STC Identifies Leading Universities in Economic Development Efforts

Georgia Tech topped the nation in its efforts to help state and local agencies with economic development, according to a study released by the Southern Growth Policies Board's Southern Technology Council (STC).

Conducted by Louis Tornatzky and Paul Waugaman, senior fellows at STC, Innovation U.: New University Roles in a Knowledge Economy offers comprehensive case descriptions of how national research universities operate in the following areas:

• Inclusion of economic development in mission, vision and goals statements;
• Pursuit of industry research partnerships;
• Technology transfer;
• Industrial extension and technical assistance;
• Entrepreneurial development;
• Industry education and training partnerships;
• Career services and placement; 
• Formal partnerships with economic development organizations;
• Industry/university advisory boards and councils; and 
• Faculty culture and rewards for participation in economic development activities.

As a first step in the project, STC polled 40 practitioners, researchers and experts on economic development and university-industry technology transfer to identify which schools were seen as maintaining exemplary programs. The experts were given a list of 164 research universities (based on research and development expenditures) and asked to nominate the outstanding examples.

With respect to the role of state governments and federal agencies, the authors make nine recommendations:

• Influence the selection of leaders. University governance need not be overthrown, but technology-related interests stemming from the private and public sectors should be given considerable attention.
• Support research funding with partnering incentives. States should offer funding programs with awards large enough to attract star researchers, ensure "a longitudinal, preferably nonpartisan, commitment" to such funding, require partnering, and draw an increased involvement of smaller, tech-based companies through creative funding mechanisms.
• Support research parks and incubators. The authors address the challenges posed by incubators, including initial capital investment for building and facilities; and staffing management and core staff.
• Increase formal partnerships with universities. The authors cite examples of universities' formal, operational program partnerships with state government in which joint efforts resembled government work.
• Pay attention to economic geography. Universities' investment in tech transfer and licensing may have little or no impact on a regional economy when state-based companies are not involved. Efforts to place students in these companies and to gear tech transfer activities toward local start-ups are two successful strategies the authors encourage.
• Show the flag. "(Officials) should get more informed on the potential of universities to contribute to state economic development...then start using whatever 'bully pulpit' they can command to spread that message among their constituents and political allies."
• Increased support for university-industry research partnerships from federal agencies. Numerous issues among benefits, costs, investments and public policy payoff should be revisited by these agencies, the authors posit.
• Protect Bayh-Dole. "Universities and faculty need to be enabled and rewarded for protecting and commercializing their intellectual property."
• Champion a new breed of university.

The authors also suggest that major national foundations should reconceptualize giving strategies and convene a national dialogue that would allow a focused exchange of experiences among leaders of U.S. research institutions.

Innovation U.: New University Roles in a Knowledge Economy was supported by a National Science Foundation grant and is part of a larger program of benchmarking research on university-industry-community interaction. The study is available at: http://www.southern.org/pubs/stc/stcpubs.shtml