Mobilising intellectual capital to improve European universities’ competitiveness. The technology transfer offices’ role
| Date | 10 July 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-12-2016-0139 |
| Pages | 607-624 |
| Published date | 10 July 2017 |
| Author | Giustina Secundo,Christle De Beer,Cornelius S.L. Schutte,Giuseppina Passiante |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
Mobilising intellectual capital
to improve European
universities’competitiveness
The technology transfer offices’role
Giustina Secundo
Department of Innovation Engineering, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy
Christle De Beer and Cornelius S.L. Schutte
Department of Industrial Engineering,
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, and
Giuseppina Passiante
Department of Innovation Engineering, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –Universities concerned with third mission activities are engines that increase regional
competitiveness since their primary role in the knowledge-based economy is to stimulate innovation by
transferringnew knowledge and technologiesto industry and society.The purpose of this paper is to show how
IC can be mobilized by university technology transfer offices (TTOs) due to the correlation between efficient
university technology transfer and intellectual capital (IC), thus contributing to the third stageof IC research.
Design/methodology/approach –The application of the Maturity Model developed by Secundo et al.
(2016) is expanded by collecting data from 18 universities in the European countries to illustrate how IC can
be used as a strategy and solution to the barriers faced by TTOs.
Findings –TTOs with increasedaccess to and utilization of IC tend to have highermaturity levels. This new
applicationof the Maturity Model, provesthat IC can be utilized to manage andimprove the efficiency of TTOs.
Research limitations/implications –An indication of the level of access that TTOs have to university IC
is given leading to recommendations to improve university technology transfer. Future research should
include a wider sample of universities to increase the validation of the Maturity Model and to prove it as a
suitable and strategic approach for IC management at TTOs.
Practical implications –Knowing which IC components are essential for the efficiency of TTOs, and
which IC needs greater utilization, will provide insights into policy and practical interventions to improve
their efficiency, resulting in increasing universities’competitiveness.
Originality/value –A new approach and perspective on utilizing IC to improve university technology
transfer to contribute to the third stage of IC research calling for more practice-oriented research.
Keywords Efficiency, Intellectual capital, Maturity model, Technology transfer office (TTO),
University competitiveness, University technology transfer
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The third mission considers universities to be a key factor in economic and social
development (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2006), in addition to their first mission, to teach, and
their second mission, to research (Laredo, 2007). This evolving mission requires
universities to shift from an administrative focus to a strategic one. To date, university
management has been built around a culture of collegium and bureaucracy (McNay,1995),
but a “new wave”of management thinking in the private sector is now permeating the
public one (Brereton and Temple, 1999). This shift from traditional bureaucratic
management to modern public management (Sotirakou and Zeppou, 2004; Cabrita and
Vaz, 2006) is leveraged by the utilization of intellectual capital (IC) in the public sector
encouraged by the success of IC in the corporate sector. In the knowledge economy, the
importance of IC as a unique resource and foundation of business success, and as a source
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 18 No. 3, 2017
pp. 607-624
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-12-2016-0139
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
607
The
technology
transfer
offices’role
of competitiveness has been acknowledged equallybyacademicsandpractitioners
(Sveiby, 1997; Bontis 1998; Lev and Daum, 2004; Pike et al., 2005; Kong and Thomson,
2009; Edvinsson, 2013; Dumay and Rooney, 2016).
For this reason, increasing attention is being paid to IC in the management literature
(Secundo, Elena-Perez, Martinaitis and Leitner, 2015). During the last two decades, some
attempts havebeen made to apply IC models in universities and researchcentres especially in
European countries (Leitner et al., 2014;Ramírez and Gordillo, 2014; Veltriand Silvestri, 2015)
because intangible assets and IC constitute the largest proportion of a universities’assets
(Sánchez et al., 2009; Secundo et al., 2010). The competitivenessof individuals, organizations,
and regions tend to increase based on their capacity for managing and valorising their
knowledge assets or IC (Schiuma, 2009; Schiuma and Lerro, 2010) and in the case of
universities, this form of knowledge valorization is known as university technology transfer
(Vinig and Lips,2015). It, therefore, comesas no surprise that technology transfer is generally
recognized as an immensely valuable process, improving local economic development,
generating novel products and services, and generally enhancing the quality of life through
various spill-over effects (Shane, 2004).
Indeed, according to Siegel et al. (2003), success in university technology transfer is a
critical factor in sustaining global competitiveness, and therefore it is crucial to know how
efficient a technology transfer office (TTO) is at this process (Resende et al., 2013).
According to Resende et al. (2013), there is no generally accepted method to verify
systematically the performance of an institution’s TTO. Little is known about the
performance of the TTO, if it is adequate, if it can be improved, if improvements are
possible, or how to intervene to improve efficiency and effectiveness. TTO performance
measurements are emergent in nature with many aspects of technology transfer not being
adequately addressed, such as intangible assets (effectiveness, impact, and efficiency) and
thus there is a need for more fine-grained TTO performance measures (Miller et al., 2016).
Secundo et al. (2016) created a self-assessment tool accompanying a Maturity Modelwhich
aims to assess the efficiency of a TTO at university technology transfer throughthe adoption
of indicators based on IC. Specifically, the self-assessment tool measures various intangible
indicators grouped into six efficiencyareas namely: human resources,technology, intellectual
property (IP) policy and strategy, organization design and structure, networking, and
university-industry links. These six efficiency areas incorporate the tripartite classification of
IC, which structures IC with regard to three elements: human capital (HC), structural capital
(SC) or organizational capital, and relational capital (RC) (Secundo, Elena-Perez, Martinaitis
and Leitner, 2015). The Maturity Model (Secundo et al., 2016) therefore allows a university to
evaluate the efficiency of university technology transfer using non-monetary indicators and
IC, so contributing to the limitations of using just monetary indicators for profit purposes.
Moving from the mentioned gap and in accordance with the third stage of IC research
that calls for more applications of IC in practice (Dumay, 2013; Dumay and Garanina, 2013),
this paper aims to explore how the self-assessment tool (Secundo et al., 2016) may be applied
to gain better insights into the relationship between the level of utilization of IC and the
increased efficiency of the university TTO. The self-assessment tool measures the efficiency
of a TTO at university technology transfer by focussing on how university IC is being
managed by the TTO. By using the data collected by the self-assessment tool of European
TTOs, this paper will determine the level of access a TTO has to the IC of the university, and
if the IC is being sufficiently utilized to improve university technology transfer. Discussions
about the regional competitiveness of the countries where the university TTOs are located
will be highlighted.
The remainder of the paper will be organized as follows: the next section will discuss relevant
literature on the role of the university in increasing competitiveness in European countries,
university TTOs, and mobilising IC as a tool to improve technology transfer efficiency.
608
JIC
18,3
To continue reading
Request your trial