BEST PRACTICES AT INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY UNIVERSITIES

MARCH 2019

M A X I M I Z I N G I N N O V A T I O N 

A N D T E C H N O L O G Y C O M M E R C I A L I Z A T I O N 

O F F E D E R A L R E S E A R C H I N V E S T M E N T S 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2

This study was funded by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) within the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

AUTHORS:

Elizabeth Austic, Senior Research Manager

Sarah Crane, Research Manager

Parker Finn, Assistant Director

Paula Sorrell, Director

Steve Wilson, Associate Director

ABOUT ECONOMIC GROWTH INSTITUTE:

The Economic Growth Institute has provided innovative economic development programming and applied research for more 

than 35 years. Through our work, we build more resilient businesses and communities, connect university innovations with 

small and medium-sized enterprises, and provide student learning experiences for the next generation of community and 

business leaders.

Contact

Economic Growth Institute

506 E. Liberty Street, 3rd Floor

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

 734-998-6201

 734-998-6202

 economicgrowth@umich.edu

 @Econ_Growth

Email economicgrowth@umich.edu to subscribe to the 

Institute’s news.
3

Research universities and Federal Research Labs 

(FRL) are the cornerstone of American innovation. 

The country’s national competitiveness depends 

on these institutions to increasingly perform, 

translating research into the innovative products the 

country needs.

Understanding how to best facilitate translating 

research into the market is complex. Practitioners 

understand that research translation is both an 

art and a science, requiring a careful balancing 

act among research, its funding mechanisms, 

government, and industry. Critical to building on the 

successes of research translation is understanding 

gaps in the processes, incentives, and support 

systems, as well as opportunities for growth. 

This study explored best practices in technology 

commercialization across public research 

universities designated by the Association of Public 

& Land Grant Universities as “Innovation & Economic 

Prosperity” universities, or “IEP universities.” 

Fifty-nine IEP universities participated in the 

mixed-methods study, which included 51 faculty 

researcher interviews, 200 survey respondents, 

and 10 interviews with Federal Research Labs. To 

better understand how IEP universities compared 

with other public institutions, the study compared 

IEP universities with peer universities. Among the 

110 public doctoral universities in the U.S. with 

detailed technology commercialization output data 

available between 2012 and 2016, those with the 

IEP designation produced a significantly higher 

annual mean volume of new disclosures, new 

patents, startups initiated, and exclusive licenses 

and options. This demonstrates the unique qualities 

of this study group with its intentional focus on 

economic development and innovation. 

BEST PRACTICES

When best practices are documented and embraced, 

it results in more information shared, gaps filled, 

commercialization sped up, more companies 

formed, and research more rapidly benefiting 

society. In addition to helping solve the nation’s 

technical challenges, universities are relied upon 

by their regions for economic health and market 

diversification. 

The best practices 

emerging from this 

study are based on 

the interviews and 

surveys from IEP 

universities. The study 

groups practices into 

four areas: culture, 

champions, incentives, 

and collaboration. 

Many universities 

were strong in at 

least one of these 

areas, with the most 

productive cohesively 

harnessing three or 

four best practices to 

promote lab-to-market 

activities. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW

IEP Universities produce higher commercialization outputs

Mean Annual Count from 2012 - 2016 for 110 Public Universities

0

30

60

90

120

150

Non-IEP Public Doctoral Universities

IEP Public Doctoral Universities

Disclosures Patents

126

73

67

44

0

3

6

9

12

15

Non-IEP Public Doctoral Universities

IEP Public Doctoral Universities

Exclusive Licenses Startups Initiated

7

13

5

3

Source: AUTM STATT (2012–2016) 

Sample included 110 public doctoral universities with AUTM data available. 

IEP Universities produce 

higher lab-to-market 

outputs, compared to similar 

public universities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY continued

VALUE TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND 

LAB-TO-MARKET ACTIVITIES AT ALL 

LEVELS THROUGH CULTURAL NORMS 

While universities have always been 

powerhouses of knowledge and invention, the 

translation of research into the marketplace is 

still a relatively new venture. Often universities 

struggle to balance all the priorities of education, 

job preparation, research and more. However, 

many of the IEP universities have balanced 

these as well as proven their ability to promote 

innovation and technology commercialization1

as a priority. This, in turn, has created an 

environment for lab-to-market activities to thrive 

through strong cultural support. Effective lab-tomarket university cultures: 

• Value translational research and 

commercialization activities as academic 

activities

• Reward commercialization activities 

through career advancement and public 

recognition

• Support people, programs and 

innovations through funding

Best practices for cultural norms include: 

• Valuing technology commercialization at 

all levels of leadership and recognition of 

the activity through rewards and funding 

• Reducing administrative barriers through 

streamlining of processes, reducing 

departmental duplication, or mitigating 

conflicts

• Supporting faculty as researchers and not 

as CEOs (only 5% of faculty interviewed 

wanted to be the CEO of a spinout)

SUPPORT INNOVATION AND 

COMMERCIALIZATION AT ALL LEVELS 

THROUGH ‘CHAMPIONS’

Moving innovations from the lab into the market 

is best facilitated by the right people in the 

right places that can translate and connect 

academic and industry needs. This support 

varies from university to university and could 

include university tech commercialization staff, 

academic leaders or departmental peers. 

Effective programming utilizes champions 

with strong industry and commercialization 

experience to guide faculty and other 

stakeholders through the lab-to-market process. 

Universities with lab-to-market programs 

1 Throughout the study, technology commercialization and lab-to-market will be used interchangeably. These terms refer to the process of taking an initial innovation from a 

“lab” into the marketplace for an end consumer. Translational research refers to the initial process of shifting from basic research into applied research. 

led by industry professionals produced, on 

average, higher commercialization outputs, 

such at patents and exclusive licenses. 

Additionally, effective mentorship-in-residence 

programs were utilized to a greater degree by 

IEP universities producing greater average 

commercialization outputs. 

The department chairs and peers also 

championed a researcher on a daily basis, by 

providing direction and valuable mentoring in 

beginning translational research. 

INCENTIVES AND RESOURCES FOR 

TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION

The policies impacting lab-to-market incentives 

are broad, from legal and intellectual property 

agreements and conflict of interest to faculty 

leave time and standards for promotion and 

tenure. Effectively structuring these all provided 

key incentives for researchers. 

Funding was vital in the process for the forward 

progression of the technology. Federal funding 

was the most common source for translational 

research, but internal-university funding, 

external investor funding, industry funding and 

state funding were also utilized by researchers in 

the lab-to-market process. 

Infrastructure provided support for 

commercialization activities. Technology or 

Research Parks were common among IEP 

universities. Additionally, formal business 

engagement centers and incubators or 

accelerators were more common at IEP 

universities with higher commercialization 

outputs. 

COLLABORATION FOCUSED ON 

TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION

Key collaborations are necessary throughout the 

process to foster ideas and to access resources 

throughout the ecosystem. Faculty researchers 

reported utilizing internal collaborations, 

university-to-university collaborations, and 

cross-sector collaborations in lab-to-market 

activities. Survey respondents at IEP universities 

with a higher commercialization outputs 

reported more confidence in their collaborations 

versus other IEP universities. 

COLLABORATION INCENTIVES CHAMPIONS CULTURE