Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

This extended abstract provides an overview of a longitudinal analysis of the University Technology Transfer (UTT) ecosystem, focusing on Sweden and the UK. It builds upon a foundation of prior research exploring UTT, encompassing various dimensions such as strategy, impact, and the role of academics. (Rothaermel et al., 2007; Lindelöf, 2011; Siegel and Wright, 2015; Bozeman et al., 2015; Festel, 2015; Alexander et al., 2018; Zhou and Tang, 2020;). Including, the emergence of UTT professionals within ecosystems (Hayter et al., 2018; Jacobides et al., 2018; Stam and ven de Ven, 2019; Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020; Takata et al., 2020; Soares and Torkomian, 2021; Lindelöf and Hellberg (2023).

Some studies have examined UTT policies across countries, especially from a historical perspective (Sandström et al., 2018; Son et al., 2020; Phillips and Srai, 2018). However, a notable gap exists regarding the historical development and impact of UTT policies on organizational design in European countries like Sweden and the UK (Dolfsma and Seo, 2013; Anderson et al., 2007; Good et al., 2018; Li and Tang, 2021).

The study seeks to provide insights into the underlying factors shaping the current structures of UTT-related entities and their evolution over a longitudinal period. Two questions:

Why are universities, UTT ecosystems, and organizational entities, especially those linked to the entrepreneurial university, configured in their current manner?How do various historical and longitudinal development trajectories exert influence on their design, considering Sweden and the UK?The study adopts a multiple case study research design, incorporating 106 retrospective and in-depth interviews with UTT stakeholders from 20 universities in the UK and Sweden, spanning the years 2003-2015. Document analysis is also applied, concentrating on two critical transition periods within the public sector: the shift from traditional public administration to New Public Management (NPM) between 1980-2000, and the subsequent transition from NPM to Public Governance covering 2000-2015.

The findings reveal that universities encounter challenges in integrating business practices into technology transfer due to institutional pressures driven by various actors and factors. Specifically, the Bayh-Dole-inspired legal framework in the UK, which grants commercial and intellectual property rights to institutions, results in unintended consequences, such as a preference for licensing over spin-offs and potential value creation relinquishment to external entities. Employee-controlled innovation processes may lead to situations where the university gains no financial benefit. In contrast, the Swedish case highlights the importance of individual incentives and the need for universities to offer value to key actors for successful collaboration. The example of Karolinska illustrates that lacking incentives for inventors can lead to adverse effects, such as key personnel departing and private investors withdrawing.

The study's implications reach beyond its immediate scope, offering valuable insights into academia's intricate intersection of organizational systems and activities. This comprehensive perspective spans management approaches, behavioural justifications, economic motivations, and societal consequences, prompting necessary adaptations within the academic ecosystem. The research identifies developmental pathways and relationships that hold relevance for policymakers, managers, and scholars. It underscores the substantial impact of contextual influences on the organization of University Technology Transfer (UTT) and the dynamic evolution of strategies over time. The scholarly depth enhances the paper's validity, supporting its thorough examination of the University Technology Transfer (UTT) ecosystem from various perspectives.