University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and IC 2 Institute PRESENTE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and IC 2 Institute PRESENTE PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and IC 2 Institute PRESENTE

play fullscreen
1 / 69
University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and IC 2 Institute PRESENTE
219 Views
Download Presentation
sabin
Download Presentation

University-Industry Relationships: Experiences from Austin Texas, the University of Texas, and IC 2 Institute PRESENTE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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. Objetivos de la Clase • Revisión de la literatura internacional sobre la relación u-e • Revisión de la literatura sobre la relación u-e en Colombia • Presentar el caso exitoso de la relación u-e en la U de Texas en Austin • Memorándum al presidente de sus organizaciones en el que ustedes van a identificar y priorizar tres estrategias para superar las limitaciones en la relación U-E en sus respectivas organizaciones

  3. Estrategias para Promover la Relación Universidad-Empresa en la Institución que Represento M E M O R A N D U M PÁRRAFO # 1 Resumen compacto de la literatura más importante de la relación Universidad-Empresa a nivel internacional. PÁRRAFO # 2 Diagnóstico compacto de la relación Universidad-Empresa en Colombia. Considerar las 3 fortalezas y 3 limitaciones más importantes. PÁRRAFO # 3 Diagnóstico compacto de la relación Universidad-Empresa en la Institución que represento. Considerar las 3 fortalezas y 3 limitaciones más importantes. PÁRRAFO # 4 Tres estrategias para superar las limitaciones en la relación Universidad-Empresa en la Institución que represento en orden de prioridad e indicar las razones por la que estas estrategias son prioritarias.

  4. Class Schedule • 8:00 AM-10:00 AM class • 10:00 AM-10:15 AM break • 10:15 AM-12:15 AM class

  5. 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.

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

  7. Firms • Which firms develop stronger links with universities? • What benefits do firms gain from stronger links with universities? • What kind of links do they develop and how?

  8. Which firms have stronger links with universities in the U.S.? • “absorptive capacity” = Firm’s in-house R&Dt-n(Cohen and Levinthal 1990) • “absorptive capacity” = Firm’s connectedness to the open science community of which its investment in R&D is just one of the several components (e.g. publishing papers with scientists outside the firm and engaging in research collaboration) (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

  9. Which firms develop stronger links with universities? • 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 (Cockburn and Henderson 1998)

  10. Connectedness and Tacit Knowledge • “Connectedness is only important because the knowledge associated with an invention is not completely transferred in the codified form of patents and publications but rather requires some form of interaction between the inventor and the recipient firm.” (Agrawal 2001, p.291) • Thus, one of the most important benefits that firms get from stronger links with the community of science (including the universities) is access to tacit knowledge.

  11. U.S. firms linked with the community of science including star scientists have higher patent productivity • Firm’s links with community of science (Lim 2000) • Firm’s links with star university scientists (Zucker et. al. 2000) Firm’s patents productivity == # of important patents == Patents that have been registered in at least two regions (US, EU, and Japan) • Universities • Other Firms • R&D Labs • 2.Star university scientists • Sponsoring research • Participating in Research consortia • Partnering with other companies 1. Community of Science Firm A Firm B

  12. Channels of Knowledge Transfer • We have only begun to investigate the various channels by which knowledge is transferred to firms from the universities • Feldman and Breznitz (2009): • Formal channels that fall 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 channels 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

  13. 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)

  14. Set de Preguntas #1 • Cuáles son las 10 compañías que en Colombia invierten mas en I&D? • Cuáles son las 10 compañías colombianas que están más ligadas a la comunidad científica colombiana (o cuáles son las 10 compañías colombianas que colaboran más con universidades, firmas, o centros de I&D)? • Cuáles son los canales que mas se usan en Colombia para transferir conocimiento de la universidad a la industria (publicaciones conjuntas, investigación conjunta)?

  15. Universities • What benefits do universities gain from stronger links with industry?

  16. U.S. University Characteristics • Rapid growth in U.S. universities patenting and licensing activity after the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which granted universities the right to license inventions that resulted from federally funded research Has it shifted the average type of research from basic to more applied research? (Henderson et al 1998; Thursby and Thursby 2000) • Which technologies are more easily licensed technologies in very early embryonic stages (50% proof of concept and 50% lab-scale prototype) (Jensen and Thursby 1998) • What factors favor university spinoffs? (Di Gregorio and Shane 2000) • Licensing Activity  Equity versus cash from royalties (Feldman et. al. 2000)

  17. Has the Bayh-Dole Act shifted the average type of research that is conducted at universities from basic to more applied research? • Henderson et al (1998): • Patent quality measured by two variables: (a) its importance how many times is it cited in other patents. (b) its generality in how many patent classes is it cited. • Comparing university patents with a 1% random sample of all patents in the U.S. during the 1965-92 period, they find that the trends in the quality of university patents are similar to the trends in the 1% random sample of all patents. • Their data illustrates that while the Bayh-Dole Act has increased the propensity to patent, it has not resulted in a shift in the overall quality of patents generated at universities. Quality of university patents 1965-92 Quality of a 1% sample of U.S. patents 1965-92

  18. Has the Bayh-Dole Act shifted the average type of research that is conducted at universities from basic to more applied research? • Thursby and Thursby (2000) • Survey data from 65 U.S. universities • Their results suggest that the growth in licensing patented university inventions is driven primarily by an increase in professors’ propensity to patent and firms’ propensity to outsource R&D by licensing, rather than a shift in the average type of research from more basic to applied. • Licensing growth universities =function of propensity [professors to patent, firms to outsource R&D]

  19. Which factors have a positive effect on university startups? • Di Gregorio and Shane (2000) • Intellectual eminence of professors • The possibility that the startup can offer equity rather than cash to university professors

  20. Do universities that are more experienced and successful at licensing are more likely to employ equity than cash (royalties) in their licensing agreements? • Feldman et al (2000) • Their results show that experienced university TTO are more likely to use equity, because although its use is more complex than cash, it may increase the option value of some technologies and also improve the alignment between university’s interests and those of the firm.

  21. Set de Preguntas #2 • Qué restricciones imponen las universidades colombianas a los investigadores que quieren licenciar su tecnología? • Qué apoyo brindan las universidades colombianas a los investigadores que quieren licenciar su tecnología? • Existe la posibilidad de que los investigadores o las universidades reciban acciones de las compañías en lugar de regalías en los acuerdos de licencias? • Cuáles universidades colombianas han tenido éxito en la creación de nuevas compañías?

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

  23. US Academic R&D Funding from the Federal G and Industry

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

  25. Share of Academic R&D Funding from the Federal Government and Industry, 1994 Sources: National Science Foundation, 2009; Arocena and Sutz (2001) “Changing knowledge production and Latin American Universities,” Research Policy, 30: 1221-1234.

  26. Set de Preguntas #3 • Quién financia la mayor parte de la investigación en las universidades colombianas (el gobierno o la industria)? • Ha tenido la industria una participación creciente en la financiación de investigación en las universidades en los últimos 20 años? • Ha habido una caída en los recursos que las empresas dedican a financiar investigación en Colombia a partir del 2000?

  27. 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 startups. • “policies that affect the vibrant trade in scientific knowledge for commercial applications that is not patented and does not flow through the university TTO have been largely overlooked.” (Agrawal 2001, p. 294). • Non-patent channels of knowledge transfer have been overlooked.

  28. 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)

  29. 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)

  30. 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)

  31. Set de Preguntas #4 • Cuál es el ingreso por licencias de patentes en las universidades colombianas y en su propia universidad? • Qué tipo de relaciones “informales” (p.ej., publicaciones, conferencias, consultoría) tiene su universidad con la industria? • Constituyen estas relaciones informales un trampolín para desarrollar relaciones mas formales (p.ej., acuerdos sobre licencias)?

  32. International Literature Review

  33. The Colombian Case: Existing Literature • Tognato, Carlo (2005) “Comercializar la Tecnología Generada desde las Universidades: Un Reto Institucional” Revista de Ingeniería, 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 económico y social sostenible. Investigación y Desarrollo, 15 (001): 208-225. • Vesga, Rafael (2008) “Emprendimiento e innovación en Colombia: Qué nos está haciendo falta?” Available at the WEB. • Colciencias (2008) Colombia construye y siembra futuro

  34. The Colombian Case: Existing Literature • Tognato, Carlo (2005) “reto institucional” (universidades). Propone: • Fijar metas medibles  # de licencias, # de spinoffs • Crear incentivos y políticas laborales que faciliten el intercambio de investigadores entre u-e • Crear instituciones  OTT, Capital semilla, incubadoras de empresas, clusters tecnológicos • Creación de una serie de comités que produzcan un documento base y lo consulten con los “stakeholders.” • Limitaciones de este artículo  No presenta un diagnóstico o análisis cuantitativo que justifique sus recomendaciones de política.

  35. The Colombian Case: Existing Literature • Abello Llanos, Raimundo (2007) Usa el Modelo de Gestión de Bruno y Vasconcellos (2003) para analizar 8 casos de innovación desarrollada por grupos de investigación en la U del Norte para empresas. • El Modelo identifica 4 factores claves: • Institucional • Organizacional • Realización de valor • Creación de valor • Limitaciones del Estudio: Tiene la U del Norte una Oficina de Gestión? No hay un análisis cualitativo de la relación u-e en la U del Norte o en Colombia.

  36. The Colombian Case: Existing Literature • Vesga, Rafael (2005) Emprendimiento e innovación en Colombia: Qué nos está haciendo falta? Nivel Macro (País) Nivel de Empresa Nivel del Individuo Universidad • Análisis de estos 3 componentes a dos niveles: • El nivel teórico • El emprendimiento innovador en Colombia

  37. The Colombian Case: Existing Literature • Vesga, Rafael (2005)Qué nos hace falta? • Capital de riesgo  escasa cultura de evaluación de proyectos y valoración de empresas que tienen altos niveles de riesgo. Los capitalistas colombianos prefieren invertir en el sector de la construcción. • Redes de emprendedores • Infraestructura física • Sabemos muy poco sobre la innovación a nivel del individuo y de la empresa • Actores organizar los esfuerzos de actores que están trabajando en algunos aspectos pero han dejado otros de lado (no se discute?)

  38. Disconnect between scientific effort and technological development in Latin America (2001) * Country share in the total of patents granted to foreigners in the U.S. ** Country share in the total of scientific publications worldwide Source: World Intellectual Property Organization

  39. Regiones • Cuáles son los beneficios para las regiones o ciudades de una mayor interacción entre las firmas y la universidades locales?

  40. Regions • Jaffe (1989) Industrial Patents in states = F[UNIV’s R&D 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).

  41. Technopolies Why is it that Silicon Valley flourished while Route 128 (Boston) declined in the 90s? SV developed a decentralized but cooperative industrial system while Route 128 came to be dominated by independent, self-sufficient corporations. The “technopolis wheel” model, widely accepted as a blueprint for Austin’s tech-driven future, identified business, government, academia, and business support groups, as the major players in economic development.

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

  43. 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

  44. Triángulo de Sábato o triple hélice? Sábato, Jorge A y Botana, Natalio (1968). “La Ciencia y la Tecnología en el Desarrollo Futuro de América Latina.” Revista de la Integración 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, Available at the WEB.

  45. 1990 - 2000 Austin Enjoyed Spectacular Economic Growth Why and How? The Austin Model

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

  47. 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.

  48. 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

  49. 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