Critical Factors in Technology Transfer Office (TTO) Process That Support Successful Technology Transfer Within Research
Universities (RUs)
Roszaimah Muhammad Sapah1*, Mass Hareeza Ali1, Rahinah Ibrahim2
1 School of Business and Economics, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
2 Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 August 2022 | Published: 1 September 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2022.4.3.5
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to analyse potentially significant factors in a series of relevant characteristics of universities’ technology transfer offices (TTOs). Previous studies stated that TTO plays an important role in shaping the direction of technology transfer growth in Research Universities (RUs) and could increase the economic growth. However, the success rate of commercialization in RUs innovations are low when compared to start-ups/spinoffs companies against the Intellectual Properties Rights (IPR) produced. Therefore, there is a need to enhance the role of TTO in RUs to enable successful technology transfer. This study conducts a systematic literature review synthesis to identify role and responsibilities of TTO in the process of commercialization, determine critical factors for enabling successful technology transfer and understanding RUs innovation ecosystem for enhancing successful technology transfer. The results provide evidence that TTO which has appropriate institutional structure with entrepreneurial activities could facilitate development of academic entrepreneurship roles thereby motivating successful RUs technology transfer. These results are expected to improve the successful commercialization rate of universities inventions in consistent with the regional economic growth in Malaysia. Future studies are recommended to include development of a framework for nurturing strategic entrepreneurship within TTO to enhance commercialization of innovation through RUs technology transfer.
Keywords: Research Universities, Technology Transfer, Start-ups Companies, Technology Transfer Office, Commercialization
JEL classification: C01, O31, O32, O34
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Technology transfer from universities to the industry has long been recognized as a key driver for the regional economic growth because technology produced can foster competitiveness, business innovations and social development. Malaysian Research Universities (MRUs) were established in 2007 in Malaysia to help spearhead R&D and innovation to assist the country to become an innovation-led economy. The Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) and Universiti Malaya (UM) have been recognised as a Research University in 2006, while Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) was recognised in 2010. Liew et al. (2013) states that universities can enhance the
effectiveness of technology transfer activities by establishing a clear strategic goal and aligning all their activities towards the direction. Moreover, commercialization of innovations is considered as a prime example for generating the technology impact because it constitutes immediate and measurable market acceptance (Markman et al., 2008; Algieri et al., 2013).
Studies have pointed out that a TTO may have a broader role by not only addressing specific licensing and spin-off/start-ups topics but also engaging in competence-building activities into a variety of topics with many actors involved in technology transfer such as entrepreneur researchers, government, and industry. This study draws upon Theory of Knowledge Spillover (Acs et al., 2006) and Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship (Ireland et al., 2003) on the issue related to technology transfer and entrepreneurship in commercialization of innovations.
Knowledge spillovers was defined as the external benefits from the creation of knowledge that accrue to parties other than the creator and occur at multiple levels of analysis. Meanwhile, strategic entrepreneurship highlights the complementarities within strategy and entrepreneurship that requires a dual focus on creating change, exploiting, or appropriating the value through the change. Fusion of the two concepts provide a valuable analysis of the causes and consequences of entrepreneurial action toward either creation and/or appropriation of value through investments in knowledge. Hence, this paper presents a preliminary exploration on understanding potential significant factors in a series of relevant characteristics of universities’ technology transfer offices (TTOs).
2. Methodology
The literature review study follows the unique “Systematic Literature Review Synthesis Process” (Ibrahim & Mustafa Kamal, 2018) in Masiran, et al. (2020). This process is a stand- alone literature review typology (Rousseau, Manning & Denyer, 2008; Yu & Watson, 2019;
Templier & Paré, 2015) known to make sense of a selected body of existing literature leading to decisions regarding the background theoretical context in an early research ideation phase.
Topics were identified using Ibrahim’s (2011 & 2020) research question’s (RQ) construct categorization technique for identifying three different RQ Construct “WHO”, WHAT” and
“HOW” in formulating a main research question. “WHO” is defined as the element being impacted by the study, “WHAT” is the information or body of knowledge required to solve the problem, and “HOW” is the targeted impact by the study.
This study selected related articles under Research Universities (RUs) technology transfer for reporting. The literature articles were identified using Scopus website and using the keywords related to the selected major themes such as roles and responsibilities of TTO, start-ups and spin offs companies process of formation and RUs innovation ecosystem. After title search and filtering out full research papers from year 2017 a total of 210 of journal articles were identified. The abstracts were reviewed and assigned to the best relevant smaller sub-themes.
The distribution into the smaller sub-themes was based on their existential importance since the study notes that new, but critical, emerging theme may have lesser literature articles. Their abstracts were reviewed in term of their major findings by prior scholars, how their works could support future studies, and what aspects need to be enhanced. The top 35 reviews with strong potential to solve the main study’s problem were selected for the further literature synthesis process. This exercise produces a synthesized summary for each main themes which went further cross-analysis, integration of possibilities, and prioritization of the synthesized summaries towards high probable solutions for enhancing Research Universities (RUs) technology transfer. The resulting key synthesized summaries are presented in the “Point of Departure (POD) Tree Diagram” adapted from Ibrahim and Mustafa Kamal (2018) discussed
at the conclusion of this study. This study used the EAGLE Navigator online system to document the systematic literature review synthesis process and adapted the results for reporting in this study.
3. Research Universities (RUs) Technology Transfer
This section covers roles and responsibilities of TTO, start-ups/spin off companies process of formation and innovation ecosystem. The objective is to identify key elements in RUs technology transfer process of commercialization.
3.1 Roles and Responsibilities of TT
Roles and responsibilities of TTO are important elements in elucidating the technology transfer process flow in universities commercialization of innovation. For that reason, this study preformed systematic review of available evidence for this element. According to Fernández- Alles et al. (2018), there are potentially significant differences in a series of relevant characteristics of universities’ TTOs assigned to the enhancement of university entrepreneurship. Thus, understanding the design and development of productive TTO organizational structure has become another area of fruitful research (Berkowitz et al., 2001;
Secundo et al., 2019; Closs, et al., 2012). Meanwhile, Mascarenhas et al. (2019) stated that the promotion and awareness of IPRs and knowledge-sharing processes have been the main drivers of patent registrations as demonstrated by the increase in contracts for technology and knowledge transfer. However, inhomogeneity of TTO services across different universities results in an inconsistent relationship between TTO formation and the rate of technology transfer activities (Clarysse et al., 2014; Rahim et al., 2019). Hence, RUs technology transfer should focus on align the mission statement and organisational structure resources that affect the effectiveness of the TTO (Secundo et al., 2016; Secundo et al., 2017) by highlighted on the regulation of intellectual property (IP) ownership and negotiating with business partners (Mascarenhas et al., 2019; Closs, L et al., 2012).
According to Huyghe et al. (2016), TTO awareness is only greater among researchers who possess experience as entrepreneurs, have closed many research and consulting contracts with industry partners in the field of medicine, engineering, life sciences, or occupy postdoctoral positions. Meanwhile, significant changes observed in the structure and mission of TTOs (Siegel & Wright, 2015) paralleled by emergence of the tangible performance measures that reflects the efficiency of TTO in transferring technology to the industry (Siegel et al., 2003;
Chapple et al., 2005; Schoen et al., 2014). According to Corsi and Prencipe (2016), TTO seems to be a form of support to reach optimal exploitation of the innovative activities. Therefore, Fernández-Alles et al. (2018) concluded that the number of academic spin-offs created with the support of TTOs, the age and degree of professionalization of these TTOs, the experiences of their employees in matters related to entrepreneurship and their relationships with market actors explain the different levels of commitment of TTOs toward the enhancement of university entrepreneurship.
However, Secundo et al. (2019) only focused on TTO successful promotion of academic entrepreneurship by using performance metric as the form of self-assessment to the intellectual capital indicators; human capital, structural capital, and relational capital. Furthermore, Closs et al. (2012) focussing on lack of information on how to patent an invention and the need to adapt the language of their finding to the standards for writing the patent application. In parallel with the evolving literatures, one of the TTOs network’s main achievements is number of universities in IP applications, was undoubtedly the creation of IP regulations that eventually
standardized the protection of universities’ R&D activities (Mascarenhas et al., 2019).
Notwithstanding, Lee and` Jung (2021) confirmed that TTO operation capability has a positive impact on technology commercialization performance only for universities possessing a high level of applied research capability. Bases on the above, this study defines TTO being a centre of innovation ecosystem that has appropriate institutional structures with integrated incentive system policies could facilitate synergies supporting scientists’ entrepreneurial characteristics thereby increase commercialization of innovation in RUs.
3.2 Start-ups/spin offs process of formation
There are various type of universities technology transfer including start-ups/spin offs companies that are formed to execute academic entrepreneurship research products. These companies are essential for initiating commercialization of universities innovation. Therefore, this study performed systematic revies on Start-ups/spin offs process of formation. According to O'Shea et al. (2008) university spin off activity or university innovations stimulates economies by spurring product development, creating new industries, and contributing to employment and wealth creation (Bjørnåli & Gulbrandsen, 2010; Sternberg, 2014; Szopa et al., 2015; Iacobucci et al., 2020). Therefore, Carrasco and Aceytuno (2015) express that the incubation strategies developed in the universities is to promote the creation of university spin- off. Similarly, Tantawy et al. (2021) states that start-ups formation bringing creativity back to entrepreneurship education and new ventures depend on the capability of entrepreneurs to transform an idea or a technology into a successful company (Belitski & Heron, 2017; Choi &
Markham, 2019; Blankesteijn et al., 2020; Bolzani et al., 2021; Sansone et al., 2021) by creative self-efficacy, creative process engagement, and entrepreneurial intentions. In the other hand, the involvement of technology transfer officers in the development of university start-ups connected to a psychological ownership perspective and a lack of their concordance with unfavourable integration process attributes (Chugh, 2013; Korshunova et al., 2021). Despite that, most start-ups fail within two years of their launch because of a poor problem-solution fit and negligence of the learning process during minimum viable product development (Gregorio
& Shane, 2003; Tripathi et al., 2019)
Therefore, creative self-efficacy encourages the development of entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurship education practical favours the creation of academic spinoffs (Chugh, 2013;
Tantawy et al., 2021; Sansone & al., 2021). According to Gregorio and Shane (2003) the intellectual eminence of the university and the policies of making equity investments in start- ups and maintaining a low inventor share of royalties increase new firm formation activity. In addition, six ecosystem elements (entrepreneurs, technology, market, support factors, finance, and human capital) affects the minimum viable products development (Carrasco & Aceytuno, 2015; Corsi & Prencipe, 2016; Tripathi et al., 2019). Korshunova et al. (2021) assert that lack of national-cultural fit and low performance of the integration team as additional potential pitfalls during start-ups formation. O'Shea et al. (2008) defines that individual and contextual factor need to be recognized by universities in implementing technology transfer policies, thus, development and performance of spin offs and the economic impact of spinoff activity provide a parsimonious description of the outcomes of spin offs activities.
However, Chugh (2013) only focused on TTO develop psychological ownership for the start- up through the investment of the self and control routes. In the other hand, Tantawy et al. (2021) focused on creativity as a central role in entrepreneurship education that aim to nurture students’ beliefs in their creativity by engaging students in creative activities, thus, promote entrepreneurial behaviour in terms of innovation, product development and marketing. Hence, entrepreneurship education positively related to the creation of academic spinoffs, thus allows
universities to create more academic spinoffs and to better valorise the results obtained from research (Gregorio & Shane, 2003; Tripathi et al., 2019; Sansone et al., 2021). Therefore, the incubation support offered by the university is an essential and determining element of the effective innovation strategy, enhancing the full exploitation of university spinoffs innovation opportunities (Carrasco & Aceytuno, 2015; Corsi & Prencipe, 2016). Therefore, this study proposed on examine the specific characteristics of start-ups or spin offs formation process that need robust entrepreneurship include the entrepreneurship interest and orientation to technology transfer officer dealing with entrepreneurship experiences (Gregorio & Shane, 2003; O'Shea et al.,2008; Corsi & Prencipe, 2016). In summary, the study found that start-ups/
spin offs formation process needs entrepreneurial activity including entrepreneurship interest and experiences with robust entrepreneurship enhancing the commercialization process through RUs technology transfer.
3.3 RUs Innovation ecosystem
Innovation ecosystem is a complex relationship that are formed between actors or entities whose functional goal is to enable technology development and innovation. Previous studies found that this ecosystem is a very important elements in enhancing technology transfer and commercialization from universities. In line with that, this study performed systematic reviews on RUs innovation ecosystem. Entrepreneurial university generates technology advances and facilitates the technology diffusion process through intermediaries such as TTO and the creation of incubators or science parks that spawn new firms (Rothaermel et al., 2007).
Therefore, Audretsch et al. (2021) stated that if regional policy makers aim to increase the productive of entrepreneurship, the emphasis should be on establishing supportive regulative institutional arrangements and government programs, increase informal networks and promote entrepreneurial culture. Thus, this environment should be in close interconnection with each other and use strategic approach when dealing with issues of obtaining commercial value (Kireyeva et al., 2020; Lee & Jung, 2021). According to Bandera and Thomas (2019), innovation ecosystems, including technology parks and incubators, endeavour to achieve a high density of start-ups that is rich in social capital to help tenants evolve.
This study found TTO as the main body for academic entrepreneurship need to enhance entrepreneurial activity in supporting mentorship and encourage networking and proximity more comprehensively for successful of technology transfer. Whereas successful promotion of academic entrepreneurship is a determining factor in the pursuit of university entrepreneurialism (Wood, 2011; Secundo et al., 2019; Adelowo et al., 2020; Civera et al., 2020; Sensone et al., 2021). In line with that, Mascarenhas et al. (2019) stated that TTOs is important in terms of fostering patent applications and technology transfer in countries and (Cedano et al., 2021) defining strategies to improve success of technology transfer efforts as integrated tool for risk assessment in transferring new technology. According to Gong et al.
(2020), the innovation value chain of patents is a breakthrough in the patent commercialization trap in universities as it is an effective tool for analysing innovation activities and reflects the process of value creation. As example, Stanford University environment encourages creativity and entrepreneurship with details best practices for creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem to enhance successful of commercialization (Eesley & Miller, 2018). Therefore, the regulation of intellectual property (IP) ownership and royalty sharing with inventors was identified as a major result, strengthening entrepreneurial universities’ role (Bandera & Thomas, 2019;
Mascarenhas et al., 2019; Gong et al., 2020; Cedano et al., 2021).
In addition, market technology assessment, technology roadmap and business model on technology commercialization strategy as useful tool to communicate the risk level to the team member and raising awareness of those risk (Cedano et al., 2021).
4. Discussion on synthesis findings
This section will now cross-analyses, integrate possibilities, and prioritize the synthesized reviewed summaries under the thematic themes of Research Universities (RUs) technology transfer towards high probable solutions for there is a need to enhance Research Universities (RUs) technology transfer process.
4.1 Roles and Organization Structure of TTO Support Successful RUs Technology Transfer
TTO being a center of RUs innovation ecosystem that has appropriate management and organization structures with integrated incentive system could facilitate synergies supporting academic entrepreneurship characteristics thereby increase technology transfer to industry through start-ups/spinoffs. Currently though, it will enhance the commercialization process of innovation through RUs technology transfer. By focusing on TTO management and organization structures in RUs with robust entrepreneurship, this study could identify and synthesize the characteristics of successful TTO in enhancing RUs technology transfer. Herein, appropriate organization structures of TTO with integrated incentive system policies could facilitate scientists’ entrepreneurial characteristics thereby increase technology transfer to the industry. See Figure 1 illustrating the synthesis flow below.
Figure 1: Point of Departure (POD) Tree Diagram for Study on Roles and Organization Structure of TTO Support Successful RUs Technology Transfer (Adapted from Ibrahim & Mustafa Kamal, 2018)
Explicitly, the greater entrepreneurial activity with robust entrepreneurship that include the entrepreneurship interest and experiences the greater growth potential of start-ups/spinoffs companies. Inevitable, TTO as the main body for academic entrepreneurship need to enhance strategic entrepreneurship in supporting mentorship formal relationships that will improve networking and technology transfer comprehensively. Figure 2 is the proposed conceptual framework showing relationships of key constructs in formulating a successful TTO support for technology transfer in RUs.
Figure 2: Proposed Conceptual Framework for Roles and Organization Structure of TTO Support Successful RUs Technology Transfer (Adapted from Ibrahim & Mustafa Kamal, 2018)
5. Conclusion
The aim of this paper is to identify the critical factors in Technology Transfer Office (TTO) process that support successful Research Universities (RUs) technology transfer. This study concluded with a proposed conceptual framework how roles and organizational structure of TTO could support successful RUs technology transfer. The results are significant because they contribute to enabling TTO to support successful of technology transfers for Rus. These results are expected to improve the successful commercialization rate universities inventions in consistent with the regional economic growth in Malaysia. Future studies are recommended to include development of a framework for nurturing strategic entrepreneurship within TTO to enhance commercialization of innovation through RUs technology transfer.
Acknowledgements
This study is part of a PhD study by the first author at Universiti Putra Malaysia under the sponsorship of Geran Inisiatif Putra Siswazah (GP-IPS/2021/9702800)
References
Abd Rahim, N., Mohamed, Z. B., Amrin, A., Masrom, M., & Azmeela, S. (2019).
Conceptualization and measurement of university technology transfer office efficiency as a formative construct.
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2006). CESIS The Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship The Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship.
Adelowo, C. M. & Surujlal, J. (2020). Academic entrepreneurship and traditional academic performance at universities: Evidence from a developing country. Nigeria, 22(1):
10.17512/pjms.2020.22.1.01.
Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 271–283.
Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.
Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., & Cherkas, N. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: The role of institutions. PLoS ONE, 16(3 March 2021).
Bandera, C., & Thomas, E. (2019). The Role of Innovation Ecosystems and Social Capital in Startup Survival. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 66(4), 542–551.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2859162
Berkowitz, J., Feldman, M., Hopkins, J., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (n.d.) (2001). Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An
Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21-35
Belitski, M. and Heron, K. (2017). Expanding entrepreneurship education ecosystems. Journal of Management Development, 36(2), 163-177. ISSN 0262-1711 doi:
https://doi.org/10.11 08/JMD-06-2016-0121
Blankesteijn, M., Bossink, B., & van der Sijde, P. (2020). Science-based entrepreneurship education as a means for university-industry technology transfer. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.
Cedano, K. & Hernández-Granados, A. (2021). Defining strategies to improve success of technology transfer efforts: An integrated tool for risk assessment. Japan, 64.
Civera, A., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2020). Engagement of academics in university technology transfer: Opportunity and necessity academic entrepreneurship.
European Economic Review, 123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103376
Corsi, C., & Prencipe, A. (2016) Improving Innovation in University Spin-Offs. The Fostering Role of University and Region. In J. Technol. Manag. (Vol. 11, Issue 2).
http://jotmi.org
Closs, L., Ferreira, G. C., Soria, A. F., Sampaio, C. H., & Perin, M. (2012). Organizational Factors that Affect the University-Industry Technology Transfer Processes of a Private University. In J. Technol. Manag. Innov (Vol. 7, Issue 1).
Clarysse, B.,Wright, M., Bruneel, J. & Mahajan, A. (2014) Creating value in ecosystems:
Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7): 1164-117610.1016/j.respol.2014.04.014.
Chugh, H. (2013) The involvement of technology transfer officers in the development of university start-ups: A psychological ownership perspective. United Kingdom, 19(4), 10.1108/ IJEBR-11-2011-0149.
Eesley, C. E., & Miller, W. F. (2018). Impact: Stanford University’s economic impact via innovation and entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 130-278.
Fernandez-Alles, M., Diánez-González, J. P., Rodríguez-González, T., & Villanueva-Flores, M. (2019). TTO characteristics and university entrepreneurship: a cluster analysis.
Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(4), 861–889.
Fitzgerald, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Inside the university technology transfer office:
mission statement analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1235–1246.
Gong, H., Nie, L., Peng, Y., Peng, S., & Liu, Y. (2020). The innovation value chain of patents:
Breakthrough in the patent commercialization trap in Chinese universities. Plos one, 15(3), e0230805.
Gregorio, D. di, & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? In Research Policy (Vol. 32).
Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Piva, E., & Wright, M. (2016). Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9757-2 Ibrahim, R. (2008). Setting up a research question for determining the research methodology.
ALAM CIPTA International Journal on Sustainable Tropical Design Research &
Practice, 3(1), 99-102.
Ibrahim, R. (2011). Demystifying the arduous doctoral journey: The eagle vision of a research proposal. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), pp130-140.
Ibrahim, R. & Mustafa Kamal, R. (2018). Templates for Thinking. (Unpublished Literary.
Copyright MYIPO LY2018002437).
Kireyeva, A. A., Turdalina, S., Mussabalina, D., Turlybekova, N. M., Akhmetova, Z. B. (2020).
Analysis of the efficiency technology transfer offices in management: The case of Spain and Kazakhstan.Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business (8), 735–
746. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO8.735
Masiran, R., Ibrahim, N., Awang, H., & Lim, P. Y. (2020). Improving multicultural parenting program for children with emotional and behavioral problems: an integrated review.
Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 101851.
Mueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 355–362.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9035-9
Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C. S., Galvão, A. R., Carlucci, D., Falcão, P. F., & Ferreira, F. A.
(2019). Analyzing technology transfer offices’ influence for entrepreneurial universities in Portugal. Management Decision.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.respol.2012.09.007
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). 11 Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475-515.
Secundo, G., De Beer, C., Fai, F. M., & Schutte, C. S. (2019). Increasing university entrepreneurialism: Qualitative insights from the technology transfer office.
Measuring Business Excellence.
Sansone, G., Battaglia, D., Landoni, P., & Paolucci, E. (2021). Academic spinoffs: the role of entrepreneurship education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(1), 369-399.
Szopa, A., Marek, T., & Fafrowicz, M. (2015). Socio-cultural Circumstances to Establish University Spin-off Companies. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3677–3681.
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.780
Siegel, D.S. and Wright, M. (2015), Academic entrepreneurship: time to rethink? British Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No.4, pp. 582-595
Sternberg, R. (2014). Success factors of university-spinoffs: Regional government support programs versus regional environment. Technovation, 34(3), 137–148.
https://doi.org/1 0.1016/j.technovation.2013.11.003
Tantawy, M., Herbert, K., McNally, J. J., Mengel, T., Piperopoulos, P., & Foord, D. (2021).
Bringing creativity back to entrepreneurship education: Creative self-efficacy, creative process engagement, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 15, e00239.
Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 6.
Thomas, V. J., Bliemel, M., Shippam, C., & Maine, E. (2019). Endowing university spin-offs pre-formation: Entrepreneurial capabilities for scientist-entrepreneurs.
Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102153
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112.