Background: Malaysian University Technology Transfer Offices (UTTOs) play an important role in evaluating, protecting and commercialising university-generated intellectual property (IP). However, the valuation of early-stage university IP remains difficult because of technological uncertainty, limited market information, the absence of comparable transactions and uneven institutional valuation capabilities. Existing practices are often fragmented and may rely heavily on informal judgement or external expertise. Objective: The purpose of this research is to develop a strategic, theory-informed, context-sensitive IP valuation framework tailored to Malaysian UTTOs, enhancing their decision-making and resource prioritisation processes. Problem: Conventional cost-, market- and income-based valuation methods are difficult to apply to early-stage university technologies where reliable financial and market information is unavailable. Existing approaches also provide limited guidance on pre-valuation screening, institutional capability assessment and transaction feasibility. Consequently, UTTOs may allocate resources inconsistently and face difficulties in justifying valuation and commercialisation decisions. Method: This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive and theory-informed framework-development design. The framework was developed iteratively through semi-structured interviews and document analysis, guided by Maxwell’s Interactive Research Design Model and Eisenhardt’s theory-building approach (1989, 2021). The Resource-Based View (RBV) and Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) were applied as complementary theoretical lenses to enhance the framework’s strategic, institutional and contextual relevance. Findings: The synthesis identifies that ad hoc IP valuation processes undermine institutional credibility and commercialisation outcomes. The proposed framework will provide structured criteria to assess novelty, institutional fit, legal complexity, and market alignment systematically. Further analysis is ongoing to refine framework components and develop practical guidelines for UTTO adoption. Impact: This research contributes to the field of university innovation management by providing a robust IP valuation framework that enhances governance, strategic resource allocation, and stakeholder confidence. The methodology and results may benefit UTTOs in Malaysia and other developing countries aiming to strengthen their university-industry technology transfer ecosystems.
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed., pp. 492–505). Jossey-Bass.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Belitski, M., Aginskaja, A., & Marozau, R. (2019). Commercializing university research in transition economies: Technology transfer offices or direct industrial funding? Research Policy, 48(3), 601–615.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007828026904
Brantnell, A., & Baraldi, E. (2022). Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research. Technovation, 115, 102525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102525
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brescia, F., Colombo, G., & Landoni, P. (2016). Organizational structures of knowledge transfer offices: An analysis of the world’s top-ranked universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9384-5
Chen, Z., Cunningham, J. A., & Fitzgerald, C. (2025). The evolving role of technology transfer offices in the entrepreneurial university: A case study of a life-science ecosystem. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10123-4
Chiu, Y.-J., & Chen, Y.-W. (2007). Using AHP in patent valuation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7–8), 1054–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.009
Christou, A. (2025). Reliability and validity in qualitative research revisited and the role of AI. The Qualitative Report, 30(1), 203–218.
Cousin, G. (2009). Researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches. Routledge.
Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Starke, F. (2025). The evolution of university technology transfer research: A text-mining approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 50, 1231–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10133-2
Daniel, A. D., & Alves, L. (2020). University–industry technology transfer: The commercialisation of university’s patents. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 18(3), 276–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1638741
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
Harman, G., & Stone, C. (2006). Australian university technology transfer managers: Backgrounds, work roles, specialist skills and perceptions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800600979959
Hayashi, P., Jr., Abib, G., & Hoppen, N. (2021). Processual validity in qualitative research in healthcare. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21, 5.
Kal?p, N. G., Erzurumlu, Y. Ö., & Gün, N. A. (2022). Qualitative and quantitative patent valuation methods: A systematic literature review. World Patent Information, 69, 102111.
Kim, Y. C., & Wagman, L. (2019). The effect of the prior inventor–intermediary relationship on academic technology licensing. Research Policy, 48(3), 813–827.
Kimotho, S. (2025). Piloting qualitative research: A critical examination of its role and practice. SSRN.
Ko, S., Kim, W., & Lee, K. (2022). Exploring the factors affecting technology transfer in government-funded research institutes: The roles of resources and capabilities. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7, 100227.
Koç, A., & Y?ld?r?m, N. (2023). A multi-criteria decision framework for IP valuation method selection: ‘Valuation case’ matters. World Patent Information, 73, 102176.
Lambert, J., & Newman, A. (2023). Construct development and validation in three practical steps: Recommendations for reviewers and editors. Management and Organization Review, 19(2), 303–322.
Lee, K., & Jung, H. J. (2021). Does TTO capability matter in commercializing university technology? Evidence from longitudinal data in South Korea. Research Policy, 50(1), 104133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104133
Mafu, M. (2023). Technology transfer as a catalyst for effective university–industry collaboration. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2023.2173403
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Meyer, M. S., & Tang, P. (2007). Exploring the ‘value’ of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for Third-Stream indicators. Scientometrics, 70(2), 415–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0210-9
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Ministry of Economy Malaysia. (2021). Twelfth Malaysia Plan, 2021–2025. Government of Malaysia.
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. (2021). National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2021–2030. Government of Malaysia.
MyGOV. (2024). Formal education: Getting into IPTA in Malaysia. Government of Malaysia.
Ng, A. (2024). Subjectivity in IP valuation: A Southeast Asian perspective. Asian Journal of Innovation Policy, 3(1), 13–28.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed-method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.
Peel, K. L. (2020). A beginner’s guide to applied educational research using thematic analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 25(1).
Rahim, R. A. (2021). The role of UTTOs in enhancing university commercialization. Malaysian Journal of Higher Education, 35(2), 88–101.
Rocha, C. (2023). Strategic screening in early-stage technology evaluation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(1), 154–173.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179–183.
Sarjidan, M. A. M., & Kasim, A. M. (2023). Trends of academic publications: A case study of Malaysian research universities. Journal of Research Management and Governance, 5(1), 18–29.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.
Shahidan, S. (2025). Malaysia’s IP performance: A policy review. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
Sharif. (2023). Hybrid valuation approaches for intellectual property assessment.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press.
WIPO. (2015). IP valuation: WIPO toolkit for universities and research institutions. World Intellectual Property Organization.
WIPO. (2023). Building the capacity of universities to manage and commercialise IP: Transferring IP and technology (CDIP/32). World Intellectual Property Organization.
World Bank. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of public research institutions: Fostering knowledge linkages and transferring technology in Malaysia. World Bank.
Wutich, A. (2024). Metatheme analysis: A qualitative method for cross-cultural research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.
Borhan, N. A. B., & Merlinda, F. (2026). A Strategic Framework for IP Valuation in Malaysian University Technology Transfer Offices (UTTOS). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 16(7), 698–716.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by Knowledge Words Publications (www.kwpublications.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
