cover
Article Menu

Journal Browser
Vol. 4 (2025)
Vol. 3 (2024)
Vol. 2 (2023)
Vol. 1 (2022)
Journal Insights

Frequency: Quarterly

Time to first decision: 2.1 Weeks

Submission to publication: 4 Weeks

Acceptance rate: 31 %

E-ISSN: 2972-3272

Announcement more >>
Blog more >>
1 January 2024 EAL's New Year Blessing
Recommend Papers
article figure Psychopathy, prospect theory, and the Madoff Curve: a dual behavioral neuroscience and behavioral economic framework for understanding White Collar Crime
article figure Regime Change Operation in Pakistan: Examining Yield as a Behavioral Pattern of Microblogging rumors during the Political-Obsessed Period
article figure COVID-19 and non-communicable diseases: GMM/IV Panel VAR evidence from US states
article figure Microblogging Perceptive and Pricing Liquidity: Exploring Asymmetric Information as a Risk Determinant of Liquidity in the Pandemic Environments
Related Journal

Journal of Economic Analysis

Digital Technologies Asset’s value Synthetic Control GDP per capita Singapore Strategic Economic Plan Yields Liquidity Risk Trading Economic Sanctions Multimarket contact Financing constraint Market position Trade credit financing Corporate financialization Market Timing Japanese Stock Markets Performance ETFs Synthetic Difference-in-Differences
Open Access Journal Article

The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure

by Robert B. Mellor a,*
a
Computing and Maths, Kingston University, London, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
EAL  2025 4(1):76; https://doi.org/10.58567/eal04010005
Received: 8 April 2025 / Accepted: 8 May 2025 / Published Online: 22 May 2025
View Full-Text
Download PDF

Abstract

Forty-five UK universities were approached, drawn from 21 universities whose client technology/knowledge-transfer firms perform consistently well (category 1 universities), and 24 universities whose client technology/knowledge-transfer firms perform consistently poorly (category 2). Contact was established with staff in the Technology Transfer Office (TTO) or similar department, resulting in 72 persons identified as either “leading” TTO staff or “operational” TTO staff. These individuals were subject to semi-structured interviews around a 10-point questionnaire to arrive at consensus opinions. Results indicate that independently of whether the university is regarded as “entrepreneurial” or not, the TTOs of category 1 universities are more ambidextrous than those of category 2 universities.

Keywords: Ambidexterity; Entrepreneurial University; Innovation; Technology Transfer;
Copyright: © 2025 by Mellor. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Cite This Paper
APA Style
Mellor, R. B. (2025). The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure. Economic Analysis Letters, 4(1), 76. doi:10.58567/eal04010005
ACS Style
Mellor, R. B. The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure. Economic Analysis Letters, 2025, 4, 76. doi:10.58567/eal04010005
AMA Style
Mellor R B. The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure. Economic Analysis Letters; 2025, 4(1):76. doi:10.58567/eal04010005
Chicago/Turabian Style
Mellor, Robert B. 2025. "The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure" Economic Analysis Letters 4, no.1:76. doi:10.58567/eal04010005

Share and Cite

ACS Style
Mellor, R. B. The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure. Economic Analysis Letters, 2025, 4, 76. doi:10.58567/eal04010005
AMA Style
Mellor R B. The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure. Economic Analysis Letters; 2025, 4(1):76. doi:10.58567/eal04010005
Chicago/Turabian Style
Mellor, Robert B. 2025. "The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure" Economic Analysis Letters 4, no.1:76. doi:10.58567/eal04010005
APA style
Mellor, R. B. (2025). The Technology Transfer Functions of Genuinely Entrepreneurial UK Universities Exhibit an Ambidextrous Hybrid Management Structure. Economic Analysis Letters, 4(1), 76. doi:10.58567/eal04010005

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 10, 23–167. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc. web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Group_Performance/Amabile_A_Model_of_CreativityOrg.Beh_v10_pp123-167.pdf Accessed 14.03.2025
  2. Audretsch, D. B., and Guerrero, M. (2023). Is ambidexterity the missing link between entrepreneurship, management, and innovation? Journal of Technology Transfer 48, 1891–1918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-023-10037-7
  3. Campbell, A., Cavalade, C., Haunold, C., Karanikic, P., and Piccaluga, A. (2020). Knowledge Transfer Metrics - towards a European-wide set of harmonised indicators. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2760/907762
  4. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., and Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semi structured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
  5. Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix-university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST review, 14(1), 14-19. Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2480085 Accessed on: February 11, 2025.
  6. Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., and Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 957-976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9522-3
  7. Johnston, A. (2022). Open innovation in science: Assessing the formation and function of SME-university collaborations through the proximity matrix. Industry and Innovation, 29(2), 310–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2021.1997725
  8. Johnston, A., and Huggins, R. (2018). Partner selection and university-industry linkages: Assessing small firms' initial perceptions of the credibility of their partners. Technovation, 78, 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.005
  9. Johnston, A., Woodhouse, D., and Wells, P. (2024). University ambidexterity: assessing the nature of interdependence between knowledge exchange and knowledge creation in UK universities. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10137-y
  10. Kussainov, A., Kumar, Y., Pfluegel, E., and Mellor, R. B. (2020). Innovation still does not travel well, but is improving: The distribution of off-cluster firms around four UK science parks. Proceedings of TAKE 2020: Theory & Applications in the Knowledge Economy, July 1– 3, 2020, Stuttgart, Germany. ssrn.com/abstract=3544917
  11. Lavenda, B. H. (1972). Generalized thermodynamic potentials and universal criteria of evolution. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 3, 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02826047
  12. Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., and Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: A literature review and future research agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 559-595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x
  13. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  14. Mellor, R. B. (2015). Modelling the value of external networks for knowledge realisation, innovation, organisational development and efficiency in SMEs. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 6(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2015.069447
  15. Mellor, R. B. (2016). Computer modelling the costs of management control in the development of knowledge-based SMEs. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development., 7(4), 378-388. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2016.080861
  16. Mellor, R. B. (2025). Reconstructing the triple helix. TAKE 2025 conference at Sofia University, Bulgaria. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5023959
  17. Mondal, C., Kussainov, A., and Mellor, R. B. (2021). Modelling the number of client firms needed to support a new science park and the spacing between new parks and existing parks with similar themes. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 12(2), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkbd.2021.121716
  18. Mondal, C., Al-Kfairy, M., and Mellor, R. B. (2023). Developing young science and technology parks: recent findings from industrial nations using the data-driven approach. Sustainability, 15, 6226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076226
  19. Mondal, C., Al-Kfairy, M., and Mellor, R. B. (2024). Entrepreneurial universities: Modelling the link between innovation producers and innovation users shows that team structures in the tech transfer function improves performance. Economic Analysis Letters, 3, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.58567/eal03020003
  20. Mondal, C., and Mellor, R. B. (2025). Investigating the effect of state support on innovation pathways by tracking the legacy performance of firms involved in academic co-operations. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 10(2), 100679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100679
  21. Ng, W. K. B., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Cloodt, M., and Arentze, T. (2019). Towards a segmentation of science parks: A typology study on science parks in Europe. Research Policy, 48(3), 719-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.004
  22. Porter, M. E. (1988). The competitive advantage of nations, 1988 edition. Palgrave, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11336-1
  23. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., and Bartlam, B. (2018), Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity. 2(4) 1893-1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
  24. Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory. Procedures and Techniques, Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-98829-000 Accessed 04.03.2024.
  25. SQW Report. (2023). Knowledge transfer partnerships evaluation – Final report. Available online at: https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/IUK-2310 2023-KTP-Evaluation-Final-Report-FINAL-Aug-23.pdf Accessed 25.08.2024.
  26. Vivona, R., Demircioglu, M. A., and Audretsch, D. (2022). The costs of collaborative innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09933-1
  27. Will, M. G., Al-Kfairy, M., and Mellor, R. B. (2019). How organizational structure transforms risky innovations into performance– A computer simulation. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 94, 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2019.03.007
  28. Will, M. G., and Mellor, R. B. (2019). Differences in creating product innovations versus process innovations across European industries. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 9(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2019.102622
  29. Will, M. G., and Mellor, R. B. (2022). Managing business ambidexterity: A simulation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4093161