Polish business models of technology transfer centres against foreign leaders. Conclusions of the case studies


  • Marta Bojko National Information Processing Institute
  • Marzena Feldy National Information Processing Institute
  • Barbara Kowalczyk National Information Processing Institute
  • Anna Knapińska National Information Processing Institute




entrepreneurial university, technology transfer, business models


The authors analyse business models existing in leading technology transfer academic centres throughout the world, in order to find out to what extent they are implemented by entities in Poland. Their attention is focused on such components of business models as: legal form and methods of financing, the mission of operations, the work integration and the mechanisms of collaboration with the science and commercial sector. The study is qualitative, based on the analysis of the case studies of foreign entities. The diversity of global solutions enables a critical look at the activities of Polish technology transfer centres and points to the choice of models which are best suited to their domestic conditions. According to the authors, the improved effectiveness of technology transfer centres is an important part of the debate on the transformation of traditional universities into entrepreneurial universities.


Download data is not yet available.


Abrams I., Leung, G., & Stevens A. J. (2009). How are U.S. technology transfer offices tasked and motivated ? Is it all about the money? Research Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1?34.
Alexander A. T., & Martin D. P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting Social Change, Vol. 80, 38?49.
Ankrah S. N., Burgess T. F., Grimshaw P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, Vol. 33, 50?65.
Axanova L. (2012). US academic technology transfer models: Traditional, experimental and hypothetical. les Nouvelles No. 2, 125?137.
Baglieri D., Baldi F., & Tucci, C. (2015). University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all. Presented at DRUID Society Conference 2015.
Bąkowski A., & Mażewska M. (2015). Ośrodki innowacji i przedsiębiorczości w Polsce. Raport 2014. Poznań ? Warszawa: SOOIiP.
Berbegal-Mirabent J., Ribeiro-Soriano D. E., & Sánchez-García J. L. (2015). Can a magic recipe foster university spin-off creation. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, 2272?2278.
Boehm, D. N., & Hogan, T. (2014). A Jack of all trades?: The role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scienti?c knowledge commercialisation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 39, 134?149.
Campbell A. F. (2007). How to set up a technology transfer office: Experiences from Europe, [in:] A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, J. A. Thomson, A. B. Bennett, K. Satyanarayana, G. D. Graff, C. Fernandez, S. P. Kowalski, Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices (pp. 559?566). Oxford ? Davis: MIHR ? PIPRA
Casati A., & Genet C. (2014). Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 39 No. 1, 11?32.
Carlsson B., & Fridh A.-Ch. (2003). Technology transfer in United States universities: A survey and statistical analysis, [in:] J.S. Metcalfe, U. Cantner (ed.), Change, transformation and development (pp. 379?412). Berlin ? Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Conti A., & Gaule P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox. Research Policy, Vol. 40, No. 1, 123?135.
Debackere K., & Veugelers R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, Vol. 34, 321?342.
Demil B., & Lecocq X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, 227.
Etzkowitz H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university ? industry ? government relations. Social Science Information, Vol. 42, 293?337.
Etzkowitz H. (2014). The second academic revolution: The rise of the entrepreneurial university and impetuses to firm foundation, [in:] T. J. Allen, R. O?Shea, Building technology transfer within research universities: An entrepreneurial approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Etzkowitz H., & Leydesdorff L. (1995). The triple helix. University ? industry ? government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, Vol. 14.
Feldy M., Knapińska A., Ostaszewski, M., Rószkiewicz, M.M., Tomczyńska, A., & Warzybok, B. (2014), Naukowiec w relacjach z biznesem. Uwarunkowania transferu wiedzy w Polsce. Warszawa: OPI PIB.
Firlej J., & Kamińska M. (2012). Wrocławskie Centrum Transferu Technologii przy Politechnice Wrocławskiej ? studium przypadku [manuscript]. Poznań: CoWinners sp. z o.o dla OPI PIB.
Gdansk University of Technology (2015). Senate resolution no. 258/XXIII/2015 of 18 March 2015 on changes to the rules of management and commercialisation of intellectual property at the.
Hockaday T. (2009). What is the best structure for an university technology transfer office? Retrieved April 25, 2016 from http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/69022/What-is-the-best-structure-for-a-universitys-technology-transfer-office
Kijeńska-Dąbrowska I., & Lipiec K. (ed.), (2012). Rola akademickich ośrodków innowacji w transferze technologii. Warszawa: OPI PIB.
Krzewiński Z., Budasz K., Krzewińska D., Gabriel P., & Sypniewska M. (2014). Organizacja komercjalizacji wyników badań. Warszawa: OPI PIB.
Krzewiński Z., & Miądowicz M. (2012). Office of Technology Licensing Stanford University ? studium przypadku [manuscript]. Poznań: CoWinners sp. z o.o dla OPI PIB.
Krzewiński Z., & Pucher J. (2012). ETH Transfer przy Politechnice Federalnej w Zurychu ? studium przypadku [manuscript]. Poznań: CoWinners sp. z o.o dla OPI PIB.
Krzewiński Z., & Utrecht R. (2012). ISIS Innovation Ltd. ? studium przypadku [manuscript]. Poznań: CoWinners sp. z o.o dla OPI PIB.
Kwiek M. (2015). Uniwersytet w dobie przemian: Instytucje i kadra akademicka w warunkach rosnącej konkurencji. Warszawa: PWN.
Landry R., Amara N., Cloutier J.-S., & Halilem N. (2013). Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models. Technovation, Vol. 33, No. 12, 431?449.
Litan R. E., Mitchell L., & Reedy E. J. (2008). Commercializing university innovations: Alternative approaches [in:] A. B. Jaffe, J. L. Stern, Innovation policy and the economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matusiak K. B., & Guliński J. (ed.) (2010). Rekomendacje zmian w polskim systemie transferu technologii i komercjalizacji wiedzy. Warszawa: PARP.
Mangematin V., O?Reilly P., & Cunningham J. (2012). PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1?10.
Marszalec J. (2012). Studia przypadków instytucjonalnego wsparcia transferu wiedzy i technologii z państwowych jednostek badawczych do biznesu: Research and Innovation Services University of Oulu, VTT Ventures Ltd., Cambridge Enterprise Ltd. [manuscript]. Warszawa: Innovatech Consulting dla OPI PIB.
Mowery D., Nelson R., Sampat B., & Ziedonis A. (2015). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Niedzielski P., & Łobacz K. (2012). Diagnoza i analiza problemów komercjalizacji wiedzy i transferu technologii na uczelni wyższej pod kątem barier natury organizacyjnej. Szczecin.
O?Kane C., Mangematin V., Geoghegan W., & Fitzgerald C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, Vol. 44, 421?437.
O?Shea R. P., Allen T. J., Chevalier A., & Roche F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, Vol. 34, No. 7, 994?1009.
Pazos D. R., López S. F., González L. O., & Sandiás A. R. (2012). A resource-based view of university spin-off activity: New evidence from the Spanish case. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, Vol. 21, 255?265.
Perkmann M., & Walsh K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 4, 259?280.
Rabczenko A., (2012). Transfer technologii w Izraelu. Rola Ośrodków Transferu Technologii w sukcesie gospodarczym ? studium przypadku dla Ośrodka Przetwarzania Informacji ? Instytutu Badawczego [manuscript].
Siegel D. S., & Wright M. (2015). University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups, [in:] A. N. Link, D. S. Siegel, & M. Wright (ed.). The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship (pp. 1?40). Chicago ? London: The University of Chicago Press.
Sharer M., & Faley T. L. (2008). The strategic management of the technology transfer function ? Aligning goals with strategies, objectives and tactics. les Nouvelles, Vol. 43, No. 3, 170?179.
Thursby J. G., & Kemp S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, Vol. 31, 109?124.
Thursby J. G., & Thursby M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, Vol. 48, 90?104.
Tomczyńska A., Knapińska A., & Rószkiewicz M.M. (2014). Stosowanie nowoczesnych mechanizmów transferu wiedzy, [w:] Naukowiec w relacjach z biznesem. Uwarunkowania transferu wiedzy w Polsce (pp. 105?130). Warszawa: OPI PIB.
Uniwersytet Jagielloński (2015). Raport CTT CITTRU 2015. Kraków: UJ.
Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie (2011). Przewodnik dotyczący zarządzania własnością intelektualną i ochrony prawnej dóbr niematerialnych powstałych w Uniwersytecie Warmińsko-Mazurskim w Olsztynie. Olsztyn: UWM.
The Act of 27 July 2005, Law on Higher Education, as amended: Journal of Laws No. 164, item 1365.
Weckowska D. M. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41?42, 62?74.
Weeks P. (2006). Strategies for managing internal and external constituencies. AUTM Technology Transfer Practice Manual, 3rd Edition, 2(1).
Wheaton B., 2006, Managing a medium-sized technology transfer office. AUTM Technology Transfer Practice Manual, 3rd Edition, 2(1).
Wirtz B. W., Pistoia A., Ullrich S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives, Long Range Planning, Vol. 49, No. 1, 36?54.
Zuniga P. (2011). The state of patenting at research institutions in developing countries: Policy approaches and practices, No. 4. Geneva: WIPO.




How to Cite

Bojko, M., Feldy, M., Kowalczyk, B., & Knapińska, A. (2017). Polish business models of technology transfer centres against foreign leaders. Conclusions of the case studies. Central European Review of Economics & Finance, 21(5), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.24136/ceref.2017.021