Sharing research facilities: Towards a new mode of technology transfer?
Ashveen Peerbaye
GAPP-ENS Cachan, Cachan, France
Vincent Mangematin
GAEL INRA-UPMF, Grenoble, France; Visiting Professor, Department of Industrial Dynamics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
PP: 23 - 38
Abstract
Academic science commercialization through University spin-offs or patents has been growing since the mid 90s. The first biotech firms started up within academia to be able to use unique research facilities with the complementary competences. Since the development of genomics and tools for 'mass gene and protein exploration', instrumentation has become more and more resource-consuming, making sharing research facilities a growing issue.
The aim of this paper is to analyse the evolution of technology transfer mechanisms and the sharing of research facilities as a mean to transfer technology. It specifically focuses on the organisation of large-scale research facilities (LSRFs) as a means to facilitate and organize technology transfer from public sector research organisations (PSROs) to industry.
Keywords
biotechnology, technology transfer, research facilities, organizational design, bricolage, hybrid
References
Afuah A and Utterback JM (1997) Responding to Structural Industry Changes: A Technological Evolution Perspective, Industrial and Corporate Change 6(1): 183-202.
Almeida P and Kogut B (1999) Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in regional Networks, Management Science 45(7): 905-918.
Anderson P and Tushman ML (1990) Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Models of Technological Change, Administrative Science Quarterly 35(4): 604-633.
Argyres NS and Liebeskind J (1998) Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialisation of biotechnology, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 35: 427-454.
Arora A and Gambardella A (1994) Evaluating Technological Information and Utilizing It: Scientific Knowledge, Technological Capability, and External Linkages in Biotechnology, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 24(1): 91-114.
Arora A and Gambardella A (1994) The changing technology of technological change: General and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour, Research Policy 23: 523-532.
Baker T, Miner AS and Eesley DT (2003) Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisional competencies in the founding process, Research Policy 32: 265-276.
Catherine D, Corolleur C, Carrere M and Mangematin V (2004) Turning Scientific and Technological Human Capital into Economic Capital: The Experience of Biotech Start-ups in France, Research Policy (forthcoming).
Dosi G (1982) Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change, Research Policy 11: 147-162.
Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university, Research Policy 32: 109-121.
Feldman M (2001) The entrepreneur event revisited: Firm formation in regional context, Industrial and Corporate Change 10(4): 861-892.
Gaudillière J-P (2000) Les logiques instrumentales de la génomique, Biofutur 206: 20-23.
Geuna A (1999) Determinants of university participation in EU-funded R&D co-operative projects, Research Policy 26: 6-7.
Geuna A and Nesta L (2003) PRO Patenting in European Countries: Is Public research Changing? OECD: Paris.
Greenwood R and Hinings CR (1993) Understanding Strategic Change: The contribution of Archetype, Academy of Management Journal 36: 1052-1081.
Hackett EJ, Conz D, Parker J, Bashford J and DeLay S (2004) Tokamaks and Turbulence: Research Ensembles, Policy and Technoscientific Work, Research Policy (forthcoming).
Hilgartner S and Brandt-Rauf S (1998) Controlling Data and Resources: Access Strategies in Molecular Genetics. In P David and E Steinmueller (eds) Information Technology and the Productivity Paradox, Harwood Academic Publishers: Newark.
Hilgartner S and Brandt-Rauf SI (1994) Data access, ownership and control, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation 15(4): 355-372.
Kaplan S, Murray F and Henderson R (2003) Discontinuity and senior management: Assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology, Industrial and Corporate Change 12(4): 203-223.
Kim L (1997) The dynamics of Samsung's technological Learning in Semiconductors, California Management Review 39: 86-100.
Knorr Cetina K (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA.
Leonard-Barton D (1995) Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press: Boston MA.
Liebeskind JP, Oliver AL, Zucker L and Brewer M (1996) Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms, Organization Science 7(4): 428-442.
Mangematin V and Nesta L (1999) What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb? International Journal of Technology Management 37(3-4): 149-172.
Mangematin V and Nesta L (2002) Industry Life Cycle, Network Structure and Knowledge Generation. In Nagao DH (ed) Academy of Management Annual Conference: Building Effective Networks: Denver CO.
Mangematin V and Peerbaye A (2003) Life Sciences Large Scale Research Facilities: What are the effects on technology transfer, EGOS Conference: Copenhagen.
March J (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization Science 2(1): 1-13.
McKelvey MD (1996) Evolutionary Innovations : The Business of Biotechnology, Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York.
Michaud C and Thoenig JC (2003) Making strategy and organisation compatible, Palgrave Macmillan: London.
Morange M (1998) A History of Molecular Biology, Harvard University Press: Boston.
Mowery D, Nelson R, Sampat B and Ziedonis A (2001) The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by US Universities: An Assessment of the Effect of the Bay-Dole Act of 1980, Research Policy 30(1): 99-119.
Murray F (2004) The Role of Inventors in Entrepreneurial Firms: Sharing the laboratory life, Research Policy (forthcoming).
Mustar P (1998) Partnerships, configurations and dynamics in the creation and development of SMEs by researchers, Industry and Higher Education (August).
Nelson RR (2001) Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities, The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1/2): 13-19.
Nesta L and Mangematin V (2002) Industry Life Cycle, Knowledge Generation and Technological Networks. In Gault F, de La Mothe J (eds) Alliances, Networks, and Partnerships in the Innovation Process, Kluwer: Boston.
Oliver R (1999) The coming biotech age: The business of bio-materials, MacGraw-Hill.
Ranson S, Hinings CR and Greenwood R (1980) The Structuring of Organizational Structures, Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 1-17.
Shane S and Stuart T (2002) Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups, Management Science 48(1): 154-170.
Siegel DS, Thursby JG, Thursby MC and Ziedonis AA (2001) Organizational Issues in University-Industry Technology Transfer: An Overview of the Symposium Issue, Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1-2): 5-11.
Song J, Almeida P and Wu AG (2003) Learning-by-Hiring: When is Mobility More Likely to Facilitate Inter-Firm Knowledge Transfer, Academy of Management Annual Conference: Democracy in the Knowledge Economy: Seattle, Washington.
Teece D (1986) Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, collaboration, licensing and Public Policy, Research Policy 15: 285-305..
Tushman M and Anderson P (1986) Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments, Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439-465.
Vermeulen F and Barkema H (2001) Learning Through Acquisition, Academy of Management Journal 44(3): 457-476.
Weick KE (1996) Drop Your Tools: an allegory for organizational studies, Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 301-313.
eContent Home
