Proof of Concept Centers in the United States: An exploratory look

Abstract

In this paper we identify the population of 32 US university-related Proof of Concept Centers (PoCCs), and we present a model of technology development that identifies the economic role of PoCCs within that model. We examine the broad technology transfer challenges that PoCCs have been established to address. Further, we argue that PoCCs are a growing technology infrastructure in the United States, and they are important as a possible element of our national innovation system.

Full text

Proof of Concept Centers in the United States:
an exploratory look
Samantha R. Bradley •Christopher S. Hayter •Albert N. Link
Published online: 13 April 2013
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract In this paper we identify the population of 32 US university-related Proof of
Concept Centers (PoCCs), and we present a model of technology development that
identifies the economic role of PoCCs within that model. We examine the broad tech-
nology transfer challenges that PoCCs have been established to address. Further, we argue
that PoCCs are a growing technology infrastructure in the United States, and they are
important as a possible element of our national innovation system.
Keywords Proof of Concept Center University technology transfer Entrepreneurship 
Innovation
JEL Classification O31 O34 O38
1 Introduction
Since the passage of the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980
(Public Law 96-517), also known as the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, there has been widespread
and growing public-sector support of the commercialization of university-based research.
Evidence of this is most visible through the trend at universities to establish and operate
technology transfer offices and offices of innovation and commercialization.
More recently, the Obama Administration reiterated this support in September 2009
through the release of A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving towards Sustainable
S. R. Bradley A. N. Link (&)
Department of Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA
e-mail: anlink@uncg.edu
S. R. Bradley
e-mail: srbradle@uncg.edu
C. S. Hayter
Policy Evaluation and Transformation, New York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY, USA
e-mail: chayter@nyas.org
123
J Technol Transf (2013) 38:349–381
DOI 10.1007/s10961-013-9309-8

Growth and Quality Jobs (Executive Office of the President 2009).
1
Shortly thereafter, in
March 2010, a Request for Information (RFI) was published in the Federal Register [75
(57): 14476]:
This RFI is designed to collect input from the public on ideas for promoting the
commercialization of Federally funded research. …the RFI seeks public comments
on how best to encourage commercialization of university research. …[and] on
whether PoCCs [Proof of Concept Centers] can be a means of stimulating the
commercialization of early-stage technologies.…
And, in addition to stimulating the commercialization of early-stage technologies there
are, of course, positive economic development consequences associated with any effort
that enhances university technology transfer.
PoCCs gained broader recognition as a potentially important element of the nation’s
technology infrastructure when President Obama announced in March 2011, as part of the
Startup America initiative, the i6 Green Challenge.
2
A total of $12 million will be awarded
to establish or expand PoCCs that have the potential to enhance the commercialization of
technology and entrepreneurship in support of a green economy, increase US competi-
tiveness, and leverage job growth. Six organizations received public funding.
3
Despite this flurry of policy interest and activity, discussions as to the basic definition
and specific role of PoCCs are conspicuously absent from both policy conversations about
PoCCs and the academic and professional literatures. And, there is a void of any systematic
investigation of the structure and analysis of the economic impact of these centers.
A broad definitional framework might view PoCCs as a collection of services to
improve the dissemination and commercialization of new knowledge from universities in
order to spur economic development and job growth. A more narrow perspective might
simply view PoCCs as an investment by a university or universities for improved tech-
nology transfer.
This paper contributes to the literature by identifying what is, to the best of our
knowledge, the population of university-related PoCCs in the United States. And, it sets
forth an economic role of PoCCs in an effort to motivate future empirical research on the
topic. More specifically, we present an economic model of technology development in
Sect. 2and we emphasize the role of PoCCs within that model. In Sect. 3, we define the
current population of US university-related PoCCs, and we briefly describe each center.
Finally, in Sect. 4, we conclude that PoCCs are a growing technology infrastructure in the
United States, and they are important as a possible element of our national innovation
system.
1
This September 2009 document was updated and released again in February 2011.
2
Partners in this cooperative effort included the Department of Energy along with the Economic Devel-
opment Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.
3
The six organizations that received funding included the Iowa Innovation Network i6 Green Project in
Ames; the Proof of Concept Center for Green Chemistry Scale-up in Holland, Michigan; the iGreen New
England Partnership; the Igniting Innovation (I2) Cleantech Acceleration Network in Orlando, Florida; the
Louisiana Tech Proof of Concept Center in Ruston; and the Washington State Clean Energy Partnership
Project.
350 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

2 An economic model of technology commercialization
From a firm-level perspective, Maia and Claro (2012, p. 2), building on Auerswald and
Branscomb (2003), argue that the most critical phase in technology commercialization:
…occurs between invention and product development, when commercial concepts
are created and verified, appropriate markets are identified, and protectable Intel-
lectual Property (IP) may have to be developed. This Proof of Concept …phase has a
funding gap, caused by information and motivation asymmetries and institutional
gaps between the Science and Technology and Business enterprises.
Relatedly, in their examination of the University of California at San Diego’s von
Liebig Center and MIT’s Deshpande Center definition, Gulbranson and Audretsch (2008,
p. 250) define a PoCC as an institution ‘‘devoted towards facilitating the spillover and
commercialization of university research.’’ In other words, PoCCs seem to be taking aim at
improving the transfer and development of technologies derived from public R&D fund-
ing, especially from universities and public laboratories.
4
Figure 1provides a representation of university technology transfer (Bradley et al.
2013); it is vastly improved over the simpler, linear heuristics that have long dominated the
literature. The solid black arrows in Fig. 1indicate processes of technology transfer, while
the gray dashed arrows indicate factors that influence these processes. The process of
university technology transfer begins with a scientific discovery. Once a discovery is made,
the technology transfer process follows one of two paths: the inventor (e.g., university
scientist) can choose to disclose his/her invention to the university’s technology transfer
office (TTO)—Process 1—or the inventor can choose not to disclose his/her invention thus
bypassing the TTO—Process 2.
5
Given the notional definition of a PoCC above, we posit that PoCCs target activities that
occur within certain processes of the overall technology transfer process, namely those
activities conceptualized by Process 1, 2, and 12. In other words, decisions for a university
to claim ownership of intellectual property (IP), while related, is distinct from activities
that seek to further develop and commercialize technology. Furthermore, barriers may
exist at each subsequent process step due to information asymmetries and lack of resources
that relate back to readiness of the technology and the capability for the faculty member
(and university) to further develop it—the target of PoCCs.
6
While PoCCs are focused on relatively early stages of university technology develop-
ment, they have the potential to impact most of the university technology transfer process
as described by Fig. 1. Typical PoCC services include seed funding, business and advisory
services, incubator space, and market research. The university’s TTO typically coordinates
4
EERE (2011) views PoCCs within a broader context than a university, and thus they define POCCs as
institutions that ‘‘support all aspects of the entrepreneurship process, from assisting with technology fea-
sibility and business plan development, to providing access to early-stage capital and mentors to offer
critical guidance to innovators. Centers allow emerging technologies to mature and demonstrate their market
potential, making them more attractive to investors and helping entrepreneurs turn their idea or technology
into a business.’’ See: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=503.
5
The inventor’s decision to disclose is influenced by the university’s reward systems and culture, as noted
by the gray dashed arrows.
6
See Hayter (2011) for a complete discussion of spinoff success factors discussed in the extant literature.
Proof of Concept Centers 351
123

with the PoCC by assisting with IP and licensing responsibilities, providing representatives
for advisory services, and connecting inventors with outside funding sources.
Thus, PoCCs enable inventors to evaluate the commercial potential of their research;
within PoCCs, early-stage products can be developed and prototypes can be tested. Proving
a concept makes it easier for inventors to obtain funding from outside investors, such as
angel investors or venture capitalists, for further product development.
7
In Table 1we offer an initial taxonomy of the challenges that PoCCs are intended to
address in an effort to move toward a more systematic understanding of their economic
role. This taxonomy comes from a review of the extant literature, and that literature is
summarized in the Appendix to this paper.
Table 1 Challenges in technology transfer potentially addressed by Proof of Concept Centers
1. University entrepreneurs tend to be older and often lack relevant business skills
2. Research productive faculty are not always inclined to re-direct their research toward transferable
technologies
3. University faculty often lack the social networks necessary for successful technology transfer
4. University policies (e.g., promotion and tenure, financial, and intellectual property) do not always
provide sufficient incentives for faculty to engage in technology transfer
5. External funding for startups is often difficult to obtain and thus hinders the success of technology
transfer
Fig. 1 Model of university technology transfer. Source Bradley et al. (2013)
7
See Rasmussen and Sørheim (2012) for a discussion of PoCCs from a public-sector perspective of
bridging the funding gaps for university spinoffs.
352 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

3 PoCCs: an inferential analysis
Reflecting on a broader view of technology transfer, we conceptualize PoCCs as a critical
technology infrastructure. PoCCs are important not only for remediating technology
transfer challenges but also for accelerating the advancement of Proof of Concepts into the
market application stage.
To better understand this technology infrastructure, 32 PoCCs were identified from
public sources based on the definitions discussed above.
8
Table 2describes what we have
identified from public-domain sources as the current US population of university-related
PoCCs. Also shown at the end of Table 2are 6 additional PoCCs that are labeled as
‘‘forthcoming’’.
From the description of the PoCCs in Table 2it is clear that commercialization of
university-generated technology is an important goal of each center, and that this goal is
being approached differently in different PoCCs. For example, some PoCCs are based at a
single university and others have an integral relationship with several universities. Differ-
ences in achieving commercialization success through a PoCC infrastructure underscores
the relevance of our claim above that the economic role of the PoCC—accelerating inno-
vation from the laboratory to the market—can occur throughout the university technology
transfer process and thus is appropriately not given a particular node of reference in Fig. 1.
3.1 Geographic distribution of PoCCs
We examined several characteristics of the population of PoCCs summarized in Table 2.
First, it is clear that PoCCs are fairly evenly located throughout the United States. Based on
US Census Bureau regions, among the 32 operational PoCCs, 7 are in the West, 9 in the
Midwest, 10 in the Northeast, and 6 in the South. Of the 6 forthcoming PoCCs, 4 are in the
Northeast.
3.2 Growth trend of PoCCs
Second, based on the year that each PoCC was started (see Table 2), we constructed Fig. 2.
The figure suggests a general upward trend in the formation of PoCCs beginning in 2007.
That trend was exaggerated as a result of the Startup America initiative. The post-2007
trend in Fig. 2suggests that PoCCs might have been a university response to the economic
downturn in the United States that began in December 2007. Certainly, the Startup
American initiative was designed to be pro-cyclical. However, if the United States is
entering a period of sustained moderate growth, then the number of new PoCCs started in
future years might level-off.
3.3 Institutional placement of PoCCs
Third, of the 32 university-related PoCCs identified in Table 2, we were able to identify the
year that the TTO at 30 of the 32 universities was established.
9
Five PoCCs are associated
8
Some might take issue with the centers that we have subjectively classified as PoCCs. If this is the case, it
underscores that an accepted definition of a PoCC is evolving.
9
Year of establishment was determined from the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM)
data. When more than one university is associated with a POCC, the year of establishment for the oldest
TTO was considered.
Proof of Concept Centers 353
123

Table 2 Description of the US university-related Proof of Concept Centers
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
von Liebig
Entrepreneurism
Center
San Diego, CA 2001 $10 million donation
from the William J.
von Liebig Foundation
Jacobs School of
Engineering, University
of California, San
Diego
Seed funding, advisory
services, educational
programs, technology
acceleration programs
10–12 annually Center for
Commercialization of
Advanced
Technologies,
CONNECT, UCSD
$50 K
Entrepreneurship
Competition
Deshpande Center Cambridge,
MA
2002 $17.5 million donation
from Jaishree and
Gururaj Deshpande
MIT School of
Engineering
Grant program, catalyst
program, innovation
teams, special events
90?to date Lockheed Martin, Sanofi
Aventis
VentureLab Athens, GA 2002 From 2002 to 2010, GRA
directed $19 million of
state funding into
VentureLab
University of Georgia,
Georgia Tech, Emory
University, Georgia
State University,
Medical College of
Georgia, Clark Atlanta
University
Seed funding awarded in
three phases
Phase 1—$50,000
grants. Develop
business plans, market
assessments, Proof of
Concept studies
Phase 2—$100,000
grants with matching
funds required. IP
licensing, develop
prototypes
Phase 3—$250,000
loans. Field trials,
product distribution,
facility and staffing,
marketing
107?Georgia Research
Alliance
354 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Ohio Third Frontier Columbus, OH 2002 $1.6 billion, 10-year
commitment by the
State of Ohio
Extended through 2015
in May 2010
Kent State University,
University of Akron,
Cleveland State
University, University
of Dayton, University
of Toledo, Case
Western Reserve
University, Ohio State
University, Wright
State University
Comprehensive state-
wide system of
programs and
organizations that
support the
development and
commercialization of
new technologies,
expand Ohio’s
technology-based R&D
capabilities, provide
risk capital, and
promote
entrepreneurial skills
Focus on developing 5
key technology
clusters: advanced
energy; advanced
materials; biomedical;
instruments, controls
and electronics; power
and propulsion
700?companies
created,
capitalized, or
attracted to
Ohio by Third
Frontier funds
St. Louis
BioGenerator
St. Louis, MO 2003 McDonnell Family
Foundation, the
Danforth Foundation,
Bunge North America,
the Monsanto Fund and
CORTEX
Washington University,
Saint Louis University,
University of Missouri
Provide pre-seed or seed
funding at the early
stages of new company
formation, continued
support to milestones of
follow-on funding or
sustainable revenue,
professional services
(lawyers, accountants),
management support
27 Danforth Plant Science
Center, Missouri
Botanical Gardens,
Coalition for Life
Sciences, Missouri
Technology
Corporations,
InnovateVMS,
CORTEX Life Science
District, St. Louis Arch
Angels, Skandalaris
Student Venture Fund
Proof of Concept Centers 355
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
University of
Colorado Proof of
Concept Program
Boulder, CO 2004 Income generated from
commercialization of
CU intellectual
property
University of Colorado Four types of grants
Proof of Concept small
grants (POCsg)
Proof of Concept
investments (POCi)
Proof of Concept State
of Colorado Bioscience
matching grants
(POCmbg)
Renewable and
Sustainable Energy
Institute (RAESI) Proof
of Concept energy
grants (POCeg)
(includes a Market
Assessment Program
(MAP) element)
139 University License
Equity Holdings, Inc.
(ULEHI) (non-profit
organization that
manages private equity
for CU)
Commercial Ventures
and Intellectual
Property
Technology
Development Fund
Massachusetts 2004 Created and maintained
through licensing
revenues, initial
$50,000 contribution
from the President’s
Office of CVIP
University of
Massachusetts
Awards given annually to
faculty members across
all five UMass
campuses to accelerate
commercialization of
early-stage
technologies developed
at UMass
66
356 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Alabama Innovation
and Mentoring of
Entrepreneurs
Center
Tuscaloosa, AL 2007 Reconstitution of the
Alabama Institute for
Manufacturing
Excellence
University of Alabama Entrepreneurial training,
Center for Green
Manufacturing,
Manufacturing
Information
Technology Center,
Machine Process and
Product Design Center,
Operations Research
and Statistical Analysis
Center, teams of staff/
students to conduct
market research and
business model plan/
development, idea
database, idea selection
committee
Bama Technology
Incubator
Boston University-
Fraunhofer
Alliance for
Medical Devices,
Instrumentation and
Diagnostics
Boston, MA 2007 $5 million, 5-year
initiative jointly funded
by Fraunhofer
Gesellschaft and BU
Boston University Fraunhofer CMI
engineers work with
BU researchers to
develop medical
innovations from BU
labs into functional
instruments and devices
that can attract
investment from VC’s
for a new venture
creation or be licensed
to existing companies
in their space
Fraunhofer Gesellschaft
Proof of Concept Centers 357
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Stevens Institute for
Innovation
Los Angeles,
CA
2007 $22 million donation
from Mark and Mary
Stevens
University of Southern
California
Coaching, mentoring,
networking and
showcase opportunities
for startups, connect
innovators with
funding, IP
management, USC
Student Innovator
Showcase, Ideas
Empowered program,
planned ‘Innovation
Fund’ for faculty and
researchers in health
sciences to develop
proofs of concept
USC Office of the
Provost
Biomedical
Accelerator Fund
Cambridge,
MA
2007 $6 million in private
donations
Harvard University Development gap funding
awarded to Harvard
investigators to propel
emerging technologies
originating from
Harvard’s biomedical
and life science
research community
into clinical
development
27
Vermont
Experimental
Program to
Stimulate
Competitive
Research
Innovation Fund
Awards
Burlington, VT 2007 Vermont EPSCoR
funded by NSF
University of Vermont Provide funding and
support for high-risk
research that could
revolutionize a Science,
Technology, or Math
(STEM) field
Awards up to
$12,000
358 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Institute for
Advancing Medical
Innovation
Kansas City,
KS
2008 $8.1 million gift from the
Kauffman Foundation
$8 million matching from
KU’s endowment fund
University of Kansas Annual request for
proposals seeking POC
projects, $50–100 k
funding per project,
one-on-one support
from project directors
Kauffman Foundation,
Leukemia and
Lymphoma Society,
NIH, Kansas
Bioscience Authority,
Children’s Mercy
Hospitals and Clinics,
Frontiers: The
Heartland Institute for
Clinical and
Translational Research,
Bioscience and
Technology Business
Center
Medical Devices
Center
Minneapolis,
MN
2008 $10 million, 5-year
investment from the
University of
Minnesota
University of Minnesota Provide technical
assistance and facilities
for prototype
development and
testing to refine
technology and ensure
finished product is
commercially viable
1 year Fellows Program
8 Fellows
funded per
year
Minnesota Department of
Employment and
Economic
Development,
Maslowski Family
Trust
Blue Highway Syracuse, NY 2008 Wholly owned subsidiary
of Welch Allyn, Inc.
Syracuse University Invention triage,
technical evaluations,
product development,
rapid prototyping, IP
landscape and valuation
studies, Original
Equipment
Manufacturing
100?active
collaborations
with
academia,
government,
and industry
Welch Allyn, Inc.
Proof of Concept Centers 359
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
QED Proof of
Concept Program
University
City,
Philadelphia,
PA
2009 $300,000 grant from the
Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania’s Ben
Franklin Technology
Development
Authority
$300,000 grant from the
William Penn
Foundation
$1.8 million commitment
from University City
Science Center and
participating
institutions
Delaware State
University, Drexel
University, Harrisburg
University of Science
and Technology,
Lehigh University,
New Jersey Institute of
Technology, Penn State
College of Medicine
Hershey, Philadelphia
College of Osteopathic
Medicine, Philadelphia
University, Rutgers
University, Temple
University, Thomas
Jefferson University,
University of Delaware,
University of Medicine
and Dentistry of New
Jersey, University of
Pennsylvania,
University of the
Sciences in
Philadelphia, Widener
University
Solicits life science R&D
project proposals from
the region’s research
centers and selects the
most promising
technologies for
funding designed to
bridge the valley of
death
12 Fox Chase Cancer
Center, Lankenau
Institute for Medical
Research, Monell
Chemical Senses
Center, New Jersey
Institute of Technology,
The Wistar Institute
New Hampshire
Innovation
Commercialization
Center
Portsmouth,
NH
2010 $165,000 per year
(2010–2012) seed
investment from UNH
Undisclosed private
backers
University of New
Hampshire
Select early-stage
ventures with high
commercialization
potential and grow
them into companies by
providing business
resources, seed capital,
and management
expertise
6 Elevate Communications,
Pease Development
Authority,
PixelMEDIA,
Whaleback Systems
360 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Agile Innovation
System
Pittsburgh, PA 2010 $1 million grant from
EDA
Carnegie Mellon
University
Workshops, mentoring,
funding through
translational research
grants, accelerator
space
25 Innovation works
Oregon Innovation
Cluster
Oregon 2010 $1 million grant from
EDA
$1 million grant from
Oregon Innovation
Council
$400,000 supplemental
awards from NIH/NSF
Oregon State University,
Oregon Health and
Science University,
University of Oregon,
Portland State
University
Technical and business
assistance services,
proof of concept grants,
intern/sabbatical
program for students
and researchers,
business accelerator
and capital
development fund
Oregon Nanoscience and
Microtechnologies
Institute, Oregon
Translational Research
and Development
Institute, Oregon Built
Environment and
Sustainable
Technologies, Pacific
Northwest National
Laboratory
Innovative Solutions
for Invention
Xceleration
Akron, Ohio 2010 $1 million grant from
EDA
University of Akron
Research Foundation
Proof of concept
prototyping in ABIA’s
Medical Device
Development Center
and Center for Clinical
and Community Health
Improvement, design/
manufacturing services,
commercialization and
marketing plans
Austen BioInnovation
Institute in Akron
Maryland Proof of
Concept Alliance
Maryland 2010 $5.1 million in federal
funding
University of Maryland
system
Identifies and funds
promising technologies
developed through
University System of
Maryland institutions
21 US Army Research
Laboratory
Proof of Concept Centers 361
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Iowa Innovation
Network i6 Green
Project
Ames, Iowa 2011 $1 million grant from
EDA
Iowa State University Adding a next-stage
Proof of Commercial
Relevance Center to
help start businesses
bring product to market
Iowa Innovation Council,
Iowa Innovation Corp.
Proof of Concept
Center for Green
Chemistry Scale-
Up
Holland, MI 2011 $580,000 grant from
EDA
$500,000 from Michigan
Economic
Development
Corporation
Former pharmaceutical
R&D and pilot plant
facility donated by
Pfizer
Bioeconomy Institute of
Michigan State
University
Business support
services, green
technology incubation,
assist client firms in
obtaining US
Department of
Agriculture
BioPreferred
designations
Lakeshore Advantage,
Prima Civitas
Foundation, NewNorth
Center
iGreen New England
Partnership
New England 2011 $1.25 million grant from
EDA
University of Maine Networking roundtables,
fund applied research in
university labs,
incubator space for
startups, online tools
(forums, stakeholder
network, etc.)
20–30 expected
over the next
2 years
40?including: New
England Clean Energy
Foundation, ME
Technology Institute,
ME Regional
Redevelopment
Authority, MA Clean
Energy Center, CT
Clean Energy Finance
and Investment
Authority, NH Office of
Energy and Planning,
RI Renewable Energy
Fund, VT Agency of
Commerce and
Community
Development
362 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Igniting Innovation
(I2) Cleantech
Acceleration
Network
Orlando, FL 2011 $1.3 million grant from
EDA
Matching funds from
Space Florida and the
Florida High Tech
Corridor Council
University of Central
Florida
Virtual network linking
Florida-based
universities, business
incubators, investors,
and industry resources,
3 month I2 Accelerator
Program (kickoff
business bootcamp, 1
on 1 mentoring,
presentations to I2
Ventures network)
150?companies
have
participated
Florida Energy Systems
Consortium,
Technological
Research and
Development Authority
Louisiana Tech Proof
of Concept Center
(LA_i6)
Ruston, LA 2011 $1.1 million grant from
EDA
Louisiana Tech Support for field testing
and prototyping,
engage private sector
partners, collaborate
with researchers and
organizations at
Enterprise Campus
research park
3 pilot projects:
Geopolymer
concrete
Solar cell
power
conversion
Piezoelectric
generators
Louisiana Tech
Enterprise Center,
companies along I-20
Innovation Corridor
Washington State
Clean Energy
Partnership Project
Washington
State
2011 $1.3 million grant from
EDA
South Seattle Community
College
Annual analysis and
reports on policy
alignment, help
eliminate regulatory
barriers limiting clean
energy development,
assist Pacific Northwest
energy companies in
deploying products to
global markets, build
the Building Efficiency
Testing and Integration
(BETI) Center and
Demonstration
Network
Washington Clean
Energy Regional
Innovation Cluster,
Puget Sound Regional
Council’s Prosperity
Partnership, Cleantech
Open Mentoring
Program, Innovate
Washington
Proof of Concept Centers 363
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
UC Proof of Concept
Program
California 2011 $2.7 million invested by
UC in 2011, $2.6
million invested by UC
in 2012
University of California
system
Funds innovations based
on IP owned by UC that
are within 12 months of
commercialization
35 Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab
Global Center for
Medical Innovation
Atlanta, GA 2012 $1.3 million grant from
EDA
$1.3 million match from
Georgia Research
Alliance
Georgia Tech Product-specific project
teams, prototyping/
design/engineering/
product development,
preclinical testing,
clinical trials
2 Piedmont Healthcare,
Georgia Research
Alliance, Saint Joseph’s
Translational Research
Institute, MetricIreland,
Atlanta Pediatric
Device Consortium,
Interoperability and
Integration Innovation
Lab
Proof of Concept
Fund
Lawrence, KS 2012 Funding from University
of Kansas
University of Kansas Provide funding (up to
$50 k per proposal) to
mature KU research
projects for one year
The fund will support
projects in all areas of
technology—including
electronics, software,
communications and
engineering—that
aren’t eligible for POC
funding through KU’s
Institute for Advancing
Medical Innovations
(IAMI)
Will award a
total of
$200,000 in
funding in
2012, award
notifications to
be made
February 2013
KU Center for
Technology
Commercialization
364 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Proof of Concept Gap
Funding Initiative
Chicago, IL 2012 $500,000 from the Office
of the Vice President
for Research, the Office
of the Vice Chancellor
for Research, the
Colleges of
Engineering, Medicine
and Pharmacy, and the
Office of Technology
Management
University of Illinois at
Chicago
Commercial product
development/testing,
address technical or
commercial risks,
Attract potential
licensees or additional
third party funding
4 projects were
funded in the
1st Round of
the POC
Initiative, an
estimated 4–5
projects are
anticipated to
be funded in
the 2nd Round
UIC Office of
Technology
Management
Proof of Concept
Program
Tucson, AZ 2012 Revenue from UA
licensing and options
University of Arizona Generate data to support
the potential
commercial value of
the invention, prototype
development and
testing, validate
academic software code
for commercial
application, design,
construct, and evaluate
a prototype device,
delivery system,
software, etc.
Funding
selections to
be announced
December 17,
2012 for
research to
begin January
7, 2013
Tech Launch Arizona
Oklahoma Proof of
Concept Center
OK Forth
coming
Capital from i2E and
Cowboy Technologies
Oklahoma State
University, Oklahoma
University
Virtual center that will
accelerate products to
the marketplace
through coordinating
efforts to validate
markets, developing
prototypes, obtaining
guidance and feedback
from industry mentors
and providing access to
capital necessary
I2E Inc., Cowboy
Technologies LLC
Proof of Concept Centers 365
123

Table 2 continued
Center Location Year
founded
Initial funding University affiliation Types of services No. projects
funded
Partners/affiliates
Downstate Regional
Energy Technology
Accelerator
New York,
NY
Forth
coming
$5 million awarded by
New York State Energy
Research and
Development Authority
Columbia University Fund the development of
sustainable technologies and
clean energy solutions
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory,
Stony Brook
University,
Cornell
University’s
NYC Tech
NYC Clean Economy
Center for Proof-of-
Concept
Brooklyn, NY Forth
coming
$5 million awarded by
New York State Energy
Research and
Development Authority
Polytechnic Institute of New
York University partnered
with City University of New
York
Support applied science
research that focuses on
challenges specific to an urban
environment
Power Bridge,
NYU Center for
Urban Science
and Progress
High Tech Rochester,
Inc.’s NYSERDA
Proof of Concept
Center
Rochester,
NY
Forth
coming
$5 million awarded by
New York State Energy
Research and
Development Authority
University of Rochester,
Rochester Institute of
Technology, Alfred
University, Cornell
University, Clarkson
University, University at
Buffalo, SUNY Research
Foundation
Accelerate the creation and
growth of clean energy
startups across Western and
Central New York
Proof of Concept for
Technology
Commercialization
Award Program
Piscataway
Township,
NJ
Forth
coming
Rutgers Enable Rutgers investigators to
develop a commercializable
product based upon Rutgers
intellectual property that has
not yet been licensed
Awards up to
$50,000
ICE
Commercialization
GAP Fund Program
2012
Iowa City, IA Forth
coming
Seed funding provided by
the Iowa Centers for
Enterprise in
conjunction with the
Office of the Vice
President for Research
University of Iowa Support a range of stages in
technology development,
from initial concept (prior to
intellectual property
disclosure), through proof of
concept, to licensing and
commercialization
Awards from
$10,000 to
$75,000
366 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

with universities with a TTO established before 1971, 4 with a TTO established between
1971 and 1980, 8 with a TTO established between 1981 and 1990, 11 with a TTO
established between 1991 and 2000, and 2 with a TTO established after 2000. Thus, it
appears that US PoCCs are associated with universities with more established technology
transfer offices.
3.4 PoCCs and research expenditures
Fourth, we explored the relationship between the establishment of a PoCC and the level of
R&D research conducted at universities. Based on the total level of R&D research funding
of the largest 100 academic institutions in the United States, as reported by the National
Science Board (Tables 5–10, 2012), 20 of the top 100 academic institutions have a PoCC
based on information in Table 2. The mean amount of 2009 R&D research funding in those
universities with a PoCC was $460.2 million; the mean amount in those universities
without a PoCC was $406.9 million. These mean amounts are not statistically different
from each other.
10
3.5 PoCCs and university startups
And fifth, in an exploratory manner, we considered the potential economic impact of
PoCCs. For each single university related PoCC in Table 2, we calculated the number of
university startups before and after the founding of the PoCC.
11
Table 3shows that for the
9 PoCCs for which sufficient data were available, the number of new university startups
increased in the years after the founding of the PoCC. Of course, no other factors related to
changes in the number of university startups are held constant in this descriptive
comparison.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Fig. 2 Trend in the number of university-related Proof of Concept Centers in the United States, by year
started
10
The tvalue for a test of differences in means assuming equal variance is -1.07 and the tvalue assuming
unequal variances is -1.01. This same result follows from a probit model of the probability of a university
being associated with a PoCC. Also held constant in the probit model was a binary variable for whether the
university was public or private.
11
The underlying information came from the AUTM data.
Proof of Concept Centers 367
123

4 Concluding remarks
The description of US PoCCs offered in this paper should be viewed as a possible starting
point for future research on this subject. Putting aside the obvious caveats associated with
assembling information on economic institutions from public sources, much more is to be
learned about PoCCs. In particular, given the conceptual importance of PoCCs as an
element of technology infrastructure that enhances university technology transfer, ques-
tions to be answered include, but are not limited to: (1) the motivation, from the univer-
sity’s perspective and from a faculty perspective, for establishing a PoCC, (2) sources of
funding (e.g., state vs. private) used to establish the PoCC, and (3) the actual and expected
impact that the PoCC has on the university (e.g., on its revenues and on its scholarly
output) and on related regional economic development.
Appendix
See Table 4.
Table 3 University startups before and after the establishment of the Proof of Concept Center
PoCC University Year
founded
Number of
startups before
founding
a
Number of
startups after
founding
a
Deshpande Center MIT 2002 119 125
Commercial Ventures and
Intellectual Property Technology
Development Fund
University of
Massachusetts
2004 3 5
University of Colorado Proof of
Concept Program
University of
Colorado
2004 17 60
Boston University-Fraunhofer
Alliance for Medical Devices,
Instrumentation and Diagnostics
Boston University 2007 15 24
Biomedical Accelerator Fund Harvard University 2007 25 43
Stevens Institute for Innovation University of
Southern
California
2007 35 24
Vermont Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research
Innovation Fund Awards
University of
Vermont
2007 11 14
Institute for Advancing Medical
Innovation
University of
Kansas
2008 4 8
Medical Devices Center University of
Minnesota
2008 11 21
a
The number of university start-ups before and after the founding of the PoCC was determined by counting
the number startups from the date of the PoCC’s founding to 2011, the latest available year of AUTM data,
and then comparing that count to the number of startups for the same number of years prior to the date of the
PoCC
368 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 4 Summary of the literature on challenges in technology transfer potentially addressed by Proof of
Concept Centers
Characteristics of the university entrepreneur
Audretsch (2000) University entrepreneurs tend to be older and more
scientifically experienced
Druilhe and Garnsey (2004) The type and intensity of resources academic
entrepreneurs require for realizing a business
opportunity vary considerably according to the
type of activity undertaken and the amount of
resources already possessed by the entrepreneur
(e.g., prior knowledge, contacts, and experience)
Etzkowitz (2003) Several persons may jointly undertake
entrepreneurial roles in forming new firms and
other organizations; some persons may not be
willing or able to become entrepreneurs
individually, but are able to do so collectively
Hayter (2011) Academic entrepreneurs establish companies for
various reasons including technology
development, personal financial gain, public
service, career enrichment, job creation, and skill
enhancement; entrepreneurial motivations are also
related to the influence of peers; spinoffs can act as
a platform for consulting and access to
government grants, especially SBIR awards
O’Gorman et al. (2008), Johansson et al. (2005),
Clarysse and Moray (2004), Samson and Gurdon
(1993), Wright et al. (2011)
Successful spinoff entrepreneurs typically sever ties
with the incubating institution; some scientists
pursue academic entrepreneurship indirectly by
leaving universities to work for corporations
before they start their ventures
Roberts (1991), Roberts and Peters (1981) High–technology entrepreneurs have educational
background in science or engineering, young, and
have industry experience; high need for
achievement
Kenney and Goe (2004) The decision of a professor to engage in
entrepreneurial activity and the process of doing so
is influenced by the policies, formal institutional
rules, and general ethos of support for faculty
involvement in business activity promulgated by
the university; and, by the reward incentives,
normative expectations, and ethos of support by a
professor’s department, and network of colleagues
in the discipline
Commercial experience
Murray (2004) Faculty attitudes are shaped by career in academic
sciences that typically does not include industry
experience
Nicolaou and Birley (2003), Franklin et al. (2001),
Radosevich (1995)
When faculty spinoff a company they typically lack
the business acumen needed for successful spinoff
and instead focus on scientific aspects of the
enterprise
O’Gorman et al. (2008), Audretsch et al. (2005),
Grandi and Grimaldi (2005)
Previous experience working within industry,
including co-publication, co-patenting, and serving
on company scientific advisory boards may be
prerequisite for commercialization success as an
entrepreneur
Proof of Concept Centers 369
123

Table 4 continued
O’Gorman et al. (2008), Dietz and Bozeman (2005),
Gulbrandsen and Smeby (2005), Roberts (1991)
University scientists with industry experiences have
a higher propensity to patent, license, consult, and
establish a company
Vohora et al. (2004), Nerkar and Shane (2003) Experience working with industry improves an
entrepreneur’s ability to recognize
‘‘entrepreneurial opportunities’’
Highly productive faculty
Agrawal and Henderson (2002) Faculty involvement improves the performance of
technology licenses
Di Gregorio and Shane (2003), Louis et al. (2001),
Zucker et al. (1998)
Higher intellectual capital ‘‘rates’’ (or ‘‘intellectual
eminence’’) within specific universities lead to
greater numbers of university spinoffs
Meyer (2006) Nano-scientists who patent appear to outperform
non-inventing peers in terms of publication counts
and citation frequency
Shane (2004), Jensen and Thursby (2001), Franklin
et al. (2001), Thursby et al. (2001)
Faculty involvement is critical to the continuing
development of university technology, including
its scientific basis and application
Thursby and Kemp (2002) Researchers in biotechnology tend to have a culture
that is more encouraging of commercial activity
than is the case in the physical sciences
Zucker et al. (2002), Zucker and Darby (2001) ‘‘Star’’ scientists enhance the performance of US
biotech firms in terms of patents granted, number
of products in development, and the number of
products on the market
Social networks external to the university
Bercovitz and Feldman (2006) Social interaction, local networks, and personal
communication are important for knowledge
transmission
Grandi and Grimaldi (2003) Faculty relations with the non-academic,
professional world help mediate how well
technology is transferred to a spinoff
Grimpe and Fier (2010) Informal contacts improve the quality of formal
relationships; formal contracts are accompanied by
an informal relation of mutual exchange on
technology-
related aspects
Link et al. (2007), Powell (1990), Liebeskind et al.
(1996)
Social networks, which can include academic and
industry scientists, university administrators, TTO
directors, and managers/entrepreneurs, appear to
play an important role in university-industry
technology transfer processes
Martinelli et al. (2008), Landry et al. (2002) Informal networks often facilitate more formal
relationships that facilitate spinoff (and licensing
arrangements with established firms)
O’Gorman et al. (2008) Networks helped academic entrepreneurs understand
the opportunities for applying and
commercializing their expertise in retrieval
software—and help the entrepreneur develop a
business plan, raise early-stage finance, and
develop links with potential customers
Rappert et al. (1999) Informal networks are important to the
commercialization success of a spinoff
370 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 4 continued
Rothaermel et al. (2007), Johansson et al. (2005),
Murray (2004)
The quality depth, and diversity of a faculty
member’s non-academic, professional network is
important to the success of their spinoff
University factors: academic culture
Bercovitz and Feldman (unpublished) Faculty members have difficulty combining
commercial and academic goals
Etzkowitz (2003), Jacob et al. (2003), Clark (1998),
O’Shea et al. (2004)
Universities must transform their mission and
culture to encourage technology transfer and
entrepreneurship if they are to promote better
commercial outcomes
Friedman and Silberman (2003) A mission focused on licensing and royalty income
is indicative of leadership and university culture;
an entrepreneurial climate is conducive to a
university generating more licenses
Kenney and Goe (2004) Faculty are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial
activity when socially embedded in departments
and a larger university community that are
supportive of entrepreneurship
Samson and Gurdon (1993) Academic culture is a key inhibitor to spinoff
formation and success
Shane (2004), Bauer (2001), Feldman and
Desrochers (2004), Hsu and Bernstein (1997),
Roberts (1991)
Entrepreneurial culture, social norms, and role
models are critical to the formation of university
spinoffs
Slaughter and Rhoades (2004), Franklin et al.
(2001), Chiesa and Piccaluga (2000), Samson and
Gurdon (1993), Lee (1996), Siegel et al. (2003)
‘‘Traditional’’ norms, attitudes, and institutional
rules of academia often clash with a more recent
focus on commercialization outcomes
Owen-Smith and Powell (2001) A key to successful tech transfer is creating an
entrepreneurial culture among faculty and an
institutional environment supportive of
commercial and basic science activities
University policy
Bekkers et al. (2006), Kenney and Goe (2004),
Shane (2004), Tornatzky et al. (1995)
Leave of absence and other personnel policies help
faculty become involved in commercialization
activities including spinoff
Di Gregorio and Shane (2003) The policies of making equity investments in
technology licensing office start-ups and
maintaining a low inventor share of royalties
increase new firm formation activity
Friedman and Silberman (2003) Policies to attract technology industries and private
sector research will have spillover benefits and
generate feedback effects through increasing
university technology transfer
Golub (2003) Spinoff activity increased at New York University
when restrictions were removed on the use of
facilities by spinoff companies
Lockett and Wright (2005) University policies to pursue growth in the size of
TTOs without also focusing on the faculty
capabilities base may not be conducive to meeting
revenue objectives for technology transfer
activities
Proof of Concept Centers 371
123

Table 4 continued
Markman et al. (2004), Colyvas et al. (2002) Financial incentives play little or no role in
motivating faculty to commercialize their research
compared to traditional academic awards and the
prospect of additional federal R&D grants
O’Gorman et al. (2008), Siegel et al. (2003) Faculty reward systems influence technology
transfer; faculty members take traditional
academic awards into account when considering
the payoff of commercialization activity
Renault (2006), Shane (2004), Matkin (1990) Conflict of interest rules have a ‘‘chilling’’ effect on
the formation of university spinoffs
Siegel et al. (2003) Public universities may have less flexible university-
industry technology transfer policies than private
universities regarding startup companies and
interactions with private firms
University IP policy
Clarysse et al. (2007), Steffensen et al. (2000) Aggressive university patenting and conflicts over
intellectual property rights are one of the biggest
barriers to the dissemination and
commercialization of new knowledge
Conceicao et al. (1998) Successful technology transfer initiatives should
consider the integration of technology policies as
part of an overall policy portfolio for economic
and social development
Di Gregorio and Shane (2003), Jensen et al. (2003),
Shane (2004)
Making equity investments in lieu of charging patent
and licensing costs is important to spinoff success;
the inventor’s share of royalties also matters
Roberts and Malone (1996) Nonexclusive licenses favor the open dissemination
of new knowledge from universities
Shane (2004) Exclusive licenses encourage spinoffs especially in
the biosciences
Siegel et al. (2003) IP policies and organizational practices can enhance
or impede technology transfer effectiveness
University TTO characteristics
Audretsch et al. (2005) Scientists who lack entrepreneurship networks
typically seek guidance from the TTO; the TTO
typically recommends licensing the technology.
Conversely, scientists not assisted by their TTO
are more likely to choose entrepreneurship as their
mode of commercialization
Bercovitz et al. (2001) The structure of the TTO provides a set of
independent variables (information processing
capacity, coordination capabilities, and incentive
alignment properties) that may be used to explain
technology transfer outcomes across universities
Chapple et al. (2005) Invention disclosure, total research income, number
of TTO employees, and protection of licensee
affect TTO’s licensing performance
Shane (2004), Bauer (2001) The perception of the TTO as a regulator or enabler
matters to the success of university spinoffs
Jensen et al. (2003) University TTOs act as an agent for both the
administration and the faculty
372 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 4 continued
Lockett and Wright (2005) Expenditure of IP protection, business development
capabilities, and the royalty regime of the
university impact spinoff success
Markman et al. (2004) The experience of TTO staff is negatively related to
university entrepreneurial activity
Siegel et al. (2003) A lack of requisite business skills and expertise
could have a significant deleterious effect on TTO
productivity; some TTOs may be too narrowly
focused on a small set of technical areas, or too
concerned with the legal aspects of licensing
Thursby et al. (2001) The payment of choice for TTOs is running
royalties, followed by patent fee reimbursement,
up-front fees, annual fees, and minimum royalty
fees
Business development factors: development funding
Aldrich (1999), Aldrich and Fiol (1994) Less than one percent of all start-ups founded in the
US raise more than $1 million in financing
Clark (1998) A common element among successful
entrepreneurial institutions is a diversified funding
base such as industry and private benefactors,
though much of university funding is still derived
from government sources
Gulbrandsen and Smeby (2005) There is a significant relationship between industry
funding and research performance; faculty with
industry funding conduct more applied research,
collaborate more with external researchers both in
academia and in industry, and report more
scientific publications and entrepreneurial results
Heirman and Clarysse (2004), Shane and Stuart
(2002), Hellmann and Puri (2002)
Initial and operational resources differentiate firms
and help predict their success
Powers and McDougall (2005) R&D investment by industry appears to be a key
element in successful technology transfer; the
positive impact of venture capital funding in the
university’s immediate geographical vicinity
supports anecdotal beliefs about perceived
disadvantages to universities in venture capital
poor states
Roberts (1991,2009) Venture capital, angel capital, bank loans, and
friends and family are all important sources of
financing among spinoffs in the Boston area
Wright et al. (2004) Spinouts typically lack the financial means and
managerial expertise to exploit the commercial
potential of their technologies; joint venture
spinouts may provide a faster, more flexible, less
risky and less costly business venturing route to
commercializing university IP in comparison to
venture backed university start-ups
Founding team and surrogates
Franklin et al. (2001), Radosevich (1995) ‘‘Surrogate’’ entrepreneurs and managers are critical
to the success of spinoffs; they bring commercial
experience, social networks, and a motivation for
financial gain
Proof of Concept Centers 373
123

Table 4 continued
Grandi and Grimaldi (2005) The founding teams’ intention to set up relations
with external agents and their frequency of
interaction with external agents are two features
that are likely to lead to the success of academic
spin-off companies
Nicolaou and Birley (2003) The identification and attraction of a befitting
surrogate entrepreneur increases the propensity for
a technology spinout
Rothaermel et al. (2007), Moray and Clarysse
(2005), O’Shea et al. (2005), Shane and Stuart
(2002), Roberts (1991)
Composition of the founding team, their collective
industry experience, management capability, and
knowledge are critical factors to spinoff success.
Unfortunately, most university spinoff teams lack
these characteristics
Shane (2004) Managerial experience among academic
entrepreneurs increases their changes for obtaining
development financing
Linkages with the ‘‘home’’ institution
Debackere and Veugelers (2005), Link et al. (2007),
Owen-Smith and Powell (2001)
University incentive schemes may need to be altered
to encourage researchers’ cooperation and
involvement throughout the commercialization
process
Druilhe and Garnsey (2004) Informal relationships with industry are often
precursors to formal spinouts that do not involve
the university
Johansson et al. (2005), Rappert et al. (1999) Academic entrepreneurs maintain strong ties to
universities with high degrees of trust; spinoffs
benefit through access to university expertise, the
use of equipment and instruments, and by keeping
abreast of university research
Klepper and Sleeper (2005), Cooper (1973,1984) Spin-offs usually inherit general technical and
market-related knowledge from their parent
organization (company, university, etc.)
Nicolaou and Birley (2003) ‘‘Exoinstitutional research networks’’ encourage
scientist involvement in direct or orthodox spinout
formations that do not involve the university
Samson and Gurdon (1993), Doutriaux (1987) Spinoff success may depend on completely
‘‘breaking away’’ from university culture, norms
and regulations
Thursby et al. (2001) The university, and sometimes the inventing
scientist, might continue to be involved with the
organization or entrepreneur to help develop the
technology or to maintain the licensing agreement
Zahra et al. (2007) Academic spinoffs differ from company-based
spinoffs given that their technology is initially
incubated in a non-profit educational institution:
the university
Characteristics of the technology and related
industry
Bekkers et al. (2006) Spinoff success factors differ greatly among biotech
and IT-related industries
374 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Table 4 continued
Gulbrandsen and Smeby (2005), Shane (2004),
Golub (2003), Lowe (2002), Thursby et al. (2001),
Jensen and Thursby (2001), Geuna and Nesta
(2006)
Spinoffs are concentrated in high-technology areas
such as biotechnology, computer software,
medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. Spinoff
success is likely impacted by various
characteristics of these industries
Litan et al. (2007), Thursby et al. (2001), Jensen and
Thursby (2001), Shane (2004), Lerner (2005),
Siegel (2011), Goldhor and Lund (1983)
Potential to generate royalties and other financial
returns influences which technologies TTOs
choose to develop
Nerkar and Shane (2003) The ‘‘radicalness’’ of a technology combined with
broad patent scope helps reduce new firm failure
Perez and Sanchez (2003), Nerkar and Shane (2003),
Utterback (1994)
Spinoff success is dependent on technological
advance; the characteristics of technology
inventions affect the likelihood that firms
commercialize inventions
Siegel et al. (2004) The TTO must understand the field and evaluate
where its technology is moving in order to decide
whether or not to file a patent should on the
discovery
Thursby and Thursby (2003), Thursby et al. (2001),
Jensen and Thursby (2001), Colyvas et al. (2002),
Mitchell (1991)
University inventions are very early-stage
technologies and have a very high failure rate
Regional factors
Audretsch and Feldman (1996), Jaffe et al. (1993),
Jaffe (1989)
Knowledge tends to spillover within geographically-
bounded regions and this promotes clustering
among firms in similar industries
Audretsch and Lehmann (2005) Spillovers from universities may affect firm growth;
the closer that firms are located to a university and
the higher the number of academic papers
published at the university, the higher the growth
rates for these firms
Bekkers et al. (2006), Almeida and Kogut (1999) Company success is correlated with its proximity to
industry clusters due to the mobility of labor
within
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) The capability of a region to ‘‘absorb’’ knowledge
spillovers is dependent on the scientific and
innovation capacity of the industries in the region
Di Gregorio and Shane (2003) The availability of VC in the region where the
university is located and the level of sponsored
research does not have a significant impact on the
number of spinoffs from that university
Friedman and Silberman (2003) Entrepreneurial climate has a positive and statistical
significant impact on all outputs from university
technology transfer; policies to attract technology
industries and private sector research will have
spillover benefits and generate feedback effects
through increasing university technology transfer
O’Shea et al. (2004) Local and regional economies with a sophisticated
technology infrastructure and populated by
startups are better positioned to attract knowledge-
seeking investment from multinational
corporations
Powers and McDougall (2005), Degroof and Roberts
(2004)
Universities in regions with strong entrepreneurial
support require little provision of support from the
university and vice versa
Proof of Concept Centers 375
123

References
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT.
Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage Publications.
Aldrich, H., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of
Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional
networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.
Audretsch, D. B. (2000). Is university entrepreneurship different?. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.,
mimeo.
Table 4 continued
Rogers et al. (2001) Emphasizing spinoffs as a technology transfer
strategy can lead to an agglomeration of high-tech
firms around the university, eventually resulting in
a technopolis or technology-based cluster
Saxenian (1994), Piore and Sabel (1984) Industrial networks aid in the transmission and
absorption of knowledge
Public policy
Audretsch et al. (2005) Incubators improve the flow of knowledge spillovers
to university spinoffs
Blair and Hitchens (1998) Access to infrastructure, such as entrepreneurship
services, financial and technical resources, and
incubators is important to university spinoff
success
Dietz and Bozeman (2005), Dietz (2000)How university research is supported, especially by
the federal government, may have a profound
impact on the propensity of academic
entrepreneurs to spinoff and the subsequent
success of these spinoffs
Gulbranson and Audretsch (2008) Proof of Concept Centers such as the University of
California at San Diego’s Von Liebig Center and
MIT’s Deshpande Center offer intensive services
designed to provide resources, technical
assistance, and guidance for faculty members (and
students) interested in technology
commercialization; they may be critical to spinoff
success
Link and Scott (2005) University spinoffs constitute a larger proportion of
firms in parks that are geographically closer to
their university as well as parks that have a
biotechnology focus
Shane (2004), Lowe (2002) Spinoffs from the most prestigious institutions like
MIT and Berkeley, respectively, often need to
obtain public sector capital before they can obtain
private capital
Siegel et al. (2003) Firms located within science parks have slightly
higher research productivity than off-park firms
Westhead and Storey (1994,1997) Firms located in science parks (though not
specifically university spinoffs) those with
relationships with universities have a higher
survival rate than those firms without such a
relationship
376 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation. American
Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.
Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Do University policies make a difference? Research Policy,
34(3), 343–347.
Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location.
Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.
Auerswald, P., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to
innovation transition in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3–4), 227–239.
Bauer, E. (2001). Effects of patenting and licensing on research. Presentation to the National Academies
Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the
Knowledge-Based Economy, 17 April.
Bekkers, R., Gilsing, V., & van der Steen, M. (2006). Determining factors of the effectiveness of IP-based
spin-offs: Comparing the Netherlands and the US. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 545–566.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual
framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of
academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Penn-
sylvania state Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 21–35.
Blair, D. M., & Hitchens, D. M. W. N. (1998). Campus companies—U.K. and Ireland. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer.
Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship (forthcoming).
Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K.
University technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy,
34(3), 369–384.
Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The case of academic
spin-off companies in Italy. R & D Management, 30(4), 329–339.
Clark, B. R. (1998). The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary Education and Man-
agement, 4(1), 5–16.
Clarysse, B., Bruneel, J., & Wright, M. (2007). Growth strategies of young, technology-based firms. Paper
presented at the Babson Conference on Entrepreneurship Research 2007.
Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a
research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55–79.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do
university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.
Conceicao, P., Heitor, M. V., & Oliveira, P. (1998). University-based technology licensing in the knowledge
based economy. Technovation, 18(10), 615–625.
Cooper, A. C. (1973). Technical entrepreneurship: What do we know? R&D Management, 3(2), 59–64.
Cooper, A. C. (1984). Contrasts in the role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented
firms, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley: Babson College.
Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in
improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.
Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructure for academic spin-
off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 327–357.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?
Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.
Dietz, J. S. (2000). Building a social capital model of research development: The case of EPSCOR. Science
and Public Policy, 27(2), 137–147.
Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as
scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.
Doutriaux, J. (1987). Growth patterns of academic entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing,
2(4), 285–297.
Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? Journal of Technology
Transfer, 29(3–4), 269–285.
EERE. (2011). Obama administration announces launch of i6 green challenge to promote clean energy
innovation and economic growth. EERE News, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.
cfm/pa_id=503.
Proof of Concept Centers 377
123

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university.
Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.
Executive Office of the President. (2009). A strategy for American innovation: Driving towards sustainable
growth and quality jobs. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
Feldman, M. P., & Desrochers, P. (2004). Truth for its own sake: Academic culture and technology transfer
at Johns Hopkins University. Minerva, 42(2), 105–126.
Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-
out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.
Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and
location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.
G, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States
and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 637–650.
Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging
European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.
Goldhor, R. S., & Lund, R. T. (1983). University-to-industry advanced technology transfer. Research Policy,
12(3), 121–152.
Golub, E. (2003). Generating spin-offs from university-based research: The potential of technology transfer,
PhD dissertation. Manhattan: Columbia University.
Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2003). Exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams.
Small Business Economics, 21(4), 329–341.
Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of suc-
cessful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 821–845.
Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance.
Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.
Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of Concept Centers: Accelerating the commerciali-
zation of university innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 249–258.
Hayter, C. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from
nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 340–352.
Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based startups differ at founding? A
resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 247–268.
Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalism of start-up firms: Empirical
evidence. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 169–197.
Hsu, D. H., & Bernstein, T. (1997). Managing the university technology licensing process. Journal of the
Association of University Technology Managers, 9, 1–33.
Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish Uni-
versity system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32(9), 1555–1568.
Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as
evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.
Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university
inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.
Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of university inventions:
‘the best we can do with the ST we get to work with? International Journal of Industrial Organization,
21(9), 1271–1300.
Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellstrom, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: University spin-offs and the
significance of historical relations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(3), 271–286.
Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A
comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research
Policy, 33(5), 691–707.
Klepper, S., & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spin offs. Management Science, 51(8), 1291–1306.
Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2002). Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent?
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(7), 681–701.
Lee, Y. S. (1996). Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of uni-
versity-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.
Lerner, J. (2005). The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 30(1–2), 49–56.
Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility:
Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428–443.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the
formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.
378 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to
engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.
Litan, R., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). The university as innovator: Bumps in the road. Issues in
Science and Technology, 23(4), 57–66.
Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out
companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.
Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship,
secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 26(3), 233–245.
Lowe, R. A. (2002). Invention, innovation and entrepreneurship: The commercialization of university
research by inventor-founded firms, PhD dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California at
Berkeley.
Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2012). The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: An
exploratory study. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9246-y.
Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory
tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 353–364.
Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case
study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented
university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.
Matkin, G. W. (1990). Technology transfer and the university. New York: Macmillan.
Meyer, M. (2006). Are co-active researchers on top of their class? An exploratory comparison of inventor-
authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-ccience and technology, SPRU Electronic Working
Paper Series 144. University of Sussex, SPRU—Science and Technology Policy Research.
Mitchell, W. (1991). Using academic technology: Transfer methods and licensing incidence in the com-
mercialization of American diagnostic imaging equipment research, 1954–1988. Research Policy,
20(3), 203–216.
Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entre-
preneurial firms. Research Policy, 34(7), 1010–1027.
Murray, F. E. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life.
Research Policy, 33(4), 643–659.
National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science
Foundation (NSB 12-01).
Nerkar, A., & Shane, Scott. (2003). When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive?
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1391–1410.
Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university
spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 333–359.
O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialize new knowledge via entre-
preneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23–43.
O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology
transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.
O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2004). Universities and technology transfer: A
review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2), 11–29.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at
technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.
Perez, M. P., & Sanchez, A. M. (2003). The development of university spin-offs: Early dynamics of
technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23(10), 823–831.
Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic
Books.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Orga-
nization, 12, 295–336.
Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms
that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
20(3), 291–311.
Radosevich, R. (1995). A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources. International
Journal of Technology Management, 10(7–8), 879–893.
Rappert, B., Webster, A., & Charles, D. (1999). Making sense of diversity and reluctance: Academic-
industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy, 28(8), 873–890.
Rasmussen, E., & Sørheim, R. (2012). How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university
spin-offs: Proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding. Technology Analysis and Strategic Manage-
ment, 24(7), 663–678.
Proof of Concept Centers 379
123

Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal
of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.
Roberts, E. B. (1991). The technological base of the new enterprise. Research Policy, 20(4), 283–297.
Roberts, E. B. (2009). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT. Kansas City: The Kauffman Foundation.
Roberts, E. B., & Malone, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from
research and development organizations. R & D Management, 26(1), 17–48.
Roberts, E. B., & Peters, D. H. (1981). Commercial innovation from university faculty. Research Policy,
10(2), 108–126.
Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation,
21(4), 253–261.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the
literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Samson, K. J., & Gurdon, M. A. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technology
transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13(2), 63–71.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university
patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.
Shane, S., & Stuart, T. E. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups.
Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.
Siegel, D. S. (2011). Academic entrepreneurship: Lessons learned for university administrators and poli-
cymakers. Presented at the Strategic Management of Places Conference, December 13, 2011.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective
transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the
commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management’,
21(1–2), 115–142.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the
productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1),
27–48.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher
education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Steffensen, M., Rogers, E. M., & Speakman, K. (2000). Spin-offs from research centers at a research
university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1), 93–111.
Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of
university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2),
59–70.
Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property
licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). University licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act. Science, 301(22),
1052.
Tornatzky, L. G., Waugaman, P. G., Lucinda Casson, S., Crowell, C. S., & Wong, F. (1995). Benchmarking
best practices for university-industry technology transfer: Working with start-up companies, A Report
of the Southern Technology Council. Atlanta: Southern Technology Council.
Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech
spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United
Kingdom. London: HMSO.
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1997) .Training provision and development of small and medium-sized
enterprises. Research Report No. 26, London: DfEE.
Wright, M., Mosey, S., & Noke, H. (2011). Academic entrepreneurship and economic competitiveness:
Rethinking the role of the entrepreneur. Keynote Paper: International Conference on Academic
Entrepreneurship: Basque Institute of Competitiveness (San Sebastian, Spain), September 8–9, 2011.
Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004). The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role of
joint ventures and venture capital investors. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 287–310.
Zahra, S. A., Van de Velde, E., & Larraneta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the perfor-
mance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 569–608.
Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (2001). Capturing technological opportunity via Japan’s star scientists:
Evidence from Japanese firms’ biotech patents and products. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2),
37–58.
380 S. R. Bradley et al.
123

Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science,
knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US
biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.
Proof of Concept Centers 381
123