Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

The Impact of Technology Transfer
Office on Knowledge Transfer
-E...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

My Background: Kanetaka Maki
Present: Academic

Past: Practitione...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Motivation
• End of 1990s: Japan was considered to be trailing th...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

The Role of TTO
University
Patent
Office

Apply

License

TTO

Fi...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Multiple Pathways of UniversityIndustry Technology Transfer
Licen...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Anecdotal Evidence Among Practitioners
• Advocates of TTOs (mostl...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Tech Transfer in Japan: Prior to Reform
1.
2.
3.
4.

Strong belie...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Innovation Policy in Japan
1998 Formulation of the Act on the Pro...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

TTO Act
University

METI
Proposal

Decision
Permission

Validatio...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Launch of Technology Transfer Offices in Top 100 Universities
Dat...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Tech Transfer in Japan: Present
1. Government and universities pr...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Hypotheses
Based on anecdotal evidence and a theoretical model, w...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Research Design
• Universities in Japan were “forced” to reform t...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Dataset
TTO Characteristics

Nanobank
Zucker and Darby (2007)
d...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Trend of Nanotechnology

0

5000

10000

15000

Total Number of A...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Empirical Model
β4 PIit −2 + β5 log⁡
(BUDGETit −2⁡ + δt + αi + Ui...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Result

0.202

-0.0578
Figure: Effect of Activeness of TTO

Figur...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Case Study: Univ. of Tokyo
Change Rate of Collaboration
TTO
0

To...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Result
• The data seems to confirm that
– the reform to new UIC i...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Discussion
• Does this mean that TTO is an obstacle for UIC?
– No...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Policy Implication
• Formal ties and Informal ties

(cf. Walsh et...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Thank you.

kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org

More information is avail...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Additional Slides

Kanetaka M. Maki
University of California, San...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Summary Statistics
Joint Research between Univ & Firms
Existence ...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Top 100 Universities with the Volume of Research
Univ Tokyo*, Toh...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Empirical Methodology
log⁡
(CoAuthoringit ) = β0 + β1 NewUICit + ...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

The Impact of TTO on the Amount of Joint Research (OLS)
VARIABLES...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Comparison Between Senior & Junior Researchers
VARIABLES

(1)
Sen...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Critics of TTO in the US
• Strong belief on the part of industry ...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

TTO and Other Pathways
• Most faculty members estimate that paten...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

The Role of TTO
• The TTO aims to promote collaboration between
u...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

The TTO Act
• The TTO Act created guidelines and processes for un...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Production of Trust (Zucker, 1986)
• Conducting joint research re...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Appropriate Organizational Design
• Siegel et al. (2003): The TTO...
Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved.

Summary of My Presentation
• Technology Transfer Office (TTO) is ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

The Impact of Technology Transfer Office on Knowledge Transfer (AAAS2014)

784

Published on

0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
784
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good morning.My name is Kanetaka Maki.First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to NIESTEP for inviting me to the session as speaker.Today, I am going to talk about pros and cons of technology transfer office, with evidence from Japan.I am aware that my talk is quite controversial, and I look forward for the discussion.
  • I am currentlyPh.D student at University of California, San Diego.My research topic is innovation and entrepreneurship, especially focusing on university-industry technology transfer.Prior to coming to the US, I was working as faculty at Keio University.I was a founding chief officer of university incubation program. There, I designed and implement numerous key programs to promote university-based startups. My experience includes supporting startups, supporting other Japanese university to launch the incubation program, and designing policy in Japan.My advantage in this field is thatI have both experience in academia and practice.
  • Let me talk you the story.End of 1990s: Japan was considered to be trailing the US in university-technology transfer.Japanese government introduced to new national innovation system in late 1990s, using the US system as a model.The center pillar of the transformation was the launch of Technology Transfer Office (TTO).My question is that, after the transformation, is the new national innovation system in Japan working effectively?
  • Let me explain the role of TTO, for those of you don’t know.The TTO aims to promote collaboration between university and industry, potentially playing several roles: investigating potential research that can be commercializedapplying for patents on newly created innovationslicensing patents to industryearning profits for the universityand share profits to individual researchers.
  • Previous research suggests that multiple pathways for university transfer exist. Multiple pathways increase the volume of the entire technology transfer, and ultimately increase the impact of innovation. A research illustrates that most faculty members estimate that patents account for less that 10% of whole university-industry technology transfer.The key channels of technology transfer are related to “open science”, such as publication, consulting, or education.Addition to trivial pathways, Zucker and Darby proposes that knowledge spillovers occur when joint research such as co-authoring the articles is conducted. (Zucker et al., 2000)Additionally, previous research illustrates critiques of TTO.For example, Litan claims that TTOs behave as revenue maximizers and do not have an incentive to increase the volume.Also Siegel demonstrates that there is a strong belief on the part of industry (80%) that universities are exercising their intellectual property rights too aggressively. The attitude of TTO has led some firms to completely avoid working with TTOs.In this talk, we will look deeply for licensing and co-authoring.
  • Prior to reform, university-industry technology transfer had four unique characteristics.Strong belief that academia must be independent from industry existed.National university professors were not allowed to receive compensation from industry, or be involved in side business.National universities were not allowed to own patents.University facilities were open to public under supervision of professors.This is how technologytransfer works.University researcher and firm researcher agree to start joint research.Joint research starts immediately without formal contract. Usually, firm researchers physically go to university to conduct research.Co-authored publication is generated through university.If research is patentable, firm applies the patent.As the “compensation”, firm donates to university.
  • In the late 90s, government decided to transform the national innovation system.Government implemented bunch of innovation policy packages.Three are three most important policy changes.First is TTO act in 1998. Second is Japanese version of Bayh-Dole Act.Third is “Hiranuma plan” that encourages university startups.
  • The TTO Act created guidelines and processes for universities to set up TTO.According to the new law, launching a TTO involved the following steps: University decides to create a TTOUniversity proposes a plan to the Ministry of Economy, Trading, and Industry (METI) for approvalMETI grants permission based on the validity of the planBased on approval, the university launches the office. There is an interesting debate that was the creation of TTO was Incentivized or mandatory?METI incentivized universities with subsidies to launch the TTO.However,METI explicitly guided particular universities to launch the TTO.Many universities believed that creating the TTO was a new source of income, which was necessary for economic sustainability.
  • In fact, 65 out of 100 top universities launched TTO within 6 years.It was the external pressure that made universities to adapt the transformation.
  • Three major changes in present technology transfer in Japan.Government and universities promote UIC (change in belief). The change in belief strongly affect the behavior of researchers in Japan.UIC now requires formal organizational procedure with contract. TTO manages intellectual property.This is how technology transfer works.First, university researcher and firm researcher agree to start joint research.Now, formal contract is necessary. Office of research and legal office negotiates for the contract.When joint research starts, firm pays the research budget.Co-authored publication generated jointly.In case of applying the patent, now university is responsible.If firm has a need to use the patent, university will license the patent with firms paying the royalty.This is identical as the US innovation system.
  • Based on anecdotal evidence and a theoretical model, we formulated two hypotheses.Hypothesis 1: The reform to new University-Industry Collaboration model is expected be associated with an increase in joint research between universities and firms, because the incentives for researchers to collaborate increased.Hypothesis 2: TTO activity could be negatively associated with the quantity of joint research between university and firm researchers, because the transaction costs increased.Now we test these hypothesis using dataset in Japan.
  • As I proposed, Japanese universities were “forced” to reform to the new system, case study in Japan is a great opportunity as natural experiment.We use co-authoring of academic articles between universities and firms as the indicator of joint research. This is an appropriate indicator because of following reason.Novel science discoveries are by nature tacit knowledge, and therefore not patentable.New discoveries have characteristics of natural-excludability. They are transferable only through bench-science level collaboration. Co-authoring per se is the process of transferring tacit knowledge.
  • We are using dataset named Nanobank which includes academic publication in nanotechnology.Unique about this data set is that unique identifier for the organization is available.We also gathered characteristics of TTO and trend of nanotechnology research.Aggregating these three datasets, we conducted balanced panel dataset.Time span is 1994-2004 including 1998, the year of TTO act.We included top 100 university with research volume.
  • To show you the trend of nanotechnology research, figure describes the volume of nanotechnology research.As you can see, nanotechnology research was boom, and expanded dramatically.
  • - Our empirical model is as illustrated.To put it simply, what we are looking is the effect of Reform to New UIC and activeness of TTO on frequency of co-authoring articles.Reform to NewTT was measured by launch of TTO. Launching TTO is the robust indicator to see the adaption of reform.Activeness of TTO is measured by patents applied.We controlled the trend of nanotechnology and characteristics of university.
  • The result is shown. Coefficient of NewTT is 0.202, and cofficient of TTO is -0.0578.Put it simply, figure in the left side illustrates the effect of reform. Universities with adapting reform increased frequency of joint research for 20%.The figure in right side demonstrates the effect of activeness of TTO. As illustrated, applying one patent decreases frequency of co-authoring for 5%.In other words, more patents, less co-authoring articles.
  • This is a case study for the University of Tokyo.The figure illustrates impact of total effect on frequency of co-authoring.As you can see, after the launch of TTO, co-authoring seems decreasing.
  • The data seems to confirm thatthe reform to new UIC is associated with an increase of joint research between universities and firms (hypothesis 1 confirmed)the activeness of TTO is negatively associated with the quantity of joint research between universities and firms (hypothesis 2 confirmed)Since we must see the total effect, the amount of joint research in universities with active TTOs is actually decreasing.
  • Does this mean that TTO is an obstacle for UIC?No. What we found in this analysis is that patent activities and co-authoring are the tradeoffs.Multiple pathway of technology transfer is necessary. TTO is definitely the one, but must be appropriately managed.Does this apply to other research fields besides nanotechnology?Probably yes. We controlled the trend of nanotechnology. Further investigation is necessary for validation.
  • Policy implication.Transformation of national innovation system was the process of moving from informal ties to formal ties.Existence of informal ties is still necessary after the transformation.allowing joint research without formal contractTTO is the dual agent of university administration and researchers. Some TTO seems acting as the agent of university administration rather than agent of researchers.alignment of objectives between TTOs and researchers
  • The Impact of Technology Transfer Office on Knowledge Transfer (AAAS2014)

    1. 1. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. The Impact of Technology Transfer Office on Knowledge Transfer -Evidence from Natural Experiment in JapanAAAS 2014 Annual Meeting “Making the Best Use of Academic Knowledge in Innovation Systems” Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego The presentation is based on the following paper: Maki, Kanetaka M. and Krishnan, Vish, Collaborative Innovation and Knowledge Creation: Theory and Testing with a Natural Experiment in Japan (November 14, 2013). University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management Working Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2374730 Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 1
    2. 2. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. My Background: Kanetaka Maki Present: Academic Past: Practitioner Founding Chief Officer, Keio SIV Entrepreneur Laboratory Ph.D Candidate in Management Innovation & Entrepreneurship Economics of Innovation Economics of Science University-Industry Technology Transfer Professional Service: - Academic Entrepreneurship Committee (hosted by METI) - Committee member for university incubation - Partner, EGG JAPAN Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 2
    3. 3. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Motivation • End of 1990s: Japan was considered to be trailing the US in university-technology transfer. • Japanese government introduced to new national innovation system in late 1990s, using the US system as a model. • The center pillar of the transformation was the launch of Technology Transfer Office (TTO). • After the transformation, is the new national innovation system in Japan working effectively? Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 3
    4. 4. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. The Role of TTO University Patent Office Apply License TTO Firm Royalty Search Res earc her Share profit Res earc her Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 4
    5. 5. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Multiple Pathways of UniversityIndustry Technology Transfer Licensing (TTO) Research (Publications) Joint Research University Start-ups Industry Consulting Education Co-authoring Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 5
    6. 6. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Anecdotal Evidence Among Practitioners • Advocates of TTOs (mostly by university and policymakers) – The establishment of TTO system in 1998 was the starting point of university-industry technology transfer in Japan. • Critics of TTOs (mostly by industry) – TTO caused the university to become too aggressive in owning patents. – The transaction cost for negotiating joint contract increased. – As a result, university-industry technology transfer became more difficult. We examine the data to see if we can discern a pattern. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 6
    7. 7. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Tech Transfer in Japan: Prior to Reform 1. 2. 3. 4. Strong belief that academia must be independent from industry existed. National university professors were not allowed to receive compensation from industry, or be involved in side business. National universities were not allowed to own patents. University facilities were open to public under supervision of professors. Firm University Publicat ion Univer sity Resea rcher Stude nt Patent Joint Research Informal / No Contract Firm Resea rcher Firm Resea rcher Donation Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 7
    8. 8. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Innovation Policy in Japan 1998 Formulation of the Act on the Promotion of Technology Transfer from Universities to Private Industry (the TTO Act) Amendment of the Law for Facilitating Governmental Research Exchange 1999 Creation of the Small Business Innovation Research Program (“Japanese SBIR”) Formulation of the Act on Special Measures for Industrial Revitalization (Japanese version of the Bayh–Dole Act) Establishment of the Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE) 2000 Formulation of the Industrial Technology Enhancement Act 2001 “Hiranuma Plan” announced “Plan for 1,000 university-originated ventures in three years” 2002 Revision of the Ministry of Finance Property Administration Bureau Notification No. 1 Revision of the TLO Law Notification 2003 Formulation of the Intellectual Property Basic Act Revised based on http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/nts/11e008.html Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 8
    9. 9. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. TTO Act University METI Proposal Decision Permission Validation Launch • Incentivized or Mandatory? – METI incentivized universities with subsidies to launch the TTO. – METI explicitly guided particular universities to launch the TTO. – Many universities believed that creating the TTO was a new source of income, necessary for economic sustainability. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 9
    10. 10. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Launch of Technology Transfer Offices in Top 100 Universities Date December, 1998 April, 1999 August, 1999 December, 1999 April, 2000 June, 2000 September, 2000 December, 2000 April, 2001 August, 2001 December, 2001 January, 2002 April, 2002 December, 2002 February, 2003 April, 2003 May, 2003 September, 2003 October, 2003 December, 2003 April, 2004 Organization Univ Tokyo, Tohoku Univ, Kyoto Univ, Kyoto Inst Technol, Nihon Univ, Yamagata Univ, Nara Inst Sci & Technol, Ritsumeikan Univ, Iwate Univ, Doshisha Univ, Hirosaki Univ, Akita Univ, Ryukoku Univ Univ Tsukuba, Waseda Univ Tokyo Inst Technol, Keio Univ Hokkaido Univ, Yamaguchi Univ, Muroran Inst Technol Nagoya Univ, Kyushu Univ, Kobe Univ, Nagoya Inst Technol, Toyohashi Univ Technol, Toyama Univ, Gifu Univ, Kwansei Gakuin Univ, Toyama Prefectural Univ Tokyo Denki Univ Yamanashi Univ Tokyo Metropolitan Univ, Univ Electrocommun, Hosei Univ, Toyo Univ, Kogakuin Univ Yokohama Natl Univ, Univ Tokushima, Ehime Univ, Yokohama City Univ, Meiji Univ Osaka Univ, Univ Osaka Prefecture, Osaka City Univ, Kumamoto Univ, Kansai Univ, Kinki Univ Tokyo Univ Agr & Technol, Niigata Univ, Nagaoka Univ Technol Univ Shizuoka, Shizuka Univ Kyushu Inst Technol, Mie Univ, Fukuoka Univ Kanazawa Univ Kagoshima Univ Shinshu Univ Miyazaki Univ Sci Univ Tokyo Hiroshima Univ Shimane Univ Okayama Univ, Okayama Univ Sci, Konan Univ Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 10
    11. 11. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Tech Transfer in Japan: Present 1. Government and universities promote tech. transfer (change in belief). 2. UIC now requires formal organizational procedure with contract. 3. TTO manages intellectual property. Firm University Office of Research Stud ent Univ. Rese arche Negotiation for Contract Legal Office Joint Research With Contract Research Budget Public ation Firm Rese arche r Licensing Patent Patent TTO Royalty Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 11
    12. 12. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Hypotheses Based on anecdotal evidence and a theoretical model, we formulated two hypotheses. • Hypothesis 1: The reform to new University-Industry Collaboration model is expected be associated with an increase in joint research between universities and firms, because the incentives for researchers to collaborate increased. • Hypothesis 2: TTO activity could be negatively associated with the quantity of joint research between university and firm researchers, because the transaction costs increased. We now test our hypotheses using data collected based on a unique dataset from a natural experiment in Japan. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 12
    13. 13. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Research Design • Universities in Japan were “forced” to reform to the new system and to create a TTO by government policy, representing an exogenous shock from new policy implementation – natural experiment (Harrison and List, 2004). • Using balanced panel dataset, we analyze the impact of policy change on joint research. • Co-authorship of academic articles between universities and firms is used as the indicator of joint research (Zucker, Darby and Brewer, 1998) – Novel science discoveries are by nature tacit knowledge, and therefore not patentable. – New discoveries have characteristics of natural-excludability. They are transferable only through bench-science level collaboration. – Co-authoring per se is the process of transferring tacit knowledge. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 13
    14. 14. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Dataset TTO Characteristics Nanobank Zucker and Darby (2007) data in nanotechnology articles, patents, and grants title, journal, author, and organizations the dataset includes a unique identifier for the organization year of TTO establishment # of patent application by each TTO Trend of Nanotech Research Database of Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research <KAKENHI> # of PIs & total budget (per inst/year) Balanced Panel Dataset aggregating dataset above Time span: 1994-2004 (11 years). Top 100 universities by the volume of research Kanetaka M. Maki kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org University of California, San Diego http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 14
    15. 15. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Trend of Nanotechnology 0 5000 10000 15000 Total Number of Articles Published 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year Total # of Articles by Univ Total # of Articles by Firm Total # of Articles by Collab Based on Nanobank. Universities and firms in Japan are identified by the address. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 15
    16. 16. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Empirical Model β4 PIit −2 + β5 log⁡ (BUDGETit −2⁡ + δt + αi + Uit ) Reform to NewTT Activeness of TTO Frequency of Co-authoring Articles Research Volume Within University Trend of Nanotechnol ogy Research Characteristi cs of University Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 16
    17. 17. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Result 0.202 -0.0578 Figure: Effect of Activeness of TTO Figure: Effect of Reform 0 25 -10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 20 -20 15 Control 10 Effect Treatment -30 -40 -50 5 -60 0 -70 Before After Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego Activeness of TTO kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 17
    18. 18. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Case Study: Univ. of Tokyo Change Rate of Collaboration TTO 0 Total Effect (%) 1992 -5 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 Time NewTT x 20.2 %+TTO x (-5.78%) For the University of Tokyo, in 2002, 4 patents were applied in the US. The marginal effect of NewUICit and TTOit is -2.92%. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 18
    19. 19. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Result • The data seems to confirm that – the reform to new UIC is associated with an increase of joint research between universities and firms (hypothesis 1 confirmed) – the activeness of TTO is negatively associated with the quantity of joint research between universities and firms (hypothesis 2 confirmed) The amount of joint research in universities with active TTOs is actually decreasing. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 19
    20. 20. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Discussion • Does this mean that TTO is an obstacle for UIC? – No. What we found in this analysis is that patent activities and co-authoring are the tradeoffs. – Multiple pathway of technology transfer is necessary. TTO is definitely the one, but must be appropriately managed. • Does this apply to other research fields besides nanotechnology? – Probably yes. We controlled the trend of nanotechnology. Further investigation is necessary for validation. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 20
    21. 21. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Policy Implication • Formal ties and Informal ties (cf. Walsh et al. 2008) – Transformation of national innovation system was the process of moving from informal ties to formal ties. – Existence of informal ties is still necessary after the transformation. allowing joint research without formal contract • TTO as a Dual Agent (cf. Jensen et al. 2003, Ueyama 2013) – TTO is the dual agent of university administration and researchers. – Some TTO seems acting as the agent of university administration rather than agent of researchers. alignment of objectives between TTOs and researchers Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 21
    22. 22. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Thank you. kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org More information is available in our paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2374730 Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 22
    23. 23. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Additional Slides Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 23
    24. 24. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Summary Statistics Joint Research between Univ & Firms Existence of TTO (dummy) Patents in US by TTO Patents in Japan by TTO # of Publication # of PI Total Budget National University (dummy) Existence of Patents in the US (dummy) Research Conducted Internally Joint Research by Senior Researcher Joint Research by Junior Researcher Observations count 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 mean 4.36 0.27 0.21 0.75 70.17 2.70 440.70 0.55 0.32 18.15 1.62 14.04 sd 9.23 0.44 0.84 2.35 159.48 7.10 1775.63 0.50 0.47 39.09 6.63 29.04 min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 max 73 1 12 22 1246 84 26776 1 1 265 71 262 Summary statistics for the top 100 universities for years 1994-2004. Sample was attained from Nanobank, COMET and KAKENHI database. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 24
    25. 25. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Top 100 Universities with the Volume of Research Univ Tokyo*, Tohoku Univ*, Osaka Univ*, Kyoto Univ*, Tokyo Inst Technol*, Nagoya Univ*, Hokkaido Univ*, Kyushu Univ*, Univ Tsukuba*, Hiroshima Univ*, Sci Univ Tokyo, Waseda Univ, Chiba Univ*, Univ Osaka Prefecture, Tokyo Metropolitan Univ, Keio Univ, Kobe Univ*, Nagoya Inst Technol*, Tokyo Univ Agr & Technol*, Univ Electrocommun*, Osaka City Univ, Yokohama Natl Univ*, Toyohashi Univ Technol*, Sinshu Univ*, Kyushu Inst Technol*, Okayama Univ*, Kyoto Inst Technol*, Niigata Univ*, Univ Tokushima*, Yamaguchi Univ*, Gunma Univ*, Univ Shizuoka, Kanazawa Univ*, Saitama Univ*, Kumamoto Univ*, Mie Univ*, Nagaoka Univ Technol*, Meijo Univ, Nihon Univ, Shizuoka Univ*, Yamagata Univ*, Nara Inst Sci & Technol*, Nagasaki Univ*, Toyama Univ*, Grad Univ Adv Studies*, Gifu Univ*, Kagoshima Univ*, Natl Def Med Coll, Ritsumeikan Univ, Fukui Univ*, Tokai Univ, Sophia Univ, Ibaraki Univ*, Ehime Univ*, Kwansei Gakuin Univ, Yamanashi Univ*, Kansai Univ, Saga Univ*, Kinki Univ, Ochanomizu Univ, Utsunomiya Univ*, Iwate Univ*, Nara Womens Univ*, Tottori Univ*, Univ Aizu, Doshisha Univ, Yokohama City Univ, Tokyo Med & Dent Univ*, Shimane Univ*, Toho Univ, Muroran Inst Technol*, Hirosaki Univ*, Kanagawa Univ, Gakushuin Univ, Okayama Univ Sci, Aoyama Gakuin Univ, Musashi Inst Technol, Akita Univ*, Fukuoka Univ, Chuo Univ, Hosei Univ, Tokyo Denki Univ, Toyo Univ, Osaka Electrocommun Univ, Kitasato Univ, Meiji Univ, Tokyo Metropolitan Inst Neurosci, Kochi Univ*, Univ Ryukyus*, Konan Univ, Akita Prefectural Univ, Seikei Univ, Iwaki Meisei Univ, Tokyo Womens Med Univ, Kogakuin Univ, Teikyo Univ, Toyama Prefectural Univ, Toin Univ Yokohama, Miyazaki Univ*, Chubu Univ * National Universities Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 25
    26. 26. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Empirical Methodology log⁡ (CoAuthoringit ) = β0 + β1 NewUICit + β2 TTOit + β3 RESEARCHit + β4 PIit −2 + β5 log⁡ (BUDGETit −2⁡ + δt + αi + Uit ) Unit: individual universities per year CoAuthoringit : NewUICit : TTOit : RESEARCHit : PIit : BUDGETit : δt : αi : the amount of joint research between univ. and firms, measured by # of co-authored papers (monotonic transformation, logarithm) reform to new university-industry collaboration model, measured by launch of TTO (dummy variable) activeness of TTO, measured by the # of patents granted in the US the volume of research, measured by # of published articles the number of researchers, measured by the # of principal investigators for granted projects (2 years lag) the total budget for granted projects (monotonic transformation, logarithm, 2 years lag) time variable unobservable individual characteristics (size, reputation etc.) difference-in-difference estimation using OLS; robust standard errors Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 26
    27. 27. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. The Impact of TTO on the Amount of Joint Research (OLS) VARIABLES (1) Hypothesis 1 New UIC Model 0.893*** (0.0717) Activeness of TTO Hypothesis 2 ( x New UIC Model) Total # of Article (2) 0.740*** (0.0682) 0.375*** (0.0504) # of PI (2 yrs lag) Total Budget (log / 2 yrs lag) Constant Observations R-squared Number of CODE Time Dummies Fixed Effect (3) (4) 0.183*** 0.199*** 0.202*** (0.0479) (0.0551) (0.0557) -0.0915* -0.0975* -0.0578** (0.0496) (0.0506) (0.0251) 0.00586*** 0.00587*** 0.00198*** (0.000589) (0.000607) (0.000389) -0.0965*** -0.0967*** -0.0358*** (0.0160) (0.0166) (0.00979) 0.149*** 0.151*** 0.0263** (0.0105) (0.0108) (0.0106) 0.446*** 0.454*** 0.601*** (0.0243) (0.0640) (0.0501) 0.774*** (0.0304) 0.738*** (0.0293) 1,100 0.151 1,100 0.242 1,100 0.622 1,100 0.624 NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 (5) 1,100 0.274 100 YES YES The dependent variable is the amount of co-authoring(logarithm), measured by co-authorship between universities and firms. Top 100 universities Kanetaka for 1994-2004. (1) Pooled OLS with the kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org are included M. Maki existence of TTOit as an explanatory variable. (2) Pooled OLS with University control variables added. (4) Pooled OLS with time dummies controlled. (5) Fixed effect OLS. http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ explanatory variable of PATENT_USit added. (3) Pooled OLS withof California, San Diego 27
    28. 28. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Comparison Between Senior & Junior Researchers VARIABLES (1) Senior Researchers (log) Reform to NewUIC Hypothesis 3 Activeness of TTO Total # of Article # of PI (2 yrs lag) Total Budget (log / 2 yrs lag) Constant Observations R-squared Number of CODE (2) Junior Researchers (log) 0.148*** (0.0505) 0.00267 (0.0228) 0.00217*** (0.000353) 0.00427 (0.00887) -0.00151 (0.00958) 0.0949** (0.0454) 0.244*** (0.0914) -0.0612 (0.0412) 0.00248*** (0.000639) -0.0568*** (0.0161) 0.0510*** (0.0173) 0.986*** (0.0821) 1,100 0.258 100 1,100 0.247 100 Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 The top 100 universities are included for 1994-2004. Fixed effect and time dummies Kanetaka M. Maki kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org are controlled. (1) The dependent variable is co-authoring between universities and firms by senior researchers. (2) The dependent variable is co-authoring between universities and firms by junior researchers. University of California, San Diego http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 28
    29. 29. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Critics of TTO in the US • Strong belief on the part of industry (80%) that universities are exercising their intellectual property rights too aggressively. The attitude of TTO has led some firms to completely avoid working with TTOs. (Siegel et al., 2003) • Multiple pathways for university transfer exist. Multiple pathways increase the volume of the entire technology transfer, and ultimately increase the impact of innovation. However, TTOs behave as revenue maximizers and do not have an incentive to increase the volume. (Litan et al., 2008) Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 29
    30. 30. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. TTO and Other Pathways • Most faculty members estimate that patents account for less that 10% of whole university-industry technology transfer. (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002) • Patenting is not a substitute for fundamental research, but more likely a complimentary activity. (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002) • The key channels through which university research impacts industrial R&D are related to “open science”, including published papers and reports, public conferences and meetings, informal information exchange, and consulting. (Cohen et al., 2002) • Licensing, cooperative ventures, or the hiring of recent graduate has small importance overall. (Cohen et al., 2002) • Knowledge spillovers occur when joint research such as co-authoring the articles is conducted. (Zucker et al., 2000) Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 30
    31. 31. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. The Role of TTO • The TTO aims to promote collaboration between university and industry, potentially playing several roles: – – – – investigating potential research that can be commercialized applying for patents on newly created innovations licensing patents to industry earning profits for the university and individual researchers. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 31
    32. 32. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. The TTO Act • The TTO Act created guidelines and processes for universities to set up TTO. • According to the new law, launching a TTO involved the following steps: – University decides to create a TTO – University proposes a plan to the Ministry of Economy, Trading, and Industry (METI) for approval – METI grants permission based on the validity of the plan – Based on approval, the university launches the office. • Incentivized or Mandatory? – METI incentivized universities with subsidies to launch the TTO. – METI explicitly guided particular universities to launch the TTO. – Many universities believed that creating the TTO was a new way of income, necessary for economic sustainability. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 32
    33. 33. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Production of Trust (Zucker, 1986) • Conducting joint research requires trust between researchers at universities and firms. – process-based (trust tied to past or expected exchange) – characteristics-based (trust tied to person) – institutional-based (truest tied to formal societal structures) • The traditional Japanese model for joint research was based on processbased trust (long-term relationships). • The creation of TTO aims to create institutional trust (intermediary). • Senior researchers may rely on process-based trust. • Junior researchers lack experience and process-based trust, and may benefit from the TTO as intermediary to promote UIC. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 33
    34. 34. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Appropriate Organizational Design • Siegel et al. (2003): The TTO is protecting intellectual property too aggressively. Firms may avoid working with universities. • Litan et al. (2007): The TTO may behave like a monopolistic intermediary, maximizing licensing revenue and lacking an incentive to promote publishable research. • The negative association between the activity of TTO and the amount of joint research suggests that an appropriate organizational design of the TTO is necessary to increase the total volume of joint research. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 34
    35. 35. Copyrights © 2014 Kanetaka M. Maki All Rights Reserved. Summary of My Presentation • Technology Transfer Office (TTO) is recognized as one of the fundamental functions of national innovation system. • Long running dispute exists between proponents and opponents of TTO. • Our preliminary result from a natural experiment in Japan demonstrates that the creation of TTO may adversely impact joint publications between universities and firms, if not properly managed. Kanetaka M. Maki University of California, San Diego kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/ 35

    ×