Why Technology Transfer Still Depends Too Much on Individuals

Across Europe, universities have invested heavily in commercialization capabilities. Yet when people within innovation ecosystems talk candidly about successful spin-outs, transformative licensing deals, or breakthrough industry partnerships, their stories often have one thing in common: they begin with a person rather than a process.

Ask a group of technology transfer professionals how a particularly successful company emerged from a university, and the answers are surprisingly consistent.

There was a professor who refused to give up on an idea. A commercialization manager who saw potential where others saw technical complexity. A researcher who happened to meet the right entrepreneur. An investor who recognized an opportunity before the market did. A licensing professional who navigated a difficult negotiation and found a path forward.

These stories are often celebrated as examples of innovation at its best. They demonstrate the importance of expertise, persistence, and entrepreneurial instinct. But they also reveal something less comfortable about Europe's commercialization landscape.

Too much success still depends on exceptional individuals. And systems that rely heavily on exceptional individuals rarely scale.

The Myth of the Linear Commercialization Process

From the outside, technology transfer often appears highly structured. Universities have invention disclosure procedures, intellectual property policies, licensing frameworks, incubators, accelerators and investment networks. Many institutions have spent decades refining these systems and investing significant resources in professional commercialization offices.

The impression is one of a mature and increasingly sophisticated ecosystem.

Yet practitioners know that commercialization rarely follows a predictable path. A technology may initially appear commercially irrelevant before market conditions suddenly change. A research project may remain dormant for years before attracting interest from a strategic partner. An invention disclosure may be rejected several times before eventually becoming the basis for a successful company.

In practice, progression often depends on interpretation rather than procedure. Someone needs to recognize potential before there is sufficient evidence for everyone else to see it. And that is where experience becomes invaluable.

The Limits of Human Bandwidth

The challenge is not a lack of talent. Europe's technology transfer community is filled with highly experienced professionals who combine scientific understanding with commercial awareness. Many have built extraordinary careers helping researchers navigate the journey from discovery to impact.

The challenge is that expertise does not scale easily.

Every year, universities generate thousands of invention disclosures, patent filings, research outputs and collaboration opportunities. Yet technology transfer offices operate within finite budgets, finite staffing levels and finite amounts of time.

This creates a fundamental resource allocation problem. Not every opportunity can receive the same level of attention. Not every technology can undergo extensive commercial assessment. Not every researcher can receive individualized support.

As a consequence, institutions are forced to prioritize. Most do so thoughtfully and professionally. Nevertheless, prioritization inevitably means that some opportunities receive more attention than others.

The critical question is whether the most promising opportunities are always the ones that receive that attention.

What Gets Missed

The answer is difficult to measure. Unlike failed startups, overlooked opportunities rarely leave a visible trail. A company that never forms does not appear in venture databases. A technology that never reaches industry does not generate headlines. A promising invention that remains inside a patent portfolio rarely becomes the subject of retrospective analysis.

The absence of outcomes is notoriously difficult to observe. This is one reason why discussions about commercialization often focus on successes rather than missed opportunities. Success stories are visible. Lost opportunities are largely invisible.

Yet there are growing indications that this hidden category may be more economically important than many institutions appreciate.

The Redstone University Index, which examined entrepreneurial performance across more than 900 European institutions, revealed striking differences in startup creation efficiency between universities operating with broadly similar resources. Some institutions consistently translate research into entrepreneurial outcomes at far higher rates than others. The findings suggest that organizational systems and commercialization practices play a significant role in determining outcomes. [1], [2], [3]

Scientific quality alone does not appear to explain the difference.

The Search for Repeatability

Over the past decade, universities have increasingly sought ways to make commercialization more systematic.

Part of the motivation comes from scale. Research portfolios continue to grow in complexity. Universities are expected not only to produce excellent science but also to demonstrate societal impact, foster entrepreneurship, support regional economic development and contribute to national competitiveness agendas.

The expectations placed upon commercialization functions have expanded significantly.

As a result, institutions are beginning to ask a different kind of question. Instead of focusing solely on individual opportunities, they are examining the systems that determine which opportunities receive attention in the first place.

This shift can be seen across multiple initiatives. The TenU University Spin-out Investment Terms Guide emerged from a recognition that excessive negotiation complexity creates friction for founders, universities and investors alike. By introducing greater standardization and transparency, the initiative seeks to reduce dependence on case-by-case negotiations and create more predictable pathways for venture creation. [2]

Similarly, Danish universities have introduced common licensing principles designed to make research commercialization faster and more consistent. Rather than relying on bespoke arrangements for every case, the goal is to create shared frameworks that reduce uncertainty for all participants. [2]

Both initiatives reflect a broader trend. Innovation ecosystems are increasingly moving from individual craftsmanship toward institutional process.

Lessons From Innovation Readiness

A similar logic underpins the Innovation Readiness Level methodology developed at KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Traditional assessments often focus primarily on technological maturity. A technology works, or it does not. It is sufficiently developed, or it is not.

The KTH framework introduces a broader perspective by examining dimensions such as market readiness, implementation readiness, customer understanding and team capability.

Its significance lies not only in the assessment itself but in what the assessment replaces. Rather than relying exclusively on intuition, institutions can use structured frameworks to evaluate opportunities more consistently.

This does not eliminate the need for expert judgement. It simply allows expertise to be applied more systematically.

In many respects, this is the central challenge facing commercialization today. How can institutions preserve the value of individual expertise while reducing dependence on individual intervention?

The Competitiveness Question

The implications extend far beyond universities. The European Commission's work on the European Innovation Act reflects growing concern about the mechanisms that enable research commercialization. The Commission has explicitly identified improved exploitation of intellectual property, stronger collaboration between academia and industry, and enhanced commercialization pathways as priorities for strengthening European competitiveness. [4]

Underlying these discussions is a simple observation. Europe already generates substantial scientific knowledge. The challenge is ensuring that more of it creates value beyond the research environment.

If commercialization remains heavily dependent on exceptional individuals, then scaling innovation becomes inherently difficult. There will never be enough highly experienced commercialization professionals to personally evaluate every promising opportunity across Europe's research landscape.

At some point, systems must carry a greater share of the workload.

From Exceptional Individuals to Exceptional Systems

None of this diminishes the importance of talented people. Commercialization will always depend on judgement, relationships and experience. Breakthrough companies will continue to emerge because someone recognized potential before others did. That human element is unlikely to disappear.

But there is an important distinction between a system that benefits from exceptional people and a system that requires them.

The first can scale. The second cannot.

As Europe seeks to strengthen competitiveness, increase research impact and close the gap between scientific excellence and commercial success, the question may no longer be how to find more innovation champions. It may be how to build systems capable of identifying, evaluating and advancing opportunities before those champions become necessary.

After all, the goal of a mature innovation ecosystem is not to replace entrepreneurial instincts. It is to ensure that fewer opportunities depend on luck to be discovered.

Sources

1. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2025, December 4). Commission concludes public consultation on the European Innovation Act. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/commission-concludes-public-consultation-european-innovation-act-2025-12-04_en
2. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (n.d.). European Innovation Act. Retrieved August 7, 2026, from https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/support-policy-making/shaping-eu-research-and-innovation-policy/european-innovation-act_en
3. European Parliament. (n.d.). European Innovation Act. Legislative Train Schedule. Retrieved August 7, 2026, from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-new-plan-for-europe-s-sustainable-prosperity-and-competitiveness/file-european-innovation-act
4. DigitalEurope. (2025, October 3). A European Innovation Act to boost commercialisation and enable growth. https://cdn.digitaleurope.org/uploads/2025/10/DIGITALEUROPE-European-Innovation-Act-to-boost-commercialisation-and-enable-growth-03102025.pdf