Michael M. Crow

R&D laboratory classification and public policy: The effects of environmental context on laboratory behavior

Abstract R&D laboratories have changed dramatically in the last few decades. These changes have included the emergence of new laboratory forms such as cooperative and joint venture laboratories and the evolution of existing industrial, university and government laboratories into new and different entities. The utility of classifying R&D organizations as being industrial, university or governmental in character and then further assuming certain behavioral traits based on sector status appears to be limited. Science policy analysts need an updated classification typology that captures the nature of the existing institutional framework for R&D laboratories. To address this need, this paper presents a new conceptual typology for R&D laboratory classification and evaluates the implications of this re-thinking for science policy analysts. It is argued that R&D laboratories, like most organizations, are to a large extent functions of their environment. Realizing that the environment of R&D organizations are heavily influenced by the government, the market or both, the typology presented in this paper classifies R&D organizations accordingly. The resulting classification typology establishes 9 clearly different research laboratory types. Using survey data from a study population of 250 laboratories and case study data from 32 laboratories, it was found that the typology did capture the significant structural and behavioral differences among the array of laboratories operating today. A preliminary analysis of the policy implications of the new classification typology indicates that new initiatives to increase the level of market influence on R&D laboratories or to create more cooperative research ventures should be carefully considered before implementation.

Public, Private and Hybrid Organizations An Empirical Examination of the Role of Publicness

This article provides an empirical examination of the role of publicness in explaining organization-level phenomena. Analysis of data from 250 public, private and mixed, or hybrid, R&D laboratories indicates that there are clear distinctions between organizations based on sector affiliation. These differences center around levels of administrative intensity, funding patterns and complexity, governmental influences on goals, and the nature of the products produced by the laboratories. A dimensional approach, grounded in political economy-based organization theory, is applied in the analysis. Findings indicate that such approaches help explain publicness through the identification of specific, empirically identifiable dimensions of publicness.

Technology transfer from U.S. government and university R&D laboratories

Despite the increased interest in domestic technology transfer, there is surprisingly little empirical evidence on determinants of technology transfer activity. This study presents results from a national survey of more than 900 laboratories, focusing on a sub-sample of 134 government laboratories and 139 university laboratories. An environmental dependence model of technology transfer activity is presented, arguing that influence of political authority is a major determinant of technology transfer activity. Tests of the model indicated that scientific and technical mission diversity is particularly important in understanding technology transfer to both government and industry. However, a variety of measures of political boundary spanning are quite important in transfer to government but not so to industry. Likewise, the nature of the resource base (government vs. industrial) is strongly related to the choice to transfer technology to, respectively, government and industry.

A new typology for R&D laboratories: Implications for policy analysts

Science policy analysts have traditionally classified R&D laboratories as government, private, or university. The authors argue that this view is outmoded and provides little help in understanding the rapidly changing environment of R&D laboratories. They provide and test an alternative scheme designed to cope with “sector blurring” and the intermingling of market and political influences on R&D laboratories. The authors also discuss implications of their scheme for a variety of contemporary science policy issues.

The American research university system as America's de facto technology policy

The American research university system is largely thought of by policymakers in terms of its contribution to basic research. The direct contribution of universities to technical advance in industry has largely been overlooked. The policy implications of this misguided perspective have been profound: universities have undermined efforts to support applied research initiatives and at the same time their funding quests have led to a rich mix of applied research despite the system. Also industry has bemoaned the university communitys lack of interest in industrially useful R&D. The opportunity cost of not recognizing that the American research university community is a key element of Americas de facto technology policy has been huge. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Time to rethink the NIH

A radical restructure is the only way to solve the systemic problems of the worlds biggest funder of biomedical research, argues Michael M. Crow.

Red tape and technology transfer in US government laboratories

The purpose of this paper is to gauge the effects of red tape and bureaucratization on the technology-transfer activities and effectiveness of government laboratories in the United States. Two central questions are addressed: Do laboratories involved significantly in technology transfer have more red tape than others? and Does the level of red tape have an effect on technology-transfer success? Objective and perceptual measures of red tape are used. Technologytransfer effectiveness is measured in terms of getting other organizations to adopt technology developed in the laboratory (“out the door” success) and of the commercial impact of transfers. Data are derived from questionnaire responses provided by directors of 276 federal- and state-government laboratories. Results indicate that laboratories involved in technology transfer do not have higher levels of red tape. Out-the-door technology-transfer success relates strongly to low degrees of perceived red tape, whereas high ratings for commercial impact are associated with actual low levels of red tape in acquiring project funding and lowcost equipment.

Public-Private Cooperation and Hybrid Organizations

This article examines the nature and role of hybrid organizations (those which are part public, part private) as coordinating mechanisms that facilitate public sector and private sector interaction. The study examines 250 public, private, and hybrid R&D organizations to determine their structural, environmental, and behavioral differences. Environmental and behavioral differences are found to be significant and consequential in terms of the usefulness of hybrids as coordinating mechanisms.

Differentiating America's Colleges and Universities: A Case Study in Institutional Innovation in Arizona

C olleges and universities negotiating their recovery from the most severe recession in nearly a century are currently implementing a welter of hastily devised measures aimed at reducing operating costs, becoming more efficient, and restoring a prior equilibrium. But administrators reacting to the downturn should not restrict their focus to the short term, fixating exclusively on cost cutting or reshuffling longstanding priorities. They should instead engage in comprehensive long-range planning that uncovers and fixes “design flaws” and advances new and differentiated models for the nation’s colleges and universities. The reconceptualization of Arizona State University (ASU) is considered here as a case study of how one university has accomplished such a redesign. As president of ASU, I have led an effort to reinvent the youngest major public research institution in the United States through a comprehensive “design process” that has included both an exhaustive reevaluation of our academic organization and operations and an effort to pioneer what we term the “New American University” —an egalitarian institution committed to academic excellence, access, and maximum societal impact. Newsweek has termed ASU’s experiment “one of the most radical redesigns in higher learning since the modern research university took shape in nineteenth-century Germany” (August 9, 2008). An editorial from the journal Nature observes that questions about the future of the contemporary research university are being examined “nowhere more searchingly than at Arizona State University” (April 26, 2007). Accordingly, we invite scrutiny and encourage critique of the process, since we consider our effort a case study in institutional innovation. Our objective has been to accelerate a process of institutional evolution that might otherwise have taken more than a quartercentury and compress it into a single decade (2002–2012). Such self-determination has meant embracing transformational change: we have confronted the complexities associated with advancing robust institutional innovation at scale and in real time.

Technology and knowledge transfer in energy R&D laboratories: An analysis of effectiveness

Abstract The analysis presented in this paper is part of the on-going National Comparative R&D Laboratory Study Project. The goals of this project are to evaluate the relationship between public policy and the behavior of R&D organizations and identify those factors which contribute to various types of technical advance. Earlier phases of the project have focused on the establishment of a new classification typology for R&D organizations. Additional work on the classification and analysis of R&D organizations is currently underway with funding from the National Science Foundation. The results presented in this presentation are a part of the study which is designed to address the issue of government policy and innovative behavior among corporations. Earlier work has focused on government policy and innovation among technology orientated firms in New York.