Knowledge Management Research & Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 523–532 | Cite as

A mechanism for sharing best practices between university technology transfer offices

  • Christle De Beer
  • Giustina SecundoEmail author
  • Giuseppina Passiante
  • Cornelius S. L. Schutte
Original Article


Research has shown that university technology transfer offices (TTOs) learn through experimentation and failure, and by sharing these experiences with others. There are many barriers to successfully sharing the best practice between TTOs. The Maturity Model (MM) created by Secundo et al. (Meas Bus Excell, 20:42–54, 2016) provides a means by which the performance of a TTO can be better understood to allow for effective sharing of best practices. The aim of this study is to improve and validate the MM to formalize a mechanism through which best practices can be identified and shared between TTOs. This was accomplished by testing the MM in 54 TTOs across Europe and the United Kingdom. Findings regard several improvements of the intangible indicators and the maturity levels of the MM. This research improves the rigor of the MM and formalizes its application as a mechanism for sharing best practices through the Improved MM.


Best practice Maturity model Technology transfer office (TTO) Efficiency Performance measure Intangible indicators 


  1. Algieri, B., A. Aquino, and M. Succurro. 2013. Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer 38 (4): 382–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, T.R., T.U. Daim, and F.F. Lavoie. 2007. Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation 27: 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bercovitz, J., and M. Feldman. 2006. Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer 31 (1): 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozeman, B. 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy 29 (4): 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brecia, F., G. Colombo, and P. Landoni. 2016. Organizational structures of Knowledge Transfer Offices: An analysis of the world’s top-ranked universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 41 (1): 132–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapple, W., et al. 2005. Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer offices in the U.K.: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy 34 (3): 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 (6): 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Falco, S. 2015. Monitoring the performance of university technology transfer offices in deprived areas: The bias control. Archives of Business Research 3 (2): 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzgerald, C., and J.A. Cunningham. 2015. Inside the university technology transfer office: Mission statement analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer 41 (5): 1235–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goh, S.C. 2002. Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of knowledge management 6 (1): 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Granieri, M., and P. Frederick. 2015. Development of a holistic tool to identify barriers to success for technology transfer offices transfer offices. In Proceedings of Financing Knowledge Transfer in Europe (FinKT), 16–17 April, Rimini, Italy. Accessed 17 March 2016.Google Scholar
  12. Grimaldi, R., M. Kenney, D.S. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2011. 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40 (8): 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guan, J., and Q. Zhao. 2013. The impact of university–industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (7): 1271–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jarrar, Y.F., and M. Zairi. 2000. Best practice transfer for future competitiveness: A study of best practices. Total Quality Management 11 (4–6): 734–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonsson, A. 2015. Beyond knowledge management–understanding how to share knowledge through logic and practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 13 (1): 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jonsson, L., E. Baraldi, and L.E. Larsson. 2015. A broadened innovation support for mutual benefits: Academic engagement by universities as part of technology transfer. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development 14 (2): 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, J., T. Anderson, and T. Daim. 2008. Assessing university technology transfer: A measure of efficiency patterns. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 5 (4): 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kostova, T. 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. The Academy of Management Review 24 (2): 308–324.Google Scholar
  19. Kwak, Y.H., and C.W. Ibbs. 2002. Project management process maturity (PM) 2 model. Journal of Management in Engineering 18 (3): 150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larsen, M.T. 2011. The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy 40 (1): 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Libecap, G., et al. 2005. University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Process, design, and intellectual property. Arizona: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Link, A., and D. Siegel. 2005. Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance 11 (3): 169–181. Scholar
  23. Lockett, A., M. Wright, and A. Wild. 2015. The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management 26 (1): 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, K., R. McAdam, and M. McAdam. 2016. A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: Toward a research agenda. R&D Management. Scholar
  25. Moustaghfir, K., and G. Schiuma. 2013. Knowledge, learning, and innovation: Research and perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management 17 (4): 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muscio, A. 2010. What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer 35 (2): 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nunnally, J.C. 1967. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. Pries, F., and P. Guild. 2011. Commercializing inventions resulting from university research: Analyzing the impact of technology characteristics on subsequent business models. Technovation 31 (4): 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Redford, D.T., and A. Fayolle. 2014. Stakeholder Management and the Entrepreneurial University. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Resende, D.N., D. Gibson, and J. Jarrett. 2013. BTP—Best transfer practices. A tool for qualitative analysis of tech-transfer offices: A cross cultural analysis. Technovation 33 (1): 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers, E.M., J. Yin, and J. Hoffmann. 2000. Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 12 (1): 47–80.Google Scholar
  32. Schiuma, G. 2009. The managerial foundations of knowledge assets dynamics. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7 (4): 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schoen, A., B.V.P. de la Potterie, and J. Henkel. 2014. Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer 39 (3): 435–453.Google Scholar
  34. Secundo, G., C. De Beer, and G. Passiante. 2016. Measuring university technology transfer efficiency: A maturity level approach”. Measuring Business Excellence 20 (3): 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharma, R., M.I. Noorjahan, A. Iqbal, and M.M. Victoriano. 2012. On the use of benchmarking and good practices for knowledge management for development. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 11 (4): 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siegel, D., D. Waldman, and A. Link. 1999. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study (No. w7256). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  37. Siegel, D.S., and M. Wright. 2015b. University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups. Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship, 1–40.Google Scholar
  38. Siegel, D.S., R. Veugelers, and M. Wright. 2007. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23 (4): 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Siegel, D.S., D.A. Waldman, L.E. Atwater, and A.N. Link. 2003a. Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration”. Journal of High Technology Management Research 14 (1): 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Siegel, D.S., D. Waldman, and A. Link. 2003b. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy 32 (1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siegel, D.S., and M. Wright. 2015a. Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink?”. British Journal of Management 26 (4): 582–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Souder, W.E., A.S. Nashar, and V. Padmanabhan. 1990. A guide to the best technology-transfer practices. The Journal of Technology Transfer 15 (1–2): 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (S2): 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Szulanski, G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82 (1): 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thursby, J., and S. Kemp. 2002. Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy 31 (1): 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Usoro, A., M.W. Sharratt, E. Tsui, and S. Shekhar. 2007. Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 5 (3): 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vinig, T., and D. Lips. 2015. Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach: The case of Dutch universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 40: 1034–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weckowska, D.M. 2015. Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation 41: 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright, M., B. Clarysse, A. Lockett, and M. Knockaert. 2008. Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy 37 (8): 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yeo, Roland K., and Michael J. Marquardt. 2015. To share or not to share? Self-perception and knowledge-sharing intent, Knowledge Management Research & Practice 13 (3): 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The OR Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christle De Beer
    • 1
  • Giustina Secundo
    • 2
    Email author
  • Giuseppina Passiante
    • 2
  • Cornelius S. L. Schutte
    • 1
  1. 1.Stellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.University of SalentoLecceItaly

Personalised recommendations