The Pubic Forum Institute at the Kauffman Foundation asks this question and finds some answers that challenge conventional wisdom:

“An interesting new research paper from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Phillip Phan and Donald Siegel assesses what works in university technology transfer. The researchers base their findings on an exhaustive review of existing research from both the US and the UK. They note that while university technology commercialization is becoming more common, few universities have achieved “success” in these initiatives. The commercialization process is still too slow, too bureaucratic, and too expensive. The authors recommend that university administrators take a value chain approach to their technology commercialization efforts. First, they must continue to invest in the process’ major inputs—research. Then, they must clearly establish priorities in terms of desired outcomes and in terms of areas of research emphasis. Finally, they must create incentives for commercialization. For example, they find that shifting royalty distribution formulas in a manner that benefits researchers (as opposed to the university administration) has a profound impact on generating more invention disclosures and more technology commercialization opportunities. To access the April 2006 Rensselaer Working Paper in Economics (No. 0609), “The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned from Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the US and the UK,” by Phillip H. Phan and Donald S. Siegel, visit http://www.economics.rpi.edu/workingpapers/rpi0609.pdf. “

Check it out for yourself. Are the incentives provided by Ohio universities aligned with the factors that will generate more entrepreneurial activity in, and commercialization of, university research?