UFDC Home  UF Institutional Repository   Help 
Material Information
Subjects
Notes
Record Information

This item is only available as the following downloads: 
Full Text 
PAGE 1 DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Stephanie Chastain Department of Economics Warrington College of Business Administration University of Florida April 2 2014 PAGE 2 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Legal History III. Major Data Sources IV. Data Sample V. De pendent Variables VI. Independent Variables VII. Summary Statistics VIII. Regression Results IX. Variable Results X. Conclusion References 3 4 4 6 7 7 11 12 2 5 30 3 2 PAGE 3 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 3 I. INTRODUCTION T echnology transfer is the process of transferring scientific findings from one org anization to another for the purpose of further de velopment and commercialization Technology Transfer AUTM ). The process typically includes: Identifying new technologies Protecting technologies through patents and copyrights Forming development an d commercialization strategies such as marketing and licensing to existing private sector companies or creating new startup companies based on the technology Universities are the most prominent research institutions involved in technology transfer which a llows such institutions to commercialize their innovations, protect their research investments, and benefit the economy through job creation. The significance of technology transfer grows as the economy gravitates from manufacturing based to knowledge base d. At this point in time, universities and other institutions are not ranked on their technology transfer abilities, despite the importance of this process to the university and the economy. This paper will take advantage of the abundance of data relating to technology transfer, and through regression analysis attempt to determine which factors lead to the success of this process. By testing various inputs to technology transfer (independent variables) against an array of outputs (dependent variables) we ar e better able to analyze the many factors involved in the process and eliminate potential for leaving out key pieces of insight. PAGE 4 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 4 II. LEGAL HISTORY The Bayh Dole Act (1980 ) also called the Patent and Trademark Act Amendments, spurred American innovation by a llowing universities, non profit institutions, and small businesses to maintain ownership of inventions made through federally funded research. Prior to this legislation, the government retained title to any inventions made under such funding. Key points o f the Act include the ability to elect to retain title to innovations, the expectation to give preference to small businesses, the requirement to share income with the inventor(s), and requirement to manufacture products in the United States if they are to be sold in the United States. The Bayh enacted in America over the past half d Goose). III. MAJOR DATA SOURCES The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) is a non profit organization that strives to enhance technology transfer and to grow the knowledge base around this pro cess. AUTM publishes surveys such as the annual Licensing Activity Survey and the biennial Salary Survey, and maintains the Statistics Analysis for Technology Transfer (STA TT) database which houses over 2 0 years of survey data (dating back to 1991) The FY 2012 Licensing Activity Survey shows growth in several categories of technology transfer activity, including license income, licenses and options executed, patents issued, number of startups initiated and research PAGE 5 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 5 expenditures Specific d ata points obtain ed STATT database will be discussed in the Dependent and Independent V ariables section s The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports student Fall enrollment and salary data for each university among numerous other measures, in their Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). These two types of information will be further discussed in the Independent V ariables section The U S Census Bureau reports metropolitan and mi cropolitan s tatistical areas, which is used as a binary variable. Please note the following definitions given by the Census Bureau: The term "Core Based Statistical Area" (CBSA) is a collective term for both metro and micro areas. A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, an d a micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population. Each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a hig h degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core. U.S. Census Bureau CBSA reports are available for almost each year, unlike the more commonly known decennial Census. The data available was satisfactory for the purposes of this regression. Tho se are the major data sources that were used in the regression. PAGE 6 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 6 IV. DATA SAMPLE Data will be obtained based primarily on which U.S. universities consistently report data over a series of time to the AUTM through their ann ual Licensing Activity Survey, to ensure consistency and eliminate unexplained fluctuations in the data T he available AUTM data dates back to 19 91. To take advantage of over 2 0 years of data without becoming overwhelming, only data from every 3 years will be used more specifically: 2012, 2009, 2006, 2003, 2000, 1997, 1994 AUTM did not include many of the same data points in the 1991 survey, which is the reason for the absence of this year from the testing. The data was further filtered down to only thos e universities who have participated in the Licensing Activity Survey for all or most of the mentioned years By including the same years for each university, as opposed to choosing any or all years available, we reduce the effects of macroeconomic circu mstances that may be shown through inconsistency in years reported. As is discussed later, there are a set of regressions run with a Salary variable and a set run without this variable. For the regressions not including Salary, 95 universities were used O f these, 56 universities reported for all 7 selected years, 24 repor ted for 6 of these years, and 15 reported for 5 of these years. This provided a total of 606 data points for each regression Because not all universities provided salary data, the sample for the next set of regressions is smaller. For the regressions including Salary, 81 universities were used. The breakdown is 49, 21, and 11 universities that reported for 7, 6, and 5 years, respectively. This provided 519 data points for these regressions PAGE 7 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 7 V. DEPENDENT VARIABLES The dependent variables will represent outcomes resulting from technology transfer ; t he chosen variables are the most common measures of such outcomes. There will be four dependent variables, defined as follows: Patents Issued the number of U.S. patents issued in the given year Start up s the number of start up companies formed in the given year Licenses /Options Executed the number of licenses executed in the given year License Income the monetary income resulting from a universi All data points for these variab les are obtained from the AUTM surveys and the STATT database. During preliminary research, regressions were ran with each of the above dependent variables being adjusted on a per student bas is but the results were highly insignificant with R Squared values ranging from 0.1376 to 0.1992. These low values clearly show that the p er student dependent variables do not adequately fit the independent variables, and thus were not explored further. VI. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Inputs to the technology transfer process will be used as the independent variables in these regressions. More specifically, these inputs are characteristics of the university itself and/or the immediate surrounding area. Using univer sity characteristics as independent variables to explain PAGE 8 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 8 the outputs of technology transfer, or the dependent variables, we can most accurately show a P rivate a var iable with the value of 1 if the university is private or the value of 0 if the university is public Since private universities receive more revenue from tuition than do public universities, this may allow them to participate in technology transfer on a l arger scale A value positive correlation to the dependent variables. Metro a variable with the value of 1 if the university is in a metropolitan statistical area and the value of 0 if the university is not, in a given yea r. The metropolitan status is determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. A value of 1 generally indicates a highly developed, and therefore technically advanced, area surrounding the university. A strong positive correlation is expected endent variables. Technology Index this index includes three components: patents per capita, average annual patent growth, and the Tech Pole Index developed by the Milken Institute, which measure s the concentration of the high tech industry. The index is provided in The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited by Richard F lorida. Each metropolitan area is given a ranking, with the value of 1 Any universities that are not located in a metropolitan area were assigned a rank of 362 since there are 361 metropolitans included in the index ranking. This approximation seems satisfactory, because large, highly economically developed cities tend to also be highly technologically developed, and vice versa. Although these rankings were pro duced in 2012, the data is used for each year in the regressions, since they can serve as a proxy for previous years. negative correlation with the de pendent variables. PAGE 9 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 9 Creative Class occupations include: architecture, engineering, educat ion, entertainment, design, management, financial operations, legal, health care, and sales. The creative class measures are provided in The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited by Richard Florida. Any universities that are not located in a metropolitan a rea were assigned a value of 17%, since the lowest reported among metropolitans areas was 17.1%. This approximation seems satisfactory, because large, highly economically developed cities tend to also have a large portion of creative class workers, and vic e versa. Although these rankings were produced in 2012, the data is used for each year in the regressions, since they can serve as a proxy for previous years. As the percentage of rease, therefore a positive relationship is expected. Students the total number of students both undergraduate and graduate, attending the university in a given year Student enrollment data is reported for the Fall semester, consequently data given for Fall 2011 reflects the 2011/2012 academic year, and is therefore used for the 2012 year in the regression likewise for the other years. This data is reported by the NCES in their Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). A positive correla tion is expected dependent variables. TTO Years the number of years that the technology transfer office (TTO) has been open at the university, calculated as (year of data point year TTO opened). These data points are repo dependent variables. PAGE 10 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 10 TTO FTEs the number of full time licensing and non licensing employees in the technology transfer office at the university in a given fiscal yea r These data points are reported by AUTM. A strong positive correlatio four dependent variables. Expenditures the monetary amount of university research expenditures in a given fiscal year These data points are r eported by AUTM. A strong positive relationship is expected between obvious reasons as a university spends more on research, it should increase its output. Salary the average salary of a university professo r in a given academic year. Salary data for the 2011/2012 academic year is used for the 2012 year in the regression likewise for the other years. Using average salary data for professors (as opposed to the overall average which includes administrative st aff, instructors and lecturers) will be more reflective of the salaries of those faculty members conducting research. A wide range of salaries were observed, but there are known trends in the salary differences between various college departments. For exam ple, a philosophy professor does not earn as high of a salary, on average, as an engineering professor. As the average salary for a professor increases, the outputs of their research should also increase, therefore a positive correlation is expected betwee Since this data is not provided for all universities, separate regressions were ran for each dependent VII. SUMMARY STATISTICS All data, especially outlying values, have been reviewe d for correctness. A few data points that were included in initial regressions were taken out, even though their inclusion only had a PAGE 11 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 11 minor effect, to ensure the most accurate a nd reflective results possible. T he following serves as explanation for the maximum v alues included in the data set. Massachusetts Institute of Technology had the h ighest number of patents issued 219, in 2012 as well as the highest number of start ups, 31, in 2000. by University of Georgia during 2012. New York University was awarded the highest license income in 2012. Georgia Institute of Technology provided the highest salary, of $234,758 in 2012 The maximum value of 58,465 s tudents pertains to University of Central Florida State University, which o pened its Research Foundation in 1938. TTO office had 59 employees in 2009. The maximum value of $1,757,268,191 Descriptive statistics for the regressions without salary data are included below. Variable N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Patents Issued 606 0 219 23.2851 27.7503 Start Ups 606 0 31 3.2063 3.9696 License/Options Executed 606 0 232 31.0941 36.8447 License Income 606 $ 0 $ 184,632,915 $ 9,4 16,532 $ 22,504,212 Private 606 0 1 0.3531 0.4783 Metro 606 0 1 0.9158 0.2779 Technology Index 606 1 362 107.8531 105.1329 Creative Class 606 17 48.4 33.3884 6.7869 Students 606 495 58,465 21,077.09 08 11,478.7474 TTO Years 606 0 74 19.1799 13.0264 TTO FTEs 606 0 58.88 8.8759 8.9200 Research Expenditures 606 $ 4,319,934 $ 1,757,268,191 $ 252,642,224 $ 245,172,720 variable are as follows. PAGE 12 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 12 Variable N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Patents Issued 519 0 219 22.9823 28.8897 Start Ups 519 0 31 3.2852 4.0741 Licenses/Options Executed 519 0 232 31.3410 38.0848 License Income 519 $ 0 $ 184,632,915 $ 7,651,613 $ 18, 463,747 Private 519 0 1 0.2659 0.4422 Metro 519 0 1 0.9152 0.2788 Technology Index 519 1 362 106.7669 102.7862 Creative Class 519 17 48.4 33.2222 6.7232 Salary 519 $ 58,125 $ 234,758 $ 118,037 $ 32 512 Students 519 1376 58465 22436.3333 11345.2 828 TTO Years 519 0 74 19.3565 13.7590 TTO FTEs 519 0.2 58.88 8.562061657 8.673929217 Expenditures 519 $ 4,319,934 $ 1,757,268,191 $ 247,687,985 $ 248,496,479 VIII. REGRESSIONS RESULTS Although various research institutes have developed their own in dices of high tech companies and high tech cities (Milken Institute and Martin Prosperity Institute, respectively), universities have not yet been ranked based solely on technology and licensing activities. This paper will serve as a starting point of what factors tend to make a university most successful with technology transfer, using regression analysis to show statistical significance, or lack thereof. Several regressions will be ran in order to test various dependent variables against a common set of independent variables. T here will be four regressions (1 4) ran without the Salary variable and four regressions (5 8) ran with the Salary variable, against the four dependent variables previously specified, for a total of eight regressions. In each re gression, the dependent variables represent an output of technology transfer, while the independent variables represent inputs to technology transfer. PAGE 13 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 13 One tailed significance tests were used for all variables, because of strong assumptions regarding the ex pected coefficient sign. The results of each regression are laid out below, while the variables are discussed on an individual basis Variable Regression 1 Patents Issued without Salary The results of R egression 1, and not b le can be found below. PATENTS ISSUED, without Salary Regression 1 Statistics Multiple R 0.7500 R Square 0.5625 Adjusted R Square 0.5567 Stand ard Error 18.4769 Observations 606 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 8 262084.3 32760.54 95.9611 5.4E 102 Residual 597 203812.2 341.39 Total 605 465896.6 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P v alue Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 3.7960 8.3051 0.4571 0.6478 20.1066 12.5147 Private 4.2219 2.0264 2.0834 ** 0.0376 0.2421 8.2018 Metro 11.6591 4.2931 2.7158 *** 0.0068 20.0905 3.2277 Technology Index 0.0314 0.0135 2.3202 ** 0.0207 0.0579 0.0 048 Creative Class 0.5426 0.2139 2.5362 *** 0.0115 0.1224 0.9628 Students 5.6E 05 8.53E 05 0.6608 0.5090 0.0002 0.0001 TTO Years 0.3355 0.0685 4.8958 *** 1.26E 06 0.2009 0.4701 TTO FTEs 0.3893 0.1709 2.2782 ** 0.0231 0.0537 0.7250 Expenditures 5.08E 0 8 6.19E 09 8.2070 *** 1.4E 15 3.86E 08 6.29E 08 PAGE 14 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 14 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) Regress ion 1 has an R Square of 0.56 25 showing a moderately strong correlation. Metro , Creative Class, TTO Years, and Expenditures are all highly significant at the 0.01 level Private, Technology Index and TTO FTEs are significant at the 0.05 level. Only Stu dents was not significant. Most variables had the expected sign, except for Metro and Students which had negative signs The calculated i mpact of each variable is shown below. Coefficients Std. Dev. Impact Private 4.2219 4.2219 Metro 11.6591 11.65 91 Technology Index 0.0314 105.1329 3.2977 Creative Class 0.5426 6.7869 3.6826 Students 0.0001 11 478.7474 0.6470 TTO Years 0.3355 13.0264 4.3701 TTO FTEs 0.3893 8.9200 3.4729 Expenditures 5.08E 08 245 172 720 12.4532 These calcul ations show th at Expenditure s and Metro ha ve a much greater impact than any other independent variables on the number of patents issued. The other variables have similar impacts, for the most part. Regression 2 Start Ups without Salary The results of Regression 2 u Start Ups and not can be found below. START UPS, without Salary Regression Statistics PAGE 15 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 15 Multiple R 0.6528 R Square 0.4261 Adjusted R Square 0.4184 Standa rd Error 3.0272 Observations 606 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 8 4062.4016 507.8002 55.4135 3.59E 67 Residual 597 5470.8146 9.1638 Total 605 9533.2162 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 3.1300 1.3607 2.3004 0.0218 0.4578 5.8023 Private 0.1210 0.3320 0.3645 0.7156 0.7730 0.5310 Metro 0.6905 0.7034 0.9817 0.3266 2.0719 0.6908 Technology Index 0.0094 0.0022 4.2542 *** 2.44E 05 0.0138 0.0051 C reative Class 0.0412 0.0351 1.1757 0.2402 0.1101 0.0276 Students 3.27E 06 1.4E 05 0.2342 0.8149 2.4E 05 3.07E 05 TTO Years 0.0540 0.0112 4.8098 *** 1.91E 06 0.0319 0.0760 TTO FTEs 0.0829 0.0280 2.9604 *** 0.0032 0.0279 0.1379 Expenditures 5.16E 09 1. 01E 09 5.0872 *** 4.87E 07 3.17E 09 7.15E 09 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) Regression 2, shows that the variables Technology Index, TTO Years, FTEs in TTO and Expenditures are highly significant at the 0.01 level with the expected sign while all other variable s are not significant Private, Metro, and Creative Class have unexpected negat ive signs but since none of these variables were significant this does not cause alarm The R Square of 0.4 261 shows a moderate correlation. The calculated impact of each variable is shown below. Coefficients Std. Dev. Impact Private 0.1210 0.1210 Metro 0.6905 0.6905 Technology Index 0.0094 105.1329 0.9906 Creative Class 0.0412 6.7869 0.2797 PAGE 16 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 16 Students 0.0000 11 478.7474 0.0376 TTO Years 0.0540 13.0264 0.7034 TTO FTEs 0.0829 8.9200 0.7394 Expenditures 0.0000 245 172 720 1.2647 Compared to Regression 1, the impacts for each variable in Regression 2 are quite small. Expenditures once again had the highest impact. Regression 3 Licenses/Options Executed without Salary The results of Regression 3 Licenses/Options Executed ependent variable, can be found below. LICENSES/OPTIONS EXECUTED, without Salary Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.7418 R Square 0.5502 Adjusted R Square 0.5442 Standard Error 2 4.8743 Observations 606 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 8 451924.3127 56490.54 91.3004 1.96E 98 Residual 597 369383.3259 618.7325 Total 605 821307.6386 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P v alue Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 26.7774 11.1806 2.3950 0.0169 48.7356 4.8193 Private 4.3432 2.7281 1.5920 0.1119 9.7010 1.0146 Metro 7.7348 5.7796 1.3383 0.1813 19.0856 3.6159 Technology Index 0.0231 0.0182 1.2666 0.2058 0.0127 0.0588 Creative Class 0.8707 0.2880 3.0232 *** 0.0026 0.3051 1.4364 Students 0.0001 0.0001 1.0915 0.2755 0.0001 0.0004 TTO Years 0.4456 0.0922 4.8303 *** 1.74E 06 0.2644 0.6268 TTO FTEs 1.7297 0.2301 7.5183 *** 2.04E 13 1.2779 2.1816 PAGE 17 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 17 Expenditures 3.32E 08 8.331 98E 09 3.9855 *** 7.57E 05 1.68E 08 4.96E 08 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) This regre ssion has an R Square of 0 .55 0 2 suggesting a moderately strong correlation. Regression 3 also shows that all variables except Technology Index and Students are significant. Creative Class, TTO Years, TTO FTEs, and Expenditures are highly significant at th e 0.01 level. The coefficient sign s on Private and Metro are negative and the sign on Technology Index is positive none of which are as predicted but the Private and Metro variables are only significant at the 0.10 level and Technology Index is not signi ficant The calculated impact of each variable is shown below. Coefficient s Std. Dev Impact Private 4.3432 4.3432 Metro 7.7348 7.7348 Technology Index 0.0231 105.1329 2.4236 Creative Class 0.8707 6.7869 5.9096 Students 0.0001 11 478.7474 1.43 87 TTO Years 0.4456 13.0264 5.8044 TTO FTEs 1.7297 8.9200 15.4293 Expenditures 0.0000 245 172 720 8.1414 TTO FTEs has a v ery large impact on the number of licenses executed ; Expenditures and Metro also have large impacts compared to the other variable s. Regression 4 License Income without Salary The results of Regression 4 License as the dependent variable, and not can be found below. PAGE 18 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 18 LICENSE INCOME, without Salary Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.5440 R Square 0.2959 Adjusted R Square 0.2865 Standard Error 19009286 Observations 606 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 8 9.067 E+16 1.13E+16 31.3642 3.93302E 41 Residual 597 2.1 57 E+17 3.61E+14 Total 605 3.064 E+17 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 1 3 E+0 7 8544383 1.5566 0.1201 30080600.52 3480803.98 Private 11938894 2084843 5.7265 *** 1.63E 08 7844375.54 16033412.99 Metro 1119177 4416810 0.2534 0.8001 7555196.01 9793550.93 Technology Index 13633.94 13909 0.9803 0.3274 13681.65 40949.52 Creative Class 1132.21 220106 0.0051 0.9959 433408.80 431144.38 Students 325.20 87.76 3.7058 *** 0.0002 152.86 497.55 TTO Yea rs 5372.76 70497 0.0762 0.9393 133080.35 143825.87 TTO FTEs 1305904 175822 7.4274 *** 3.85E 13 960598.75 1651210.15 Expenditures 0.01 0.01 1.5577 0.1198 0.02 0.00 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) Regression 4 has the lowest R Square, of 0.29 59 This suggests that there is a weak correlation between these independent variables and the l icense income universities receive. This conclusion makes sense because license income may reflect technology transfer efforts from many years back. P rivate Students, and TTO FTEs are highly significant at 0.01, and Expenditures is slightly significant at 0.10 All coefficients except for Technology Index and Expenditures have the expected sign. Since these variables are not significant and slightly PAGE 19 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 19 significant, respectively, the signs are not point of concern. The calculated impacts are shown below. Coefficient s Std. Dev Impact Private 11 938 894.2629 11 938 894.2629 Metro 1 119 177.4582 1 119 177.4582 Technology Index 13 633.9372 105.1329 1 433 375.4964 Creative Class 1 132.2141 6.7869 7 684.2656 Students 325.2030 11 478.7474 3 732 923.024 0 TTO Years 5 372.7578 13.0264 69 987.9315 TTO FTEs 1 305 904.4513 8.9200 11 648 723.3659 Expenditures 0.0099 245 172 720 2 431 670.5472 Private had the greatest impact in this regression with TTO FTEs close behind Students, Expenditures, Technolo gy Index and Metro also had fairly large impacts on license income R egression 5 Patents Issued, with Salary The results of Regression 5 as the dependent variable, including can be found below. PATENTS ISSU ED, with Salary Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.7529 R Square 0.5669 Adjusted R Square 0.5593 Standard Error 19.0656 Observations 526 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 9 24547 9.1998 27275.46665 75.0365 5.99E 88 Residual 516 187563.9773 363.4960801 Total 525 433043.1772 PAGE 20 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 20 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 7.3085 9.8856 0.7393 0.4601 26.7294 12.1124 Private 5.4968 2.3334 2.3557 ** 0.0189 0.9127 10.0810 Metro 12.4816 4.8898 2.5526 *** 0.0110 22.0878 2.8753 Technology Index 0.0270 0.0160 1.6876 ** 0.0921 0.0584 0.0044 Creative Class 0.6903 0.2411 2.8638 *** 0.0044 0.2168 1.1639 Salary 2.2E 06 3.1792E 05 0.069 7 0.9445 6.5E 05 6.02E 05 Students 0.0001 8.66478E 05 1.3257 0.1855 0.0003 5.54E 05 TTO Years 0.3412 0.0748 4.5600 *** 6.4E 06 0.1942 0.4882 TTO FTEs 0.4772 0.1933 2.4686 *** 0.0139 0.0974 0.8569 Expenditures 5E 08 6.72395E 09 7.4386 *** 4.28E 13 3.6 8E 08 6.32E 08 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) Regression 5 has an R Squared of 0 .5 669 a moderately strong correlation This is only .0044 more than Regression 1, which used the same dependent variable, but did not include salary data. Metro, Creative Class, TTO Years, TTO FTEs, and Expenditures are highly significant, at 0.01 Private and Technology Index are significant at 0.05 Students is slightly significant. The newly included Salary variable was not significant. unexpectedly negative ; the reason for this is unclear Salary and Students also had a negative sign, but this is not point of concern. The calculated impacts are shown below. Coefficients Std. Dev. Impact Private 5.4968 5.4968 Metro 12.4816 12.4816 Technology Index 0.0270 102.7862 2.7742 Creative Class 0.6903 6.7232 4.6413 Salary 0.0000 32 51 2.4321 0.0720 Students 0.0001 11 345.2828 1.3032 TTO Years 0.3412 13.7590 4.6944 TTO FTEs 0.4772 8.6739 4.1390 Expenditures 0.0000 248,496,479 12.4289 PAGE 21 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 21 Metro and Expenditures had significant negative and positive impacts respectively, on the numbe r of patents issued. Regression 6 Start Ups, with Salary The results of Regression 6 START UPS, with Salary Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.6549 R Square 0.4288 Adjusted R Square 0.4189 Standard Error 3.0953 Observations 526 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 9 3711.8369 412.4263 43.0461 2.26E 57 Residual 516 4943.8152 9.5 810 Total 525 8655.6521 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 2.5077 1.6049 1.5625 0.1188 0.6453 5.6607 Private 0.0976 0.3788 0.2576 0.7969 0.6467 0.8418 Metro 1.4080 0.7939 1.7736 ** 0.0767 2. 9676 0.1516 Technology Index 0.0101 0.0026 3.9071 *** 0.0001 0.0152 0.0050 Creative Class 0.0157 0.0391 0.4022 0.6877 0.0926 0.0611 Salary 7.52 E 06 5.16 E 06 1.4569 0.1458 2.6E 06 1.77E 05 Students 2.64 E 06 1.41 E 05 0.1875 0.8513 3E 05 2.5E 0 5 TTO Years 0.0493 0.0121 4.0573 *** 5.73E 05 0.0254 0.0732 TTO FTEs 0.0808 0.0314 2.5747 *** 0.0103 0.0191 0.1425 Expenditures 4.73 E 09 1.09 E 09 4.3374 *** 1.73E 05 2.59E 09 6.88E 09 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) PAGE 22 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 22 Regression 6 has an R Square of 0.4288, which is only 0.0027 more than Regression 2. Technology Index, TTO Years, TTO FTEs, a nd Expenditures are highly significant at the 0.01 level Metr o is moderately significant and Salary is slightly significant. Metro, Creative Class and Students have unexpected negative signs, but since the latter two a re significant this does not cause a larm. The calculated impact o f each variable is shown below. Coefficients Std. Dev. Impact Private 0.0976 0.0976 Metro 1.4080 1.4080 Technology Index 0.0101 102.7862 1.0428 Creative Class 0.0157 6.7232 0.1058 Salary 7.5197E 06 32 512.4321 0. 2445 Students 2.6381E 06 11 345.2828 0.0299 TTO Years 0.0493 13.7590 0.6781 TTO FTEs 0.0808 8.6739 0.7009 Expenditures 4.7349E 09 248,496,478 1.1766 Most of the variables all had fairly low impacts on the number of start ups. Metro had the highest negative impact and Expenditures had the highest positive impact Regression 7 Licenses/Options Executed with Salary The results of Regression 7 Licenses/Options Executed variable, can be found below. LICENSES/OPTIONS EXECUTED, with Salary Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.7442 R Square 0.5539 Adjusted R Square 0.5461 Standard Error 25.5778 Observations 526 PAGE 23 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 23 ANOVA df SS MS F Signif icance F Regression 9 419077.1 46564.13 71.17435 1.15E 84 Residual 516 337580.7 654.2262 Total 525 756657.9 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 23.7349 13.2622 1.7897 0.0741 49.7894 2.3196 Private 4.2139 3.1304 1.3461 0.1789 10.3638 1.9361 Metro 8.8423 6.5600 1.3479 0.1783 21.7298 4.0452 Technology Index 0.0209 0.0215 0.9753 0.3299 0.0212 0.0631 Creative Class 1.0102 0.3234 3.1236 *** 0.0019 0.3748 1.6455 Salary 6.2E 05 4.27E 0 5 1.4574 0.1456 0.0001 2.16E 05 Students 7.62E 05 0.0001 0.6559 0.5122 0.0002 0.0003 TTO Years 0.4914 0.1004 4.8958 *** 1.31E 06 0.2942 0.6886 TTO FTEs 2.0671 0.2593 7.9711 *** 1.02E 14 1.5577 2.5766 Expenditures 2.78E 08 9.02E 09 3.0815 *** 0.0022 1. 01E 08 4.55E 08 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) This regression has an R Square of .55 39 suggesting a moderately strong correlation, which is only .0037 more than Regression 3, without Salary Creative Class, TTO Years, TTO FTEs, and Expenditures are highly significant. Private, Metro, and Salary are slightly significant. The coefficient s igns on Private Metro and Salary are negative and the sign on Technology Index is positive, none of which are as predicted However, this does raise concern based on their low level of significance, or lack thereof The calculated impact of each variable is shown below. Coefficients Std. Dev. Impact Private 4.2139 4.2139 Metro 8.8423 8.8423 Technology Index 0.0209 102.7862 2.1510 Creative Class 1.0102 6.7232 6.7916 Salary 6.22 E 05 32 512.4321 2.0209 Students 7.62 E 05 11 345.2828 0.8650 TT O Years 0.4914 13.7590 6.7616 TTO FTEs 2.0671 8.6739 17.9302 PAGE 24 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 24 Expenditures 2.78 E 08 248 496 479 6.9075 TTO FTEs ha s a much higher impact on licenses/options executed than other variables Metro, Expenditures, Creative Class and TTO Years also have larg e impacts Regression 8 License Income with Salary The results of Regression 8 as the dependent variable, including can be found below. LICENSE INCOME, with Salary Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.5624 R Square 0.3163 Adjusted R Square 0.3044 Standard Error 1,5307,643 Observations 526 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 9 5.59 E+16 6.22E+15 26.5236 1.12 E 37 Residual 516 1.21 E+17 2 .34E+14 Total 525 1.77 E+17 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 24,410,238 7,937,058.41 3.0755 0.0022 40,003,161 8,817,315 Private 8,306,026 1,873,474.72 4.4335 *** 1.13E 05 4,625,450 11 986 60 2 Metro 970,979 3,925,960.92 0.2473 0.8048 8,683,813 6,741,853 Technology Index 23,931 12 841.1748 1.8636 ** 0.0629 12 ,96.07 49 ,158.76 Creative Class 354,066 193,547.556 1.8293 ** 0.0679 26 ,172.00 734 ,304.23 Salary 17.4579 25.5256 0.6839 0.4943 32. 6891 67.6049 Students 286.8957 69.5691 4.1239 *** 4.34E 05 150.2222 423.5691 TTO Years 12 ,497.83 60 073.7822 0.2080 0.8353 105,521 130 ,517.10 TTO FTEs 895,206 155,201.57 5.7680 *** 1.38E 08 590,302 1 200 111 Expenditures 0.0005 0.0054 0.0897 0.9286 0 .0111 0.0101 PAGE 25 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 25 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) Regres sion 8 has an R Square of 0.3163 T his confirms our assumption, from Regression 4 results, that there is a weak correlation between these independent variables and the license income universities receive. This conclusion makes sense because license income may reflect technology transfer eff orts from many years back. Private, Students, and TTO FTEs are highly significant, at 0.01 Metro and Expenditures have a negative sign but are not significant. Technology Index has an unexpected positive sign The calculated impacts are shown below. Co efficients Std. Dev. Impact Private 8 306 026.1544 8 306 026.1544 Metro 970 979.9071 970 979.9071 Technology Index 23 931.3426 102.7862 2 459 811.1548 Creative Class 354 066.1110 6.7232 2 380 442.0548 Salary 17.4579 32 512.4321 567 598.3369 Stude nts 286.8957 11 345.2828 3 254 912.6043 TTO Years 12 497.8285 13.7590 171 958.0030 TTO FTEs 895 206.8229 8.6739 7 764 960.6159 Expenditures 0.0005 248 496 479 120 298.8700 Private had the greatest impact in on license income, followed closely by TTO FTEs S omewhat s urprisingly, Expenditures had the lowest impact. Again, this could be due to the lagging effect of license income. IX. VARIABLE RESULTS Each variable will now be examined on an individual basis, to see how it perform ed across the various regr essions. PAGE 26 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 26 Patents Issued The R Squares of Regression 1 (without Salary) and Regression 5 (with Salary) using Patents Issued as th e dependent variable were 0.5625 and 0.5669 These values suggest a moderately s trong correlation between the independent variables and the number o f patents i ssued S tart Ups Regression 2 (without Salary) and Regression 6 (with Salary) which had Start Ups as the dependent variable ha d R Squares of 0.4261 and 0.4288 These values indicate only a moderate correlation between the independent variables and the number of start up companies formed out L icenses/Options Executed The R Squares of Regression 3 (without Salary) and Regression 7 (with Salary) with Licenses/Options Executed as t he dependent variable were 0.550 2 and 0.5539 Such R Squares show a moderately strong correlation between the independent variables and the number of licenses and options executed by a universi ty. License Income Regression 4 (without Salary) and Regression 8 (with Salary) had the lowest R Squ ared values of 0.2959 and 0.3163 As previously discussed, this low correlation can be explained by the fact that licensing income in a certain year may no transfer efforts, but instead reflect activity from past years. PAGE 27 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 27 Quite noticeably, each dependent variable produced similar R Squares whether the Salary variable was present or not. However, the R Squares were slig htly higher for each dependent variable in the regressions ran with salary data, than in the regressions ran without. The table below shows the t Statistics for each independent variable from each regression. 1 Patents Issued 2 Start Ups 3 Licenses/ Opti ons 4 License Income 5 Patents Issued 6 Start Ups 7 Licenses/ Options 8 License Income R Square 0.5625 0.4261 0.5502 0.2959 0.5669 0.4288 0.5539 0.3163 Private 2.08** 0.36 1.59* 5.73*** 2.36** 0.26 1.34* 4.43*** Metro 2.72*** 0.98 1.34* 0.25 2.55 *** 1.77** 1.35* 0.25 Technology Index 2.32** 4.25*** 1.27 0.98 1.69** 3.90*** 0.98 1.86** Creative Class 2.54*** 1.18 3.02*** 0.01 2.86*** 0.40 3.12*** 1.83** Salary 0.07 1.46* 1.46* 0.68 Students 0.66 0.23 1.09 3.71*** 1.33* 0.19 0 .66 4.12*** TTO Years 4.90*** 4.81*** 4.83*** 0.08 4.56*** 4.06*** 4.90*** 0.21 TTO FTEs 2.28** 2.96*** 7.52*** 7.43*** 2.47*** 2.57*** 7.97*** 5.77*** Expenditures 8.21*** 5.09*** 3.99*** 1.56* 7.44*** 4.34*** 3.08*** 0.09 denotes significance at t he .10 level (t S tat > 1.30 or < 1.30) ** denotes si gnificance at the .05 level (t S tat > 1.67 or < 1.67) * denotes significance at the .01 level (t S tat > 2.39 or < 2.39 ) Private This variable was significant at 0.01 in regressions 4 and 8 (License In come, with and without Salary); significant at 0.05 in regressions 1 and 5 (Patents Issued, with and without Salary); and significant at 0.10 in regression 3 and 7 Private was not signif icant in regressions 2 and 6 Private had an expected positive sign i n 4 out of 5 regressions in which it was significant. The largest impact in Regression 8 came from the Private variable. PAGE 28 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 28 M etro This variable was significant at 0.01 in regressions 1 and 5 (Patents Issued, with and without Salary); significant at 0.05 in r egression 6; and significant at 0.10 in regression 3 and 7 Metro was not sign ificant in regressions 2, 4, and 8. Metro had an unexpected negative sign in all 4 of the regressions in which it was significant. The reason for this is very unclear. Metro had a large negative impact in regressions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Technology Index This variable was signi ficant at 0.01 in regressions 2 and 6; and significant at 0.05 in regressions 1, 5 and 8 Technology Index was not significant in regression s 3, 4 and 7 Technology Index had the expected negative sign in all regressions in which the variable was significant. This variable had a fairly large negative impact in r egressions 2 and 6. C reative Class This variable was significant at 0.01 in regressions 1, 3 an d 7 (Licenses/Options Executed, with and without Salary) and 5; and significant at 0.05 in regression 8. Creative Class was not significant in regressions 2, 4, and 6. The variable had the expected positive sign in all regressions in which the variable was significant. This variable did not have a particularly large impact in any of the regressions. Students This variable was significant at 0.01 in regressions 4 and 8 (License Income, with and without Salary) ; and significant at 0.10 in regression 5 Remar kably, Students was not signi ficant in regressions 1, 2, 3 6, and 7. This suggests that the size of the university, in terms of students, PAGE 29 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 29 the exception being with Licens e Income The variable had the expected positive sign in both regressions in which it was significant, and had a moderate impact in regression 4. TTO Years This variable was significant at 0.01 in regressions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, but not significant in r egressions 4 and 8 (License Income, with and without Salary). The variable had the expected positive sign in all regressions. Although the variable did not have a large impact in most of the regressions, the high significance in almost all regressions is n otable. It is very clear that the efforts in technology transfer, the more successful that the university will be in th is process. TTO FTEs This variable was si gnificant at 0.01 in regressions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; and significan t at 0.05 in regression 1 TTO FTEs was significant, with the expected positive sign, in all regressions. This variable had the largest impact in r egressions 3 and 7, and the second highes t impact in regression s 4 and commitment to technology transfer, therefore the more employees are in the TTO office, the more success will come. ance in all regressions. Expenditures This variable was significant at 0.01 in regressions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7; and significant at 0.05 in regressions; significant at 0.10 in regression 4. Expenditures was not significant only in regression 8. The variable h ad the expected positive sign in all regressions in which the variable was highly significant. Expenditures had the highest impact in regressions 1 and 2, as well as PAGE 30 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 30 large impacts in regressions 3 5, 6, and 7. This data shows that Expenditures is a large factor in a Salary This variable was used in the last four regressions. Salary was significant at 0.10 in regressions 6 and 7, but not significant in the other regressions and was not impactful. Such insignif icance comes as a surprise, but illustrates that the average salary for professors does not explained by the idea that perhaps the majority of professors do not participate in the type of research that results in these types of outcomes, such as patents and licenses. From looking at the regression results, it appeared that Students and Expenditures may have been correlated variables This belief stems from the observation that Expenditures is highly significant at 0.01 in all regressions except for 4 and 8 which also happen to be the only regressions in which Students is highly significant. However, after running additional regressions that excluded one of these two independent variables, on an alternating basis, the results do not differ. W hen Expenditures i s left out, Students is still highly signif icant in Regressions 4 and 8; likewise, when Students is dropped, Expenditures is still insignificant in those regressions and highly significant in all others X. CONCLUSION This research project was initiated with the goal of determin ing what factors make a university most successfu l during the technology transfer process. Although assumptions could be made on this subject, there is a lack of empirical research to back up these assumptions. By PAGE 31 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 31 testing various inputs to technology transfer (independent variables) against an array of o utputs (dependent variables) we are better able to analyze the many factors involved in the process and eliminate potential for leaving out key pieces of insight. Through regression analysis valuable insight was obtained. Patents Issued and Licen ses/Options Executed had moderately strong correlations to t he set of independent variables, Start Ups had a moderate correlation and License Income had a weak correlation. Among independent variables, TTO Years, TTO FTEs, and Expenditures were shown to b e incredibly significant to the technology transfer process. On the flip side, Students and Salary did not appear to have too much of an impact. However, Students was highly significant in both regressions involving License Income. In conclusion, this pap er clearly empirically shows that if universities wish to be successful with their technology transfer programs, they should increase resources that directly affect the process such as establishing a Technology Transfer office and hiring an adequate amoun t of employees for the office Additionally, the more resources and money that a university invests in its research projects, the m ore that they will reap the rewards. While there is much more research to be done around the topic of technology transfer, this pa per provides a key start. PAGE 32 Determinants of Successful Technology Transfer 32 References About Technology Transfer. (n.d.). A ssociation of U niversity T echnology M anagers Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www.autm.net/Tech_Transfer/12076.htm A ssociation of U niversity T echnology M anagers Statistic s Analysis for Technology Transfer Database Available from http://www.autm.net/source/STATT/ DeVol, Ross and Perry Wong (1999). and Risks for Metropolitan Areas Milken Institute. Florida, R. L. (2012). Th e Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited New York: Basic Books. Innovation's Golden Goose. (2002, December 14). The Economist Technology Quarterly National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Available from n ces.ed.gov/ipeds 