| 1990 | Keller & Chinta | Keller and Chinta model | The model underlines that successful technology transfer would be controlled by the degree to which the transferor and transferee deal with the political, lawful, social, cultural, economic, and technological boundaries that block transfer and reinforce activities that encourage it. The encouraging activities allude to the willingness of the partners to adapt their respective strategic and operational postures to guarantee a “win-win” result. | Qualitative (practical case) |
| 1998 | Durrani et al. | Durrani et al. model | The model presents a conventional approach consisting of five steps: Establishing commercial necessities Identifying technology solutions Classifying technology solutions Establishing sources from where the technology could be procured Finalizing the technology-acquisition decision The major lesson of this model is that it focuses on the importance of building up the requirement for a technology transfer project and for identifying multiple sources of technology for empowering a better choice of the transferor. | Qualitative (conceptual model) |
| 2000 | Bozeman | Effectiveness model | The model underlines the importance of technology transfer from universities and government laboratories to industry. In this model, the key elements of the transfer process are: The transfer specialist (the transferor) The transfer system The transfer object (the content and type of the technology being transferred) The transfer beneficiary (the transferee) The demand environment (market and non-market factors vis-à-vis the requirement for the technology). | Qualitative (conceptual model) |
| 2002 | Malik | Between areas of a company | The model is presented for agents of the same institution. The model describes the positive and negative factors that influence the transfer process. | Qualitative (conceptual model) |
| 2002 | Mayer & Blass | University-Industry | The model presents different approaches that can be used depending on the characteristics of the agents. The model describes the importance of a new actor that allows for “translating” the language spoken by the transmitter and receiver | Qualitative (practical case) |
| 2004 | Rubiralta | University-Industry | The model presents a systematic approach based on the triplex helix, where the main agents are the university, as a creator of technology, the industry, as a receiver of technology, and the technology transfer office (TTO), as the intermediary agent that supports the transfer process | Qualitative (conceptual model) |
| 2006 | Gorschek, Garre, Larsson & Wohlin | University-Industry | It is a model built from a particular case. Describes seven steps that should be taken to achieve technology transfer | Qualitative (practical case) |
| 2009 | Hofmann, Amal, & Mais | University-Company | The model describes that there are three levels that university research can offer: level of science, level of technology and level of use. The transfer can occur at any level. | Qualitative (practical case) |
| 2012 | Khabiri, Rast & Senin | Between areas of a company | It is a model based on the model presented by Malik | Qualitative (conceptual model) |
| 2015 | Bozeman, Rimes, & Youtie | General model of technology transfer | The model considers criteria of effectiveness as a fundamental factor for the transfer process. In the update of the model presented in 2015, the value of the public was added as a factor | Qualitative (conceptual model) |