A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use

  • Laura KreilingEmail author
  • Ahmed Bounfour


This study presents the development and initial use of a practice-based maturity model for technology transfer organisations (TTOs). Unlike previous research on TTO performance, the intention is not to compare TTOs, but to find out if there is a link between the maturity of TTO practices and organisational resources, competences and context, as well as outputs and outcomes. Drawing upon a conceptual framework for the holistic measurement of TTO performance, the model was refined and validated with TTO managers. It offers a novel way for TTOs to determine the maturity of their practices in six areas: ‘sensing & seizing opportunities’, ‘boundary spanning’, ‘translation & combination’, ‘co-creation & development’, ‘cultural change management’ and ‘knowledge management’. These areas correspond to six TTO capabilities that are assessed with 44 practice statements. Initial survey data from 17 European TTOs shows that maturity is highest in the area of ‘translation & combination’ practices and lowest for ‘knowledge management’. The study contributes to the academic debate on organisational performance and the role of capabilities and practices. Moreover, the model offers TTO managers a way to holistically assess performance and supports policymakers in the creation of TTO impact metrics. Future research could use it to collect further data in order to more comprehensively comprehend TTO performance.


Technology transfer organizations Holistic performance management Managerial practices IC-dVal Capabilities Survey data 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 O34 L25 



  1. Agogué, M., Berthet, E., Fredberg, T., Le Masson, P., Segrestin, B., Stoetzel, M., et al. (2017). Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the ‘unknown’: A contingency approach. Journal of Strategy and Management,10, 19–39. Scholar
  2. Aguirre, I. D. P., & Bobelyn, A. (2011). A toolbox for ICT technology transfer professionals: A preview of an online toolkit aiming at the acceleration of the ICT Technology Transfer Process. In Innovation through Knowledge Transfer 2010 (Springer, Berlin, pp. 177–187). Scholar
  3. Alessandrini, M., Klose, K., & Pepper, M. S. (2013). University entrepreneurship in South Africa: Developments in technology transfer practices. Innovation,15, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander, A. T., & Martin, D. P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,80, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation,27, 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arqué-Castells, P., Cartaxo, R. M., García-Quevedo, J., & Godinho, M. M. (2016). Royalty sharing, effort and invention in universities: Evidence from Portugal and Spain. Research Policy,45, 1858–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Awazu, Y. (2004). Informal network players, knowledge integration, and competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management,8, 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., & Tucci, C. L. (2018). University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all. Technovation,76, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy,35, 518–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review,26, 41–56.Google Scholar
  11. Becerra, P., Codner, D. G., & Martin, D. P. (2019). Scopes of intervention and evolutionary paths for argentinian universities transfer offices. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,28, 518–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bekkers, R., & Bodas-Freitas, I. (2010). Catalysts and barriers: Factors that affect the performance of university-industry collaborations. In Conference paper international schumpeter society conference.Google Scholar
  13. Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education,59, 567–588. Scholar
  14. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer,31, 175–188. Scholar
  15. Bessant, J., & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy,24, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Besson, J., Woronowicz, T., Mitasiunas, A., & Boronowsky, M. (2012). Innovation, knowledge- and technology transfer process capability model—innoSPICETM. In SpringerLink (Springer, Berlin, pp. 75–84). Scholar
  17. Bianchi, M., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., & Minola, T. (2013), “A dynamic capability view on the determinants of superior performance in university technology transfer offices. In Welter, F., Ljunggren, E., & Blackburn, R. (eds.) Entrepreneurial business and society: Frontiers in European entrepreneurship research (pp. 101–126).Google Scholar
  18. Bigliardi, B., Galati, F., Marolla, G., & Verbano, C. (2015). Factors affecting technology transfer offices’ performance in the Italian food context. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,27, 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bititci, U. S., Garengo, P., Ates, A., & Nudurupati, S. S. (2015). Value of maturity models in performance measurement. International Journal of Production Research,53, 3062–3085. Scholar
  20. Bounfour, A. (2003). The IC-dVAL approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital,4, 396–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bounfour, A. (2009). Organisational Capital Modelling, Measuring and Contexualising. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Bounfour, A. (2011). Le Capital organisationnel: Principes, enjeux, valeur. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Caldera, A., & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy,39, 1160–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cartaxo, R. M., & Godinho, M. M. (2017). How institutional nature and available resources determine the performance of technology transfer offices. Industry and Innovation,24, 713–734. Scholar
  26. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy,34, 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2012). Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of technology transfer centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer,37, 943–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make organizations go–or stop. Harvard Business Review,80, 104–112.Google Scholar
  29. De Silva, M., Howells, J., & Meyer, M. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy,47, 70–87. Scholar
  30. Debackere, K. (2018). The TTO, an Organizational Innovation to Facilitate Technology Transfer. The World Scientific Reference On Innovation (pp. 23–41). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management,20, S1–S8. Scholar
  32. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal,21, 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management,8, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fitzgerald, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Inside the university technology transfer office: Mission statement analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer,41, 1235–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Galan-Muros, V., & Davey, T. (2017). The UBC ecosystem: Putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation. The Journal of Technology Transfer. Scholar
  36. Hsu, D. W. L., Shen, Y.-C., Yuan, B. J. C., & Chou, C. J. (2015). Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,92, 25–39. Scholar
  37. Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual frameworks? Journal of Social Sciences,38, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jarzabkowski, P., & Paul Spee, A. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews,11, 69–95. Scholar
  40. Katzy, B., Turgut, E., Holzmann, T., & Sailer, K. (2013). Innovation intermediaries: A process view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,25, 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Khadhraoui, M., Plaisentm, M., Bernard, P., & Lakhal, L. (2017). The impact of marketing skills and negotiation skills of universities technology transfer office on technology transfer success. Journal of Marketing & Management,8, 2.Google Scholar
  42. Kim, J., Anderson, T., & Daim, T. (2008). Assessing university technology transfer: A measure of efficiency patterns. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,5, 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lerro, A. (2011). A stakeholder-based perspective in the value impact assessment of the project ‘Valuing intangible assets in Scottish renewable SMEs’. Measuring Business Excellence,15, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Link, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance,11, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Link, A. N., & van Hasselt, M. (2019). On the transfer of technology from universities: The impact of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 on the institutionalization of university research. European Economic Review,119, 472–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Long, J. C., Cunningham, F. C., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy,34, 1058–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCawley, P. F. (2001). Logic model for program planning and evaluation. In Logic model for program planning and evaluation, University of Idaho.Google Scholar
  49. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your programs performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning,22, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverley Hills: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  51. Morandi, V. (2013). The management of industry–university joint research projects: How do partners coordinate and control R&D activities? The Journal of Technology Transfer,38, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Munir, K. A. (2002). Being different: How normative and cognitive aspects of institutional environments influence technology transfer. Human Relations,55, 1403–1428. Scholar
  53. Nogeste, K., & Walker, D. H. (2005). Project outcomes and outputs: Making the intangible tangible. Measuring Business Excellence,9, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nosella, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2009). University-level mechanisms supporting the creation of new companies: An analysis of Italian academic spin-offs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,21, 679–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Kane, C. (2018). Technology transfer executives’ backwards integration: An examination of interactions between university technology transfer executives and principal investigators. Technovation,76, 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy,44, 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ollila, S., & Yström, A. (2015). ‘Authoring’Open Innovation: The managerial practices of an open innovation director. Research in Organizational Change and Development,23, 253–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy,42, 423–442. Scholar
  59. Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation,26, 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rau, H., Goggins, G., & Fahy, F. (2018). From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research. Research Policy, 47(1), 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Richardson, G. B. (1972). The organisation of industry. The Economic Journal,82, 883–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rogers, E. M., Yin, J., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers,12, 47–80.Google Scholar
  63. Rossi, F., & Rosli, A. (2015). Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom. Studies in Higher Education,40, 1970–1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Santoro, M. D., Bierly, I., & Paul, E. (2006). Facilitators of knowledge transfer in university-industry collaborations: A knowledge-based perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,53, 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Adrian, Thornhill. (2009). Research methods for business students. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  66. Schoen, A., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Henkel, J. (2014). Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer,39, 435–453. Scholar
  67. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy,47, 1554–1567. Scholar
  68. Secundo, G., De Beer, C., & Passiante, G. (2016). Measuring university technology transfer efficiency: A maturity level approach. Measuring Business Excellence,20, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Secundo, G., De Beer, C., Schutte, C. S. L., & Passiante, G. (2017). Mobilising intellectual capital to improve European universities’ competitiveness: The technology transfer offices’ role. Journal of Intellectual Capital,18, 607–624. Scholar
  70. Secundo, G., Perez, S. E., Martinaitis, Ž., & Leitner, K.-H. (2015). An intellectual capital maturity model (ICMM) to improve strategic management in European universities: A dynamic approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital,16, 419–442. Scholar
  71. Siegel, D. S. (2018). Academic entrepreneurship: Lessons learned for technology transfer personnel and university administrators. In D. S. Siegel (Ed.), World scientific reference on innovation (pp. 1–21). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  72. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research,14, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. (2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy,32, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Souder, W. E., Nashar, A. S., & Padmanabhan, V. (1990). A guide to the best technology-transfer practices. The Journal of Technology Transfer,15, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal,28, 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer,26, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Trencher, G. P., Yarime, M., & Kharrazi, A. (2013). Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. Journal of Cleaner Production, Special Issue: Advancing sustainable urban transformation,50, 40–55. Scholar
  80. Vinig, T., & Lips, D. (2015). Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach: The case of Dutch Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer,40, 1034–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Weckowska, D. M. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation,41(42), 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yström, A., & Aspenberg, H. (2017). Open for innovation? Practices supporting collaboration in Swedish regional clusters. International Journal of Innovation Management,5, 1740008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RITM Laboratory & European Chair on IntangiblesUniversité Paris-Sud, Université Paris-SaclaySceauxFrance

Personalised recommendations