When universities talk about commercialization performance, the conversation often starts from the same place: invention disclosures, patents, licensing revenues. These are the classic indicators used in national surveys and institutional reports.

But a new analysis from the ASTP/NAAC Working Group (2025) highlights something striking: these indicators dominate because they are the easiest to count — not because they capture what really drives research-based ventures forward.

The report maps what Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT) data European countries actually collect. The pattern is clear:

• outputs, such as patents and licenses, are widely measured.
• Inputs and impacts — the things that shape whether a spin-out actually becomes a functioning company — remain weakly understood.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Are we measuring what is convenient, rather than what truly matters for early-stage commercialization?

What the report reveals — and what it leaves out

The report acknowledges major gaps. For spin-outs, most countries track only a small set of indicators: number of new companies created, occasional data on revenue, FTEs, or investment. These help, but they do not explain why some research-based companies grow and others never get off the ground.

The authors also note that impact measures are “still emerging” — including job creation, societal benefits, and long-term value creation. In other words: we know surprisingly little about how spin-outs evolve beyond incorporation.

And yet, anyone who has ever supported a research-to-venture journey knows that success rarely depends on patents alone. Behind every promising spin-out, there are patterns we recognise intuitively:

• a driven researcher with genuine entrepreneurial curiosity

• a balanced and committed co-founding team

• early access to mentors or experienced commercial advisors

• institutional support that goes beyond bare-minimum IP services

• enough time and flexibility to explore the opportunity before formal commitments

• and often, the right mix of confidence and humility to navigate uncertainty

These are not fringe factors. They are core drivers of whether a spin-out is even viable. Yet none of them appear in standard metrics.

The missing half of spin-out readiness

The current measurement systems capture technology readiness, but not team readiness.
They capture IP outputs, but not entrepreneurial capability. They capture company formation, but not whether the people involved are able and prepared to build a venture.

This creates a distorted picture: spin-outs appear in national statistics, but we never see the human and organisational conditions behind them. This gap matters, because early-stage spin-outs often fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the underlying research. They fail because:

• there is no committed entrepreneurial lead

• co-founders have mismatched expectations

• the team lacks commercial competence

• the institution offers limited time, mentoring, or incentives

• researchers cannot balance research duties with venture development

These factors are invisible in patent counts — but very visible in real-life. So, the question is:
What would Europe’s commercialization landscape look like if we actually measured the human side of spin-out formation?

And more importantly: Would our support systems shift if we valued these early capabilities as much as we value IP outputs?

Why this matters for researchers

For researchers considering whether their idea could become a spin-out, this is empowering rather than discouraging. It suggests that the question is not only:
“Do I have protectable IP?” but also: “Am I prepared to move from research thinking to venture thinking?”

And readiness is not binary. Many researchers grow into the role step by step — once they understand their strengths, gaps, and preferred way to engage in commercialization. This is exactly the kind of insight current KTT metrics fail to capture.

A more holistic approach is starting to emerge

Outside the metrics report, an increasing number of universities, TTOs and innovation programs are recognising the importance of early entrepreneurial capabilities:

• team formation support

• co-founder matchmaking

• mentoring before formal incorporation

• structured training on venture and market fundamentals

• assessments that help researchers understand their own motivation and role

These efforts often happen “behind the scenes”. They rarely appear in formal KPI dashboards. But they are often the decisive factor in whether a research-based venture survives its first year. It may be time to bring these factors into the mainstream — or at least acknowledge their importance when evaluating spin-out potential.

A practical step researchers can take today

At Research2Business, we approach commercialization with this broader lens. Beyond tools for opportunity assessment and market exploration, we offer a self-assessment for entrepreneurial readiness and competencies.

It helps researchers reflect on:

• their strengths and comfort zones

• areas where they may need support

• their motivation and preferred role in commercialization

• their confidence in forming or joining a venture team

This is not a replacement for patents, licenses, or metrics. But it fills a gap that the current KTT measurement systems do not address — and it helps researchers take the first step with clarity rather than guesswork.

If you want to explore your own readiness or understand how your capabilities support the commercialization path, you can start here: Entrepreneurial Readiness Self-Assessment