KTT Governance (Centralized vs. De-Centralized TTOs)

faculty operating unit with an identifiable compartment and administrative staff. Figure 1 shows the three most common organizational models: internal, external, and mixed (Brescia et al., 2014).

TTO structures differ by their degree of centralization, as well as, communication or reporting format. According to Bercovitz et al. (2006), four organizational structures could be identified which use the degree of centralization of the TTO as key characteristic: the Unitary or U-Form, the multidivisional structure (M-Form), the holding (H-form) and the Matrix structure (MX-Form). As shown in figure 2, the degree of centralization plays a vital role and deserves some further discussion in the following.

Centralization

According to Matkin (1997), centralized TTOs, specifically defined as Peripheral Organizations, enable a considerable simpler control and coordination for the university administration. An important benefit is that professionals are employed whose “job is to perform (technology transfer) activities” (Matkin, 1997). Furthermore, within the strongly centralized U-Form, a vertical control structure is given. Hence, coordination across units can be performed relatively easily. For faculties, it is problematic to perform transfer efficiently, as knowledge transfer with commercial intentions is not a core-activity of the university. This is crucial as the decision to actively engage in technology transfer by universities is strongly dependent on faculty involvement. Bercovitz &

Feldman (2006) find that active involvement in technology transfer by the chairs of the department influences other members of the department significantly. Therefore, a centralized TTO can give the faculties the impression that KKT is something “far away” or “not my business”. Due to peer effects this attitude is likely to lead to whole departments, which are resistant to KTT efforts.

In sum, a centralized TTO enables stability within the whole university organization, accountability and a better control and coordination of transfer activities. Moreover, it can provide a “one-stop-entry-point” for outsiders more easily. However, the centralized model decreases identification with the KTT objective (if not already strong within departments) and increases perceived distance between researcher and TTO as a mediating institution.

Decentralization

The decentralized model of TTO refers to an organizational structure where faculties administrate transfer activities independently. An advantageous effect of the model is the encouragement of faculties to interact with different internal stakeholders, but also with the external market. This helps to increase the universities’ culture in favor of technology transfer.

The M-Form and H-Form that are also characterized by a decentralized decision-power allocation have a strong information processing capacity that consequently enables faster responses. However, coordination across the units within the decentralized H-Form is difficult. In contrast, as the M-Form is characterized by a central coordination unit, the top-down coordination is considerably better. Furthermore, for both forms of decentralized power allocation, incentives across units are difficult to promote, as organizational ties are rather weak.

In sum, a decentralized structure increases the risk of sole decision making within the faculty units, which may not be in the interest of the university as a whole. Moreover, bargaining power towards outsiders is reduced. Separation of KTT activities may be a result of diverging emphasis on commercial activities and traditional incentive schemes of universities. Decentralized TTOs may therefore be beneficial if KTT affine units are few and flexibility and speed in decision making outrank bargaining power and the need for central coordination.

Hybrid Models

Modern organizational structures for TTOs usually combine centralized and decentralized elements to leverage advantages of the two idealized models. Centralized offices coordinate contracts and legal obligations (disclosure, patent applications, research contracts), but also engage in active technology marketing and networking with industry partners. This central unit gains in efficiency through task specialization and catering of the whole university, even if individual disclosure of inventions or contracts with industry are relatively rare. Bargaining power with externals is also increased, because the office represents the whole university. In order to increase contacts and identification with individual researchers they are usually companied by internal

“scouts” or “innovation managers”, who have offices in schools, departments or colleges. They report to the TTO, but work with individual researchers more closely (and may have an academic background in a related field). Additionally, these scouts can also be used to facilitate communication between university leadership and individual researchers.

7.1.3 Concluding remarks

The successful integration of commercial activities relies on the acceptance of university members. If designed accordingly, organizational support structures can have an impact on academic entrepreneurship and increase the likelihood of successfully responding to the needs of industry. Externalization of transfer activities harbors the risk of a negative attitude towards KTT activities and might lead to neglected support of commercialization. In contrast, the internal establishment of a TTO increases the likelihood of successful adoption, but is relatively costly.

More so if central and decentral elements are combined as is common practice in developed countries.

A careful analysis of KTT relevant units within a university might help to shed light on whether a full-fledge central TTO is needed. Furthermore, instead of assuming full-time equivalents when thinking TT-managers or scouts, a conceptualization along the line of “roles”

may be sensible. For example, scouting and support duties in departments could be undertaken by

“normal” researchers or lecturers if there teaching and/or research load would be reduced at the same time.

Learning Questions and Discussion:

1. What is the difference between “integrated” and “peripheral” organization with regard to KTT activities in universities? Which model do you believe to be more suited for the current situation at your university/organization?

2. How would you characterize the trade-off between efficiency (cost-benefit, speed) and effectiveness (receiving good inventions for transfer from faculty) of a highly professionalized TTO? What is the danger if TTOs “loose contact” to the researching faculty?

3. What would be benefits of “centralized” and “decentralized” elements of KTT at your university/organization? What could be examples of those elements and how could they work?

References

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Academic Entrepreneurs: Social Learning and Participation in University Technology Transfer. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Brescia, F., Colombo, G., & Landoni, P. (2014). Oragnizational Structures of Knowledge Transfer Offices: an analysis of the world's top ranked universities. Journal of Technology Transfer (2016) 41: 132. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9384-5

Dodds, J., & Somersalo, S. (2007). Practical Considerations for the Establishment of a Technology Transfer Office. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:

A Handbook of Best Practices , 575-579.

Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Mineva, 93-114.

Kruecken, G. (2003). Learning the `New, New Thing': On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education Vol.46, 315-339.

Matkin, G. (1997). Organizing University Development: Lessons from Continuing Education and Technology Transfer. New Directions for Higher Education,no.97, 27-41.

Nelsen, L. (2007). Ten Things Heads of Institutions Should Know about Setting Up a Technology Transfer Office. Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation:

A Handbook of Best Practices, 537-543.

Figure 1: Excerpt of TTO models (Brescia et al., 2014)

Figure 2: Competencies of alternative organizational structures (Bercovitz et al., 2006)

7.2 The role of Technology Transfer Offices in research driven universities: it’s