In general, there is little or no current research available about HBCUs willingness to engage in university tech transfer. Much of the literature reveals the state of affairs of HBCU finances.
HBCUs graduate 60% of America’s black engineering students and are becoming increasingly threatened financially. They once were funded at more than 50% by industrial partners which ended with the Great Depression in the 1930s. HBCUs have grown increasingly dependent on government assistance and need new revenue sources. The schools are heavily teaching oriented, lack patents and lack tech transfer operations. In comparison, over the past 25 years, non-HBCUs
85
have increased their licensing revenues. HBCUs can learn from the non-HBCUs.
With regard to theory, the literature review reveals that since there is currently no theoretical framework for university tech transfer, it follows that there is no theoretical framework for researching HBCUs’ technology transfer activities and tool development. In the literature review, university tech transfer was studied from the perspectives of the resource based view. Primary resource inputs include TTO staff size, patents, legal services, marketing services, and the existence of medical schools. Primary outputs include IP licensing revenue and business
formation. University tech transfer was also studied from the novel perspective that it is a supply chain network.
The shift of HBCUs toward becoming research and tech transfer oriented will be a paradigm shift.
The paradigm shift will likely follow a 10 step sequence which begins with realizing that the current paradigm has become less effective and ending with the waning of turbulence once
changes are implemented and supported. To motivate HBCUs toward making this paradigm shift, research related to the social comparison theory is quite revealing. Social comparison theory research discloses that groups are likely to compare themselves to groups of the same ability and in the same physical geographic location.
Despite the struggle, many universities are doing quite well with licensing their technology. Thus, tech commercialization can prove to be a viable financial resource for HBCUs if the HBCUs obtain adequate guidance. The literature review revealed important reasons why faculty and universities may choose “not” to engage in tech transfer. Challenge areas include faculty quality, lack of
adequate resources, lack of resource planning and benchmarks, lack of incentives, and time delays.
Their problem areas and needs are listed in Table 3 along with tools proposed herein this study that can serve to alleviate problems.
86
Based on this extensive literature review, Table 4 provides a list of fifteen (15) gaps in the existing research. The select gaps that this dissertation research fills are noted with check marks. This dissertation research will address four (4) these gaps by addressing the lack of involvement of HBCUs in university technology transfer and addressing the use of advanced planning system tools in a supply chain network to resolve this problem.
Table 3. Non-HBCU Technology Transfer Needs
Proposed Tool Challenge Reference
Model University IP Policy Competent TTO Staff:
Educated
Experienced
Skilled in marketing
Skilled in negotiations
Skilled in supporting spin-off businesses
Well compensated
(Mowery, 2002) (S. Shane, 2002)
(M. B. Wright, Sue; Mosey, Simon 2004)
(D. S. Siegel, Waldman, David, Link, Albert 2003a)
(A. N. Link, Siegel, Donald S., Bozeman, Barry 2007) (D. Wright, 2013) Model University IP Policy Flexible, non-bureaucratic
university culture
(Link, 2005) Model University IP Policy Entrepreneurial supportive
university culture that:
embraces and licenses to university spin-offs
clearly expresses rules for faculty & student entrepreneurial business engagement
(Friedman, 2003)
(M. B. Wright, Sue; Mosey, Simon 2004)
Model University IP Policy University and TTO works to overcome cultural barricades between industry, TTO staff, faculty, and IP attorneys by:
Increasing social relationships
Increasing networking
Building relationships
Improving communication
Increasing faculty engagement
(E. M. H. Rogers, Brad;
Hashimoto, Michio; Steffensen, Morten; Speakman, Kristen L.;
Timko, Molly K., 1999) (Owen-Smith, 2001)
(D. S. Siegel, Waldman, David, Link, Albert 2003a)
(Mustar, 2006) (Tahvanainen, 2008) (D. Wright, 2013) (Dahl, 2015)
87
Table 3. Continued. Non-HBCU Technology Transfer Needs
Proposed Tool Challenge Reference
Benchmarking Tool Need quality faculty by measures such as NRC’s
(Friedman, 2003) (J. B. Powers, 2003) (O'Shea, 2005) Model University IP Policy Need faculty that is willing to be
continually involved in tech transfer with service such as:
Consulting arrangements with licensees
Technical adviser
Marketing adviser
Business adviser
(Friedman, 2003)
(D. S. Siegel, Waldman, David, Link, Albert 2003a; M. Wright, Burley, Sue, Mosey, Simon, 2004;
M. B. Wright, Sue; Mosey, Simon 2004)
Budget Resource Planning Tool
TTO needs clear goals, priorities, resource planning and planned investments of their financial resources
(Friedman, 2003)
(D. S. Siegel, Waldman, David, Link, Albert 2003a)
(Van Hoorebeek, 2004) Model University IP Policy Venture capital (S. Shane, 2002)
(D. S. Siegel, Waldman, David, Link, Albert 2003a)
Model University IP Policy Spend more time on grants related research to increase tech transfer
(A. N. S. Link, Donald S.;
Bozeman,Barry 2007) Model University IP Policy Tenured faculty with successful
research programs are more likely to engage in tech transfer
(A. N. Link, Siegel, Donald S., Bozeman, Barry 2007; A. N. S.
Link, Donald S.. 2007) Model University IP Policy Equity licensing needs to be
embraced:
TTOs should engage in equity licensing rather than seeking cash from start-ups
TTOs should seek lower royalties from start-ups
(E. M. H. Rogers, Brad;
Hashimoto, Michio; Steffensen, Morten; Speakman, Kristen L.;
Timko, Molly K., 1999) (G. D. G. Markman, Peter T.;
Phan, Phillip H.; Balkin, David B. , 2005; S. Shane, 2002; S. S. Shane, Toby, 2002)
(Di Gregorio, 2003)
(G. D. Markman, Phan, Phillip H., Balkin, David B., Gianiodis, Peter T., 2005)
88
Table 3. Continued. Non-HBCU Technology Transfer Needs
Proposed Tool Challenge Reference
Benchmarking Tool,
Budget Resource Planning and Model University IP Policy
TTO needs to be adequately resourced:
Legal budget
Well compensated TTO staff
In-house venture capital program (esp. for medical related inventions)
Presence of a Business Incubator
(S. Shane, 2002; S. S. Shane, Toby, 2002; D. S. Siegel, Waldman, David, Link, Albert 2003a)
(Degroof, 2004)
Model University IP Policy Existence of a medical school [or]
health science medical research results such as in:
Pharmaceuticals
Biomed
because the royalties are hefty
(M. B. Wright, Sue; Mosey, Simon 2004)
Model University IP Policy TTO need to be selective and prioritize the type of technology they will invest in such as:
Software
Biotech
Electrical engineering because these are easier to license
(M. B. Wright, Sue; Mosey, Simon 2004)
Model University IP Policy Universities need to seek increased research funding in these areas:
Engineering
Life sciences
Chemistry
Information Technology
(O'Shea, 2005)
Model University IP Policy Faculty researchers need to be adequately rewarded and incentivized to participate in university tech transfer
Royalty sharing
Credit toward promotion
(D. S. Siegel, Waldman, David, Link, Albert 2003a)
(Friedman, 2003) (Lach, 2004)
(D. S. P. Siegel, Philip Phan, 2005) (A. N. Link, Siegel, Donald S., Bozeman, Barry 2007; A. N. S.
Link, Donald S.. 2007) (Lach, 2008)
89
Table 3. Continued. Non-HBCU Technology Transfer Needs
Proposed Tool Challenge Reference
Job Scheduling Tool TTO job task processing delays (Colwell, 2002) (Bercovitz, 2003)
(G. D. G. Markman, Peter T.;
Phan, Phillip H.; Balkin, David B. , 2005)
(Baldini, 2008)
(R. N. Feldman, Kris, 2008) (Kenney, 2009)
(Cao, 2015)
90
Table 4. Literature Review Gap Analysis Gaps in the existing research:
1. measured level and extent of perceived university bureaucracy which thwarts commercialization of university technology;
2. measured levels of turn-over of TTO staff;
3. quality and experience of TTO staff in their ability to protect intellectual
property, conduct business formation and business development with marketing and social networking with an entrepreneurial spirit;
4. measured level and extent of industry’s use of universities’ disseminated know- how in the form of publications, patents and conference presentations;
5. measured time management in the TTO office (i.e. the use of the licensing staff’s time and amount of time actually spent on commercialization);
6. measured use of business schools’ expertise by the TTO staff and faculty researchers;
7. measured amount of training that the TTO staff and faculty researchers receive in entrepreneurship, intellectual property protection, start-up formation, and commercialization techniques;
8. measured amount of universities that actually have developed principles for creating academic spinoff businesses;
9. measured level of continued involvement of faculty researchers in the commercialization process;
10. measured increase of faculty researcher quality with respect to those capable of inventing patentable inventions and participating in the commercialization process;
✓
11. measured level and extent that TTOs treat small entrepreneurial tech start-ups in the same manner as larger corporations that they seek to license technology to;
12. how to increase HBCU engagement in technology transfer; ✓ 13. how the social comparison theory can be applied in university tech transfer to
provide HBCUs with performance benchmarks;
✓ 14. how HBCUs can optimize their tech transfer budget resource planning; and ✓ 15. how HBCUs can reduce time delays in university technology transfer with an
advanced optimization job scheduling tool.
✓
91