EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DG ENTERPRISE
IMPROVING INSTITUTIONS FOR THE
TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY FROM
SCIENCE TO ENTERPRISE
(BEST PROJECT “ITTE” 1.11/2002)
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
INSTITUTIONS IN EUROPE
AN OVERVIEW
January 2004
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Table of Contents
1
About this CD ROM ....................................................................................... 2
1.1
Technical specifications ........................................................................ 2
1.2
What can you do with this CD ROM? .................................................... 2
2
Why a study on technology transfer institutions?........................................... 4
3
Technology Transfer Institutions.................................................................... 6
3.1
What is a technology transfer institution?.............................................. 6
3.2
Why is there a need for technology transfer institutions?...................... 7
3.3
The role of TTIs ..................................................................................... 9
3.4
Types of TTIs ...................................................................................... 10
3.4.1 Organizational units or specialised departments............................. 12
3.4.2 Subsidiaries ..................................................................................... 13
3.4.3 Public or private independent intermediaries .................................. 14
4
5
Description of the survey ............................................................................. 16
4.1
Target group definition ........................................................................ 16
4.2
Identification of institutions and data collection ................................... 16
4.3
Description of the database................................................................. 17
Types of TTIs ............................................................................................... 21
5.1
The general picture ............................................................................. 21
5.1.1 Models of TTI .................................................................................. 21
5.1.2 Activities of TTIs .............................................................................. 22
5.1.3 Science and technology areas covered by TTIs.............................. 25
5.2
Department-type TTI ........................................................................... 28
5.2.1 Activities of department-type TTIs ................................................... 28
5.2.2 Different types of departmental TTIs ............................................... 29
5.2.3 Geographical representation ........................................................... 31
5.3
Wholly owned-type TTI........................................................................ 32
5.3.1 Activities of wholly owned TTIs........................................................ 33
5.3.2 Geographical representation ........................................................... 35
5.4
Independent TTIs ................................................................................ 36
5.4.1 Activities of the independent TTIs ................................................... 36
5.4.2 Geographical representation ........................................................... 38
5.5
Technology parks and incubators as TTIs .......................................... 39
5.6
Comparison of different TTI models .................................................... 41
5.7
Geographical representation ............................................................... 42
5.7.1 Country size and number of TTIs .................................................... 42
5.7.2 Country specialisation ..................................................................... 47
5.7.3 Models of TTI and country representation....................................... 48
6
Concluding remarks ..................................................................................... 50
7
Bibliography ................................................................................................. 52
-i-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
ANNEX
Definitions / Acronyms
HEI:
Higher Education Institutions e.g. Universities
IPR:
Intellectual Property Rights
ITTE:
Improving institutions for the Transfer of Technology from
Science to Enterprise
ACs:
Accession Countries
PRO:
Public Research Organisations
PSRE:
Public Sector Research Establishments
Spin-offs:
Firms established by staff from a Public Research
Organisation to develop or commercialise an invention. In
this study start-ups are also regarded as spin-offs.
Start-ups:
New firms established especially to develop or
commercialise an invention licensed from a public
research organisation but without staff participation.
TTIs:
Organizations or parts of an organization which help the
staff at public research organizations to identify and
manage the organization’s intellectual assets, including
protecting intellectual property and transferring or licensing
rights to other parties to enhance prospects for further
developments.
Organisations which help the staff at public research
organisations to create new companies in order to develop
or commercialise an invention (spin-offs) such as
Technology Parks and Incubators.
Contract Research Organisations focusing on providing
research services to the private sector, provided that they
have specific technology transfer functions, located in one
or more units or departments or even diffused in the
organisation.
TTO:
Technology Transfer Organisation
-1-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
1 About this CD ROM
1.1 Technical specifications
The TTI-database (TTI Database.mdb) on the CD ROM must be copied to your
hard disk. Then it can be opened by using MS Access (MS Access 2002 with the
latest MDAC, Microsoft Database Access Components). If MS Access is not
installed on your computer, install the MS Access Runtime version, which is also
available on this CD-ROM and then use the TTI-database.
In order to install the Runtime version, the following system features are
required:
• Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000 or XP.
• Pentium 166 MHz processor or higher.
• Minimum of 20 MB of hard disk space (additional 60 MB for MS Access
Runtime).
If you do not have the administrative rights to install MS Access Runtime on your
workstation, please contact the IT-support at your organization.
The following instructions are to be found in the Read Me file (Read Me.pdf) on
the CD ROM:
• How to install the Runtime version (skip this one if MS Access is already
installed on your workstation).
• How to use the TTI-database.
1.2 What can you do with this CD ROM?
This CD ROM contains a database of European institutions engaged in the
transfer of technology from science to enterprise. It includes searchable
information on contact data for 1.393 technology transfer institutions as defined
in chapter 3.1 plus some 200 other relevant organisations which do not classify
as technology transfer institutions1. For 725 organisations, additional information
is available with respect to activities performed (e.g. technology licensing) and
science and technology areas covered. The database can be updated by the
user. This may be helpful for changing contact data or if supplementing
information for presently included institutions is available or if the user wishes to
add institutions.
Primarily, the catalogue allows you to identify organisations and individuals that
can offer the services you are looking for. Also, it allows some general analysis
of the current status and distribution of technology transfer institutions in Europe.
If you are interested in the overall European situation or some specific points
(e.g. country specific data) you can extract this information from the database.
The following description highlights some aspects of the current situation and
provides you with an overview of the organisational set-up of technology transfer
from science to enterprise in the Member States of the European Union in
particular and, less comprehensively, in the acceding, candidate and associated
countries (ACs). It has mainly a descriptive character, but also contains some
first analytical results.
1
These other organisations include offices in HEIs or PSREs, independent
organisations, Technology Parks, Contract Research Organisations.
-2-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
The CD-ROM and this report are first results of a study contract between the
European Commission and a consortium of nno AG, Logotech, and Angle
Technology Ltd. which is part of a project on “Improving institutions for the
transfer of technology from science to enterprise” (ITTE). If you are interested in
the more detailed analysis in the final report or other results of the project please
contact: Enterprise Directorate General – Unit A5, European Commission, B –
1049 Brussels, Belgium ; fax: (+32 2) 299 83 62 ; e-mail: [email protected] . The results will be available by June 2004.
-3-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
2 Why a study on technology transfer institutions?
There is a view, that Europe today is not receiving an adequate return on its
investments into research and technology because of less and slower
commercialisation of research results.
Science – industry relations have many different facets and knowledge is
transferred via many different channels. One of these channels is transfer
institutions, which may be organised in a variety of ways and play different roles
in the various national innovation systems. The recent dynamic development of
such institutions, in Europe as well as in the US and elsewhere, has arguably
been stimulated by new forms of intellectual property rights (IPR) legislation and
the recognition of a need for closer collaboration and more intensive
communication between public research organisations (PRO) and enterprises.
This has been reflected in the establishment of new transfer organisations, a
professionalization of their services and efforts to create more supportive
framework conditions.
It is also argued that in most cases more systematic and better transfer
mechanisms will positively affect the quality of research and the frequency and
quality of innovation. A pro-active approach by research to commercialisation is
supposed to benefit particularly small and medium sized companies, which
traditionally are hesitant to employ the services of PROs because of real and
perceived barriers to communicate with universities.
An earlier study on industry–science relations has earmarked technology transfer
institutions as an important instrument for better IPR-management and
commercialisation of research results.2 Building on this study and the policy
conclusions drawn from its results3 the European Commission has designed a
project on “Improving institutions for the transfer of technology from science to
enterprises (ITTE)”. The study contract under which the present report has been
prepared is part of this project.
One of several objectives of the project has been to explore the existence of
technology transfer institutions in the EU-Member States and to provide some
indication of their existence in the acceding, candidate and associated countries.
By surveying the TTIs identified an attempt was made to create a data base
which allows some kind of classification of TTIs and can serve as input to further
analysis extending to correlations between framework conditions and the
success or quality of TTIs or the benchmarking of technology transfer institutions
at different levels. Analysis in the study contract relies, however, also on various
other inputs such as could be extracted from literature, in-depth case studies, or
interviews.
This CD-ROM contains a catalogue of the identified TTIs with relevant contact
details and some results of the survey, which describe a number of
characteristics such as type of organisation, fields of science, and transfer
services offered.
2
Polt W., C. Ramer, H. Gassler, A. Schibany and D. Schartinger (2001), Benchmarking
industry-science relations: the role of framework conditions, Science and Public Policy,
Vol. 28, No 4, pp. 247-258.
3
European Commission (2002): Good practice in industry-science relations,
Benchmarking papers 5/2002 (See especially recommendations 5, 6, 7 and 9.).
-4-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
This report describes the data base and explains the definitions applied. It also
provides an overview of the TTI in Europe and highlights some first results which
will be presented in greater detail in the final report to this project.
-5-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
3
Technology Transfer Institutions
3.1 What is a technology transfer institution?
Relations between industry and research organisations such as higher education
institutions (HEI) and public sector research establishments (PSRE) have rapidly
developed in the last twenty years4. These changes were stimulated by
technological developments, the recognition of innovation as a primary force for
economic development and its close relation to research, and last but not least
legal changes regarding intellectual property rights. Recent studies indicate the
gradual globalisation and institutionalisation5 of knowledge transfer, and more
specifically technology transfer. Companies in general and technological leaders
in particular conduct global procurement not only in relation to components but
very much also in respect to knowledge. For the providers of such competence
this implies a need to make themselves heard on a global level, which requires a
critical mass of competencies and knowledge and of marketing competence and
power. This definitely means that responding to industry’s demands has to be
institutionalised and professionalised. It can no longer be run on an ad hoc basis
between friends.
Technology Transfer Institutions (TTIs), such as industrial liaison offices,
technology transfer offices, contract research organisations and other innovation
support providers such as technology parks and incubators, play an increasingly
important role in the creation and reinforcement of the relationships between
industry and public research organisations (PROs).
The OECD6 and many researchers7 have described the role of TTIs in
technology transfer and have analysed main aspects of their work and practices
focusing mainly on licensing and patenting.8 Geographical coverage, however,
has typically been limited to the US and a number of EU-Member States.
This report builds on the experience gained by this work, but it adopts a broader
approach – both in terms of geographical coverage and with respect to the types
of organisations.
4
HEIs and PRSEs are also referred to as Public Research Organisations (PROs).
5
For example OECD (2002), Benchmarking Industry-Science relationships, and Edler J.
and P. Boekholt (2001), Benchmarking national public policies to exploit international
science and industrial research: a synopsis of current development, Science and Public
Policy, Vol. 28, No 4, pp. 313-321.
6
OECD (2002) and OECD (2003), Turning science into business: Patenting and
licensing at public research organisations.
7
Howells J. M., Nedeva and L. Georgiou (1998), Industry-Academic Links in the UK,
Report to the Higher Education Funding Councils for England, Scotland and Wales,
Howells Jeremy and Carole McKinlay (1999), Commercialisation of University research
in Europe, Report to the Expert Panel on the Commercialisation of University Research
for the Advisory Councils on Science and Technology, Ontario, Canada., Polt W., C. et
al, (2001), Copenhagen Business School (2003), Promoting university interaction with
business and community: a comparative study of Finland, Sweden and UK,
Commissioned by the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology.
8
OECD (2003).
-6-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
The term of Technology Transfer Institutions (TTIs) is used to describe
the following types of organisations:
• TTOs, as they have been defined by OECD, namely as “ … organizations
or parts of an organization which help the staff at public research
organizations to identify and manage the organization’s intellectual
assets, including protecting intellectual property and transferring or
licensing rights to other parties to enhance prospects for further
development”9.
• Organisations which help staff at public research organisations to create
new companies in order to develop or commercialise an invention (spinoffs) such as Technology Parks and Incubators.
• Contract Research Organisations focusing on providing research services
to the private sector, provided that they have specific technology transfer
functions, located in one or more units or departments or even diffused in
the organisation.
Most technology transfer institutions are attached to or associated with one or
several PROs and see their major objective in commercialising the PRO’s
research results and contracting out research capacities. Some TTIs are,
however, independent. But hardly any TTI acts as a procurement organisation or
procurement mediator for industry or a group of companies.
Organisations that exclusively engage in the transfer of competence or
knowledge other than technology are not TTIs and have not been included in the
study.
Organisations that perform services such as information or counselling only also
have been excluded from this study, even when those services referred to
technology. Only if these TTIs also provided services such as patenting,
licensing, management of contract research, spin-off assistance, or spin-off
financing they have been included.
Choosing a rather narrow focus, the study restricted itself to institutions which
are actually engaged in the transfer of technology.
3.2 Why is there a need for technology transfer institutions?
Technology transfer from publicly funded research organisations to industry is a
complex non-linear process. It is not a relay race where the researcher hands
over an invention to a patent attorney who files a patent that he then hands over
to a salesman. Technology transfer is not a one-way road where the researcher
communicates to the businessman. In fact, technology transfer is the result of a
multi-dimensional relationship between science and industry where the actors
communicate with each other.
In order to allow for regular transfer of technology, the following pre-conditions
have to be fulfilled:
9
•
The research organisation must hold relevant state-of-the-art
competence, be capable to produce it, or be in a position to provide
applied research services for the implementation and adaptation of
(cutting edge) technology developed elsewhere.
•
The research organisation must be motivated to transfer its knowledge
and to communicate with enterprises. Weak or blatantly absent
Ibid.
-7-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
technology transfer activities by PROs reflect either unfavourable
regulations and/or an absence of motivation. Key motivators can be
benefits such as financial rewards, better reputation, or access to
competence held by an industrial organisation. The relative importance of
particular motivators varies by type of research organisation and the
various regulatory provisions and traditions. It can also vary between
individuals according to personal preferences and may even vary from
case to case according to the type of project.
•
The research organisation must establish a transfer mechanism that is
transparent to the potential user and capable of combining and
integrating (research) competences according to the needs of client
enterprises.
Frequently PROs appear also to be less motivated to engage in technology
transfer to SMEs as compared to transfers to large multinational firms. Reasons
are probably the latter’s stronger financial position, the higher image effect
conveyed by globally renowned reference partners, and their superior knowledge
base.
In many smaller firms, especially in traditional sectors, innovation is, firstly, a
temporary activity because of limited resources as compared to larger firms
where innovation is frequently a continuous activity. Secondly, innovation of
smaller firms in traditional sectors tends to be incremental rather then radical.
Incremental innovations, however, frequently do not demand sophisticated
research but may be facilitated by industrial suppliers of technology. These are
rational explanations why SMEs judge PRO services frequently as less relevant
to their needs and why PROs as source of technology are utilised by SMEs less
frequently than other sources.10 In those cases where enterprises and more
specifically SMEs do have a need for the services of PROs, or where research
results offer possibilities also for small enterprises to increase their efficiency,
communication barriers frequently affect or prevent collaboration, which may
arise from lack of motivation of PROs, differences in competence levels between
partners, or the fact that the cost in terms of time and money for getting
acquainted with a large number of small partners and their problems is
comparatively higher than with a large partner. Technology transfer institutions
are thus not only a means to establish, intensify and professionalize the
cooperation between PROs and enterprises but can also contribute to the
lowering of communication barriers to SMEs.
More specifically TTIs can help reduce
• the lack of information regarding what is available in PROs and what is
needed by the enterprise sector;
• high transaction costs especially of ad hoc efforts at an individual base;
• the differences in cultures and objectives;
• the uncertainty of the collaboration’s outcome; and
• side effects of science-industry co-operations such as revealing one’s
own strategy to competitors.
10
like numerous RIS (Regional Innovation Strategy) and RITTS (Regional Innovations
and Technology Transfer Strategies) Projects have shown.
-8-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Table 1: Incentives and barriers for science and industry relations
Science sector
Relations
Enterprise sector
Cross learning
Access to new
knowledge
Incentives
Secure alternative
sources of funding
Personnel mobility
Prospective income
for researchers from
licensing
Exchange of
knowledge and
experience
Better labour market
opportunities for
graduates
Knowledge network
externalities
Synergies
Access to R&D
resources and
infrastructures
Opportunities for openup new business fields
Recruitment of R&D
personnel
Barriers
Lack of qualified
personnel
necessary for
handling the
interaction
Bureaucratic
structures and
decision procedures
High cost of
interaction,
contracting
licensing, etc.
Lack of sufficient
information on
supply and demand
Information
asymmetries and low
market transparency
Different cultures
and incompatible
objectives
High transaction cost
Uncertainty of
outcome
Large spillovers
Risk averse behaviour
Lack of knowledge
absorption capacities
and innovation
management
capabilities
Lack of qualified
personnel
Fear of loosing
confidential knowledge
Uncertainty
Source: Based on Polt et al (2001)
3.3 The role of TTIs
The increasing number of TTIs does not only mirror the recognition of the needs
as described above but also closely relates to the complex issue of intellectual
property regulation. A rising awareness of the potential benefits of IPR
management which combines patenting activities as well as commercialisation or
licensing has stimulated the institutionalisation of technology transfer.
Institutionalisation is an approach to professionalize such services and create
centralised experience and competence that individual researchers on average
do not have. In a wider context, the IPR issue also relates to the establishment of
spin-offs, which are new enterprises founded by members of the PRO on the
basis of (in-house) research results. Institutionalisation of technology transfer
then also provides a chance to professionalize and intensify in a more systematic
way the interaction between science and enterprises.
TTI-services typically offered include spin-off assistance (financial and other),
IPR management (patenting assistance, licensing) and liaison for contract
research.
-9-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
The management of IPRs is the most common objective when creating
technology transfer institutions11. TTIs play a significant role in the early stages
of the process such as the disclosure of inventions and the evaluation of their
commercial potential.12 In some cases, TTIs have also become responsible for
marketing and contracting the research activities of the PROs and manage their
relations with industry.13
In recent years, formation of technology-intensive start-ups has been recognised
as an important channel for commercialisation of public research results. Former
PRO staff members setting up a spin-off company is probably the most frequent
case.14 In other cases, start-ups are not founded by PRO staff members, but the
PRO licences a technology to a company in the process of starting up.
Technology Parks and incubators are other types of TTIs that focus on the
facilitation of the creation of spin-offs. They offer space, management and
technology consultancy, and a stimulating and innovative business environment.
Not all technology parks are formally connected to PROs and only a small part of
the firms hosted by technology and science parks which are closely related to
PROs, are actually owned by the PROs. For example data from UKSPA15 show
that only 3% of firms in science parks in the United Kingdom are HEI-owned.
The role and significance of TTIs is now widely accepted by many PROs.
Several specific initiatives have been launched for their promotion and
improvement. One example is ProTon Europe, a pan-European Network of
Technology Transfer Offices linked to Public Research Organisations. The
network was initially set up by 12 PROs and is supported by the Innovation
Programme of the European Commission. Today, ProTon members amount to
more than 100 PROs around Europe. The objective of ProTon is to boost
technology transfer and commercialisation of publicly funded research results by
further developing the professional skills of those working in the field.
3.4 Types of TTIs
Based on earlier research and the results of the survey, different types of TTIs
have been defined for the purposes of this study. The actual institutional set up
of TTIs depends on a number of factors such as characteristics of knowledge
producers and knowledge recipients and framework conditions (e.g. public
promotion programmes, legislation, intermediary infrastructures, etc.).16
More specifically, industry’s demand for technology depends on:
•
11
market structures (e.g. degree of competition, market dynamics,
sophistication of users);
OECD (2003).
12
Siegel, D. et al. (1999), Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the
productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An exploratory study, National
Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 7256.
13
Arthur D. Little (2000), Getting more innovation from public research, European
Commission, Luxembourg.
14
Whether PROs actively stimulate such a process and e.g. have a policy of holding
shares in the spin-off companies or whether they are ignorant varies widely between
PROs. For a discussion please see Howells J. and C. McKinlay (1999).
15
16
United Kingdom Science Park Association.
Polt et al (2001), OECD (2002).
-10-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
•
technological characteristics of the sector (e.g. R&D intensity in the
sector); and
•
absorption and innovation capacity (e.g. qualification of employees,
management and organizational structures encouraging interaction and
creativity, technology skills, in-house R&D).
The three types of institutions distinguished in this report are17:
• Organizational units or specialised departments within PROs.
• Subsidiary organizations working outside of a PRO, which are
connected to a specific PRO or a specific department of a PRO.
• Public or private, independent intermediaries serving more than one
publicly funded research organization.
The institutional type chosen reflects factors such as the legal environment
(ownership arrangements of IPR), the degree of institutional autonomy of PROs,
the PRO’s legal status, or the amount of public funding available for the TTI. The
formation of subsidiary organizations, for example, which gives the TTI some
independence and higher visibility may also indicate that technology transfer has
been recognised as an important activity and will in general reflect more
intensive activities than in the case of departments or organizational units.
As research capacities and competence may in some cases not be sufficient to
support an own subsidiary or as some of the PRO’s fields of specialization may
require highly specialised transfer expertise the use of (independent)
intermediaries serving also other PROs might be the proper choice.
Availability of such possibilities and the PROs proximity to firms and networks
will also have an impact on the choice of type or model of TTI.18
17
OECD (2002).
18
OECD (2003).
-11-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 1: Models of TTIs
“Department-type”
“Wholly owned”
PRO
PRO
Specialised
Department
Subsidiary
“Independent”
PRO
PRO
PRO
Independent Intermediary
Independent
Intermediaries
Spin-offs
Firms
Independent
Intermediaries
Spin-offs
Firms
Spin-offs
Source: Adapted from OECD (2002)
3.4.1 Organizational units or specialised departments
Size, status and role of this type of TTI do vary distinctly from one PRO to the
other. Not all of these TTIs are dedicated exclusively to technology transfer but
some perform other activities as well. Especially in the latter case, the intensity of
their transfer activities as well as their capacity to develop specialised expertise
may be limited, although no regular patterns can be derived from the institutional
set up.
There are, however, some obvious advantages and disadvantages connected to
this type of TTI. As they are integrated within the PRO, they usually have lower
fixed costs. The proximity to the researchers ensures close links with them and
potentially leads to greater familiarity with research projects and results which
can be helpful for the commercialisation process. On the other hand, there is a
risk that such TTIs will focus on existing ventures and neglect new opportunities.
Their strong inward orientation might affect the quality of their marketing
activities and the professionalisation of their transfer and management expertise.
Incentives and motivation to commercialisation can be rather weak and thus lead
to less intensive communication with industry.19
19
OECD (2002).
-12-
Firms
Typology of TTIs in Europe
In the following, three cases are briefly described, which indicate development
and character of this type of TTIs in France, Greece and the U.K.
In France, until 1999, only PSREs had their own technology transfer offices
(internal or as a subsidiary). The main role of these offices was the management
of contracts and the recruitment of personnel for their implementation.20 In large
PSREs the offices managed a broad spectrum of technology transfer activities
such as patenting, marketing of services, and licensing. Only after 1999, as a
result of a new law, Universities have started establishing internal offices or
subsidiaries called SAICs (Services d’ Activités Industrielles et Commerciales) to
take charge of industrial relations and to cope with the restrictions of the public
accounting system used in PROs. SAICs also undertake patent management,
provision of services, or editorial activities.
In Greece in the early 1980s so-called “Special Accounts” were established as
service providers within PROs, which have been responsible for dealing with
contracts and payments to third parties including personnel. In the mid-1990s,
the Special Accounts established Liaison Offices for the marketing of research
services provided by the PRO, patent management, licensing, and diffusion of
information.
In the United Kingdom, the National Research and Development Corporation
(NRDC) had a monopoly on the exploitation of publicly funded research until
1981 when it was succeeded by the British Technology Group (BTG)21. The BTG
continued monopolising the exploitation of publicly funded research until 1985.22
Since then, many HEIs have set up intellectual property management centres
known as Technology Licensing Offices in parallel with Industrial Liaison Offices.
3.4.2 Subsidiaries
Many PROs, have set up subsidiaries for undertaking some or all of the
technology transfer activities either instead of or in addition to departmental type
TTIs. These subsidiaries may be profit or non-profit organisations and usually
play also a managerial or operational role in the technology transfer process.
Their activities are usually coordinated by a department or a service within the
PRO.
The subsidiary can take the form of:23
• a firm or a non-profit association, or
• a public or private interest co-operative structure
The subsidiary approach enables the TTI to monitor communication and to avoid
or solve conflicts of interest between researchers and industrial partners during
the commercialisation process and to limit frictions.24 Compared to the
departmental approach, these TTIs also enjoy a higher degree of managerial
20
OECD (2002), OECD (2003).
21
The National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) was set up in 1948 by the
British Government to commercialise British publicly funded research. In 1981, it was
succeeded by the British Technology Group which was set up as a publicly owned
company with the same goal. As of 1992, BTG is a private company with international
presence aiming at commercialising novel technologies.
22
Howells J. and C. McKinlay (1999).
23
Ibid.
24
OECD (2002).
-13-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
and financial independence, enabling them to more easily develop and facilitate
relationships with potential licensees or clients and additional partners such as
venture capitalists. The main disadvantages are higher transaction costs and the
more complex coordination with researchers.
In the following, some country examples are briefly presented in order to
illustrate the different forms such subsidiaries can take in different
circumstances.
France provides several examples of this model. In several cases, subsidiary
type TTIs exist in parallel with department–type institutions: In CNRS (French
National Centre for Scientific Research) the subsidiary FIST (France Scientific
Innovation and Transfer, societe anonyme) is responsible for IPR management
and operates in parallel with the central unit DAE (Délégation d’Aiffaires
d’Entreprises), which is responsible for IPR strategy, licensing and start-ups.
Similarly, in INRIA (French National Institute for Research in Computer Science
and Control) the specialised department DirDRI (Department of Development
and Industrial Relations) is responsible for management of technology transfer
and the relations of research teams with industry and coexists with the subsidiary
INRIA-Transfer that supports and finances spin-offs.
In Germany, subsidiaries are limited in number but not necessarily in
importance. The most well known case is the Garching Innovation GmbH, a
subsidiary of the Max Planck Society. Garching was founded in 1970. Its
responsibilities include commercial exploitation of Max Planck’s patents and
stimulation of start-ups and spin-offs. Garching currently has the largest portfolio
of start-ups in Germany25. Ascension GmbH, another German subsidiary type
TTI, is an example of an institution which is specialised in a single scientific area,
biotechnology. Ascension was founded in 2001 for the commercialisation of four
Helmholtz institutes, and provides mainly IP asset management.
In Sweden, eleven universities (out of 47 Swedish HEIs) have set up
subsidiaries in order to manage patenting and commercialising IPRs.
3.4.3 Public or private independent intermediaries
Many intermediary type TTIs do not collaborate with specific PROs on a regular
basis, but offer their services to several PROs on an ad-hoc basis. Examples of
such TTIs include many innovation relay centres (IRCs) or organisations, which
have been established by Chambers of Commerce and industry associations.
However, as they mostly do not provide research results or capacities
themselves but only act as information brokers and support organisations for
technology and partner search, or in the application for support programmes, this
type of intermediaries remains outside of the scope of this study.
In a number of cases, intermediaries have also been set up in collaboration with
PROs, have PROs as minority share holders, or have developed long term and
systematic collaborations with specific PROs with or without contractual basis.
These TTIs are relevant to the study. In the following these are referred to as
independent intermediaries.
There are indications for a trend in some countries, such as Germany, Sweden,
or Norway, to concentrate technology transfer services at key players. The main
advantage of this model is the professionalisation of transfer activities and their
management, economies of scale, and broader access to commercialisation
25
OECD (2003).
-14-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
opportunities. Greater distance from research, insufficient incentives for the
exploitation of opportunities, and weak management of the portfolio of research
results and capacities at related PROs26 can be some of the disadvantages of
this model.
In some countries, the creation of independent private companies (profit or nonprofit) that serve several (mainly) smaller PROs were initiated by government in
order to overcome a lack of resources (human and financial) and to achieve
critical mass. In Belgium, for example, the Interuniversity Institute for
Biotechnology (VIB) serves nine Universities and manages their IP and
technology transfer in Biotechnology. In Denmark, the government funded the
establishment of joint TTIs (networks) on a regional and sectoral level in order to
create economies of scale and optimise the utilisation of resources. An example
from the United Kingdom is the MANIP partnership (Manchester Intellectual
Property) which was jointly created by three hospitals and four Universities in the
area of Manchester and which is funded by the DTI (Department of Trade and
Industry). This partnership has now expanded and covers all NHS organisations
in the Northwest under the new name ‘TrustTECH’27.
In Germany, the Fraunhofer Patentstelle (Fraunhofer Patent Centre, PST) which
was already founded in 1955, serves not only the Fraunhofer research institutes,
but also some universities and individual inventors. (For the assessment of
German universities in IPR matters, a network of so-called Patent Valorisation
Agencies was established in the end of 2001.) The Fraunhofer PST services
include among others the evaluation of inventions and IPRs, the filing of
intellectual property applications, technological consulting, negotiation and
issuance of licences, and collecting of royalties.
Recently, the German government has made a significant effort to increase and
improve technology transfer from science to enterprise, which has been
accompanied by changes in the IPR legislation. IPRs now belong to the PRO
(the university) and not the individual inventor anymore. (Similar developments
take place in e.g. Denmark, Finland and Norway and there are ongoing
discussions in Austria, where IPRs traditionally belonged to the government.)
As a consequence, the German government supports financially the setting up of
Patent Valorisation Agencies (Patentverwertungsagenturen/PVA). Each PVA
commercialises research potential and results on behalf of a number of
Universities, university colleges and research institutes. Nearly all German
Universities have bonds to one of the 20 PVAs.
In France this type of TTI is found at regional level and their focus is mainly on
local SMEs.
Independent TTIs in Finland are located in technology and science parks. They
are jointly owned by University foundations, regional organisations and the
National Fund for Research and Development (SITRA). Their main tasks are the
commercialisation of research results of the affiliated PROs supporting patenting,
licence negotiations, and marketing of patents.
26
Ibid.
27
OECD (2002).
-15-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
4 Description of the survey
Within the framework of the present study, a number of different approaches has
been applied in order to collect information on technology transfer institutions in
Europe. The following description relates mainly to the web-based survey which
employed a standardised questionnaire and which has been complemented by
telephone interviews.
4.1 Target group definition
The catalogue on the CD is one of the deliverables of the ITTE project and
contains contact data for all institutions identified and additional information on
those TTI which responded to the survey with details regarding their institutional
set-up, fields of science covered, and services provided28.
The core target group for the project had been defined in the terms of reference
of the project. Core group TTIs thus must correspond to the following
characteristics.
• location in one of the15 EU Member States.
• formal or de facto attachment to a public research organisation.
• transfer of technology in one of the four following fields:
o Natural sciences
o Engineering and technology
o Medicine
o Agriculture
• provision of one or more of the following services:
o Patenting and patenting assistance
o Licensing of IPR
o Management of contract research (not performing of)
o Spin-off assistance (e.g. business consulting)
o Spin-off financing (provision of seed capital)
In addition to the core group TTIs, the study also aimed at collecting some
information on TTIs, which are located in one of the following 15 countries:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey. From now
on, this group will be called non-EU-15.
Furthermore, a limited coverage of main institutions in the following categories
has been attempted:
• Contract Research Organisations in all countries that do not classify as
core target group TTIs.
• Science Parks in all covered countries.
4.2 Identification of institutions and data collection
The identification of TTIs was based on public sources listing HEIs and PSREs.
Essentially, all sources use the OECD Frascati manual for defining the types of
institutions29 But methodologies often vary.30
28
For a definition of Technology Transfer Institutions (TTIs) see chapter 3.1.
29
Frascati Manual 2002, ISBN 92-64-19903-9, OECD 2002
-16-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Internet research, telephone interviews, and other methods were applied to
determine whether the PROs thus identified produce technology (which for
instance social science institutes and some Universities do not). Further we tried
to identify which technology transfer institutions were used by those PROs who
produced technology.
All identified institutions, which were suspected to be TTIs were approached with
a standardised web-based questionnaire. The response rate amounted to about
50 %. These respondends completed part A of the questionnaire which related to
general type information and which is displayed in the catalogue. Part B of the
questionnaire contained far more detailed questions, which related to information
for further analysis. This information is not included in the catalogue as these
data are confidential. 13% of the TTIs in the sample have also completed Part B
of the questionnaire.
These response rates were the results also of extensive follow up activities: e.g.,
all contacts have been called at least twice.
TTIs which responded were invited to check and approve the data before the
publication of the catalogue. All respondents received an e-mail with the
information on their institution (parts of which also derived from others sources
than their reply) and corrections and amendments were inserted in the data
base.
No systematic bias as to the differences between response rates in the various
countries could be detected, nor did the requested amendments of the
information checked by the TTIs indicate systematic mistakes. As revealed by
the answers to the telephone follow-up main reason for not replying had been
questionnaire fatigue and time constraints.
A first analysis of responses allowed elimination of a number of institutions,
which actually are not TTIs, from the data base.
Example A: Some science parks which only provide facilities and management
services have been excluded. Those who also have been providing business
incubation services or seed funding remained in the database.
Example B: Some PSREs have answered the survey. When we have been able
to determine that they do not even have a dedicated contract research
management office we have excluded them. In all other cases they have been
included.
It may be expected that among those institutions, which have not replied to the
questionnaire, there are still a number of institutions which in effect are not TTIs.
For all 1,596 institutions in the data base contact details are available, 1393 of
them qualify as TTIs. For 725 or 52% of the TTIs further information is available.
4.3 Description of the database
The institutions in the database amount to a total of 1,596 institutions. 181 of
these have provided full answers to the questionnaire, an additional 544 have
provided basic information, for the remaining 871 only contact data are available.
30
The Central Statistics Agency in Sweden classifies industrial research institutes as
private industry enterprises due to their legal status of a shareholder company. Since the
institutes receive basic funding from the public sector we have included them in our
database.
-17-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
The number of institutions which qualify as TTIs according to the narrow
definition of this study is 1,393, while the remaining 203 institutions are either
contract research organisations or Science Parks.
The response rate for the full questionnaire (parts A and B) was 13% (181 of
1,393 TTIs) and 52% for the basic information (part A only). The following table
displays the number of responses per country.
Table 2: Database sample split by type of answer provided to survey
Countries
All database
entries
Full answers
to survey
Basic
answers
survey
Austria
60
9
12
39
Belgium
17
2
5
10
Bulgaria
3
0
2
1
Cyprus
2
0
2
0
Czech Republic
7
0
4
3
Denmark
41
11
6
24
Estonia
6
1
4
1
Finland
28
6
11
11
France
215
13
103
99
Germany
431
40
161
230
Greece
22
9
7
6
Hungary
7
1
5
1
Ireland
26
4
6
16
Italy
101
4
56
41
Latvia
15
1
0
14
Lithuania
9
0
2
7
Luxemburg
7
0
2
5
Malta
1
0
1
0
Netherlands
20
2
5
13
Norway
28
7
9
12
Poland
17
4
4
9
Portugal
20
4
3
13
Romania
22
2
6
14
Slovak Republic
6
1
1
4
Slovenia
8
0
2
6
Spain
168
12
27
129
Sweden
77
16
26
35
Switzerland
53
6
17
30
-18-
to
Only contact
data
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Countries
All database
entries
Full answers
to survey
Basic
answers
survey
Turkey
12
2
1
9
United Kingdom
167
24
54
89
Grand Total
1,596
181
544
871
to
Only contact
data
The variation of the number of Non-TTIs by country and their presence as
related to country size indicates that in several countries sources habitually
excluded such institutions while in other countries they did not.
Table 3: Database sample split by TTI and non-TTI
Country
Number of TTI in database
Number of
database
Austria
31
29
Belgium
17
0
Bulgaria
3
0
Cyprus
2
0
Czech Republic
6
1
Denmark
31
10
Estonia
6
0
Finland
27
1
France
209
6
Germany
334
97
Greece
22
0
Hungary
7
0
Ireland
26
0
Italy
93
8
Latvia
2
13
Lithuania
9
0
Luxemburg
7
0
Malta
1
0
Netherlands
20
0
Norway
21
7
Poland
16
1
Portugal
20
0
Romania
17
5
Slovak Republic
6
0
Slovenia
8
0
-19-
non-TTI
in
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Spain
165
3
Sweden
58
19
Switzerland
52
1
Turkey
12
0
United Kingdom
165
2
Grand Total
1,393
203
-20-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
5 Types of TTIs
The following typology builds on the types or models as described in chapter 3.4.
Following a general overview, description of each of the types of TTIs is
provided. Additionally, contract research organisations31, technology parks and
incubators are described.
5.1 The general picture
An attempt to sketch the overall picture of TTIs in the EU-15 and Non-EU-15
countries is made in the present section by describing the models or types of
TTIs, their activities, their science and technology focus, and their geographical
distribution.
The overall number of TTIs in EU-15 is 1,219. This number includes technology
transfer offices, technology parks and incubators with technology transfer
services and spin-off support, and Contract Research Organisations with
organised functions for technology transfer.
Although some TTIs may have certainly been missed, the database comprises
the vast majority of all TTIs in the EU-15 Member States.
5.1.1 Models of TTI
The most common model for a TTI across the 30 countries surveyed is that of
organisational units or specialised departments within the PRO. In this report,
such TTIs are referred to as “department-type” TTIs. According to figure 5, they
represent 53% of TTIs.
TTIs that operate outside of the PROs but are wholly owned by them (a “wholly
owned-type” TTI) represent 14%.
Public or private independent intermediaries serving one or more PROs
(“independent-type” TTIs) are also very common, and represent 33% of the TTIs.
The contract research organisations have been included in this category.
Figure 2: Types of TTIs – All 30 countries
33%
Department or office in PRO
53%
Wholly owned company at a
PRO
Independent organisation
connected to one or more PROs
14%
Source: ITTE survey
N=714
31
Contract Research Organisations have been classified as PSREs.
-21-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
High numbers of TTIs or frequency of specific models do not necessarily imply
importance or good performance. The share of a type of TTI expressed as a
percentage of the total number of TTIs does neither reflect quality, value or
volume of transfer services performed nor does it indicate the average size of
such TTIs. For such conclusions, information on input/output ratios should be
considered. The number of TTIs also cannot be simply related to the number of
PROs as for example independent TTIs frequently serve a number of PROs and
various PROs do employ the services of a number of TTIs. Examples are DAE
(Industrial Affairs Delegation) and FIST (France Scientific Innovation and
Transfer) in CNRS (French National Centre for Scientific Research) in France.
DAE evaluates inventions, defines IPR strategy and negotiates projects and
royalties. FIST, a specialized affiliate, undertakes the IPR management.
Despite the lower coverage of TTI in the non-EU Member States a similar picture
evolves for both country groups (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Types of TTI in the EU-15 and non-EU-15 countries
100%
90%
80%
32%
44%
70%
14%
60%
50%
11%
40%
30%
20%
54%
46%
10%
0%
Non EU
Departments
EU
Wholly owned
Independent
Source: ITTE survey
5.1.2 Activities of TTIs
The following five types of services have been selected as defining
characteristics of TTIs:
• Patenting, which also includes the steps prior to the filing of the patent
(disclosure, evaluation, etc.)
• Licensing of IPR
• Liaison for contract research including client recruitment, contract signing,
legal issues
• Support of spin-offs including services such as business planning, setting
up, raising of funds, etc.
• Financing of spin-offs by providing seed capital or by holding shares
-22-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
The most frequent activity is the assistance for the creation of spin-offs, which is
provided by 64% of the total number of TTIs. The least frequent activity is
financing of spin-offs, which is however still provided by 25% of the TTIs. The
other activities are part of the service portfolio of between 52% and 62% of TTIs.
Although activities relating to the development of technologies and new
enterprises (spin-offs) have been reported more frequently, the differences in
frequencies are relatively small, with the exception of spin-off financing.
(Figure 4).
Figure 4: Activities of TTIs in all of the 30 countries surveyed
64%
Spin-off assistance
Liaison for contract
research
62%
57%
Patenting assistance
52%
Technology licensing
25%
Spin-off financing
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
Source: ITTE survey
N=714
In the non-EU-15 countries, the focus is stronger on the creation of spin-offs with
lower frequencies for the other services and as compared to the EU-15. The
share of TTIs offering support to spin-offs is 6 percentage points higher than in
the EU Member States. On the contrary, patenting assistance and technology
licensing are offered by fewer TTIs (45% and 38%) in the non-EU-15, which
seems to indicate either a lower concern towards IPR or deficiencies in research
quality in the acceding and candidate countries. Overall however, the frequency
of services and their ranking does not differ substantially between the two
country groups. (Figure 5).
-23-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 5: Activities of TTIs in the EU-15 and non-EU-15 countries
69%
Spin-off assistance
63%
59%
62%
Contract research
45%
Patenting assistance
58%
38%
Technology licensing
54%
21%
Spin-off financing
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
EU-15
40%
50%
60%
70%
Non-EU-15
Source: ITTE survey
On average a TTI in the EU-15 countries offers 2.6 services (services to be
understood as type of service or as activity area such as “patenting”, which may
in fact comprise quite a number of special services) and in the non-EU-15 2.3
services. 18% of TTIs were specialists in the sense that they offered one service
only, all 5 services (activity areas) were only covered by about 14%. Most
frequently, 24% in each case, were TTIs that provided services covering either 2
or 4 of the activity areas.
The following illustration (figure 6) compares the distribution of TTIs by the
number of services offered. The main conclusions which can be drawn from that
are that independant type TTIs tend to be more specialised, while departmenttype TTIs and even more so subsidiary type TTIs tend to offer 4 or even all 5
services.
-24-
80%
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 6: TTIs which offer 1, 2, 3, 4, or all (5) services32
1 service
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
All services
2 services
5.0%
0.0%
4 services
3 services
Department
Subsidiary
Independent
Source: ITTE-survey
5.1.3 Science and technology areas covered by TTIs
The science and technology focus of TTIs is analysed using the international
classification standard for science disciplines. The focus on science disciplines
instead of technology areas, had, however, the disadvantage that some
technologies cover more than one scientific discipline, for example ICT and
biotechnology.
Taking into consideration the above limitation, it can be seen that ICT and
electronics are the most frequent areas of specialisation. “Mathematics and
computer science” and “Electrical engineering and electronics” have been each
reported by 36% of the TTIs, “Biological sciences” by 33% and “Physical
sciences” by 30% (Figure 7). 21% of TTIs do not focus on specific areas.
A comparison of the scientific orientation of TTIs in the EU-15 Member States to
those in the non-EU-15 countries, indicates different patterns of specialisation
(see figure 8). In the EU, TTIs tend to focus on ICT, biological and physical
science, followed by health science and medicine. In the non-EU-15 countries
TTIs focus mainly on disciplines related to manufacturing (e.g. engineering,
chemical science), computers and electronics.
Figure 7: Science and technology areas covered by the TTIs
32
For a definition of the 5 services see page 22.
Note: for example, TTIs offering two services may combine any two services of the
five services.
-25-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Total TTIs
Mathematics and computer science
36%
Electrical engineering, electronics
36%
33%
Biological sciences
30%
Physical sciences
29%
Other engineering
28%
Chemical sciences
27%
Earth and related enviromental sciences
23%
Health sciences
We have no focus
21%
Civil sciences
19%
Clinical medicine
15%
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and allied sciences
14%
Basic medicine
13%
Veterinary medicine
5%
0%
5%
Source: ITTE survey
N=714
-26-
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 8: Science and technology areas covered by the TTIs in the EU-15 and nonEU-15 countries
Mathematics and computer
science
33%
Electrical engineering,
electronics
33%
37%
36%
26%
Biological sciences
34%
22%
Physical sciences
31%
32%
Other engineering
29%
31%
Chemical sciences
28%
22%
Earth and related enviromental
sciences
27%
18%
Health sciences
24%
31%
We have no focus
20%
15%
Civil engineering
20%
7%
Clinical medicine
16%
9%
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries
and allied sciences
14%
8%
Basic medicine
Veterinary medicine
0%
14%
2%
5%
5%
10%
EU-15
15%
Non-EU-15
Source: ITTE Survey
-27-
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Typology of TTIs in Europe
5.2 Department-type TTI
In the present section, incubators and technology parks organisationally
integrated in PROs are excluded. They are discussed in chapter 5.5.
The department-type TTI is the most common type of TTI across Europe,
representing 57% of all TTIs. This is similar in the United States where the
Technology Transfer Offices or Offices for Technology Licensing (OTLs) within
PROs are also the most frequent type of TTI.
The results of the survey indicate a higher preference of HEIs, as compared to
PSREs, for department-type TTIs. Approximately 80% of all HEIs and 60% of all
PSREs in the sample have established a department-type TTI (see Figure 9). No
significant differences between EU and non-EU countries are apparent33.
Figure 9: Share of HEIs and PSREs connected to a TTI with a Department-type TTI
EU-15 and non-EU-15 countries.
Survey: ITTE survey
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
EU-15
Non-EU-15
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
HEIs
PSREs
NEU =424, NNON-EU-15=43
5.2.1 Activities of department-type TTIs
Approximately 80% of the department-type TTIs in EU Member States act as
liaisons for contract research. This comprises the administration of the
transaction between the PRO and companies, such as drafting of contracts,
financial management, and hiring of people (if external sources are necessary)
for the implementation of the project.
20% of the EU-15 TTIs provide financing for spin-offs (either through their own
financing scheme or in collaboration with venture capitalists or other funds). The
rarity of this activity indicates the fairly low ability or interest of TTIs to attract
investors and raise funds. It is also a reflection of the less developed venture
capital tradition in Europe as compared to the US.
33
Comparisons between the EU and non-EU countries should be interpreted with caution
as the sample of TTIs in the Non-EU countries is far less comprehensive.
-28-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 10: Services provided by department-type TTIs – EU-15 and non-EU-15
countries
100%
90%
80%
80%
70%
60%
64%
61%
75%
64% 69%
61%
44%
50%
40%
30%
20% 19%
20%
10%
0%
Patenting
Licensing
Liaison for
Contract
research
EU-15
Spin-off
support
Spin-off finance
Non-EU-15
Survey: ITTE survey
NEU =326, NNON-EU-15=36
29% of departmental TTIs in EU-15 and 17% of TTIs in non-EU countries are
responsible for the management or the supervision of (independent) incubators
or technology parks, in parallel to their other activities.
The differences between EU and non-EU countries are not statistically significant
with the only exception being licensing, where the share of TTIs in EU countries
offering the service is distinctly higher than the one in non-EU countries (61% in
EU countries compared to 44% in non-EU countries). The similarity of patterns
between the two groups of countries is partially explained by the diffusion of
practices, used in EU countries and the United States, in the accession countries
during their transition period.
5.2.2 Different types of departmental TTIs
By applying clustering to the sample of departmental TTIs on the basis of their
activities34 (see also figure 11), 4 clusters could be identified.
Cluster 1, representing 26% of the TTIs, is more oriented towards contracting
research with patenting and IPR commercialisation activities to be rather limited
to 52% and 44% respectively. Spin-off support is absent and only a minor 2%
offer financing services to spin-offs
34
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.
-29-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Cluster 2, representing 15,7% of the department-type TTIs, are the “specialists”,
which are engaged mainly in one or two activities at the most. 37% offer
patenting support, 28% offer licensing services, 39% offer spin-off support and a
minor 7% provides mainly financing for spin-offs. No one of the TTIs in the
present cluster offers services related to the management of contract research.
Cluster 3 is more difficult to describe with a proper name. These TTIs seem to
combine spin-off assistance (100%) and management of contract research
(100%) and do not provide regularly the other services, spin-off financing (19%),
licensing (15%), and patenting (19%). 17,1% of department type TTIs belonged
to this cluster.
Cluster 4, including approximately 41% of department-type TTIs, contains TTIs,
which provide licensing services and contract research. They combine modern
IPR management services with more traditional transfer services pertaining to
contract research. As they seem to try to provide full service as also all of them
are actively supporting the set-up of spin-offs, they could be called “full service
providers”.
100% of them provide licensing services and are also engaged in the preparation
and filing of patent applications, 89% support contract research, and 100% the
setting up of spin-offs. But only 37% of the TTIs supporting the creation of spinoffs provide also financing services, underlining once more the very special
character this type of service has. It requires particular skills and may at times be
a service which is already provided by local financing institutions in a satisfactory
way.
-30-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 11: Clustering of department-type TTIs according to their activities
450%
37%
400%
350%
100%
300%
19%
250%
200%
150%
2%
0%
100%
100%
44%
100%
100%
7%
39%
28%
50%
89%
100%
0%
15%
52%
37%
19%
Cluster 1 (26,2%)
Cluster 2 (15,7%)
Cluster 3 (17,1%)
0%
Patenting assistance
Technology licensing
Spin-off assistance
Spin-off financing
100%
Cluster 4 (40,9%)
Liaison for contract research
Source: Analysis based on the ITTE survey data
5.2.3 Geographical representation
Only data for the EU-Member States allow country comparisons in regard to the
distribution of TTI types. Thus figure 12 and the following text refer to the EUMember States only.
The differences between countries in the percentage shares of department-type
TTIs are considerable. They reflect different country characteristics, historical
backgrounds, different structures of the science sector, and different research
and innovation policies.
There can be distinct differences between HEIs and PSREs. For example, the
low percentage of department-type TTIs in France reflects the fact that until
recently only PSREs had set up TTIs in the form of internal offices and
departments. Only since 1999, a new law allows the establishment of TTIs also
at universities.
In Greece, public funding for the promotion of a specific type of TTI has
determined the TTI - landscape.
Both examples underline the important role policy has played in this area either
by regulation pertaining to universities and PSREs or by the design of respective
support programs.
-31-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 12: Preference of countries for department-type TTI – share of department
type TTIs in % of all TTIs per country in the EU-15 countries
Luxemburg
100%
Ireland
100%
Greece
100%
73%
Germany
67%
Finland
64%
UK
EU-15
58%
Netherlands
57%
52%
Austria
Portugal
43%
France
43%
Denmark
43%
Spain
41%
Belgium
40%
35%
Italy
27%
Sweden
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Source: ITTE survey
N=326
5.3 Wholly owned-type TTI
TTIs that are subsidiaries of PROs are the least common model in Europe. The
share of wholly owned TTIs amounts to only15% of all TTIs, excluding incubators
and technology parks.
In the EU-15, it can be observed that there is hardly any difference between the
preferences of HEIs and PSREs to set up subsidiaries for technology transfer
(see Figure 13).
A comparison between EU and non-EU-15 countries regarding wholly owned
TTIs is not meaningful because of the small sample in the non-EU-15 countries.
-32-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 13: Share of HEIs and PSREs connected to a TTI with a “Wholly-ownedtype” TTI – EU-15
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
15,5%
14,4%
HEIs
PSREs
Source: ITTE survey
N =86
5.3.1 Activities of wholly owned TTIs
The frequency pattern of the services typically provided by this type of TTI differs
from the departmental TTIs but does not suggest obvious conclusions. Although
wholly owned TTIs more frequently provide licensing (71%), patenting (66%),
and spin-off financing services (36%), liaison for contract research remains the
most frequent service (71%) albeit less frequently provided than by departmental
TTIs (80%).
Figure 14: Services provided by wholly owned TTIs – EU-15 only
100%
90%
80%
70%
66%
70%
71%
62%
60%
50%
36%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Patenting
Licensing
Liaison for
Contract
research
Source: ITTE survey
N=86
-33-
Spin-off support Spin-off finance
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 15: Clustering of “wholly owned” TTIs according to their activities
500%
450%
57%
400%
350%
98%
300%
33%
250%
200%
150%
4%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
50%
79%
100%
50%
23%
36%
100%
0%
46%
32%
23%
Cluster 1 (24,7%)
Cluster 2 (22,7%)
100%
33%
33%
Cluster 3 (9,3%)
Patenting assistance
Technology licensing
Spin-off assistance
Spin-off financing
Cluster 4 (43,3%)
Liaison for contract research
Source: Hierarchical cluster analysis based on ITTE survey data
Wholly owned TTIs present patterns of activity combinations similar to those in
the department-type TTIs. Clustering TTIs using the four clusters as in
departmental TTIs reveals only slight differences with respect to the size of
clusters and the frequencies of services provided within the clusters. One
explanation for this similarity could be that wholly owned TTIs differ from
departmental TTIs mainly by their different legal form, but satisfy the same needs
of a specific PRO. Some differences in the frequency patterns of activities or
clusters are probably related to the organisational structure that may favour
certain activities or hinder others (see discussion in section 3.4.2). For example,
the higher degree of managerial and financial independence of wholly owned
TTIs enables them to more easily develop and facilitate relationships with
potential licensees and venture capitalists. These advantages are reflected in the
significant higher percentages of TTIs (in comparison to departmental TTIs) that
provide licensing and spin-off financing:
In all clusters, the percentage of spin-off financing is more than double in relation
to the one in departmental TTIs (4% instead of 2% in cluster 1, 23% instead of
7% in cluster 2, 33% instead of 19% in cluster 3, and 57% instead of 37% in
cluster 4); the differences in licensing are less significant but still apparent.
On the other hand, higher transaction cost and the more complex coordination
with researches of wholly owned TTIs as compared to department-types, seems
to restrict the provision of services related to the management of contract
research:
-34-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
•
•
the size of Contracting Research cluster and cluster 3 which provide
100% management of contract research, are smaller than those in the
departmental TTIs;
79% of the TTI in the Full Service Providers cluster provides managerial
services for contracting research instead of 89% in the respective cluster
of departmental TTIs.
5.3.2 Geographical representation
Wholly owned TTIs represent only about 15% of TTIs. On the country level the
data indicating lower or higher prominence of this type must be interpreted with
caution, especially in small countries or countries with lower response rate and
fewer TTIs. One example is the unusually high occurrence of wholly owned TTI
in Belgium, which must be further analysed before conclusions could be drawn.
Figure 16: Preference of countries for wholly owned TTIs share of wholly owned
TTIs in % of all TTIs per country in the EU-15 countries
Belgium
60%
Sweden
31%
UK
22%
Denmark
21%
Italy
17%
Spain
16%
EU-15
15%
Germany
15%
Netherlands
14%
Austria
14%
Portugal
14%
France
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Note: There are no wholly owned TTIs in the sample for Finland, Luxemburg, Ireland, and Greece.
Source: ITTE Survey
N=86
-35-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
5.4 Independent TTIs
TTIs in the form of independent intermediary organisations serving more than
one PRO represent approximately 27% of all TTIs. Again, incubators and
technology parks are excluded and will be described separately.
The involvement of governments in the establishment of independent TTIs is
significant. In accordance to the survey, two thirds (67%) of the independent
TTIs have been established with the support of public funds.
Figure 17: Characteristics of independent TTIs
Located at the premises of
a PRO
24%
Connected PROs hold
executive positions
51%
Established using public
funds
76%
35%
Partly owned by the PRO
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Source: ITTE survey
N= 37
Many of such TTIs were set up as a result of collective efforts of PROs,
chambers of commerce or other professional associations, regional authorities
and governments. In such cases, the connected PROs are represented within
the management of the TTI (76% of the total) but do not necessarily own part of
it. The survey shows that only 35% of these TTIs are partially owned by PROs.
5.4.1 Activities of the independent TTIs
In both, EU and non-EU countries, independent TTIs tend to mainly support spinoffs. In EU countries, management of patents and related activities are offered
by more than half of the independent TTIs, in the non-EU-15 countries by less
than one third.
-36-
80%
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 18: Activities performed by independent TTIs – all countries
100%
90%
77%
80%
66%
70%
60%
54%
50%
50%
40%
30%
41%
27%
36%
27%
20%
31%
9%
10%
0%
Patenting
Licensing
Liaison for
contract
research
EU-15
Spin-off support Spin-off finance
Non-EU-15
Source: ITTE survey
NEU =150, NNON-EU=22
Clustering of the TTIs according to their activities, results in a pattern of clusters
for the independent TTIs (Figure 19), which differs from those of department-type
and wholly owned TTIs. Three main differences arise as a result of the more
service-oriented character of the independent TTIs:
• The contracting research cluster is less than half as large: only 11,6% as
compared to 26% of departmental TTIs and 25% of wholly owned TTIs).
Similarly, the percentage of TTIs providing managerial services for
contracting research in other clusters is much lower: for example, 51% in
the Full Services Providers cluster as compared to 89% and 79% in the
same cluster of the other two TTI models.
• The Specialist cluster represents the majority of independent TTIs
(approximately 51%). The same cluster in the other models of TTI is
much smaller: 16% of departmental TTIs and 23% of wholly owned TTIs.
• The Full Service Providers cluster again is almost half the size
compared to the other TTI models: 24% of independent TTIs, but 41% of
departmental TTs and 43% of wholly owned TTIs.
-37-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 19: Clustering of independent TTIs according to their activities
450%
400%
61%
350%
95%
300%
29%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
100%
0%
0%
51%
100%
18%
100%
100%
61%
35%
0%
12%
100%
38%
30%
39%
25%
Cluster 1 (11,6%)
Cluster 2 (50,6%)
Cluster 3 (14%)
Patenting assistance
Technology licensing
Spin-off assistance
Spin-off financing
Cluster 4 (23,8%)
Liaison for contract research
Source: Analysis based on the ITTE survey data
5.4.2 Geographical representation
The overview of the shares of independent TTIs in the EU-Member States
indicates that this type plays an important role in five countries (France, Italy,
Portugal, Spain and Sweden), where they represent more than 40% of all TTIs.
(Figure 20.)
-38-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 20: Preference of countries for independent TTIs - share of in depended
TTIs in % of all TTIs per country in the EU-15 countries
France
50%
Italy
48%
Spain
44%
43%
Portugal
Sweden
42%
Denmark
36%
Finland
33%
Austria
33%
Netherlands
29%
27%
EU-15
UK
14%
Germany
0%
12%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No independent TTIs were found in the sample of Belgium, Ireland, Greece and
Luxemburg
Source: ITTE survey
N=150
5.5 Technology parks and incubators as TTIs
Technology parks sometimes operate as liaison or technology transfer offices for
the connected PRO. In other cases, TTIs (of all types) supervise technology
parks or incubators as part of their activities. It is estimated that approximately
30% of departmental type TTIs and more than 38% of the wholly owned TTIs run
or supervise a technology park or incubator.
-39-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Technology parks35 and incubators connected with PROs are, however, mainly
independent organisations (73%). Only in 25% of the cases, they are operated
by units or other offices within PROs, and a mere 2% are subsidiaries of PROs
(Figure 21).
Figure 21: Relations of Technology Parks and Incubators with the TTIs and the
connected PROs
25%
Departments in PRO
2%
Wholly owned company at a PRO
Independent organisation
connected to one or more PROs
73%
Source: ITTE survey
N=88
The most frequent technology transfer service they provide is assistance for
spin-offs. It is nevertheless noticeable that approximately 40% of technology
parks do not provide such support; an even larger group of approximately 71%
does not provide financing.
In many cases, technology parks and incubators also offer technology transfer
services such as licensing, support for contracting research, and patenting of
inventions.
35
Only technology parks with technology transfer activities are included. Technology
parks operating only as real estate business have been excluded.
-40-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 22: Activities performed by technology parks and incubators – All countries
Spin-off financing
28%
Spin-off assistance
59%
Contract research
30%
Technology licensing
36%
Patenting assistance
0%
35%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Surce: ITTE survey
N=88
5.6 Comparison of different TTI models
The following overview summarises the frequency of services as provided by the
different types of TTIs. As can be seen in figure 23, the prevailing activity in
department-type and wholly owned-type TTIs is liaison for contract research. On
the contrary, this activity is not performed very often by the independent-type
TTIs which rather focus on spin-off and patenting assistance.
However, there are some similarities in all of the three models of TTIs.
Management of contract research is not necessarily combined with patenting
and licensing activities. A possible explanation is that IPRs resulting from
contract research usually belong to or are exploited by the contractor and not by
the PRO.
Although all empirical evidence emphasizes the importance of the existence of
financing mechanisms, such as venture capital funds providing seed financing to
spin-offs, only a small part of the TTIs that support spin-offs offer such a
possibility.
-41-
70%
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 23: Type of activities mainly performed by different models of TTIs
including Technology Parks and Incubators – EU-15 countries
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total TTIs
Department in PRO
Wholly owned
company
Independently
established
organisation
Spin-off financing
Technology licensing
Patenting assistance
Liaison for contract research
Spin-off assistance
Source: ITTE survey
N=714
5.7 Geographical representation
The development of TTIs in the EU-15 Member States follows different patterns
from country to country. This is mainly due to the combined effect of two driving
forces, namely the willingness of PROs to overcome barriers for collaboration
with the private sector and explicit public policies. In some countries, the
development of TTIs started bottom-up, as an initiative of PROs – usually
PSREs as in the case of Germany and France – and then it spread to other
PROs with or without the encouragement of public policy. In each of these
countries, several variants of the three TTI models can be found. In other
countries, setting up of TTIs was mainly a top-down initiative by the government.
This approach seems to lead to a more homogenous population of TTIs as
regards their type of institutional set-up (e.g. Ireland and Greece).
5.7.1 Country size and number of TTIs
Of course, the way that the wider innovation system has evolved in a country
affects the number of TTIs established and their activities. As the survey findings
indicate (see figure 24), the number of TTIs varies considerably even among
-42-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
countries with comparable size and it is not always proportional to the R&D
activity carried out in the country’s PROs36. The amount of the R&D activity in
PROs does relate to the amount of work, such as negotiating and monitoring of
contracts, filing patents, negotiating licensing, of TTIs. Thus, a comparison of
R&D activity to the number of TTIs provides some indication of the efficiency of
the technology transfer system and of possible over- or under-investment in
TTIs. But such a comparison must not be over-interpreted as it rests only on a
one dimensional and purely quantitative indicator. In particular, any indication as
to the size of TTIs, be it in terms of number of employees or of budget, is
missing. Also, neither the input indicator R&D expenditure nor the number of
TTIs convey indications on the quality of the research performed or the efficiency
of the technology transfer institutions.
For example, it may be considered that in countries with a strong presence of
independent TTIs, the total number of TTIs is likely to be smaller than in
countries, where the department-type model prevails. As independent TTIs serve
usually a number of PROs, in such cases the smaller number of TTIs does not
indicate a lower performance of the system.
Figure 24: Comparison of country shares in EU-14 Expenditures of PROs on R&D
with country share in EU-14 number of TTIs
30%
25%
%
20%
15%
10%
5%
EU-14 Countries
%EU-14 PROs Spending on R&D
%EU-14 TTIs
Source: ITTE survey and Eurostat (2002), “Statistics on Science and Technology Data 1991-
2001”, Table 2.1
N=1218
36
An estimation of the R&D activity of the PROs is given by the expenditures of PROs on
R&D. Expenditure of PROs on R&D is calculated as the sum of the expenditure on R&D
of HEIs (HERD) and of the public sector (GOVERD). Data for 2000 or for the most recent
year were used.
-43-
U
K
n
ed
e
Sw
Po
rtu
ga
l
Fi
nl
an
d
Au
st
ria
It a
N
ly
et
he
rla
nd
s
Ire
la
nd
ce
Fr
an
Sp
ai
n
Be
lg
i
um
D
en
m
ar
k
G
er
m
an
y
G
re
ec
e
0%
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Figure 25: Presence of number of TTIs as related to R&D expenditure of PROs in
EU-14 by Member State (share of R&D expenditure in EU-14 total = index 100)
408
Ireland
272
Spain
180
Greece
172
Portugal
127
Sweden
118
Austria
114
Denmark
104
Germany
100
EU-14
France
93
Finland
93
UK
72
Italy
72
63
Belgium
29
Netherlands
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Source: Own calculations37, based on: ITTE survey and Eurostat (2002), “Statistics on Science
and Technology Data 1991-2001”, Table 2.1
N=1218
Note: The figure of over 400 for Ireland signifies for example that Ireland’s number of TTIs is more
than four times higher than its R&D spendings relative to the EU-14.
Comparing the presence of TTIs across the EU Member States relative to their
PRO expenditures on R&D 38 (see Figures 23 and 24), which may be considered
as one measure of “TTI intensity”, three groups of countries can be identified.
The first group comprises six countries, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Germany,
France and Finland, where the presence of TTIs more or less corresponds to
their level of R&D expenditures by PROs (index values between 127 for Sweden
and 93 in Finland.)
A second group comprises four countries, the UK, Italy, Belgium and the
Netherlands, (index values between 29 and 72) where results indicate a distinctly
lower relative share of TTIs. As mentioned above, the indicated low TTI-intensity
must be interpreted with caution. It may indicate that TTIs in these countries are
37
See previous note for the estimation of PROs expenditure on R&D.
38
Fourteen EU countries are included except Luxemburg due to lack of data on R&D
expenditure.
-44-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
on average larger, more centralised and serve habitually a larger number of
PROs. An obvious assumption that, thus, independent TTIs are more prominent
in these countries is however not supported by the survey results.
The third group, finally, comprises also four countries, Ireland, Spain, Greece
and Portugal (index values between 408 and 172) with a relatively much larger
number of technology transfer institutions than relative share in R&D
expenditures. Again and despite the fact that the ratios clearly indicate very high
TTI intensities, at this level of analysis no conclusions as to the efficiency or
impact on the specific innovation system can be drawn. However, they raise
questions of possible over-investments in transfer institutions while at the same
time the R&D base seems relatively weak. Of course, high TTI intensity could
also indicate a strategy, which builds on a comparatively large number of small
and decentralised transfer institutions, which might be effective for reaching out
to small enterprises and under the condition that provisions are made to secure
professionalism and efficiency of such TTIs.
The index presented in figure 25 provides some illustration of possible
differences in the performance among countries, regarding TTIs.
Additional aspects are highlighted when the TTI intensity is compared to the
expenditure of PROs on R&D as a percentage of the GDP (Figure 26).
Figure 26: TTI intensity and PROs expenditure on R&D in EU-14 countries
Source: Own calculations based on: ITTE survey (n=1218); and Eurostat (2002), “Statistics on
Science and Technology Data 1991-2001”, Table 2.1.
N=1218
Number of TTIs per billion of PROs'
expenditure on R&D
0,10
0,09
IE
0,08
0,07
0,06
ES
0,05
0,04
EL
PT
0,03
AT
EU
0,02
IT
0,01
BE
DE
UK
SE
DK
FR
FI
NL
0,00
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
PROs expenditure on R&D as % of GDP
The cohesion countries again form a group characterised by high TTI intensity
and low expenditure of PROs on R&D as a percentage of GDP. Therefore, there
are more opportunities for TTIs to work for an increase of the R&D activities in
PROs by attracting more research contracts and R&D collaborations with
industry than in licensing or spin-off support. This is in line with the patterns
-45-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
evolving in the following table 4, which visualises specialisation of countries in
specific technology transfer activities. The figures represent the percentage of
TTIs within a country performing the specific activities39. As indicated in the table,
TTIs in Ireland, Spain and Greece focus mainly on facilitating and promoting
contract research and much less on exploiting IPRs or assisting spin-offs.
Portugal’s position close to the EU average regarding R&D activity of PROs
reflects on an activity pattern of PROs which is characterised by high shares in
spin-off assistance, together with the liaison for contract research. Again, as the
R&D base in these countries is weak and the number of TTIs high, it stands to
reason if the exploitable research results accessed by each TTI reach a critical
mass allowing economies of scale and the efficient operation of such a number
of TTIs.
In figure 26 a new group emerges, comprising Sweden and Finland, which is
characterised by a close to average TTI intensity and a very high level of PROs’
expenditure on R&D. Their lower focus on contracting research is, however,
indicating opportunities for developing further research collaboration with
industry. At the same time, Finland combines above EU average performance in
many technology transfer indicators40 with lower to average TTI intensity
indicating high efficiency of the overall TTI system.
Germany, Austria, Denmark, France and the UK build in figure 26 a third group
close to the EU-average where average TTI intensity is combined with average
or slightly above average PROs’ expenditure on R&D.
Italy and Belgium are characterised by low spending of PROs on R&D and TTI
intensity just below the average. Therefore, there seem to be opportunities for a
further increase of TT intensity and more active involvement in contracting R&D
from the private sector. This could be important especially for Italy which also
seems to have the lowest share of TTIs (only 19%) acting as liaisons for contract
research. In Belgium, the combination of low PROs’ activity on R&D with one of
the highest share of TTIs supporting contract research raises questions about
the efficiency of TTIs.
The Netherlands are according to figure 26 in a very special situation. The third
highest R&D expenditure corresponds to the lowest TTI intensity. This extreme
position suggests strongly that the Netherlands R&D potential is underexploited
and that increased transfer efforts could benefit enterprises. As a matter of fact it
indicates also a situation in which R&D is dominantly supported by public funds.
39
Performance of an activity does not necessarily mean that the TTI is very active in the
area.
40
OECD (2002).
-46-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Table 4: Specialisation of countries in specific activities – Percentages of TTIs
performing the activities
Patenting
assistance
Technology
licensing
Belgium
71,4
100,0
Denmark
47,1
Germany
Liaison
for
Spin-off
assistance
Spin-off
financing
85,7
85,7
71,4
70,6
64,7
58,8
52,9
64,9
55,5
75,7
66,8
11,4
Greece
41,2
29,4
70,6
52,9
11,8
Spain
55,3
57,9
81,6
55,3
21,1
France
57,5
46,0
46,0
42,5
9,7
Ireland
70,0
80,0
90,0
80,0
20,0
Italy
42,1
26,3
19,3
49,1
38,6
Netherlands
71,4
85,7
85,7
71,4
42,9
Austria
42,9
23,8
66,7
38,1
38,1
Portugal
57,1
57,1
71,4
85,7
14,3
Finland
52,9
70,6
41,2
88,2
23,5
Sweden
39,0
48,8
34,1
73,2
41,5
UK
76,3
84,2
82,9
89,5
57,9
EU-14
56,9
52,6
61,9
63,7
24,8
Contract
research
First in the category
Above the average
Source: ITTE survey
All considerations at this stage of the analysis are highly hypothetical and must
be further elaborated on the basis of complementary information and more
detailed observation of country characteristics. (This will be presented to the
extent possible in the final report of this study, which will contain country reports
and will deal with the analysis of TTI efficiency and other, more qualitative issues
in greater detail.)
5.7.2 Country specialisation
Comparing EU countries on the basis of the activities of their TTIs (table 4), the
following specialisations patterns come up:
Three countries rate above average for all the examined activities, namely:
Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK. Also the UK and Belgium have the highest
percentage of TTIs in two areas of activities. Greece, Italy and France are at the
other end of the ranking as they average in only one activity.
-47-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
The UK is the country that puts the highest emphasis on patenting assistance.
Similarly, Belgium puts the highest emphasis on technology licensing. Ireland
comes first in liaising contract research, the UK in spin-off assistance and
Belgium, again, in spin-off financing.
Countries could also be clustered based on the specialisation within the country,
which leads to the following country groups:
• Liaison for contract research: Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Spain,
the Netherlands
• Technology licensing: Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands
• Spin-off assistance: Finland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, the UK
• Patenting assistance: France
5.7.3 Models of TTI and country representation
The three models of TTIs are present in most of the EU countries with the
exception of Ireland, Greece and Finland. In Ireland, department-type TTIs seem
to dominate, in Greece and Finland no wholly owned TTIs are present (see
figure 27). The survey results should be carefully interpreted, taking into account
the low response rate in some countries, and the danger that in some (smaller)
countries some models, amounting to only a few TTIs, may have been missed.
Figure 27: TTI models per country, including Technology Parks and Incubators
100%
0
90%
13
13
14
23
29
32
80%
16
47
70%
50
43
50
71
43
14
60%
0
54
100
18
7
14
19
66
0
55
57
50
43
20%
39
35
43
35
29
10%
16
15
77
71
30%
21
49
14
50%
40%
45
40
33
In parenthesis the response rate for each country
D epartm ents
Source: ITTE survey
N=714
-48-
W holly ow ned
Independent
)
)
6%
2%
K
(4
(7
U
ed
Sw
Sp
ai
n
en
(2
35
3%
%
)
)
)
l(
ga
rtu
Po
he
rla
nd
ly
s
(6
(3
1%
5%
)
)
9%
It a
et
Lu
N
xe
m
bo
la
Ire
ur
nd
g
(3
(2
8%
7%
)
)
)
ec
re
G
er
m
an
e
y
(7
(6
4%
1%
)
)
G
Fr
an
ce
(5
(6
an
nl
Fi
m
en
D
d
k
ar
m
3%
4%
)
(5
1%
)
(4
2%
(7
iu
a
lg
tri
Be
us
A
)
0%
Typology of TTIs in Europe
As can be seen in figure 27, the following patterns arise:
• In-PROs offices or departments are the prevailing type of TTIs for Ireland,
Greece, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Austria
• Independent organisations prevail in Finland, France and Italy
• Both, department-type and independent organisations are important in
Denmark, Portugal, Spain and Sweden
• Wholly owned organisations have a strong presence in Belgium
-49-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
6 Concluding remarks
Public Technology Transfer Institutions have spread over Europe during the last
decades mainly as a result of two converging trends. On the one hand,
governments increasingly support the collaboration between science and
industry in an effort to accelerate the exploitation of research results funded by
public money. At the same time, many EU countries have revised their IPR
legislation assigning the ownership of intellectual property rights to the PROs
instead of the researcher, increasing even more the formalisation of technology
transfer processes. Public research organisations, on the other hand, try to find
alternative sources of funding and to better protect, organise and control the
exploitation of inventions generated in their laboratories.
European countries have followed different patterns of TTI developmentresulting
in a variety of approaches that reflect the specific characteristics of the national
innovation system of each country. Nevertheless, three institutional models
(types) of TTIs were identified and surveyed:
• organisational units such as offices or departments within the PRO
(department-type)
• subsidiaries of PROs connected to a department or service of the PRO
• public or private independent intermediaries.
The survey identified more than 1,370 such organisations in 30 countries, 15 of
which are the EU Member States and 15 non-EU countries. Some 1,220 TTIs
were identified in the EU-15.
The status, activities and the role of the three models of TTIs vary by country and
by type of PRO.
The prevailing model of the TTI is the department-type representing 54% of the
TTIs in EU and around 46% in non-EU countries. The model of intermediaries is
also popular representing 32% of the TTIs in the European Union and 44% in
non-EU countries. Also, the number of TTIs in each country varies but not
always according to the size and the amount of research performed by the PROs
measured in terms of PROs expenditure on R&D. According to the survey, the
most common activity performed by the TTIs in Europe is the support of the
creation of spin-offs (64%), followed by the liaison for contract research (62%). In
several cases, varying from 38% to 20% depending on the model, TTIs also
supervise the operation of technology parks or incubators.
The prevailing activity in department-type and wholly owned-type TTIs is the
liaison for contract research. On the other hand, independent TTIs focus mainly
on spin-off and patenting assistance.
In spite of the differences, survey results also indicate some similar trends:
• Contracting research is not always combined with patenting and licensing
activities.
• Less than half of the TTIs that support spin-offs offer financing support as
well.
Scientific areas related to ICT were supported most frequently, by 36% of the
TTIs in the European Union, whereas biological and physical sciences follow
second with 34% and 31% of TTIs respectively. Scientific fields related to
medicine and health sciences are covered by 14% and 20% of the TTIs in the
sample. Non-EU countries display a different pattern of specialisation as the
prevailing scientific areas are related to manufacturing and to ICT, with the other
areas trailing far behind.
-50-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
This report serves two purposes: Firstly, it explaines in which context the
catalogue of European TTIs as presented on this CD-ROM has been produced,
which methodologies have been applied, and which characteristics the data set
has. Secondly, this report presents first results of the analysis of the data and
gives an overview of European TTIs and some of their characteristics as for
example a typology based on their institutional set-up or the spectre of their
activities.
In addition, some first considerations as to TTI intensities in the various countries
point to the more differentiated analysis which the final report will contain.
-51-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
7 Bibliography
Arthur D. Little (2002), Study to evaluate the efficiency and coherence of IPR
rules applicable to publicly-funded research, Draft Report to the European
Commission.
Arthur D. Little (2000), Getting more innovation from public research, European
Commission, Luxembourg.
Carayannis E, G. et al (1998), High-Technology spin-offs from government R&D
laboratories and research universities, Technovation Vol. 18, No.1, pp. 1-11.
Colyvas, J. et al. (2002), “How do University inventions get into practice?”
Management Science Vol. 00, No.0, pp.1-12.
Copenhagen Business School (2003), Promoting university interaction with
business and community: a comparative study of Finland, Sweden and UK,
Commissioned by the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology.
Edler J. and P. Boekholt (2001), “Benchmarking national public policies to exploit
international science and industrial research: a synopsis of current
development”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 28, No 4, pp. 313-321.
European Commission (2002): Good practice in industry-science relations,
Benchmarking papers 5/2002 (See especially recommendations 5, 6, 7 and 9.).
EUROSTAT (2004), Structural Indicators; or European Commission (2003),
Enterprise policy scoreboard 2003, SEC (2003) 1278.
Frascati Manual 2002, ISBN 92-64-19903-9, OECD 2002.
Goldfarb, B. and M. Henrekson, “Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Policies towards the
Commercialization of University Intellectual Property, Research Policy,
forthcoming.
Howells J. M., Nedeva and L. Georgiou (1998), Industry-Academic Links in the
UK, Report to the Higher Education Funding Councils for England, Scotland and
Wales.
Howells Jeremy and Carole McKinlay (1999), Commercialisation of University
research in Europe, Report to the Expert Panel on the Commercialisation of
University Research for the Advisory Councils on Science and Technology,
Ontario, Canada.
inno GmbH (1996), Good Practice in the transfer of university technology to
industry, EIMS No26.
Mowery, D. C. and B. Sampat (2001), “Patenting and Licensing University
Inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation”, Industrial
and Corporate Change, Vol. 10, November 2nd, 2001.
OECD (2002), Benchmarking Industry-Science relationships.
OECD (2003), Turning science into Business: Patenting and licensing at public
research organisations.
Polt W., C. Ramer, H. Gassler, A. Schibany and D. Schartinger (2001),
“Benchmarking industry-science relations: the role of framework conditions”,
Science and Public Policy, Vol. 28, No 4, pp. 247-258.
-52-
Typology of TTIs in Europe
Siegel, D. et al. (1999) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the
productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An exploratory study,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 7256.
-53-