From Technology Commercialization to Knowledge Flow Governance: A Meta-Synthesis of the Orchestrator Role of University Technology Transfer Offices

Purpose: This study aims to examine the feasibility of transitioning from the traditional commercialization paradigm to a knowledge flow governance approach and to develop a conceptual model of the innovation orchestrator role for Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs). Background: Technology Transfer Offices have largely operated within one-dimensional, linear, and transaction-oriented frameworks, with a predominant emphasis on quantitative and financial indicators such as patenting activities. Such approaches are insufficient for capturing the complexity of contemporary open innovation ecosystems. Recent scholarship conceptualizes knowledge as a dynamic flow rather than a static asset, leading intermediary organizations to evolve from legal and transactional agents into network orchestrators responsible for managing inbound, outbound, and coupled knowledge flows. Method: This study adopted a qualitative research design and employed Sandelowski and Barroso’s seven-step meta-synthesis methodology. Data were collected through a systematic search of national and international databases covering the period from 2000 to 2025, following the PRISMA 2020 protocol. Of the 553 initially identified sources, 30 studies were ultimately selected after quality appraisal using the CASP checklist. Data were analyzed through the Best-Fit Framework Synthesis approach combined with open coding procedures. Findings: The systematic analysis identified three principal knowledge flows—inbound, outbound, and coupled—and revealed key conflict-management mechanisms, including boundary spanning and innovation aggregation. The findings further indicated that the highest level of functional maturity for TTOs is reflected in their capacity to provide network brokerage and connectivity services. The final outcome of the synthesis was the development of a three-layer conceptual model (micro, meso, and macro levels) that reconceptualizes TTOs from purely administrative entities into knowledge governance orchestrators. Conclusion: Technology Transfer Offices can effectively facilitate the development of a knowledge-based economy only by transforming their institutional identity from transactional intermediaries into network orchestrators and governance actors. Such a transition becomes possible when TTOs assume the role of knowledge flow governance orchestrators. Within this framework, intellectual property is no longer treated as an exclusionary asset but rather as a mechanism for coordinating and regulating open innovation networks. Achieving this transformation requires shifting evaluation metrics from purely financial measures toward indicators such as network impact and absorptive capacity, alongside a comprehensive redesign of internal organizational processes, network management practices, and the policy logic governing higher-level institutions.