Alongside the increased efforts of universities to commercialize academic science, technology transfer (TT) ecosystems have developed within or close to research universities across the world. Such ecosystems are composed of various organizational entities, such as science parks, incubators, and TT offices. In this paper, we study the organizational structure of TT ecosystems in academia and develop a typology of these ecosystems. Furthermore, we assess how the organizational structure of TT ecosystems affects within-ecosystem interactions. Taking a qualitative, comparative case study approach of eight different universities in Scandinavia, we investigate several elements of organizational structure, including ownership, governance, size, internal structure, and physical location. Based on our analysis, we develop a typology consisting of three types of ecosystems, the introverted, externalized and allied TT ecosystems, and find that within-ecosystem interactions differ significantly across the three types, providing important implications for an ecosystem’s ability to balance both science and market orientation. We discuss the contributions of our findings for theory and practice and identify avenues for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., et al. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49, 1–10.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43, 39–58.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306–333.
Albahari, A., Perez-Canto, S., & Barge-Gil, A. (2017). Technology parks versus science parks: Does the university make the difference? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 13–28.
Alter, C. (1990). An exploratory study of conflict and coordination in interorganizational service delivery systems. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 478–502.
Ambos, T. C., Makela, K., Birkinshaw, J., et al. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1424–1447.
Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 306–318.
Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 1–9.
Bengtsson, L. (2017). A comparison of university technology transfer offices’ commercialization strategies in the Scandinavian countries. Science and Public Policy, 44(4), 565–577.
Benneworth, P., & Ratinho, T. (2014). Reframing the role of knowledge parks and science cities in knowledge-based urban development. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 784–808.
Bergek, A., & Norrman, C. (2008). Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28, 20–28.
Brandt, T., Bendler, J., & Neumann, D. (2017). Social media analytics and value creation in urban smart tourism ecosystems. Information & Management, 54, 703–713.
Breznitz, S., Clayton, P., Defazio, D., & Isett, K. (2018). Have you been served? The impact of university entrepreneurial support on start-ups’ network formation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(2), 343–367.
Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49, 11–30.
Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, J. P., Bownas, D. A., Peterson, N. G., et al. (1974). The measurement of organizational effectiveness: A review of relevant research and opinion. Report, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA, USA.
Child, J., & Mansfield, R. (1972). Technology, size, and organization structure. Sociology, 6, 369–393.
Civera, A., & Meoli, M. (2018). Does university prestige foster the initial growth of academic spin-offs? Economia e Politica Industriale, 45(2), 111–142.
Dahlstrand Lindholm, Å. T., Lawton Smith, H., & Baines, N. (2016). Academic entrepreneurship: Spin-offs in Sweden and the UK. In D. Audretsch, E. Lehmann, M. Meoli, & S. Vismara (Eds.), University evolution, entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness. International studies in entrepreneurship (Vol. 32). Cham: Springer.
Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., Spendolini, M. J., et al. (1980). Organization structure and performance: A critical review. The Academy of Management Review, 5, 49–64.
Durand, R., & Vargas, V. (2003). Ownership, organization, and private firms’ efficient use of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 667–675.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
Eurostat. (2015). Key European statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat. Accessed October 12, 2016.
Fini, R., Rasmussen, E., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2019). Theories from the lab: How research on science commercialization can contribute to management studies. Journal of Management Studies 56, 865–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12424.
Fombrun, C. J. (1986). Structural dynamics within and between organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 403–421.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Geeraerts, G. (1984). The effect of ownership on the organization structure in small firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(2), 232–237.
Good, M., & Knockaert, M. (2020). In support of university spinoffs—What drives the organizational design of technology transfer ecosystems? In A. Novotny, E. Rasmussen, T. H. Clausen, & J. Wiklund (Eds.), Research handbook on start-up incubation ecosystems. Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming)
Good, M., Knockaert, M., Soppe, B., & Wright, M. (2018). The technology transfer ecosysetm in academia. An organizational design perspective. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.009.
Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 571–586.
Hall, R. H. (1977). Organizations: Structure and process. Michigan: Prentice-Hall.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 265–273.
Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: The role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 47, 633–656.
Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., et al. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 1039–1082.
Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative approaches. In J. Scott & P. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 404–416). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Huang-Saad, A., Fay, J., & Sheridan, L. (2017). Closing the divide: accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-Corps. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1466–1486.
Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2014). Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 289–307.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82, 68–81.
Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem? Report, National Science Foundation, USA.
Jefferson, D. J., Maida, M., Farkas, A., Alandete-Saez, M., & Bennett, A. (2017). Technology transfer in the Americas: Common and divergent practices from European Research Institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1307–1333.
Kang, D. L., & Sorensen, A. B. (1999). Ownership organization and firm performance. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 121–144.
Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. (2017). Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and Android Smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science, 28, 531–551.
Lemola, T. (2002). Convergence of national science and technology policies: The case of Finland. Research Policy, 31, 1481–1490.
Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a proof of concept center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 641–650.
Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36, 713–739.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52, 1–39.
Maskell, P. (2001). Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 921–943.
McAdam, K., Miller, R., & McAdam, R. (2016). Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective. Technovation, 50(51), 69–79.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, D. J., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: The University of Chicago. Small Business Economics, 49, 75–95.
Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26, 322–341.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71, 75–86.
Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 948–975.
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., et al. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44, 421–437.
O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.
Oh, D.-S., Phillips, F., Park, S., et al. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, 1–6.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community. Organization Science, 15, 5–21.
Perkmann, M., Neely, A., & Walsh, K. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university–industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Management, 41(2), 202–216.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university–industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18, 1033–1065.
Pierce, J. L., & Delbecq, A. L. (1977). Organization structure, individual attitudes and innovation. The Academy of Management Review, 2, 27–37.
Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14, 15–34.
Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 199–220.
Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33, 479–516.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
Quero, M. J., Ventura, R., & Kelleher, C. (2017). Value-in-context in crowdfunding ecosystems: How context frames value co-creation. Service Business, 11, 405–425.
Rapert, M. I., & Wren, B. M. (1998). Reconsidering organizational structure: A dual perspective of frameworks and processes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(3), 287–302.
Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39(5), 602–612.
Rasmussen, E., Moen, O., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26, 518–533.
Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science, 24, 889–909.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Sadle River: Pearson.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 529–540.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595.
Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. The Academy of Management Journal, 49, 121–132.
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 49–72.
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23, 1759–1769.
Taillard, M., Peters, L. D., Pels, J., et al. (2016). The role of shared intentions in the emergence of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2972–2980.
Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, R. (2016). How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 86–102.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., et al. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.
Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.
Wright, M., Siegel, D. S., & Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 909–922.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
This paper is part of a Ph.D. research fellowship at the University of Oslo and all funds are provided by the University of Oslo.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Good, M., Knockaert, M. & Soppe, B. A typology of technology transfer ecosystems: how structure affects interactions at the science–market divide. J Technol Transf 45, 1405–1431 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09745-w
- Technology transfer
- Organizational structure
- Research commercialization
- Academic entrepreneurship