Archives
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
Abstract
Academic science commercialization through University spin-offs or patents has been growing since the mid 90's. 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, Utterback JM. 1997. Responding to Structural Industry Changes: A Technological Evolution Perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change 6(1): 183-202
Almeida P, Kogut B. 1999. Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in regional Networks. Management Science 45(7): 905-918
Anderson P, Tushman ML. 1990. Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs : A Cyclical Models of Technological Change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(4): 604-633.
Argyres NS, Liebeskind J. 1998. Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialisation of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 35: 427-454
Arora A, 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, 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, Eesley DT. 2003. Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisional competencies in the founding process. Reseach Policy 32: 265-276
Catherine D, Corolleur C, Carrere M, 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, Nesta L. 2003. PRO Patenting in European Countrie: Is Public research Changing? OECD: Paris
Greenwood R, 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, DeLay S. 2004. Tokamaks and Turbulence: Research Ensembles, Policy and Technoscientific Work. Research Policy Forthcoming
Hilgartner S, Brandt-Rauf S. 1998. Controlling Data and Resources: Access Strategies in Molecular Genetics. In P David, E Steinmueller (Eds.), Information Technology and the Productivity Paradox. Harwood Academic Publishers: Newark
Hilgartner S, Brandt-Rauf SI. 1994. Data access, ownership and control. Knowledge: Creation, diffusion, utlisation 15(4): 355-372
Kaplan S, Murray F, 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, Massachusetts
Liebeskind JP, Oliver AL, Zucker L, Brewer M. 1996. Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms. Organization Science 7(4): 428-442
Mangematin V, Nesta L. 1999. What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb? International Journal of Technology Management 37(3-4): 149-172
Mangematin V, Nesta L. 2002. Industry Life Cycle, Network Structure and Knowledge Generation. In DH Nagao (Ed.), Academy of Management Annual Conference : Building Effective Networks: Denver, CO
Mangematin V, 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, 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, Ziedonis A. 2001. The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effect of the Bay-Dole Act of 1980. Reseach Policy 30(1): 99-119
Murray F. 2004. The Role of Inventors in Entrepreneurial Firms:Sharing the laboratory life. Reseach 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 et American universities. The journal of Technology transfer 26(1/2): 13-19
Nesta L, Mangematin V. 2002. Industry Life Cycle, Knowledge Generation and Technological Networks. In F Gault, J de La Mothe (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, Greenwood R. 1980. The Structuring of Organizational Structures. Administrative Science Quarterly 25: 1-17
Shane S, Stuart T. 2002. Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups. Management Science 48(1): 154-170
Siegel DS, Thursby JG, Thursby MC, 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, 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, Anderson P. 1986. Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439-465
Vermeulen F, 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