1 Introduction

Universities play an important role in modern democracies, through knowledge transfer and through the role of critic and conscience (Abreu and Grinevich, 2013; Guerrero et al., 2015; Radko et al., 2023; Virgo, 2017). However, since the 1990s, market-driven ideologies in Western economies require universities to produce socially robust rather than merely reliable knowledge, and to produce tangible returns on public investment (Gibbons, 1999; Fini et al., 2018). Thus, in addition to teaching and research, the modern, entrepreneurial university has a third mission: that of creating value for ‘quintuple helix’ (5H) stakeholders: The environment, society, government, the university, and industry (Carayannis et al., 2018; Rådberg & Löfsten, 2023; van Bueren et al., 2023). The university and industry are key actors in knowledge asset supply and demand. On the demand side, large, technology-intensive transnational corporations (TNCs) seek to enhance their R&D pipelines through open innovation (Bejarano et al., 2023; Chesbrough et al., 2014; West & Bogers, 2014). TNCs view universities as valuable sources of innovation, while universities view TNCs as valuable sources of funding (Gaus & Raith, 2016; Schoppe & Chylla, 2016). For both parties, complementary resources allow exploration and exploitation of market opportunities (Miller et al., 2018). Both parties have incentives to collaborate, with the shared purpose of translating science into commercially valuable outcomes.

To meet new, external-facing demands, universities have established technology transfer offices (TTOs). TTOs are a more-or-less accepted part of university operations, being a separate organizational unit providing knowledge asset management and transfer services (Siegel et al., 2007; Martinelli et al., 2008; Perkmann et al., 2013). TTOs identify commercially relevant knowledge outputs and connect those outputs with market opportunities (Weckowska, 2015; Macho-Stadler et al., 2007; Heisey & Adelman, 2011). TTOs thus have two roles: Intermediaries between scientists and technology markets, and agents for multiple principals including scientists and university administrators (O’Kane et al., 2015; Jensen et al., 2003). While these relatively recent developments represent an important and rapidly evolving area for research (Good et al., 2019), as yet, the literature reflects limited insight into the nature of, and tensions within TTOs’ relationships with stakeholders, and the role of individual stakeholders in the knowledge transfer process (Miller et al., 2018; Soares & Torkomian, 2021). In particular, a quintuple helix (5H) stakeholder view (e.g. Carayannis et al., 2018, 2022, van Bueren et al., 2023) has yet to permeate the TTO literature. Therefore, building on the research agendas proposed by Good et al. (2019) and Miller et al. (2018), and calls to investigate technology transfer holistically rather than the current fragmented view (de Falani Bezerra & Torkomian, 2023; Good et al., 2019) this study addresses two research questions:

  1. (1)

    How do TTOs facilitate 5H stakeholder relationships through the commercialization process?

  2. (2)

    How do TTOs integrate university competencies and market demand?

To answer these questions, we draw on a case study of the Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) university innovation service ecosystem, focusing on three TTOs as embedded units of analysis (Yin, 2018). We define a university innovation service ecosystem as ‘a spontaneously sensing and responding spatial and temporal structure of largely loosely coupled, value-proposing 5H stakeholders interaction to (1) co-produce service offerings, (2) engage in mutual service provision, and (3) co-create value’ (adapted from Vargo & Lusch, 2011, p185). The definition draws attention to the ethical and physical scope of the university innovation service ecosystem by extending Vargo and Lusch’s (2011) original definition beyond economic and social stakeholders, with 5H stakeholders. This extension is crucial, highlighting that all system actors depend on a functioning society and biosphere.

The case study furnished rich data from three sources: Eight in-depth interviews with expert informants, a 24-week formal ethnographic observation, 48 months of informal observation, and analysis of secondary data. As a result, the study contributes deep insight into the nature, drivers and inhibitors of the technology transfer process; and into the dynamic, boundary spanning role of TTOs. As the study is conducted in the Australasian region, it also makes an empirical contribution, with institutional and market perspectives diverging from dominant views derived from the global north.

The paper proceeds by reviewing literature relevant to the role of TTOs in the entrepreneurial university. Next, research method and execution are discussed. The case study results are presented in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5, culminating in a discussion of the role of TTOs in the university innovation service ecosystem. The paper ends with conclusions and implications for 5H stakeholders, and for future research.

2 Technology transfer offices: at the nexus of competing demands

Technology transfer offices (TTOs) are key actors in university innovation service ecosystems, being “… organisational structures whose common core role is to assist public research organisations (PROs) in managing their intellectual assets in ways that facilitate their transformation into benefits for society … [bridging] the gap between research and innovation” (OECD, 2011). Since the 1980s, TTOs have become established in fields where knowledge is in high commercial demand, for example biomedical science, biotechnology, bioengineering, food science, and pharmacology (Siegel et al., 2007; Martinelli et al., 2008; Perkmann et al., 2013). TTOs perform a wide range of tasks, including determining the commercial potential of academic research, protecting and monetising intellectual property (IP), identifying market opportunities and providing post-deal support (Macho-Stadler et al., 2007; Heisey & Adelman, 2011; Siegel et al., 2004). To execute their mission, TTOs offer specific skills in technology transfer (Wu et al., 2015), including licencing negotiations (Thursby & Thursby, 2003; AUTM, 2007; Chitale et al., 2016), protection of IP, spin-out formation, contract research and research collaborations (Abreu and Grinevich, 2013; Yusuf, 2008). In essence, TTOs are specialised knowledge intermediaries, seeking out new forms of knowledge and aiding transmission to industry. TTOs are the ‘commercial arm’ of the modern, entrepreneurial university; and a means of providing additional revenue streams to cash-strapped institutions (Debackere & Veugelers, 2005; Battistella et al., 2016; de Falani Bezerra & Torkomian, 2023; Yusuf, 2008).

In this conceptualisation, we refer to a university innovation service ecosystem as ‘a spontaneously sensing and responding spatial and temporal structure of largely loosely coupled, value-proposing 5H stakeholders interaction to (1) co-produce service offerings, (2) engage in mutual service provision, and (3) co-create value’ (adapted from Vargo & Lusch, 2011, p185). The definition highlights the interdependence of actors situated in a complex, dynamic, multi-layered system embedded in time and space (Lusch et al., 2010). We add 5H stakeholders to emphasise the permeability of system borders, and the importance of humanist and ecological elements as a driving logic (Carayannis et al., 2022). At macro level, the natural environment and civil society are taken-for-granted elements, and economic concerns can crowd out human and biospheric wellbeing (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2021). Taking a holistic systems view incorporating all 5H stakeholders is essential to evaluating the role of TTOs within the university innovation service ecosystem.

For university faculty, commercialization, industry engagement and outreach are becoming a necessary part of workload, offering opportunities, annoyances and distractions. Those with prior industry experience can find a creative and remunerative outlet, satisfying career and financial motivations (Kalar & Antoncic, 2015; Perkmann et al., 2013). Top performing entrepreneurial individuals can perform across teaching, research and commercialisation, benefitting from valuable network effects (Lowe & Gonzalez-Brambila, 2007). However, others feel pressured by departmental performance criteria (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008; Kalar & Antoncic, 2015; Martinelli et al., 2008). Some consider commercialisation activities a threat to the traditional missions of the university; crowding out socially desirable basic research and engaged teaching (Thursby and Thursby, 2002; Kalar & Antoncic, 2015; Philpott et al., 2011). While TTOs can help faculty manage the increasing pressure to produce commercial outputs (Debackere & Veugelers, 2005; Miller et al., 2018), not everyone chooses to work with them. Newer researchers may be unaware of TTO services (Huyghe et al., 2016), and those with experience and industry networks may choose to bypass the TTO altogether in favour of ‘backdoor’ commercialization, self-patenting or start-up (Aldridge & Audretsch, 2010; Goel & Göktepe-Hultén, 2018). TTOs have become a necessary, if undervalued or underutilised, part of the wider university innovation service ecosystem.

As part of that ecosystem, TTOs operate within a wider social framework, and are thus implicated in the wider debate about the relationship between universities and business, and business and society (Owen-Smith & Powell, 2001). At macro level, the grand challenge of climate change highlights tensions between economic growth and the environment (IPCC, 2021), bringing into question the role of universities in supporting industry goals. While entrepreneurial universities contribute higher economic returns on taxpayer investment (Guerrero et al., 2015), commercialization can crowd out social outcomes. For example, patent filing can delay making new knowledge public, and commercial profitable research can crowd out socially important research (Etzkowitz, 2003; Siegel et al., 2003a). Furthermore, when business interests leverage knowledge created by taxpayer funded assets, the result can be privatised gains, socialised losses and wealth creation for a business elite, exacerbating social inequality (Stiglitz, 2012). The wider issue is that the university innovation service ecosystem reflects multiple conflicts of interest between 5H stakeholders. While these tensions have been attracting greater attention as interest increases in sustainability and the circular economy (e.g. van Bueren et al., 2023), deeper insight is required.

With respect to the TTO role in university innovation service ecosystems, the strategic and operational antecedents to successful commercialisation have been extensively researched. For example, strong university and TTO research reputations underwrite industry partnerships, predisposing academics to disclose inventions and seek patents (Owen-Smith & Powell, 2001, 2003; Macho-Stadler et al., 2007). These reputations can be leveraged to build TTO-industry-researcher relationships, depending on managerial effectiveness (Friedman & Silberman, 2003; Wu et al., 2015), personal and professional networks (Siegel et al., 2003b), and the quality of face-to-face interactions (Bruneel et al., 2010). With respect to resources, licenses, patents and invention disclosures are positively correlated to attributes such as TTO age, number of employees, and research expenditure (see Rothaermel et al., 2007; Thursby & Kemp, 2002; Siegel et al., 2003a, 2007; Ustundag et al., 2011). Internal and organisational practices have also been well researched, for example the effectiveness of managerial practices including hiring, reward systems and incentives (Siegel et al., 2003b; Link et al., 2007). Organisational culture has also been investigated, as bureaucratic bottlenecks are off-putting to all concerned (Thursby & Kemp, 2002; Weckowska, 2015; Wu et al., 2015; Siegel et al., 2003a).

Overall, while much is known about the various elements of commercialisation processes and the antecedents to success, deeper insight into the nature of science-industry relationships in general and the facilitation role of TTOs in particular is lacking (Goel & Göktepe-Hultén, 2018). Such insight is important for technology, education and business policy makers, and for universities with TTOs. This research addresses this gap by qualitatively investigating the nature and conduct of research commercialisation relationships, from the perspective of reflective TTO managers engaged in the knowledge transfer process, and researchers embedded in the wider context of the university innovation service ecosystem.

3 Method

Research commercialization is a complex, dynamic, process-based phenomenon involving multiple actors, embedded in the wider context of the university innovation service ecosystem. Therefore, we adopted qualitative case study methodology (Ritala et al., 2020; Yin, 2018), following principles recommended for high quality post-positivist case study research in innovation management (Elsahn et al., 2020; Goffin et al., 2019). The research context is the Australasian (ANZ) university innovation service ecosystem. While Australia and New Zealand host 10% of the top 100 life science universities globally, and are ranked 4th and 5th, respectively (Scientific American, 2016), the ANZ region has been overlooked as a source of inbound open innovation (Maxi, 2016; Quaquarelli Symonds Limited, 2017). The region is, however, well-configured to facilitate knowledge transfer, with 43 of 51 supporting either a formal TTO office (35 universities) or technology transfer support services (eight universities) (Appendix A). The empirical focus (the case) is technology transfer of university-sourced life science IP. Three of the 35 TTO offices in the ANZ region were theoretically sampled, based on expert opinion, as embedded units of analysis (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2018). Industry experts from a leading ANZ life science intermediary were asked to identify TTO offices that were: (1) Held in high esteem; (2) Had experience working with TNCs; and (3) Likely to allow access to senior managers with expertise in the life sciences and medicine. One of these institutions is an acknowledged international ‘best practice’ entrepreneurial university (Clauss et al., 2018). Owing to the small size of the region and the industry, specific details of country, university and individuals are omitted to maintain participant confidentiality.

We collected data from multiple sources, including interview, ethnographic participant observation, and secondary data. These three different sources support trustworthiness and theory development through methods and source triangulation (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of 5H case database – research methods and participants
Full size table

The authors built the case database, consisting of data sources from all 5H stakeholder groups (environment − 5H1, society − 5H2, government − 5H3, universities − 5H4, and industry − 5H5). The first author was embedded in a life science innovation intermediary firm, a boundary spanning organisation with ties to both universities (5H4) and industry (5H5), keeping extensive fieldnotes of day-to-day business activities. The second author was embedded in a research-intensive Australasian university (5H5), working between science and business faculties. Our privileged access enabled us to observe all stages of deal-making, including high level strategic negotiations between senior individuals in key stakeholder groups (researchers, TTOs and TNCs). Secondary data provided insight into the wider environmental (5H1), social (5H2) and governmental (5H3) context, and a check and a balance. Sources included reports and statistics relating to TTOs, university performance, and life science innovation in the ANZ region.

In-depth interviews were conducted with eight senior managers in three TTOs in the ANZ region both face-to-face and video call (Table 2 – detail omitted to protect confidentiality in a small community). While the sample size is small, the number of individuals occupying these elite roles is likewise small (under 100 individuals across 35 TTOs). Saturation was reached by the final two interviews, during which only minimal new information was contributed. While the formal interviews were important sources, they supplemented to daily conversations with senior TNC/ TTO and university informants via participant observation over multiple months. For the formal interviews we used five recruitment criteria: (1) Member of senior management team of the TTO organisation, (2) daily involvement in industry-university researcher relationships, (3) experience in commercialisation activities, (4) engagement with major industry buyer in last 24 months, and (5) life science specialist (ideally). Interviews were audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim (see interview guide Appendix B).

Table 2 Interview participant profiles – TTO senior managers (5H5)
Full size table

Data were analysed using NVivo12, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis: (1) independent reading and re-reading to familiarise with the data; (2) open and axial coding; (3) searching for themes and categories, producing initial coding frameworks (Saldaña, 2015); (4) reviewing, renaming, reconceptualising, collapsing or splitting themes to reflect shared interpretation; (5) redefining and renaming themes vis-à-vis the research objectives; and (6) writing the analytic narrative with supporting data extracts.

Rather than statistical generalisation case study methodology aims at trustworthiness and transferability to contexts with similar general conditions (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2018). While small, the sample of TTO managers was carefully theoretically selected, and included ANZ industry opinion leaders. Methods and source triangulation supported constant comparison and refinement (Yin, 2018) as we developed themes and conceptual frameworks. The managers’ reports were compared and contrasted with observational data from the life science intermediary, and with secondary sources, supporting reliability and validity. Positionality carries the risk of confirmation bias. We addressed this issue through constant comparison of primary and secondary sources (Goffin et al., 2019). We also engaged in member checking, by presenting progressive versions of our findings to expert industry audiences; and providing the final draft of this paper to a senior TTO manager and an internationally recognized life science researcher for review.

4 Findings

The results are presented in five stages and nine themes. Figure 1 presents an overall framework capturing TTO practices across five stages in the commercialisation pipeline (identifying, assessing, protecting, promoting, and profiting); including the nine themes relating to each of the stages, and the actors involved.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Five stage technology commercialisation process in the university innovation service ecosystem, with nine themes

Full size image

Within the entrepreneurial university, scientist-producers work on various life and physical science research projects. TTOs engage with both individual scientists and university department leaders to maintain knowledge of current and potential projects. Stage 1 Identifying: TTO managers match knowledge of market opportunities and university research activities to identify commercially relevant IP, drawing on internal and external relationships. Stage 2 Assessing: IP candidates are qualified through early-stage scoping for feasibility (i.e., protectable and technically possible to produce), viability (i.e., competitively advantaged in particular product-markets) and desirability (i.e., appeal to buyers, ability to meet end-user needs). Stage 3 Protecting: Investment in formal legal protection through patent or copyright, often engaging third-party patent attorneys. Stage 4 Promoting: Buyer negotiations, whereby knowledge is integrated between TNC customers and university producers; including collaborative input into distribution strategy and product form. Stage 5 Profiting: The TNC buyer invests via lump sum payment or licensing fees.

Within and between each stage in the process, the TTO managers constantly evaluate the IP for commercial potential. In Fig. 1, the fill gradient reflects primary affiliation – researchers towards self and institution, TTOs towards both clients and university, and TNCs towards their markets (including investor markets). While we depict an idealised process with discrete linear stages, the process is iterative. We further find that all 5H stakeholders involved in these five stages. In particular, multiple stakeholders are involved in all stages, directly or indirectly influencing individual researchers and projects, providing and responding to inputs including wider university strategy, industry lobbying, consumer feedback and policy direction. These actors in turn are subject to wider institutional influences in varying temporal scales from environment and society. All affect, and are affected by, the nature and conduct of the process.

4.1 Nine themes - factors influencing 5H stakeholder relationships through the commercialization process at macro, meso and micro levels

Our findings identify multiple factors influencing knowledge transfer outcomes. These factors can be further grouped according to three levels: macro, meso and micro, aligning with O’Kane et al. (2021). Each level reflects tensions between stakeholders, as we would expect in complex, dynamic innovation service ecosystems.

4.1.1 Macro-level influences (environment (5H1), society (5H2), and government (5H3))

Three themes capture the dynamics of wider institutional change: reluctant evolution, economic primacy, and value competition. Table 3 presents detail of the themes and supporting evidence.

Table 3 Macro-level influences
Full size table

Reluctant evolution (T1)

TTOs provide engagement competencies, supporting universities’ strategic transition into more entrepreneurial forms (Tertiary Education Commission, 2017; NZ Ministry of Business Innovation and Enterprise, 2015). However, universities are complex organizations with long serving staff, and hence continue to rely on legacy competencies. The result is a disconnect between traditional basic research, and later stage, translational research, sought by TNCs embedded in highly competitive markets. TTOs are caught between stakeholders with different goals and working styles. The TTO managers were frustrated, feeling that university resources, attitudes and orientation were lagging behind the market, hampering rather than helping deal-making.

Economic primacy (T2) reflects financialization of the public sector. TTO managers are incentivized to leverage university IP for economic gain. As financial resources confer political power, and government investment in university research is declining (Spicer et al., 2006; Owen-Smith, 2018), TTOs’ access to funds enables proactive shaping of research outputs. However, the risk is crowding out socially valuable projects and for business elites to shape the process in their favour. As one senior manager noted “… we are seeing far more undue influence than we have ever seen. New grant schemes are announced because of direct lobbying. You only get 2–3 months to apply and [funders] decided who was getting the money before the scheme was even announced … it certainly does not look fair or transparent” [fieldnotes, conversation with industry insider]. There are clear issues for subversion of the funding process, and implications for social good.

Value competition (T3) highlights the importance of TTOs in populating TNCs’ innovation pipelines. TNCs compete for the IP underpinning competitively advantaged products and services, and TTOs compete for IP buyers. Time is an important asset, with buyers seeking first mover advantage through access to early-stage projects.

4.1.2 Meso-level influences - TTO competencies (industry (5H4), and university (5H5))

At this meso level, we found a broad spectrum of four TTO competencies: Trust and reputation building, boundary spanning, service quality management, and de-risking (Table 4).

Table 4 Meso-level influences - four TTO competencies
Full size table

Trust & reputation building (T4) Trust accrues from stakeholders’ belief in the integrity of the technology transfer process, particularly with respect to commercial confidentiality; and derives from the aggregate experience of all actors, including internal (university, TTO, university research centres and departments) and external (TNC buyers, and industry). Confidentiality is critical, as IP underpins TNCs’ competitive position in a highly contested industry (pharmaceuticals). TTO managers reported challenges in controlling the discourse, as confidentiality is antithetical to a traditional culture of collegiality and knowledge sharing in public universities. Further challenges arose through opportunistic behaviours and differing perceptions of IP ownership between key actors (university, TTOs, and IP producers). Trust-building requires TTOs to adopt a policing role in order to moderate undesirable stakeholder behaviours and maintain relationships.

Boundary spanning (T5) TTO managers were skilled in ‘managing expectations both ways’ and ‘ensuring everyone wants [the deal]’ [Medtech Manager, TTO1 - Pharma Manager], moving within and between physical (geographical, people, organisational) and cognitive (technological, cultural, regulatory) structures. External boundary spanning activities were directed at achieving market insight and stronger customer relationships. Industry change was a constant due to mergers and acquisitions, divestments, and portfolio swaps [TTO3 - Life Sciences BD Manager], placing pressure on TTO managers to maintain currency. In order to ensure congruence between IP produced and what is likely to be demanded TTO managers monitored internal research activities and maintained visibility through regular and close interaction with researchers. Proactivity was required, “because sometimes [researchers] don’t think to tell you or don’t think that it’s particularly inventive”. [TTO1 - Pharma Manager]. Geographic remoteness presented particular challenges in the ANZ region:

… if you don’t have anyone in country it is very difficult to build relationships … [TNC’s are] bombarded with opportunities in the US and Europe and you quickly get forgotten … in Boston a lot of the companies are right on your doorstep, so it’s easier to meet people through various networking events [TTO2, Commercialisation Manager].

Long-distance relationships require extra effort and resources, compromises quality and quantity of communication, and sacrifices serendipity. TNCs view ANZ as a less important region compared with (for example) China and Singapore; and local partnering conferences are not well attended by TNC representatives. Consequently, ANZ IP providers were at a cost and service disadvantage compared with their northern hemisphere counterparts.

Service quality management (T6) Quality assurance of technology outputs is essential to building strong relationships and achieving desired results for all stakeholders. While TTOs were focused on meeting service promises, goal incongruence between researchers and industry presented challenges to quality, as a result of differing expectations and world views. Managing timelines was problematic. TTOs have little authority and cannot force researchers to meet important milestone deadlines. Furthermore, researchers may have unrealistic perceptions of IP novelty and value (i.e., are product- rather than market-centric), which caused frustration.

De-risking (T7) was seen to be mission critical: “… a strategic partner would only take on a technology that has been adequately de-risked.” [TTO1 Medtech Manager]. De-risking practices included gaining buyer feedback in early-stage research to reduce risk of mismatch; supporting technical feasibility through realistic feedback from internal experts; and seeking input from legal experts. Additionally, TTOs alleviated buyer risk through direct investment, forming spin-out companies as acquisition targets. Finally, as transgressing ethical, legal or funding requirements was a source of risk, TTOs invested in education. TTO 3 Life Sciences BD Manager related a story of opportunistic behaviours by a TNC partner, concluding: “… We still ended up working with them, but they were very much made to understand that they had done something wrong.” The importance of de-risking again highlights the strategically consequential nature of IP investment decisions.

4.1.3 Micro-level influences – IP production and transfer tensions (5H5 – universities)

At micro level, we find two tensions arising from forces affecting both TTOs and researchers: Resourcing pressure and Tech push and market pull (Table 5).

Table 5 Micro-level influences – two IP production tensions
Full size table

Resourcing pressure (T8): The TTO managers were realistic about scientists’ capacity for producing commercializable IP, and addressed that issue through careful management. The need to tread delicately permeated the managers’ accounts, i.e., how to allocate scarce IP resources without alienating buyers, and how to solicit IP resources without alienating producers. At the same time, TTO managers reported pressures of work. In smaller organisations (e.g., TTO2) a single individual was responsible for most operational functions (internal relations, business development, legal, licensing, administration), a prodigious workload. All reported managing multiple relationships (university management, researchers, TNC partners) and multiple projects, working on as many as 10–12 relationships and projects in a typical day. Others reported being immediate points of contact for 160–200 researchers, creating opportunity costs, reducing the frequency of communication and therefore trust: “… you have to accept that you’re not going to be able to support everyone.” [TTO3 - Life Sciences BD Director].

Tech push and market pull (T9): Traditionally, IP producers challenge the frontiers of science (technology push), thus enhancing university and researcher reputations and contributing to a flourishing society. However, in the entrepreneurial university, IP producers must also meet the needs of IP buyers (market pull) for competitively advantaged end-user solutions. These tensions play out in TTO-researcher relationships, resulting in both ad hoc opportunism and taking more strategic approaches to research. Some are proactive, furthering industry relationships and integrating the TTO in the research process. At the top end, outstanding researchers create entrepreneurial spin-outs (e.g. Fibrotech Therapeutics, Spinifex Pharmaceuticals (Refraction Media, 2016). While most collaborate with TTOs to progress the venture, others can self commercialise [fieldnotes]. Tensions can result: “Highly competent researchers [work through TTOs] except in companies where hype trumps reality … the TTO can certainly slow things down sometimes [however] avoiding the TTO does not change IP ownership … they will still have to come back to the Uni to negotiate for it …” [fieldnotes, conversation with commercialisation expert]. IP ownership necessitates engagement with the university, and hence the TTO. However, informants noted instances of opportunism, where researchers failed to consult with the TTO, and suffered the consequences. The reference to ‘hype trumping reality’ reflected this manager’s frustration with inaccurate reportage of progress or content of IP.

Overall, we found nine factors influencing knowledge transfer outcomes at three levels. At macro level, rapid change in globalised, deregulated, hyper-competitive markets has affected all 5H stakeholders (T1 Reluctant evolution, T2 Economic primacy). TNCs are under shareholder pressure for profitable revenue growth (T2 Economic primacy) and are hence engaging in proactive global search for advantage-conferring IP (T3 value competition). In response, at meso-level, TTOs have developed competencies in trust and reputation building (T4), boundary spanning (T5), service quality assurance (T6) and de-risking (T7). At micro-level, in a dynamic, resource-constrained environment within the entrepreneurial university, scientists must do more with less (T8 Resourcing pressure). As well as increased demands for teaching and service, scientists are under pressure to produce unique, ground-breaking IP that meets market needs (T9 Technology push and market pull). TTOs must therefore leverage the capabilities of a wide range of individuals - resistant and co-creative, opportunistic and strategically proactive - with scarce time and energy resources under conditions of market remoteness.

5 Discussion

5.1 How do TTOs facilitate stakeholder relationships?

Rather than a set of simple cause-effect relationships, the findings showed complex, non-linear and often conflicting innovation processes, interactions and practices. TTOs navigate a difficult path between entrenched traditions and the new, globalised entrepreneurial university. Extending the work of Bercovitz and Feldman (2008), we found that TTOs played an important role in tension resolution, seeking goal alignment between traditional stakeholders (universities, governments) and TNCs with superior resources and political power. Supporting previous research, the managers asserted higher order motivations, congruent with universities’ social contract and trust in relationships – supporting academics’ welfare, prioritising internal reputation and future IP disclosure and commercial engagement (Owen-Smith & Powell, 2001, 2003). Relational damage was seen to compromise commercially successful outcomes (Macho-Stadler et al., 2007). Trust rather than overt control mechanisms demonstrated stewardship rather than agency orientation, supporting and extending Davis et al. (1997) (Table 6):

Table 6 Relationship characteristics of ANZ TTOs – agency vs. stewardship.
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

TTO facilitation practices in the technology transfer process

Full size image

Supporting (Miller et al., 2018) and (Debackere & Veugelers, 2005), the TTOs actively reduced tensions within and between stakeholders, addressing the mismatch between traditional ‘pure’ science, versus the pragmatic realities of C21st technology markets. Relational engagement requires two competencies: Trust and reputation building (theme 4), and Boundary spanning (theme 5). By maintaining transparent communications, keeping promises, and guarding the reputations of internal actors, the TTO managers established trusting buyer-seller relationships. Enduring linkages were created, internally, and globally, despite the challenges of remoteness. The second set of practices, value co-creation, requires two competencies, service quality management (theme 6) and de-risking (theme 7). Value was co-created and co-produced, as TTOs engaged in an interactive process of resource integration within the university innovation service ecosystem (Storbacka et al., 2016a, b). The outcome was high quality (i.e. proprietary and efficacious) IP, available to buyers reliably and timely.

5.2 How do TTO’s integrate university competencies and market demand?

The findings contributed two main insights. First, TTO managers are highly skilled individuals, who facilitate buyer-seller relationships through translational engagement and value co-creation in conditions of resource scarcity. Second, the outcomes of technology transfer create economic value, and are thus subject to contestation between 5H stakeholders. Supporting Aldridge and Audretsch (2010) and Huyghe et al. (2016), TTOs are more likely to back commercialisation of mid-range science, as at the lower end researchers are not commercially inclined, and at the top end, more entrepreneurial researchers self-commercialise. The implication is that the ‘cream’ of supernormal returns is privatized rather than reinvested back into IP-producing assets such as researchers and equipment. Government funding is therefore important, both for basic research and to avoid Type 2 error (the risk of not pursuing IP with unforeseen social or commercial potential). In short, while TNCs seek to maximise short run shareholder returns, universities offer patient capital by supporting risky, socially important basic research over commercially infeasible timeframes. TTOs support both goals through building relationships within the wider university innovation service ecosystem, operating in support of the university’s social charter.

Further, supporting the evolutionary economics perspective (e.g., Freeman and Soete, 1997) the findings show that TNCs create selection pressure; shaping upstream innovation through their buying power, reinforcing Goel and Göktepe-Hultén (2018)’s observation that “Due to the dominance of big established firms in getting access to academic knowledge, the nature of the research may be skewed and lead to narrower patents.” (p.254). In this respect, the findings highlight the challenges presented to university research through short-termism in corporate governance and capital markets, and the retreat of private finance from R&D (Mazzucato & Semieniuk, 2017; Pisano, 2006). Therefore, debate about how to fund innovation is important – particularly innovation that addresses grand challenges affecting environment (5H1) and civil society (5H2) such as clean energy, quality of life, food security, and climate change, which require transformative (i.e., disruptive and risky) approaches unlikely to be funded from private sources.

6 Conclusion

Addressing the calls to investigate technology transfer within the university innovation service ecosystem more holistically (de Falani Bezerra & Torkomian, 2023; Good et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2018), this study emphasises the importance of a wider view of quintuple helix (5H) stakeholders including society and the environment. This study extends current knowledge about how TTOs facilitate stakeholder relationships through the technology commercialization process, by integrating university competencies and market demand. The research highlighted that TTOs’ power is increasing, as research follows funding. TTOs’ economic power is growing through relational ties, and through access to ‘home-grown’ financial resources. Thus, TTOs are rapidly becoming playmakers in a dynamic and rapidly evolving university innovation service ecosystem.

As universities are configured for exploration rather than exploitation, public-private partnership is the logical solution to realising non-economic (i.e., environmental and social) returns from research, particularly in the life sciences. While taxpayers and governments carry the risk of frontier-extending research, care is required to ensure that returns reflect risk and assets employed, and that important but commercially unremunerative projects are not crowded out. TTOs are thus in a unique and dangerous position, caught in a changing environment, between powerful stakeholders, in a consequential process.

6.1 Implications for practice

TTOs’ important contributions should be adequately resourced and overseen in line with environmental, social and institutional goals and strategies. Government investment in joint knowledge ventures (e.g., tax credits and grant fund matching with TNCs) will support innovation network building, successful commercialisation projects, and enhance ANZ’s reputation in the global life sciences arena. TTO-led government-TNC collaboration may increase TNC engagement in ANZ. Investment in a physical presence at international industry conferences is important. Research funding allocation should support both basic and applied research, to ensure groundbreaking and hence commercially riskier ‘blue skies’ projects are not crowded out. Policy makers should consider strategies to reduce complexity, e.g., consolidating multiple grants into fewer types and simplifying the application and reporting process. Equitable outcomes for all 5H stakeholders are important, particularly ‘silent’ stakeholders such as the environment, non-human actors, and future generations. Therefore, oversight of funding decisions through an independent watchdog organisation including representatives from student and academic researchers, tertiary unions, university managers, policy makers and industry is essential to ensure the integrity of the system, and to assure equitable outcomes from public investment in research. The goal must be maintaining universities’ social charter, avoiding the risks of commercial short-term opportunism, privatized profits and socialized losses, and stifling of environmentally and socially important science.

6.2 Implications for further research

This study focuses on deeper understanding and sensemaking (i.e. generalisation to theory) about the nature and conduct of a complex process rather than statistical generalisation. Therefore, wider questions remain unanswered. For example, the market shaping role of TNCs and TTOs is generally viewed uncritically in the innovation literature, as is the university innovation service system as a whole, particularly with respect to sustainability-oriented innovation. Research measuring magnitude and incidence of the factors discovered could draw on larger samples. While observation and secondary data analysis provided insight, direct reportage from TNCs, researchers and university administrators offer further opportunities for research. Finally, broadening the research to encompass all 5H stakeholders in the university innovation service ecosystem would highlight ethical and operational issues in relationships between environment, society, government, industry, and universities.