Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence

By W. Chapple, Andy Lockett, Donald S. Siegel, Mike Wright. 2005

492 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c3d6025f52807faec86d006497273b26df7db37b

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

1. Robert Huggins
2. Maksim Belitski
3. Frank T. Rothaermel
4. Riccardo Fini
5. Andrew Johnston
6. Shanti D. Agung
7. Lin Jiang
8. Einar Rasmussen

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Andrew Johnston
2. A. Muscio
3. P. Benneworth
4. Riccardo Fini
5. Pelin Demirel
6. Frank T. Rothaermel
7. Benjamin J. C. Yuan
8. Maksim Belitski

Citations in the corpus

• Institutional determinants of university spin-off quantity and quality: a longitudinal, multilevel, cross-country study (2016, background): “Given the limited qualitative (Wright et al. 2008) and quantitative analyses (e.g., Chapple et al. 2005) of these multiple outputs, additional cross-country examination is warranted.”
• The Economic and Innovation Contribution of Universities: A Regional Perspective (2009, background): “…development in other ways, such as through cultural activities and the promotion of social inclusion, which can lead to wider organic links between business and universities (Lockett et al., 2003; Chapple et al., 2005; Drucker and Goldstein, 2007; Abreu et al., 2008; Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008).”
• What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy (2010, background): “In the case of the UK, Chapple et al. (2005) find heterogeneity in the relative performance of TTOs.”
• Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities (2005, background): “, 2003a,b ) and university technology transfer performance ( Henderson et al., 1998; Thursby and Kemp, 2002; Siegel et al., 2003a,b; Chapple et al., 2005), few studies have systematically attempted to explain why some universities are more successful than o pan and W by i on u tic lities e”
• Entrepreneurial practices in research-intensive and teaching-led universities (2016, background): “Prior literature that flags the low efficiency levels at UK universities’ TTO departments (Chapple et al. 2005; Siegel et al. 2008) provides a plausible explanation to why the TTOs fail to promote entrepreneurial engagements.”
• Commercializing university research in transition economies: Technology transfer offices or direct industrial funding? (2019, methodology): “…have remained 37 under researched and have triggered an interest across entrepreneurship scholars and policy makers 38 in developed countries (Chapple et al., 2005; Wright et al. 2006; Kenney and Patton, 2009; Kalar 39 and Antoncic, 2015; Abreu et al. 2016) and developing countries…”
• Is the entrepreneurial university also regionally engaged? Analysing the influence of university's structural configuration on third mission performance (2019, background): “The UK Higher Education System provides an interesting case because of UK universities' longstanding technology transfer structures often created or professionalised in response to specific funding streams since 1999 (Chapple et al., 2005; Decter et al., 2007).”