The significance of research translation and technology transfer in academia is getting increasing attention for the greater public interest. Besides, the successful transfer of knowledge to augment a university’s outreach mission is in a large measure driven by R&D outcomes, more particularly, in terms of developed technologies. It thus becomes worthwhile to analyze the factors that enable technology development in academia. This objective remains a gap in extant literature. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the enabling factors of technology development in the university ecosystem and to examine their interrelationships. An interpretive structural modelling (ISM) technique was applied to identify the interrelationship among factors. Further, MICMAC analysis was applied to identify the driving and dependent enabling factors. Our findings revealed that top management’s leadership and visionary approach ; research mission ; strategy & culture ; adequate research infrastructure ; and intramural funding for research, development, and innovation-related activities are the key driving factors to technology development in academia. This study will be useful for the managers and decision-makers to comprehend the relationship between technology development enablers and framing the institutional policies and strategies.

1. Ahmed, A., & Newton, D. J. (2005). Strengthening African universities' strategic role in knowledge and technology development: Policies and practice from Sudan. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 2(1), 66–80. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJLIC.2005.006806
2. Anatan, L. (2018). An institutional perspective of knowledge transfer within university and industry alliance. International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, 11(4), 378–395. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJEPEE.2018.094519
3. Aristodemou, L., Tietze, F., O'Leary, E., & Shaw, M. (2019). A literature review on technology development process (TDP) models. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.35692
4. Arumugam, V., & Jain, K. (2012). Technology transfer from higher technical institutions to the industry in India – A case study of IIT Bombay. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17(2), 141–151.
5. Attri, R., Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: An overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 3 – 8.
6. Bag, S., & Anand, N. (2014). Modeling soft dimensions of FMS and their interrelationship using ISM and MICMAC analysis. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 7(10), 43–54. http://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2014/v7i10/59252
7. Bagchi, K., Mandal, P., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2011). Attitude towards technology development: A cross-cultural study of India and the USA. International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management, 5(1), 3–21. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJISCM.2011.039067
8. Bagga, T. (2017). Accreditation compulsion or inducement: A perception study of various stakeholders. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(12), 7–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i12/119977
9. Bagga, T., Bansal, S., Kumar, P., & Jain, S. (2016). New wave of accreditation in Indian higher education: Comparison of accreditation bodies for management programmes. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 9(8), 26–40. http://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2016/v9i8/99778
10. Biranvand, A., Seif, M. H., & Cheraghi, Z. (2018). Interpretive structural modeling of barriers to knowledge commercialization. Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science, 10(26), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.22055/SLIS.2019.14850
11. Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9399-6
12. Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2010). Definitions of interdisciplinary research: Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0006
13. Caetano, M., Araujo, C. S., Amaral, D. C., & Guerrini, F. M. (2011). Open innovation and technology development process: The gap on partnership adoption from a case study perspective. Product Management & Development, 9(2), 111–120.
14. Calcagnini, G., & Favaretto, I. (2016). Models of university technology transfer: Analyses and policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 655–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9427-6
15. Cáñez, L., Puig, L., Quintero, R., & Garfias, M. (2007). Linking technology acquisition to a Gated NPD process. Research-Technology Management, 50(4), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2007.11657451
16. Chakrabarti, A. K., & Bhaumik, P. K. (2010). Globalisation of technology development: Offshoring of R&D to China, India and Brazil. International Journal of Engineering Management and Economics, 1(1), 68–79. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJEME.2010.0346
17. Choudhury, D. K. (2016). Sustainable research culture for enhancing the quality of deliverables in classroom teaching-learning environment: An in-depth analysis. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 9(9), 27–43. http://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2016/v9i9/101505
18. Cooper, R. G. (2006). Managing technology development projects. Research-Technology Management, 49(6), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2006.11657405
19. Devi Ramachandran, S., Chong, S. - C., & Wong, K. - Y. (2013). Knowledge management practices and enablers in public universities: A gap analysis. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(2), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741311306273
20. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
21. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
22. Garg, A., Shukla, B., & Kendall, G. (2015). Barriers to implementation of IT in educational institutions. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 32(2), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-11-2014-0026
23. Gargate, G., & Jain, K. (2013). Role of IP policy in innovation and entrepreneurship development : Case study of HEI in India. Udyog Pragati, 37(3), 75 – 85.
24. Geiger, R. L., & Sá, C. (2005). Beyond technology transfer: US state policies to harness university research for economic development. Minerva, 43(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-004-6623-1
25. Govindaraju, C. (2010). Commercialization challenges for developing countries: The case of Malaysia. Technology Monitor, Nov-Dec, 25–30. http://www.techmonitor.net/tm/images/d/dd/10nov_dec_sf3.pdf
26. Halcomb, E. J., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J., & Davidson, P. M. (2007). Literature review: Considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(6), 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01760.x
27. Hatakenaka, S. (2008). The role of higher education in high tech industry development: What can international experience tell us? In, Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.471.3048&rep=rep1&type=pdf
28. Heinzl, J., Kor, A.-L., Orange, G., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2013). Technology transfer model for Austrian higher education institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5), 607–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9258-7
29. Khan, J., Haleem, A., & Husain, Z. (2017). Barriers to technology transfer: A total interpretative structural model approach. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 31(6), 511–536. https://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=89075
30. Kumar, A. A., & Shekhar, V. (2017). Invigorating knowledge sharing in higher education: Indian initiatives. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 10(9), 7–15. http://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2017/v10i9/118235
31. Kumar, S., Luthra, S., Haleem, A., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, D. (2015). Identification and evaluation of critical factors to technology transfer using AHP approach. International Strategic Management Review, 3(1–2), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ism.2015.09.001
32. Lee, A. H., Kang, H.-Y., & Chang, C.-C. (2011). An integrated interpretive structural modeling-fuzzy analytic network process-benefits, opportunities, costs and risks models for selecting technologies. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(5), 843–771. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622011004592
33. Lee, Y., & Gaertner, R. (1994). Technology transfer from university to industry: A large - scale experiment with technology development and commercialization. Policy Studies Journal, 22(2), 384–399. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1994.tb01476.x
34. Lercher, H. (2016). Big picture innovation model handbook. Technical report. https://cdn.website-editor.net/bed0b45825b547789e02e711c48a09bf/files/uploaded/150828-BIG-Picture-Leitfaden-ENGLISCH.pdf
35. Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2015). An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian perspective. Resources Policy, 46, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.12.006
36. Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S., & Haleem, A. (2011). Barriers to implement green supply chain management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling technique: An Indian perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(2), 231–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem..v4n2.p231-257
37. Mallari, M. Q., & Santiago, M. (2016). The profile and functions of vice-presidents for administration of state universities and colleges in the Philippines: Basis for policy inputs. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 5(4), 122–137.
38. Marques, H. R., De Oliveira Garcia, M., Scalioni, D. L., & De Souza Bermejo, P. H. (2016). Cooperation for technological development: An analysis in the context of Federal universities of Minas Gerais state. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 13(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.02.003
39. Nandagopal, M. (2013). Commercializing technologies from universities and research institutes in India: Some insights from the US experience. Current Science Association, 104(2), 183–189. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24089383
40. Necoechea-Mondragón, H., Pineda-Domínguez, D., & Soto-Flores, R. (2013). A conceptual model of technology transfer for public universities in Mexico. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 8(4), 24–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242013000500003
41. Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In, Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed., pp.492–505). Wiley. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
42. Panackal, N., & Venkataramani, B. (2021). A study of the enablers of social capital in an organization: A total interpretative structural modelling and MICMAC approach. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management,14(4), 22–38. http://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2021/v14i4/158725
43. Purushotham, H., Sridhar, V., & Sunder, C. S. (2013). Management of technology transfer from Indian publicly funded R&D institutions to industry-modeling of factors impacting successful technology transfer. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(4), 422–428. http://ijimt.org/papers/434-CM505.pdf
44. Raj, T., Shankar, R., & Suhaib, M. (2008). An ISM approach for modelling the enablers of flexible manufacturing system: The case for India. International Journal of Production Research, 46(24), 6883–6912. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701429926
45. Ramjeawon, P. V., & Rowley, J. (2017). Knowledge management in higher education institutions: Enablers and barriers in Mauritius. The Learning Organization, 24(5), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-03-2017-0030
46. Rath, S., Nathani, A., Patel, D., Kulkarni, P., & Gota, V. (2014). Status of technology transfer in India – the much needed Magic Remedy. Current Science Association, 106(8), 1058–1060. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24102297
47. Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Nielsen, P. (2016). What factors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1225–1246. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2016-0112
48. Reddy, P. (2011). The evolving role of universities in economic development: The case of university-industry linkages. In, B. Göransson & C. Brundenius (eds), Universities in transition. Insight and innovation in international development. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7509-6_3
49. Saad, M., Guermat, C., & Brodie, L. (2015). National innovation and knowledge performance: The role of higher education teaching and training. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1194–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881344
50. Saxena, J. P., & Vrat, P. (1990). Impact of indirect relationships in classification of variables — A micmac analysis for energy conservation. Systems Research, 7(4), 245–253. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sres.3850070404
51. Sheth, B. P., Acharya, S. R., & Sareen, S. B. (2019). Policy implications for the improvement of technology transfer and commercialization process in the Indian context. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(1), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-09-2017-0043
52. Shouwu, J., Yong, X., & Zheng, L. (2016). Analysis on the factors influencing the international technology transfer based on ISM model. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 8(3), 206–213. http://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v8n3p206
53. Siadat, S. A., Hoveida, R., Abbaszadeh, M., & Moghtadaie, L. (2012). Knowledge creation in universities and some related factors. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 845–872. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211253286
54. Singh, A., Kazi, R., & Divekar, R. (2019). A conceptual model on fee perception and quality of management education using ISM and fuzzy MICMAC analysis. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 12(7), 36–48. http://doi.org/0.17010/pijom/2019/v12i7/145584
55. Sohani, N., & Sohani, N. (2012). Developing interpretive structural model for quality framework in higher education: Indian context. Journal of Engineering, Science & Management Education, 5(2), 495–501. http://nitttrbpl.ac.in/journal/volume5/Neena%20Sohani.pdf
56. Srivastava, P., & Chandra, S. (2012). Technology commercialization: Indian university perspective. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 7(4), 121–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242012000400010
57. Sung, T. K., & Gibson, D. V. (2005). Knowledge and technology transfer grid: Empirical assessment. International Journal of Technology Management, 29(3–4), 216–230. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/10.1504/IJTM.2005.005997
58. Supapawawisit, B., Chandrachai, A., & Thawesaengskulthai, N. (2018). The critical factors of research and innovation creation in public universities in Thailand. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 11(1–2), 109–117. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJTGM.2018.092486
59. Suresh, M., & Balajee, T. K. (2021). Modelling of factors influencing on informal learning among school teachers: An ISM-MICMAC approach. Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.547
60. Taghizadeh, H., & Shokri, A. (2015). Relationship among the dimensions of knowledge management from the viewpoint of social capital based on interpretive structural modelling (A case study). Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 14(03), 1550024. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649215500240
61. Tidd, J., & Thuriaux - Alemán, B. (2016). Innovation management practices: Cross - sectorial adoption, variation, and effectiveness. R&D Management, 46(S3), 1024–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12199
62. Van Noorden, R. (2015). Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature, 525(7569), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/525306a
63. Van Ta, C., & Zyngier, S. (2018). Knowledge sharing barriers in Vietnamese higher education institutions (HEIS). International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 14(1), 51–70. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJKM.2018010104
64. Wang, Y., Yuan, C., Zhang, S., & Wang, R. (2021). Moderation in all things : Industry-university-research alliance portfolio configuration and SMEs' innovation performance in China. Journal of Small Business Management, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1867735
65. Wu, W., & Zhou, Y. (2012). The third mission stalled? Universities in China's technological progress. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 812 – 827.
66. Yip, M. W., & Ng, A. H. (2019). Critical success factors of knowledge management implementation in higher learning institutions. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 13(1), 45–65. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJKL.2019.099362