There can be many reasons to have a separately owned technology transfer office. In the U.S. one reason for many state university separate offices is the ability to own equity in startups or carry on other activities which may not be permitted to the public universities, not because “business people prefer interacting with a business.” All of the successful universities are major businesses in their regions, and their tech transfer offices are staffed with skilled business people.

It doesn’t really matter what structure one adopts - it’s the output that counts. Any TTO needs to remember it wouldn’t be there if it were not for the academic researchers generating the IP. So there needs to be a seamless interface between TTO and academics, AND an open and receptive interface between TTO and industry. If these interfaces don’t function effectively, any prospective industrial licensee will go away and seek another university which is easier to work with. Darwin rules!

The TTOs model depends of many factors like the region, infrastructure, local industry. There´s not a defined model to apply, the estructure could be defined to achieve the objectives at TTO but the model must be constructed, and it differs considering the factors mentioned before.

The willingness of and incentives for reserchers to innovate for industry and see it commercialised is as important as the science-push market pull conditions and institutional supporting mechanisms,as also the endogenous capacity for absorption and initiation.The partnerships with industry may work well,with proper governmental support. The policy allowing researchers to take equity in start-ups or commercial entities that implement their technologies also work well.A wholly owned TTO may have its limitations in a less entrpreneurial environment.