A Dynamic Reading of the University Technology Transfer Maturity Model: The MIASLA Matrix (UniTERAMO Research Catalog (University of Teramo))

Summary

• The study conducts a systematic literature review analyzing 95 papers published between 2002 and 2025.p.1
• An initial literature search retrieved 424 works from Scopus and 32 from Web of Science, resulting in 435 total articles after removing 21 duplicates.p.10
• Full-text evaluation reduced an intermediate dataset of 130 works by 35 articles to arrive at the final selection of 95 papers.p.10
• Among the 95 selected papers, 44 specifically addressed strategic actions implemented by university technology transfer offices.p.11
• The synthesis identified and structured 125 strategic actions across six key operational dimensions.p.1
• The framework expands existing research by converting a 5-stage maturity framework into a dynamic operational tool.p.8

Key insights

1. Technology transfer office performance evaluation became a central academic topic starting from 2005 onwards.p.4
2. Monetary metrics measure point-in-time results but fail to reveal internal drivers or methods to improve transfer effectiveness.p.4
3. A maturity model requires both a descriptive assessment component and an actionable method component to bridge the gap between knowing and acting.p.5
4. The MIASLA matrix bridges static maturity snapshots and strategic planning by mapping 125 actions across maturity transition stages.p.1
5. Progressing to higher maturity levels requires managing greater operational complexity and higher levels of internal coordination.p.19
6. Italian technology transfer exhibits varying speeds, where a small subset of research institutions generates the majority of created value.p.2