Value creation through technology transfer from university to industry in Iran; Mixed Method

Saberikohan, Shirin; Kasraee, Ahmad Reza; Sohrabi, Tahmorath

doi:10.22034/jvcbm.2025.523228.1558

Value creation through technology transfer from university to industry in Iran; Mixed Method

Document Type : Original Article (Mixed)

Authors

Shirin Saberikohan ¹

Ahmad Reza Kasraee ²

Tahmorath Sohrabi ²

¹ Department of Technology Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University

² Department of Industrial Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/jvcbm.2025.523228.1558

Abstract

Abstract
This research aims to address the challenge of universities in commercializing technology and strengthen cooperation between universities and industry, presenting a comprehensive model for technology transfer from universities to industry. The research method is a mixed method, applicable in terms of purpose, and exploratory in nature. The statistical population in the qualitative section was articles in the field of technology transfer and academic commercialization published in the two databases Scopus and Web of Science from 2013 to 2023. The data collection tool was a systematic review of previous studies, selection of articles based on the criteria of the PRISMA method; and the data analysis method was the meta-synthesis method. In the quantitative part, a researcher-made questionnaire and library resources were used to collect data, and its statistical population was Iranian public universities in 2024 and the sampling method was purposive. SPSS and Smart PLS software were used to analyze and evaluate the results. In the qualitative section, first, the environmental factors affecting technology transfer from university to industry were categorized into 5 main categories: "technology supplier characteristics", "technology recipient characteristics", "technology characteristics", "region characteristics", and "laws and regulations". Then, their relationship to each other and to technology transfer methods was evaluated. The results showed that among the identified environmental factors; "laws and regulations" have the greatest impact on the methods of technology transfer from university to industry. Also, "technology characteristic" has a direct effect on "sales-based technology transfer methods", and "technology supplier characteristic" has a direct effect on "consultation-based technology transfer methods". However, the "technology recipient characteristics" and "regional characteristics" do not directly affect the methods of technology transfer.
Introduction
Today, the mission of universities is no longer limited to education and research, and their mission to contribute to the economic growth and social well-being of the regions in which they are located is obvious (Abramo & D’Angelo, 2022). In this regard, one of the duties of universities is technology transfer. Technology transfer is an iterative, continuous, and strategic process that requires close collaboration between all stakeholders (Bustamante et al., 2021). Despite the many benefits of technology transfer from university to industry, knowledge diffusion processes become more complex over time (Wang & Liu, 2022). Numerous evidences indicate that the complexities of the commercialization process and the existence of various obstacles in its path mean that despite the technical success of a large number of research projects, few of them successfully pass the commercialization stage (Battaglia et al., 2021). Each of the previous studies has looked at this issue from a specific perspective and by considering some factors. But the process of technology transfer from university to industry takes place in the dynamic environment of the "innovation ecosystem," where all interactions between its different elements influence the ultimate success of this process. Therefore, identifying all factors affecting technology transfer (internal and external factors of universities and industry) and examining the simultaneous relationship between these factors can lead to the identification of important factors in this process. In addition, different universities use different methods to transfer technology to industry. Therefore, examining whether universities can use any desired method for technology transfer, regardless of their environmental characteristics, can facilitate interaction between universities and industry in technology transfer policymaking. For this purpose, this research aims to provide a quantitative model to predict and determine the relationships between factors and measure their effects. In this regard, the main research question is: To what extent do environmental factors affect each other and the methods of technology transfer in technology transfer from university to industry?
Theoretical framework
Features of the technology provider (University)
There are several factors in universities that influence the commercialization of academic technology. Contextual factors such as the nature, size, and geographical location (Zhao et al., 2020), the diversity of academic disciplines (Abramo & D’Angelo, 2022), interdisciplinary research (Hsu et al., 2015), the online development of academic services (Petrunia et al., 2019), the university’s skills in communicating with the community and identifying entrepreneurial opportunities (Rocha et al., 2022), university human capital (Marozau & Guerrero, 2016), and individual characteristics of researchers such as age, gender, academic rank, and research performance (Abramo & D’Angelo, 2022) can influence academics’ opportunities to interact with industry. Also, technology intermediary structures are considered a resource for facilitating the transfer and commercial exploitation of academically produced knowledge (Marozau & Guerrero, 2016).
Technology Receiver Features (Industry)
According to the World Bank report, although universities play an important role in innovation systems, the importance of their role in most industrial economies is significantly influenced by factors such as the structure of the domestic industry, the size of the industry, the number and composition of human and social capital, and the business model of industrial firms (Calcagnini & Favaretto, 2016).
Technology features
The most important component in creating a link between university and industry is the existence of university technology with characteristics and features that meet the needs of industry and society (Amirghodsi et al., 2020). Academic technology will be valuable when it results in the production of a product that is competitively priced, in line with foreign models, environmentally friendliness, ergonomic, and resource-saving (Chukhray & Mrykhina, 2018).
Regional features
Factors such as the existence of social ties (Taheri et al., 2016), mutual benefits of innovation ecosystem stakeholders (Dell’Anno & del Giudice, 2015), interaction between regional universities (Rocha et al., 2022), the existence of a strong innovation network (Perkmann et al., 2013), the diversity of industrial sectors in geographical proximity to universities (Perkmann et al., 2013), and the characteristics and advantages of… (Agasisti et al., 2023) can enhance technology transfer from university to industry.
Rules and regulations
In university-industry relations, many policies and programs of the higher education sector; at national, regional, and university levels, have a direct impact on technology transfer.
The government's general policies towards higher education should be formulated according to the specific situation of the region and pay attention to regional factors that are beyond the control of university administrators (Agasisti et al., 2023). Institutional policies including financial incentives such as an inventor's share of the revenue from the commercialization of knowledge, or non-financial incentives such as the impact of patenting on faculty performance evaluation and promotion or awarding prizes for commercialized inventions, can foster university-industry collaboration (Cullen et al., 2020).
Research methodology
The present study is applicable in terms of purpose, exploratory in nature; and a mixed method including meta-synthesis and structural equation modeling was used to conduct the research. In the qualitative part, a systematic review of sources was conducted in two databases, Scopus and Web of Science, between 2013 and 2023. In the quantitative part, library sources (secondary data) and a researcher-made questionnaire were used to collect data. The sampling method was purposive sampling and the questionnaire was completed by research assistants, directors of industry liaison centers, directors of growth centers, or selected faculty members of public universities.
Research findings
In the qualitative part of the research, factors affecting technology transfer from university to industry were categorized into 137 concepts, 30 subcategories, and 5 main categories including "university characteristics," "industry characteristics," "technology characteristics," "regional characteristics," and "laws and regulations" (Saberi et al., 2025). The quantitative results showed that "technology characteristics" are related to "technology transfer methods based on sales"; "technology supplier characteristics" to "technology transfer methods based on consulting"; and "laws and regulations" to "technology transfer methods based on sales, consulting, joint ventures and service provision". The five main categories are also interconnected. “Technology supplier characteristics” are related to “technology characteristics”, “regional characteristics” are related to “technology recipient characteristics”, and “laws and regulations” affect all other factors.
Conclusion
The present study aimed to present a model of technology transfer from university to industry with an emphasis on environmental components. The findings of this study showed that the higher the level of a technology (Amirghodsi et al., 2020), the greater the demand from industrial companies or foreign entrepreneurs to acquire it. Technology supplier characteristics such as university reputation (Shen et al., 2022), researcher expertise (Rocha et al., 2022), marketing skills (Kalantaridis & Küttim, 2023), university's history of collaboration with industry (Carayannis et al., 2016), and the university's ability to brand technological products (Burkholder & Hulsink, 2022) are among the characteristics that increase industry's sense of trust in the university. Laws and regulations at three levels: internal university guidelines and regulations (Gu, 2023), regional guidelines (Agasisti et al., 2023), and national laws (Xia et al., 2022) were evaluated as factors influencing the success of technology transfer. Some other characteristics of technology suppliers, such as the diversity of academic fields at the university (Ma et al., 2022), interdisciplinary research (Kalantaridis & Küttim, 2023), specialized laboratories and advanced equipment (Gachanja, 2023), adequate financial resources (Kalantaridis & Küttim, 2023), and management support for researchers (Rosdi et al., 2022) can lead to the acquisition of valuable technologies. Regional characteristics such as population (Petrunia et al., 2019), poverty and crime rates in the region (Gachie & Govender, 2017), gross regional product (Mascarenhas et al., 2019), exports (Wang & Liu, 2022), local market capacity (Amirghodsi et al., 2020), ability to export outside the region (Calcagnini & Favaretto, 2016), and the number of industrial companies present in the region (Fedosova & Babikova, 2017) are also characteristics that can affect the presence of investors and large industrial companies in the region.
In this regard, for the success of technology transfer from university to industry, the consideration of these factores is suggested: the entrepreneurial motivation of researchers during recruitment, the requirement to formulate a sustainability annex for university technologies, strengthening alumni associations, the existence of an appropriate structure for technology intermediary centers in universities and the establishment of branches in faculties, strengthening interdisciplinary research, creating necessary incentives for researchers, allocating financial resources to applicable research in line with the priorities of the universities' strategic document, the existence of an independent center in universities for the social and economic valuation of university research, identifying and coding the research priorities of organizations and industries to guide student theses and research projects, and establishing a liaison organization between universities and industry in the governorates.

Keywords

Technology transfer

commercialization

open innovation

technology supplier

entrepreneurship

Subjects

value creating

Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2022). Drivers of academic engagement in public–private research collaboration: an empirical study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(6), 1861-1884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09884-z.

Agasisti, T., Egorov, A., & Serebrennikov, P. (2023). Universities’ efficiency and the socioeconomic characteristics of their environment Evidence from an empirical analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 85, 101445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101445.

Alibekova, G., Tleppayev, A., Medeni, T. D., & Ruzanov, R. (2019). Determinants of technology commercialization ecosystem for universities in Kazakhstan. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 6(4), 271-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2019.vol6.no4.271.

Amirghodsi, S., Bonyadi Naeini, A., & Roozbehani, B. (2020). An integrated Shannon-PAF method on gray numbers to rank technology transfer strategies. Engineering Management Journal, 32(3), 186-207.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2020.1738879.

Battaglia, D., Landoni, P., & Rizzitelli, F. (2017). Organizational structures for external growth of University Technology Transfer Offices: An explorative analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 45-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.017.

Battaglia, D., Paolucci, E., & Ughetto, E. (2021). Opening the black box of university Proof-of-Concept programs: Project and team-based determinants of research commercialization outcomes. Technovation, 108, 102334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102334.

Battaglia, D., Paolucci, E., & Ughetto, E. (2023). Hurdles in University-Industry Technology Transfer: Why Research-Based Inventions are Not Transferred to the Market?. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3269731.

Berggren, E. (2017). Researchers as enablers of commercialization at an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Management Development, 36(2), 217-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-06-2016-0117.

Blankesteijn, M., Bossink, B., & van der Sijde, P. (2021). Science-based entrepreneurship education as a means for university-industry technology transfer. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(2), 779-808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00623-3.

Burkholder, P., & Hulsink, W. (2022). Academic intrapreneurship for health care innovation: the importance of influence, perception, and time management in knowledge commercialization at a University’s Medical Centre. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09974-6.

Calcagnini, G., & Favaretto, I. (2016). Models of university technology transfer: analyses and policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 655-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9427-6.

Carayannis, E. G., Cherepovitsyn, A. Y., & Ilinova, A. A. (2016). Technology commercialization in entrepreneurial universities: the US and Russian experience. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1135-1147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9406-y.

Caviggioli, F., Colombelli, A., De Marco, A., Scellato, G., & Ughetto, E. (2023). Co-evolution patterns of university patenting and technological specialization in European regions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(1), 216-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09910-0.

Chukhray, N. I., & Mrykhina, O. B. (2018). Theoretical and methodological basis for technology transfer from universities to the business environment. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(1), 399. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(1).2018.38.

Cullen, M. D., Calitz, A. P., & Chetty, M. A. (2020). Factors affecting researcher participation in technology commercialisation: A South African university case study. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 12(1), 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/SAJESBM.V12I1.329.

Czerwińska-Lubszczyk, A., Grebski, M., & Jagoda-Sobalak, D. (2020). Cooperation of universities with business in Poland and the USA–perspective of scientific environment. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 28(1), 40-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/mspe-2020-0007.

Dell’Anno, D., & Del Giudice, M. (2015). Absorptive and desorptive capacity of actors within university-industry relations: does technology transfer matter?. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 4, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13731-015-0028-2.

Fedosova, T. V., & Babikova, A. V. (2017). Priorities and methodological approaches to the selection of results of intellectual activity for the account and the commercialization of the university. In 2016 IEEE V Forum Strategic Partnership of Universities and Enterprises of Hi-Tech Branches (Science. Education. Innovations), 65-68. IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IVForum.2016.7835856.

Gachanja, I. M. (2023). Influence of technology transfer from universities on manufacturing firms’ innovative performance. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 7(2), 115-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.12.003.

Gachie, W., & Govender, D. W. (2017). Commercialization of higher education institutions’ research within the National System of Innovation. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 9(4), 387-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2017.1338387.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230805.

Gu, J. (2023). Commercialization of academic patents in Chinese universities: Antecedents and spatial spillovers. Heliyon, 9(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14601.

Gu,J. (2023). Commercialization of academic patents in Chinese universities: Antecedents and spatial spillovers. Heliyon, 9(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14601.

Heinzl, J., Kor, A. L., Orange, G., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2013). Technology transfer model for Austrian higher education institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 607-640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9258-7.

Hmieleski, K. M., & Powell, E. E. (2018). The psychological foundations of university science commercialization: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 43-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0139.

Hoc, L. H., & Trong, N. D. (2019). University–industry linkages in promoting technology transfer: A study of Vietnamese technical and engineering universities. Science, Technology and Society, 24(1), 73-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0971721818821796.

Hsu, D. W., Shen, Y. C., Yuan, B. J., & Chou, C. J. (2015). Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 25-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.002.

Huang, CH., Wang, Y., Wu, T., & Wang, P. (2013). An Empirical Analysis of the Antecedents and Performance Consequences of Using the Moodle Platform. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 217-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267.

Kalantaridis, C., & Küttim, M. (2021). University ownership and information about the entrepreneurial opportunity in commercialisation: a systematic review and realist synthesis of the literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(5), 1487-1513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09757-6.

Kalantaridis, C., & Küttim, M. (2023). Multi-dimensional time and university technology commercialisation as opportunity praxis: A realist synthesis of the accumulated literature. Technovation, 122, 102685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102685.

Khaki, I., Mojibi, T., & Memarzadeh, GH. (2021). Explaining the knowledge commercialization model in higher education centers with emphasis on the cultural factor. Cross cultural studies,16(49), 31-60. http://dx.doi.org/20.1001.1.17358663.1400.16.49.2.6.

Kruachottikul, P., Dumrongvute, P., Tea-makorn, P., Kittikowit, S., & Amrapala, A. (2023). New product development process and case studies for deep-tech academic research to commercialization. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00311-1.

Lee, J., & Stuen, E. (2016). University reputation and technology commercialization: evidence from nanoscale science. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 586-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9430-y.

Leitner, K. H., Bergner, S., & Rybnicek, R. (2021). The role of heads of departments in the commercialization of university research. Journal of Business Economics, 91, 353-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-01003-y.

Lima, R., Gonçalves Lins, R., & Acácio de Andrade, A. (2022). A Novel Method for Assessing the Impacts of Innovation and Technology Transfer: A Case Study of Brazilian Manufacturers in the Electric Energy Sector. Brazilian Business Review, 19(3), 246-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2022.19.3.2.

Ma, D., Cai, Z., & Zhu, C. (2022). Technology transfer efficiency of universities in China: A three-stage framework based on the dynamic network slacks-based measurement model. Technology in Society, 70, 102031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102031.

Marozau, R., & Guerrero, M. (2016). Conditioning factors of knowledge transfer and commercialisation in the context of post-socialist economies: The case of Belarusian higher education institutions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 27(4), 441-462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2016.075014.

Marques, A. V., Marques, C., Braga, V., & Marques, P. M. (2019). University-industry technology transfer within the context of RIS3 North of Portugal. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1589397.

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, 57(12), 3473-3491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2018-1200.

Nugent, A., & Chan, H. F. (2023). Outsourcing university research commercialization to a sophisticated technology transfer office: Evidence from Australian universities. Technovation, 125, 102762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102762.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’este, P., ... & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research policy, 42(2), 423-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.

Petrunia, Y., Chentsov, V., Życzyński, N., & Petrunia, V. (2019). Marketing environment and marketing management of universities in Ukraine: national and regional dominants. Innovative Marketing, 15(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.15(1).2019.01.

Rocha, A. K. L. D., Moraes, G. H. S. M. D., & Fischer, B. (2022). The role of university environment in promoting entrepreneurial behavior: evidence from heterogeneous regions in Brazil. Innovation & Management Review, 19(1), 39-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/INMR-08-2020-0112.

Rosdi, S. A. M., Ramdan, M. R., Sabrinah, A. D. A. M., & Fuzi, N. M. (2022). Distribution-support technologies in commercialisation: the Malaysia Research Universities (RU) Experiences.유통과학연구 (JDS), 20(11), 11-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.15722/jds.20.11.202211.11.

Saberi, SH., Kasraee, A. R. &Sohrabi, T. (2025). Environmental factors affecting technology transfer from university to industry; a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Journal of Executive Management, 16(32), 261-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.22080/jem.2025.27608.3948. (In Persian)

Sargent, J., & Matthews, L. (2014). Latin American universities and technology commercialization. Latin American Business Review, 15(2), 167-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10978526.2014.905163.

Schuelke-Leech, B. A. (2013). Resources and research: An empirical study of the influence of departmental research resources on individual STEM researchers involvement with industry. Research Policy, 42(9), 1667-1678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.010.

Seno Wulung, R. B., Takahashi, K., & Morikawa, K. (2018). A model for selecting appropriate technology for incubator-university collaboration by considering the technology transfer mechanism. International Journal of Production Research, 56(6), 2309-2321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1374569.

Shen, H., Coreynen, W., & Huang, C. (2022). Exclusive licensing of university technology: The effects of university prestige, technology transfer offices, and academy-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 51(1), 104372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104372.

Sofi, Y., Miraee, V. R., & Soror, R. (2025). Identifying factors affecting the commercialization of products of knowledge-based companies located in science and technology parks and growth centers. Quarterly Journal of Value Creation in Business Management. (4).4.42-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/jvcbm.2024.462573.1397. (In Persian)

Stemberkova, R., Maresova, P., David, O. O., & Adeoye, F. (2021). Knowledge management model for effective technology transfer at universities. Industry and Higher Education, 35(6), 638-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0950422220978046.

Taheri, M., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2016). Teams' boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 31-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.003.

Terán-Bustamante, A., Martínez-Velasco, A., & López-Fernández, A. M. (2021). University–industry collaboration: a sustainable technology transfer model. Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 142. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040142.

Triulzi, G., Pyka, A., & Scholz, R. (2014). R&D and knowledge dynamics in university-industry relationships in biotech and pharmaceuticals: an agent-based model. International Journal of Biotechnology, 13(1-3), 137-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2014.059650.

Viana, L., Jabour, D., Ramirez, P., & da Cruz, G. (2018). Patents go to the market? University-industry technology transfer from a Brazilian perspective. Journal of technology management & innovation, 13(3), 24-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242018000300024.

Wang, W., & Liu, Y. (2022). Does University-industry innovation community affect firms’ inventions? The mediating role of technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(3), 906-935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09887-w.

Xia, H., Weng, J., & Zhang, J. (2022). Effectiveness of industry-university-research cooperation in China: impact of innovation input and open innovation environment. International Journal of Innovation Science, 14(1), 62-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2020-0122.

Zhao, Z., Broström, A., & Cai, J. (2020). Promoting academic engagement: University context and indi vidual characteristics. Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(1), 304–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-018-9680-6.