TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer from US government R&D laboratories
T2 - the impact of market orientation
AU - Bozeman, Barry
AU - Coker, Karen
N1 - Funding Information:
The first piece of legislationw hich reflectedt he new concern over domestic technology transfer, the Stevenson-WydierT echnology Innovation Act of 1980,h as the general objective of promoting technological innovation for US economic, environmental, and social goals [12].S tevenson-Wydler sett he tone for much of what was to follow -lengthy processeso f policy formulation and enactment.d ifficulty gettingf ull financing for the legislation,a nd slowa nd limited implementation. Generally,t hea ctp roposedl ive major initiatives, them osti mportanto f which, at leastf or the present purposesa, re Section9 , which instructeda gencies, including the federall aboratories,t o participatei n technology developmenta nd transfer activities, and Section 11, which required most federal laboratoriest o establisha n Office of Researcha nd Technology Applications (ORTA). The functions of the ORTA’s includeda ssessingp otentiala pplica-tions stemmingf rom each R&D project in which that laboratory is engaged and disseminating information on federally-ownedt echnologiesw ith potentialc ommerciala pplication.T he staffinga nd funding level for ORTA was left to the discretiono f thel aboratoryw, ithtwo exceptionse: achl aboratory with an annual budgete xceeding$ 20m illion was instructedt o employ at least one full-time professional to staff its ORTA, and each federal agency which operated or directed at least one federall aboratoryw ast o devotea t least0 .5%o f the agency’s R&D budget to support technology transfera ctivities. Stevenson-Wydlehr as been the targeto f much criticism. Many of the problems in implementing the Stevenson-WydleAr ct stemmedf rom the fact that several of its provisions were not funded. Chapman notes that few of the ORTA’s were staffed adequatelyt o meet the objectives of the legislation, and also points out that individual researchersa re not necessarilyt he bestj udges of the potential commercial viability of their R&D output [ 131A. nother problem noted is that the act dealto nly with technologies‘ alreadyo n the shelf’, and did not promote innovation [14]. On the other hand, Stevenson-Wydlerd id at leasti mprove the political standingo f technology transfer activities by mandating the creation of ORTA’s at all major federal laboratories[ IS]. The act also added technology transfer as a mission and attemptedto motivatet he nationall aboratories to becomei n tunew ith their externale nvironments ]141. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980p roposedt o promote innovation by allowing small businessf irms and non-profit organizations to patent inventions arising from R&D funded with federald ollars [ 161. The Act also encouraged small businesses to participatei n federally supportedR &D effortsa nd collaboration betweenc ommercial and non-profit organizations, including universities.P articularly important is Section 202,w hich allowed non-profit organizations and small business firms to retain title to federally funded inventions. Neither the Stevenson-WydleAr ct nor the Bayh-Dole Act is written to reflect the differing orientations of the laboratories [ 171.A lso, the purpose of promoting technology developmenti s defeatedp artly becauset he pace of the patenting procedures for inventions made at government contractor-operated facilities has been discouraging [18]. In 1982, the Small Business Innovation Development Act proposed to facilitate small businessesa’ ccesst o federalc ontracts.P articularly significant is Section 4, which required agencies with R&D budgets exceeding $100 million (for fiscal year 1982) to establish Small Business Innovation ResearchP rograms( SBIR) [19].U nder the SBIR programs,f ederala genciesw erea ssigned the new task of awarding grants, contracts, or cooperativea greementst o small businesses. In 1983a, Presidential~ emo~ndum on Government Patent Policy directed agenciest o allow (to thee xtentp ermittedb y law) all contractorst o claim rights to technologiesd evelopedu nder a federally funded grant,c ontract,o r cooperativeR &D agreement [9,20]. This memorandum extendedt o all contractorst he rights given to small businessa nd non-profit contractors in the Bayh-Dole Act. In November 1984T, itle V of The Trademarks-StateJ ustice Institute-SemiconductoCr hips-Courts PatentsA ct of 1984r efined the Bayh-Dole Government-owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) exemptionp ertainingt o the retentiono f title rights [21]. Section 501 allowed non-profit (including university) operated GOCOs which were not engagedi n naval nuclear propulsion or weapons-related R&D to retain title rights to technologies they developed.T hese laboratoriesa lso gainedt he right to license technology without having to go through the funding agency.
PY - 1992/5
Y1 - 1992/5
N2 - This study, based on a national survey of US government laboratories, assesses the degree of success laboratories have had in transferring technology to industry, taking into account the laboratories' differing receptivity to market influences. Three success criteria are considered here, two based on self-evaluations, and a third based on the number of technology licenses issued from the laboratory. The two self-evaluations are rooted in different types of effectiveness, 'getting technology out the door' in one case and, in the other, having a demonstrable commercial impact. A core hypothesis of the study is that the two types of effectiveness will be responsive to different factors and, in particular, the laboratories with a clearer market orientation will have a higher degree of success on the commercial impact and technology license criteria. Overall, the results seem to suggest that multi-faceted, multi-mission laboratories are likely to enjoy the most success in technology transfer, especially if they have relatively low levels of bureaucratization, and either ties to industry (particularly direct financial ties) or a commercial orientation in the selection of projects.
AB - This study, based on a national survey of US government laboratories, assesses the degree of success laboratories have had in transferring technology to industry, taking into account the laboratories' differing receptivity to market influences. Three success criteria are considered here, two based on self-evaluations, and a third based on the number of technology licenses issued from the laboratory. The two self-evaluations are rooted in different types of effectiveness, 'getting technology out the door' in one case and, in the other, having a demonstrable commercial impact. A core hypothesis of the study is that the two types of effectiveness will be responsive to different factors and, in particular, the laboratories with a clearer market orientation will have a higher degree of success on the commercial impact and technology license criteria. Overall, the results seem to suggest that multi-faceted, multi-mission laboratories are likely to enjoy the most success in technology transfer, especially if they have relatively low levels of bureaucratization, and either ties to industry (particularly direct financial ties) or a commercial orientation in the selection of projects.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=38249012406&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=38249012406&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/0166-4972(92)90045-J
DO - 10.1016/0166-4972(92)90045-J
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:38249012406
SN - 0166-4972
VL - 12
SP - 239
EP - 255
JO - Technovation
JF - Technovation
IS - 4
ER -