As stated earlier, the UTT research is a young and developing field in the literature, and it has not achieved a standardization of terminologies among researchers as compared to other established research fields. This causes confusion to any researcher who wants to draw a common understanding in the literature. For the interest of this research, this section will examine and discuss the distinction between and the interplay of two closely related concepts: university knowledge transfer (UKT) and university technology transfer (UTT). These two terms in some instances are used by researchers to refer to the same activity, yet in other instances they imply different scopes of activities. There is a need to clarify the meaning and usage of these two concepts. The following review attempts to answer an important question of the research: What is it a university doing - technology transfer, or knowledge transfer, or both?
19 One paper that investigates these two concepts in depth is that of Gopalakrishnan and Santoro. The authors define knowledge transfer activities as those involving educational programs, hiring new graduates, personnel exchange, and the level of participation in research papers between the university and the firm; whereas technology transfer activities are defined as those more directly involved in the development and commercialization of new technologies. They posit that technology transfer is a much narrower construct than knowledge transfer. Specifically, technology refers more to new tools, methodologies, processes, and products while knowledge embodies broader learning [33]. (Table 4)
Dimensions Technology Knowledge
Breath of construct
Narrower and more specific construct. Technology can be seen as an instrumentality or set of tools for changing the environment
Broader and more inclusive construct. Knowledge embodies underlying theories and
principles related to cause and effect relationship
Observability More tangible and precise Less tangible and more amorphous
Overarching characteristic
More explicit and codified where learning can be taught and information is stored more in blueprints, databases, and manuals
More tacit where learning is by doing and information is stored more in peoples’ heads
Management phase(s) of most consequence
Post-competitive phase of
technological development (integral for the commercialization of ideas and inventions)
Pre and post competitive phases of technological development
Organizational learning
More reliance on controlled experiments, simulations, and pilot tests
More trial and error, wider use of gestalts
Nature of interactions
Inter and intra organizational interactions that mostly deal with organizational issues and how things work
Inter and intra organizational interactions that deal with strategic issues and why things work the way they do
Table 4: Key dimensions of technology and knowledge transfer [33]
20 Some researchers use the terms “knowledge transfer” and “technology transfer”
interchangeably to refer to the same topic. Bozeman asserts that research on technology transfer is often drawn from communications research and involves movement of the intangible in combination with the tangible, because when a physical technology is transferred, intangible knowledge is also transferred [34]. Bremer states that long before the term university technology transfer was used universities were being engaged in technology transfer through publications in scientific journals, extension services, technical consultantships, and tangible products [1]. Baldwin uses the term UTT to define the movement of ideas and innovations from university laboratories and research centers to industry and on to the market place. This has traditionally taken a number of forms, including consultation to industry by faculty; hiring of new university graduates by industry; special courses and seminars for “retraining” and “upgrading” industrial scientists and engineers; and membership in professional societies [2].
Geuna and Muscio argue that while a focus on patents, licensing and spin-offs as mechanisms of knowledge transfer from universities to industry is understandable, it provides an incomplete picture. First, only a small fraction of the research conducted at universities can be codified in patents. Second, and equally important, the patenting channel accounts for only a small fraction of the overall knowledge transferred to industry [31]. Nelson observes after studying technology transfer at major research universities that there are two “myths” about the current technology transfer activity at American universities. One is that effective technology transfer almost always requires
21 university patenting and licensing, or in other words, patenting and licensing greatly facilitate technology transfer. In many cases he has studied, putting the knowledge into the public domain through open publication and information dissemination was sufficient to spread it to the intended recipients. The second myth is that universities can expect a lot of money from their patenting and licensing activities. However, many universities are paying significantly more to run their patenting and licensing offices than they are receiving in license revenues [35]. In reality, research universities have been getting a very modest financial rate of return from their research investments. Many rely on just a few “blockbuster” patents to make big money [36].
Since knowledge is also embedded in legal instruments such as patents, many researchers use the term “knowledge transfer” to refer to the transfer mechanisms such as patent/licensing, spin-offs, etc. Link et al. use the term “knowledge transfer” as an informal university technology transfer channel in which the university researchers work directly with industry personnel in an effort to transfer or commercialize technology or applied research [37]. It is difficult to make a clear cut distinction between knowledge transfer and technology transfer concepts as both are intertwined in most cases. Arvanitis et al use the term “Knowledge and Technology Transfer” in their research [38]. Geuna and Muscio (2009) state that research collaborations, intellectual property rights and spin-offs are forms of knowledge transfer that are more formalized and have been institutionalized in recent years [31].
22 Conducting a survey of the TTOs at 12 top US research universities, Carlsson and Fridth conclude that technology transfer from universities to the commercial sector needs to be understood in its broader context. Since the primary purpose of a technology transfer program is for the university to assist its researchers in
disseminating research results for the public good, success in this endeavor is only partially reflected in income generated for the university or the number of business start-ups. Other benefits include the creation of wealth, new jobs and new solutions to problems in society [39].
Knowledge and technology transfer from universities to industrial innovation move through many other channels in
addition to patents and licensing. Indeed, patents and licenses are important sources of industrial innovation in only a few industries. Instead, other types of interaction, ranging from publications to the employment within industry of university trained scientists and engineers with experience at the frontiers of research, are of greater importance for innovation in many technology intensive and other industries [32]. Agrawal and Henderson found that only 10% of the knowledge is transferred from the research labs through patents, as estimated by researchers at MIT. That is in addition to the fact that only about 10-20% of faculty members file a patent as opposed to the 60% who publish in a given year during the 15-year period under investigation. The authors conclude that a focus on patenting or licensing statistics may significantly misrepresent the nature of the university’s impact on the economy and that any comprehensive study of the issue must
Since the primary purpose of a technology transfer program is for the university to assist its researchers in
23 include a focus on the other channels through which university knowledge is transferred to private firms [40].
In conclusion, some researchers use the term “technology transfer” to refer to an institutional activity that requires organizational structures and processes to move the research results to the market place such as patent and licensing or spin-offs, whereas others use “knowledge transfer” when investigating the more personal interactions between academic researchers and industry though there are overlaps between these two types of activities. Few “technology transfer” researchers mention informal channels such as conferences and consulting as transfer mechanisms but “knowledge transfer’
researchers often include patents, licensing, and spin-offs. This indicates that knowledge transfer is a broader concept and it incorporates technology transfer.