formal mechanisms that falls under the umbrella of the TTO: sponsored research agreements with industry; invention disclosures, patents; licenses of university intellectual property to firms; and the formation of spinoffs companies • Informal mechanisms that do not fall under the umbrella of TTO: industry hiring of students, faculty consulting, and knowledge trading among friendship networks • Are there cultural differences across countries? • There is a lack of longitudinal studies to test whether short term links lead to long-term links

  8. U-I Degrees of Tech Transfer Flows Technology park Industrial incubators High Expected Technology flow to firms Patent licensing Sponsor research Faculty consulting Personal exchange Training Publications Grants Fellowships Scholarships donations Low Few Weeks (Phase 1) 1-3 years (Phase 2) Many years (Phase 3) Duration of the Relationship Source: Graph by Ankrah (2007) based on information from Chen (1994)

  9. University Characteristics • The rapid growth in U.S. universities patenting and licensing activity (Thurby and Thursby 2000) • Licensing Activity  Equity versus cash from royalties (Feldman et. al. 2000) • Which technologies are more easily license technologies in very early embryonic stages (50% proof of concept and 50% lab-scale prototype) (Jensen and Thursby 1998)

  10. National Research and Development By 1979, industry R&D expenditures passed government expending growing more than three-folds after controlling for inflation between 1975 and 2000 (Litan et al 2007)

  11. US Universities by Source of R&D Funding from the Federal G and Industry

  12. Industry Funding of University Research, 1973-2005 $2.6 billion (2006) Outsource of R&D?

  13. University Characteristics • What do we do not know • We know very little about the amount and type of technology transfer that occur outside the formal route of the TTO non-patent-related links. • Why professors become involve with the commercialization of their invention? • Are there differences across countries?

  14. Channels of Communication Firm characteristics University characteristics ?

  15. Different industries value different channels differently Technology park Industrial incubators High Expected Technology flow to firms Patent licensing Sponsor research Faculty consulting Personal exchange Industry Set 1 Training Recruiting of students Publications Conferences Informal conversations Grants Fellowships Scholarships donations Industry set 2 Low Overall these channels are more important Source: Cohen et al (1998, 2000)

  16. Firms use different channels to access university knowledge Firm 1 Technology park Industrial incubators High Expected Technology flow to firms Firm 2 Patent licensing Publications Low Firms Source: Agrawal and Henderson (2000)

  17. Benefit to Firms and Universities Funding from Licenses The median net royalty per university respondent to the AUTM surveys overall climbed from $440,000 in 1996 to $950,000 in 2005. Most royalties from licensing agreements accrue to relatively few patents and relatively few universities that hold them. Research is starting to indicate that firms will benefit significantly by investing in the types of relationships that are not necessarily in the presence of efficient market such as those different from patents and licensing agreements (e.g., conferences, joint publications)

  18. Most Respected Literature on U-I Relationships in the U.S. • Econometric models and estimation techniques • Limitation of this literature Data provided by Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM): patents, licensing agreements, university start ups.

  19. International Literature Review

  20. The Colombian Case: Existing Review • Tognato, Carlo (2005) “Comercializar la Tecnologia Generada desde las Universidades: Un Reto Institucional” Revista de Ingenieria, Universidad de los Andes. • Abello Llanos, Raimundo (2007) Factores Claves en las Alianzas Universidad-Industria como Soporte de la Productividad en la Industria local: Hacia un modelo de desarrollo economico y social sostenible. Investigacion y Desarrollo, 15 (001): 208-225. • Vesga, Rafael (2008) “Emprendimiento e innovacion en Colombia: Que nos esta haciendo falta?” Available at the WEB. • Colciencias (2008) Colombia construye y siembra futuro

  21. Regions • Jaffe (1989) Industrial Patents = F[R&D’s UNIV] in states • Both theoretical and empirical literature has shown that university research positively influences the capacity for innovation of the surrounding firms (Jaffe, 1989; Mansfield 1991, 1998; Nelson and Rosenberg 1993; Zucker, Darby, and Armstrong 2001; Cohen, Nelson, and Wash 2002).

  22. Triángulo de Sábato o triple hélice? Sabato, Jorge A y Botana, Natalio (1968). “La Ciencia y la Tecnologia en el Desarrollo Futuro de America Latina.” Revista de la Integracion No 3, Buenos Aires, Noviembre 1968. Source: Luis Enrique Gamboa, April 2008. Innovar para Producir: Un Reto para el Gobierno, la Universidad y la Empresa, Availabel at the WEB.

  23. The Technopolis Framework Education LargeCompanies SupportGroups EmergentCompanies networks LocalGovernment FederalGovernment StateGovernment Gibson D, Kozmetsky G, and Smilor R (1988)

  24. Support/Networking Groups are very important Austin has at least one networking event every day with cultural/sport/recreation events on every weekend. People get networked! • Chamber of Commerce • Business and community groups • Professional associations • Entrepreneurial/Industry • Associations • The Austin Technology Council

  25. 1990 - 2000 Austin Enjoyed Spectacular Economic Growth Why and How? The Austin Model

  26. Dell’s Spectacular Growth U.S. Employees Sales, in $billions 20,200 employees Sales

  27. In the early 1980s Austin was the state capital and a university town with a cowboy/ranching culture – the city was NOT known for high tech. Jobs were mostly in government and education – the area could not retain its educated talent. In the late 1980s Austin was most known for “see through” buildings and a depressed economy NOT entrepreneurship, venture capital, and technology-based growth.

  28. 10 Years Later: The Best U.S. Cities for Business – Top Five Wealth Creators 1. Austin 2. Las Vegas 3. Salt Lake City 4. Phoenix 5. San Jose Fortune, November 23, 1998

  29. Top 15 U.S. Cities for Entrepreneurship 1. Austin 9. West Palm Beach 2. Atlanta 10. Colorado Springs 3. Santa Rosa 11. Fort Collins 4. Boulder 12. Oakland* 5. Boise City 12. Seattle* 6. San Diego 14. Charlotte 7. Orange County 15. Fort Worth 8. San Antonio * tied Forbes magazine, Vol 165, #13, May 29, 2000, p. 137

  30. The University of Texas at Austin • Flagship of the University of Texas System 15 academic and health institutions • 52,000 Students, including 13,000 graduate and professional school students • Nationally ranked in Engineering, Computer Science, Business, and Law • Global programs and large numbers of international students • Located in Austin, TX

  31. IC2 INSTITUTEThe University of Texas at Austin • A “think and do tank” – www.ic2.org

  32. INNOVATION CREATIVITY IC2 CAPITAL IC2 Institute A Catalyst Organization Linking

  33. WHO WE ARE • Research Programs & Conferences • Masters (MSSTC) Program • Visiting Scholars • Regional Development • Incubators • Non-degree Education & TrainingPrograms • Publications • 30 years old • $3.5 million • 20 staff • 220 IC² Fellows 2

  34. What Makes IC2 Institute Different? • Dr. George Kozmetsky • Co-founder – Teledyne • Dean - UT Austin Business School (1966-1982) • Founded IC2 in 1977 • Winner of National Medal • of Technology (1993) • Educator, Entrepreneur, • Mentor, and Visionary

  35. The Fellows make IC2 different • Academia, Business and • Government • Champions • Entrepreneurs • Emerging Talent • International • Transdisciplinary Econometrics, Marketing, Business Strategy, Regional Economic Development, Technology Transfer, Commercialization, Chaos Theory, Globally Networked Entrepreneurship, E-Commerce, Management Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Alliance Building

  36. Visiting Scholars make IC2 different • 60 Scholars from Academia, Business and Government in 13 nations • Korea Telecom • Coruna University, Spain • Tohoku University, Japan • Moscow Science Park “Izmaylovo” • Nizhne Novgorod • Russian Venture Capital Association • Adelaide University, Australia • Instituto Superior Tecnico, Portugal • Many others

  37. Action Programs make IC2 different Austin Technology Incubator (ATI) • 65 companies launched • 10,000 jobs created (2,850 direct, 7,150 indirect) • $1.2 billion in revenue generated • $500 million+ in VC and other investments secured • TCN [Thecapitalnetwork.com] • ATC [Austintechnologycouncil.org] • Clean Energy Incubator

  38. MS in Science and Technology Commercialization makes IC2 Different • 12 MONTHS • AVE. AGE = 37 • FRIDAY/SATURDAY • VIDEOCAST IBM and Applied Materials • MSTC-Monterrey, Mexico • IN-CLASS & INTERNET

  39. Global and Multidisciplinary Perspectives Makes IC2 different 31 Nations • Memorandum of Cooperation • Research • Visiting Scholars • IC2 Institute Research Fellows • Student Exchange Activities • Conferences • Collaborative Research • Other Activities EUROPE Belgium France Germany Italy Norway Portugal Spain Sweden The Netherlands United Kingdom EASTERN EUROPE Rep. of Georgia Russia Ukraine Poland ASIA China India Japan Korea Singapore Vietnam MIDEAST Algeria Armenia Israel LATIN AMERICA Belize Brazil Chile Colombia Mexico OTHER Australia Canada New Zealand

More Related