University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?

By Joseph S. Friedman, Jonathan Silberman. 2003

766 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b255c24d0e14bdcf78de81aca88d13c596a2b8bd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature (2018, background): “Payout to the inventor (Friedman and Silberman 2003) and other revenue-sharing agreements stimulate entrepreneurial behavior (Renault 2006), though DiGregorio and Shane (2003) find that keeping the revenue share low increases propensity of inventors to establish a company.”
Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison (2011, neutral): “8 The University of Wisconsin’s WARF has received the most attention, see, for example, George (2005). 9 All of the universities in this study are public institutions.”
International Scientist Mobility and the Locus of Knowledge and Technology Transfer (2011, background): “In this context, Friedman and Silberman (2003), Lach and Schankerman (2004) and Link and Scott (2005) find a positive relationship between royalty payments and the scientists’ propensity to engage in KTT activities.”
What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy (2010, background): “Some empirical works ( Friedman and Silberman 2003 ) find evidence that rewarding faculty for involvement in university TT enhances its effectiveness.”
The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities (2019, background): “TTO size is a measure of its experience, therefore we expect that it is positively linked to TTO income-related outputs (Lach and Schankerman, 2004; Siegel et al. 2003; Friedman and Silberman, 2003).”
University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature (2007, background): “, 2003), the surrounding industry (Gulbrandsen and Smeby, 2005), and regional conditions (Friedman and Silberman, 2003).”
A process model of academic entrepreneurship (2011, background): “Academic entrepreneurship is not a single event, but rather a continuous process comprised of a series of events (Friedman & Silberman, 2003).”
Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: an assessment of Italian founders’ incentives (2009, neutral): “Guy and Quintas (1995); Friedman and Silberman (2003)”
An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage in Informal University Technology Transfer (2007, result): “This finding was independently confirmed in Friedman and Silberman (2003) and Lach and Schankerman (2004), each using slightly different methods and data.”
Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between the United States and Germany (2010, background): “In fact, simply increasing the returns to faculty members seems to make the commercialization process more effective (Friedman and Silberman, 2003; Lach and Schankerman, 2004; Link and Siegel, 2005).”
Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer (2009, background): “The total number of invention disclosures available to the UOTT is considered the ‘‘most important factor influencing license agreements’’ (Friedman and Silberman 2003).”