Interim results from a study conducted jointly by the University of Latvia (UL) Faculty of Economics and Management and the BA School of Business and Finance confirm that Latvia has significant untapped potential in science commercialisation. However, unlocking this potential requires profound governance reforms: technology transfer must shift from a linear administrative support process to a systemic innovation and capital management instrument that integrates Technology Readiness Level (TRL) discipline, intellectual property strategy, early-stage industry involvement, motivation mechanisms, and a coherent funding architecture.
For a year and a half, UL has been carrying out the interdisciplinary research project “Development of a Systemic Model for Technology Transfer and Innovation Commercialisation Processes in Latvian Research Institutions”, aimed at creating a practical, institutionally implementable model that would help scientific discoveries reach the market more effectively.
To validate the interim findings, a meeting with more than 20 sector experts was held on 26 November, bringing together representatives from the Ministry of Economics, the Investment and Development Agency of Latvia, the Latvian Council of Science, Riga Technical University, and several other universities and research institutes. The discussion confirmed that Latvia has strong potential for scientific commercialisation, yet targeted structural changes are needed across university governance, national policy, and mechanisms for industry engagement.
The discussion was moderated by technology transfer expert Dāvids Štēbelis, with participation from UL Associate Professor Didzis Rutītis, Professor Anda Batraga, researchers Līga Brasliņa and Marta Kontiņa, and technology transfer expert Solvita Kostjukova. Together, they outlined one of the most comprehensive perspectives to date on the state of technology transfer in Latvia.
Technology transfer in Latvia – from linear practices to systemic thinking
The study’s findings and expert insights show that technology transfer in Latvia is still often perceived as administrative support rather than a strategic innovation and capital management tool. International experience demonstrates that universities that treat technology transfer as a central manager of capital flows become significant players in the innovation market. In Latvia, this approach is still emerging, highlighting the need for a refined systemic model that unifies TRL discipline, intellectual property management, industry collaboration, motivation mechanisms, and financial architecture.
Experts emphasised that directly copying international models is not suitable for Latvia. As a small country with a fragmented ecosystem, a distinct legal framework, and limited resources, Latvia requires an adapted approach. Lauma Muižniece, Director of the Latvian Council of Science, noted that what matters is not a linear or classical “helix” model, but a targeted innovation governance approach aligned with local realities, taking into account knowledge management, industry maturity, and university capacity.
Experts identify key challenges: motivation systems, TRL discipline, and legal framework
Five main obstacles emerged during the expert discussion:
Lack of motivation systems. Without fair and transparent rewards, it is impossible to increase researchers’ commercialisation activity. Institutions that generate tangible licensing revenues or successful spin-offs create motivating precedents. Where compensation is unclear or merely symbolic, interest in commercialisation rapidly declines.
Weak TRL discipline. Experts noted that early-stage technology development in Latvia often lacks a consistent decision-making system for assessing technology readiness and market potential. As a result, intellectual property decisions, such as patenting, are sometimes made before clear market signals exist, raising costs and lowering returns. A transparent decision-making filter based on TRL progress, independent market validation, and industry involvement is necessary to focus resources on technologies with real potential.
Limited industry involvement. For a technology to become a product, the industry must participate early. In Latvia, cooperation is often episodic and relationship-based, whereas internationally it is systematic and deeply integrated into innovation processes.
Restrictive legal regulation. Current regulations, particularly those concerning the commercialisation of inventions funded by the state budget, have been a significant obstacle. Potential investors also tend to avoid spin-offs in which universities hold large equity shares. More flexible mechanisms are needed that allow combinations of licensing, equity, and other tools depending on the situation.
Fragmented and inconsistent support system. State support instruments for technology transfer are provided intermittently, resulting in activity surges only during funding periods, while innovation development stagnates in the interim. Funding intensity often does not match technology maturity: new spin-offs are expected to attract investment at stages where it is objectively unrealistic. This hinders the development of young companies by diverting resources from technological and market development toward investor acquisition. Some challenges are partially addressed by the “Biophot” platform, but it primarily supports research institutions rather than newly formed spin-offs.
The small-country context: critical mass, a joint fund, and shared governance
Several experts highlighted that individual Latvian universities lack — and will continue to lack — the critical mass needed for a full-fledged investment portfolio. A potential solution in Latvia’s context could be a joint university seed capital fund, professionally managed and combining public capital with private investor participation. At the same time, experts cautioned that such a fund would not become self-sustaining or generate returns within 10 years; early-stage capital worldwide is high-risk and involves long commercialisation cycles. In Latvia, this should be viewed as an investment in economic transformation, not a quick-profit mechanism.
A culture of dialogue and a new ecosystem governance model
Experts stressed the need for ongoing, rather than episodic, dialogue among the state, universities, and industry. Technology transfer cannot progress if ecosystem actors operate in isolation. Only long-term collaboration and an institutionally established “intermediary” or technology transfer architect role can ensure steady progress.
The issue of continuity was also emphasised: support programmes for knowledge-intensive ideas in Latvia operate cyclically, creating long gaps that contribute to talent and technology outflow. According to experts, this instability threatens the integrity of the technology development cycle and deepens the so-called “valley of death.”
Next steps – joint recommendations for Latvia in March 2026
By the end of February next year, the research team will complete the final report, which will include a conceptual model, recommendations, and policy proposals. In spring, the results will be presented to ministries, technology transfer networks, industry representatives, and the broader innovation ecosystem.
The project’s scientific team noted that the discussion provided substantial added value — allowing them to identify new insights, deepen their understanding of the challenges, and hear directly from practitioners working on technology transfer in universities and research institutes. A representative of the Ministry of Economics confirmed the ministry’s readiness to continue close cooperation to ensure that the forthcoming commercialisation regulation becomes a functioning, rather than merely declarative, system.
Researchers believe that such dialogue and systematic collection of data and experience are essential for building a competitive, transparent, and effective innovation ecosystem. The project will continue intensively until completion, and its results will be made publicly available, serving as a foundation for future policy initiatives and the modernisation of university governance.
The research project “Development of a Systemic Model for Technology Transfer and Innovation Commercialisation Processes in Latvian Scientific Institutions” (grant No. LU-BA-PA-2024/1-0042) is part of the Recovery and Resilience Facility investment project “Internal and External Consolidation of the University of Latvia” (No. 5.2.1.1.i.0/2/24/I/CFLA/007).
