Knowledge Sharing Between Higher Educational Institutions:

Evaluation of a Transfer Platform

Claudia Doering

1 a

, Holger Timinger

1 b

and Christian Wolff

2 c

Institute of Data and Process Science, University of Applied Sciences Landshut, Germany

Faculty for Informatics and Data Science, Media Informatics Group, University of Regensburg, Germany

Keywords:

Knowledge Management, Transfer, Higher Educational Institutions, Collaboration, Evaluation, Prototype,

User Experience, Information Management, Lean Administration.

Abstract:

The paper presents a platform for knowledge and technology transfer processes and relevant information for

higher educational institutions (HEIs). Nowadays knowledge transfer or third-mission activities are daily

business for universities. Nevertheless, they often lack internal standardized processes and procedures. Every

HEI tends to establish their own way of efﬁciently handling transfer activities, without sharing their knowledge

with other HEIs. The presented platform outlines standardized processes with knowledge from several HEIs,

presented in digitized form. The processes and the platform were evaluated with use cases and a standardized

user experience questionnaire (UEQ). The results presented in this contribution indicate a high need for and

positive perception of the processes and the platform.

1 INTRODUCTION

Transfer of knowledge and technology from and to

higher educational institutions (HEIs) is a key driver

for innovation and change. This idea is often summa-

rized by the terms third-mission or transfer (Zomer

and Benneworth, 2011), which are described by many

different models with a lot of different characteris-

tics. Throughout this paper, the term transfer is used

for the idea of knowledge and/or technology transfer.

In a concrete transfer situation, the transfer object is

the actual knowledge, new theory or a newly devel-

oped technology. This includes, among other things,

the communication of research-based knowledge, sci-

entiﬁc consulting, and the application of knowledge

and technologies derived from research to solve real

challenges faced by the economy or society. Knowl-

edge in this context refers to the totality of scientiﬁ-

cally developed ﬁndings (Wissenschaftsrat, 2016). In

this process, knowledge is represented declaratively

by concepts, statements, or models as well as proce-

durally by research methods and process skills (Zack,

1999). Technology transfer refers to methods, pro-

cedures and courses of action that range from sci-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3727-8773

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7992-0392

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7278-8595

entiﬁc and technical work to social or artistic tech-

niques (Santoro and Gopalakrishnan, 2000). Lately,

there has been a shift in universities to move from

’just’ teaching and performing research to interact

with and contribute more intensely to society (Urdari

et al., 2017). These activities are often associated with

the term third mission, which describes a deeper ex-

change of HEIs with society (Compagnucci and Spi-

garelli, 2020). This, of course, has presented HEIs

with new internal challenges. In addition to the tasks

that the administration previously had to perform only

for the operation of teaching and research, activities

for the processing of third mission projects are now

added on top. Every HEI tends to establish their own

way of efﬁciently handling transfer activities, without

sharing their knowledge with other HEIs.

As administrations are slowly starting digitaliza-

tion initiatives and the complexity of administrative

tasks rises, the idea of sharing knowledge about all

necessary procedures between HEIs emerges (Doer-

ing et al., 2021). The objective of this paper is to eval-

uate a tool for the efﬁcient handling of knowledge and

technology transfer activities of HEIs, developed by

the authors, which is the Transfer Platform (TP). The

suggested processes and procedures are developed on

basis of shared knowledge by six German universi-

ties. These universities have established a network

for transfer, called TRIO (Transfer and Innovation in

166

Doering, C., Timinger, H. and Wolff, C.

Knowledge Sharing Between Higher Educational Institutions: Evaluation of a Transfer Platform.

DOI: 10.5220/0012179800003598

In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2023) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 166-173

ISBN: 978-989-758-671-2; ISSN: 2184-3228

Eastern-Bavaria), with the aim to expand and actively

shape their knowledge and technology transfer.

1.1 Transfer Platforms in HEIs

To examine the current state of platforms or tools for

the handling of transfer activities in HEIs, a system-

atic literature review (SLR) was conducted. Follow-

ing the guidelines of PRISMA (Moher et al., 2010)

the literature search and analysis was structured ac-

cordingly. In the process of selection by title, abstract

and paper content, a total of 13 papers were found for

further review, which indicates a comparatively lim-

ited theory and analysis on how knowledge is shared

between universities (Doering et al., 2022). This has

then led to the design of an own concept, which is

evaluated within the scope of this publication. The

platforms and tools, which were found in this review

are dedicated to collaboration and knowledge shar-

ing for mainly educational purposes, like e-learning

or the assessment of learning processes. Only lim-

ited theory and analysis on how universities, who col-

laborate with each other, could share their knowledge

with each other was found. As a result of the fact that

the literature review did not reveal any transfer plat-

forms or equivalent models, the authors recognize a

research gap, which may be closed with the proposed

TP. The structure of the paper is as follows: a brief

overview on how the TP was built will be given in the

next section, followed by the evaluation methodology

and study design. Next, an in-depth evaluation of the

tool and its contents (applicability, usability, and user

experience) is outlined. The most important evalua-

tion results are then presented in the following sec-

tion. In the discussion, the authors conclude on the

obtained results from the evaluation and analyze the

contribution of this research, its limitations and pos-

sible future research issues.

2 TRANSFER-PLATFORM:

CONCEPT AND

IMPLEMENTATION

Given the need for a digital and standardized rep-

resentation of transfer processes and procedures in

HEIs, a TP has been conceived to support the ease

of the transfer activities. The transfer-platform is a

web-based tool meant to provide assistance regarding

all activities around the life-cycle of a transfer activ-

“Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews

and Meta-Analyses”. https://prisma-statement.org [Ac-

cessed: 25.05.2023]

ity - starting with the initiation, the handling and ﬁ-

nally the completion of a transfer activity. The tool

provides a set of functionalities for choosing the best

ﬁtting processes and relevant documents. The TP is

based exclusively on HTML and CSS. For the reuse

of single HTML-elements JavaScript was used. All

presented processes were developed and evaluated it-

eratively, using the Design Science Research (DSR)

paradigm by Hevner (Hevner and Chatterjee, 2010).

In a four-loop approach, the processes were created

and evaluated in a user-centered approach, following

the recommendations of the ISO 9241-210:2010 (Er-

gonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210:

Human-centred design for interactive systems) (Inter-

national Organization for Standardization, 2023). The

ﬁrst two creation and evaluation loops are based on

expert interviews and their feedback. Hereby, in a ﬁrst

step, expert interviews were conducted to gather rele-

vant process steps and information. Expert interviews

were chosen as they are a typical research method in

DSR (Offermann et al., 2009) and appear to be ade-

quate given our project context in which there is only

a fairly small number of possible interviewees with

transfer-related knowledge. The results were then in-

tegrated in a ﬁrst version of the process model, which

was then re-evaluated, again by expert interviews. In

this ﬁrst version, the main core, support and manage-

ment processes were gathered and incorporated into a

regulatory framework of our reference model.

This second evaluation has then led to a revised

version of the reference model. To evaluate the modi-

ﬁed version of the model, relevant use cases were de-

termined and modelled into the core processes of the

framework. With this method, the revised version has

been evaluated, which has led to the ﬁnal set of pro-

cesses and documents within the reference model.

For better usage and an improved understand-

ing, the whole model was then integrated into the

software-based TP (see Figure 1). The TP shows

on its landing page on the right side the different

core, support and management processes of transfer

projects. The user can then choose a process in which

he/she has interest in and by clicking on it, a detail

view of the respective process opens up (see Figure 2).

There, the user can ﬁnd a textual description of the

process and the possibility to download it as a Busi-

ness Process Model and Notation (BPMN) model. In

addition, a fact sheet gives a short overview of the

process, its main actors, and its results.

To evaluate the TP (e.g. its design, usage and

efﬁciency), it was then assessed using the standard-

ized method User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ)

(Schrepp, 2020), as this is a fairly easy to handle and

brief questionnaire. This UX questionnaire was ex-

Knowledge Sharing Between Higher Educational Institutions: Evaluation of a Transfer Platform

167

plicitly chosen from the various number of different

UX questionnaires, as it considers usability and the

hedonic quality of a system or product to be of equal

value, which is not represented in for example the

SUS or UMUX-LITE questionnaires (Schrepp et al.,

2023). This parameter is particularly important in this

evaluation, as the users need to like using the TP, be-

cause otherwise it must be assumed that the TP would

not be used.

3 METHODOLOGY

Any research should follow an appropriate research

paradigm to demonstrate robustness. To meet this

requirement, the research results presented in this

contribution were evaluated based on the reference

modeling research of Fettke and Loos (Fettke and

Loos, 2003). According to them, a variety of dif-

ferent evaluation methods for reference models ex-

ist. One possible way is to use case studies (Yin,

2018). Other evaluation methods include for exam-

ple surveys, ﬁelds studies and laboratory experiments

(see (Fettke and Loos, 2003)). Case studies examine

a reference model situation at a speciﬁc point in time

within the concerned context. They are often found

where other research methods are not possible due to

the complexity or scope of the context. Case studies

involve a user, who is solving a practical and repre-

sentative problem with the reference model (Turnbull

et al., 2021). A case study therefore describes a real

problem, possible solutions and results. The advan-

tage in the use of case studies is that the creator of the

model can obtain important information, e.g. on the

application of the processes, directly from the model

user. Normally, the model creator and the model user

sit together and go through the model together and

check it for inconsistencies or for potential improve-

ment. However, case studies are often not represen-

tative and cannot be generalized, which can lead to

subjective reference models. Nevertheless, this ap-

proach was chosen, as this made it possible to obtain

a comprehensive survey of the problem and possible

solutions directly from the concerned users. This is

also the great advantage of using case studies over

use cases. Here, a tried and tested solution can be

used, while a use case would only cover possible so-

lutions for the handling of transfer. As, during the

creation of the reference model and its processes, all

single steps were evaluated over and over again, an

evaluation with before tested and used processes was

possible. Since the case studies were carried out at

several universities and the results were subsequently

consolidated, it can be assumed that they are at least

partially generalizable. Also, it is often suggested that

problems in the usage should be identiﬁed as early as

possible in the development and modeling of new sys-

tems, which is possible with the usage of case studies

as evaluation method (Hornbæk et al., 2007). For this

evaluation, two speciﬁc use cases for the processes

and the TP were chosen, as they both incorporate the

main steps in the initiation and handling of transfer

activities and therefore provide a good overview of

all the important aspects.

3.1 Expert Interviews with Case Studies

Working together with experts is particularly suitable

in a context where the content is still comparatively

new and unpredictable. This is especially true when

emphasis is placed on real-time interaction and bring-

ing together different perspectives (Hornbæk et al.,

2007). Therefore, speciﬁc case studies were gener-

ated and discussed together with the experts. In this

context, an expert is a person with speciﬁc exper-

tise and knowledge that can be acquired, for example,

through a speciﬁc job in a company or organization.

Table 1: Overview of experts and their background.

Number Experience Position

Expert 1 7 years Department Head

Expert 2 3 years Employee

Expert 3 21 years Employee

Expert 4 11 years Department Head

Expert 5 8 years Vice President

Expert 6 2 years Employee

Expert 7 6 years Employee

Expert 8 10 years Department Head

Expert 9 12 years Vice President

Expert 10 8 years Department Head

Expert 11 7 years Employee

Criteria for the selection of experts include a min-

imum of three years of experience and professional

experience in the conduction of transfer activities and

a current job position in the direct area of knowledge

and/or technology transfer. They all have a special

view on the topic of transfer processes and bring dif-

ferent perspectives to the discussion. All of the ex-

perts work at HEIs, but at the same time they have

a large knowledge base from the other transfer side,

for example, because they themselves have worked in

companies in a transfer position or support companies

that want to cooperate with HEIs in their current posi-

tion. Table 1 provides an overview of the professional

background and experience of the participants. All

experts are employees at a German HEI, where they

work for example as Department Head of a Transfer

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

168

Figure 1: Landing page of transfer-platform.

and Collaboration Department or are Vice Presidents

for Knowledge and Technology Transfer. In total, ex-

perts from six German (research) universities as well

as universities of applied science were consulted. In

this evaluation loop eleven interviews were conducted

(one interview with each expert).

Based on the requirements analysis carried out

and considering the conceptual requirements identi-

ﬁed in advance, the system architecture was designed

successively. The result is described below with the

help of corresponding UML diagrams. Each case

study was described according to a scheme based

on Rupp (Rupp, 2009). It contains the component’s

name, a brief description, actors, results, and essential

process steps. Based on the functional requirements,

use cases were deﬁned and formulated.

Case Study 1:

The problem domain of case study 1 is contract

research done by HEIs. Figure 3 shows the cor-

responding use case diagram. In general, contract

research is scientiﬁc research commissioned by a

private-sector or public-sector funder (= client). The

process regulates the application and implementation

of non-public industry projects at universities. The

goal of the research is speciﬁed by the client, and

the rights to the research results are in most cases

reserved for the client. The content of the contract

is deﬁned in a research and development contract

concluded between the client and the HEI. When all

parties have agreed on the project content and the

contract is signed by both parties, the project can be

carried out.

Fact Sheet of Process:

• Name: Contract Research

• Brief description: the use case describes which

actions are necessary to initiate and execute a con-

tract research project

• Actors: client, researcher, research consultant,

employee of a HEI administration

• Results: knowledge or technology development

and transfer

• Essential process steps: communicate project

idea; re-conciliate project idea; agree on project

content; set up project proﬁle and contract; exe-

cute administration; carry out industrial project

Case Study 2:

The problem domain of case study 2 is third-party

research done by HEIs (see Fig.3). Third-party

funding is deﬁned as ﬁnancial resources that ﬂow

to HEIs from third parties in addition to the current

funds provided by the funding bodies (basic funding).

As a rule, they are made available for a limited period

of time for speciﬁc projects, for example research

projects. Research funding can be provided by both

national and international funding agencies. Accord-

ing to the German federal ministry for education,

Knowledge Sharing Between Higher Educational Institutions: Evaluation of a Transfer Platform

169

Figure 2: Overview of the process cooperation in contract research.

Figure 3: Use Case Diagram of Case Study 1 (Contract Research) and Case Study 2 (Third-Party Research).

science and research, German HEIs received approx-

imately 788 million euros in third-party funding for

research in 2021 (Bundesministerium f

ur Bildung

und Forschung and (Federal miniatry of Education,

Science and Research), 2023). About 64% of these

funds come from public donors, such as the European

Union, while about a quarter is funded by companies.

In contrast to contract research, which is generally

referred to as the traditional transfer, it is a bit more

difﬁcult with third-party funded research. This type

of research is often associated with the goal of devel-

oping new technologies, products or processes and

aims to bring scientiﬁc knowledge and technologies

from academia into practical applications. The results

of such projects can take the form of patents, licenses

or prototypes, for example, and ﬁnd their way into

industry or the market. New ideas and concepts are

developed to address existing problems and open

up new opportunities. This innovation process is an

important aspect and clariﬁes third-party research as

a transfer activity.

Fact Sheet of Process:

• Name: Third-Party Research

• Brief description: the use case describes which

actions are necessary to initiate and execute a

third-party research project

• Actors: researcher, research consultant, employee

of a HEI administration, cooperation partner,

funding agency (e.g. project sponsor)

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

170

• Results: knowledge or technology development

and transfer

• Essential process steps: screen project calls; agree

on project content; apply for funding; decide on

funding; set up project proﬁle and contract; carry

out research project

The two cases studies were chosen for evaluation as

they cover the majority of processes within the refer-

ence model and therefore enable an extensive evalua-

tion of the model. Furthermore, these two use cases

serve as a major source of funding for research for

HEIs. Generally said, funding originates either from

companies or from government (and a small amount

from charitable foundations, private persons, etc.).

Therefore, these two case studies represent two of the

most important transfer scenarios for HEIs.

3.2 User Experience Questionnaire

The user experience questionnaire (UEQ) is a stan-

dardized questionnaire to survey the user experience

of products (Schrepp et al., 2023). User experience

can be deﬁned as the ”user’s perceptions and re-

sponses that result from the use and/or anticipated use

of a system, product or service” (International Organi-

zation for Standardization, 2023). Accordingly, user

experience (UX) comprises the factors of emotion,

comprehensiveness and usability of a product before,

during and after use (Hinderks et al., 2019). One pos-

sible metric to measure UX is the usage of the UEQ.

It consists of 26 items that are grouped into six scales

(attractiveness, perspicuity, efﬁciency, dependability,

stimulation and novelty). All items are presented in

the form of a semantic differential, which means that

each item is represented by two terms with opposite

meanings.

4 FINDINGS OF EVALUATION

The purpose in evaluating reference models is to test

them for their value and usefulness. In this way, the

suitability of the reference model to a certain situa-

tion, in this case the transfer of knowledge into and

out of HEIs or university networks, is analyzed and

evaluated.

Findings From Case Study Evaluation:

• The chosen case studies and their representation

as core processes of transfer correctly display the

experiences of the experts.

• The single process steps in the two chosen case

studies show the respective scenarios in great de-

tail, which was perceived as positive. However,

this makes it difﬁcult for HEIs that already have

their own process ideas to ﬁnd points of reference.

Hence, it was requested whether it could be possi-

ble to upload own processes and then receive au-

tomatic feedback for potential process improve-

ments.

• The opportunity to obtain further information via

links and the overview of funding possibilities are

perceived positively by the experts.

• A discussion forum or an other way to exchange

information about the different transfer scenarios

was also suggested by the experts. In this way,

they could easily interact with corresponding per-

sons in other HEIs.

• Processes are only available to download in the

modeling language BPMN 2.0. This format can-

not be integrated in all different process admin-

istration software used by HEIs and can be difﬁ-

cult to understand without any previous modeling

knowledge.

Findings from UEQ:

In total, 12 questionnaires could be analyzed, which

were sent in advance by e-mail to the selected partic-

ipants. The participants are directly related to the ini-

tiation and execution of transfer project in HEIs. For

this reason, the responses to the questionnaires consti-

tute a representative opinion. It may happen that in-

dividuals misinterpret the individual items. An exem-

plary scenario for this is the item ”safe/unsafe”. This

item is intended to consider or depict the following

aspect: To what extent is the interaction by the user to

be classiﬁed as safe and controllable? However, the

respondents could also interpret this item as follows:

Is the protection of my data guaranteed? This may

result in an inconsistent evaluation.

The results of the UEQ can be interpreted by the

means of scales. They range from -3 (horribly bad)

to +3 (extremely good). The ﬁndings from the eval-

uation with the UEQ are shown in the following by

their means:

• Attractiveness: 2,056 (TP makes an overall good

impression and the users seem to like it)

• Perspicuity: 1,792 (TP seems to be reasonably

easy to learn and to get familiar with)

• Efﬁciency: 2,146 (TP supports the users in solv-

ing their tasks without unnecessary effort)

• Dependability: 1,729 (The users feel somewhat in

control of the TP)

• Stimulation: 1,667 (The use of TP is moderately

motivating and somewhat exciting)

Knowledge Sharing Between Higher Educational Institutions: Evaluation of a Transfer Platform

171

• Novelty: 0,917 (TP is regarded as a not very cre-

ative or innovative software and therefore does not

catch the interest of users)

• After the UEQ evaluation, all of the experts also

gave some additional comments about the TP in

general.

– The design of the TP was assessed very differ-

ently by them. Some liked it very much, others

found it too playful.

– All of the experts found that the usage of the

TP is very easy to learn and that it is easy to

navigate through the pages.

– In general, the TP does meet the expectations

of the experts, but some thought that it could

replace an own process portal, which is inter-

connected with all relevant administrative de-

partments.

5 DISCUSSION

This research can be seen as a ﬁrst step to digital-

ize processes in the transfer administration of HEIs.

Although the concept of digitalization is not new, in

some areas the administration of HEIs is still at a

starting point for this change. The streamlining of

processes and the topic of digitalization have already

been covered in many publications regarding HEIs,

but most of the times with a clear focus on teach-

ing (e.g. massive open online courses), student ap-

plications, student mobility digitization (like e.g. the

applications ELMO or EMREX) or campus manage-

ment systems (Bacharach et al., 2021). In the sense of

a faster and waste-free completion of administrative

activities for transfer, it is the goal of digitalization in

HEIs to simplify processes and administrative proce-

dures. In order to achieve this, the present reference

model has been developed and evaluated.

The reference model seems plausible and imple-

mentable at ﬁrst glance - but, as recently stated by a

big German newspaper in March 2023, many digital-

ization projects in administrations fail already at the

implementation of basic digital procedures (Bernau,

2023). For example, German members of the Bun-

destag had to ﬁll out a form to declare their sideline

activities until January 2022. Now, more than a year

later, this information is still not available on the web-

site of the Bundestag, as the form could not be ﬁlled

out electronically. Members of the Bundestag had to

hand in their details on paper and employees of the

Bundestag had to type them in and sent them back

to the members of the Bundestag for checking. With

currently 736 members of the Bundestag and a 20-

page form, this results in approximately 15,000 pages

of paper. This is just one example for possible digiti-

zation approaches and missing or hindering adminis-

trative processes. After all, it worked and also knowl-

edge and technology transfer projects in HEIs were

carried out with only little digital support and usually

with processes adapted depending on the situation.

A possible methodological limitation of this re-

search is the comparatively small number of experts

for the evaluation. Therefore, this evaluation can only

be seen as a starting point for future research, which

needs to incorporate more users from different forms

of HEIs from Germany and other countries. There-

fore, it is crucial that the administrations of HEIs open

up and share their knowledge with each other.

Due to the limitation of this publication, it was

also only possible to include two relevant case studies,

which restricts of course the possibilities to generate

knowledge about the processes and the TP.

Another limitation of this research is that until

now only core processes of transfer activities could

be evaluated. This is mainly due to the fact that man-

agement and support processes for transfer are very

heterogeneous and differ strongly between research

universities and universities of applied sciences. This

in turn is mainly because of different strategic orien-

tations of the HEIs.

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE

WORK

The streamlining of processes and the avoidance of

waste are integral parts of process improvements and

therefore also an important starting point for research

and practice. This publication and the developed ref-

erence model focus on the digital support of knowl-

edge and technology transfer projects and a stream-

lining of necessary processes and procedures at HEIs.

The current status-quo of the reference model and

the transfer-prototype were developed on basis of

knowledge about processes and procedures from six

universities. This contribution outlines the evaluation

process with the remark that it should be evaluated

in the future at other universities and possibly also

across national borders.

In the evaluation points for improvement were

found, which will be integrated into future work. One

main remark of the experts in the evaluation was that

the process modeling language BPMN 2.0 is hard to

understand without any prior modeling knowledge or

explanation. Therefore, a process caption will be in-

troduced and the processes are also going to be ex-

plained textually in future work. With this approach,

KMIS 2023 - 15th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

172

established methods from business informatics (e.g.

the modeling language BPMN or process modeling

in general) are combined with those from media infor-

matics (e.g. UX, evaluation of functionality and user

experience quality, user centric development). This

interdisciplinary approach is especially crucial to en-

sure the sustainable use of the TP.

Another approach to further improving the TP is

to enable users to include their own knowledge in the

suggested processes and to make suggestions on mod-

elled procedures. This could simplify the activity to

keep processes up-to-date, but also comes along with

technical challenges and a huge coordination effort.

The same also applies to the proposed discussion fo-

rum.

A further potential starting point for further devel-

opments is the design of the TP. Some experts found

it nice and intuitive, whereas others found it too play-

ful and complex. As preferences for design are very

personal, the main focus of improvements will be laid

on the usability of the TP.

REFERENCES

Bacharach, G., Gottlieb, M., Norder, J. J., Pongratz, H.,

Steiper, R.-D., Radenbach, W., Strack, H., and Waß-

mann, A. (2021). Progress of digitization of higher

education processes towards standards eu&de: status

and future perspectives. PIM – Plattform.

Bernau, P. (2023). When bureaucracy paralyzes government

agencies: Germany is drowning in a maze of applica-

tions and planning backlogs). Frankfurter Allgemeine

Zeitung.

Bundesministerium f

ur Bildung und Forschung and (Fed-

eral miniatry of Education, Science and Research)

(11.05.2023). Drittmittelﬁnanzierung hs.

Compagnucci, L. and Spigarelli, F. (2020). The third mis-

sion of the university: A systematic literature review

on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecast-

ing and Social Change, 161:120284.

Doering, C., Reiche, F., and Timinger, H. (2021). Digi-

tal transformation of transfer in universities. In Wijn-

hoven, F. and van Sinderen, M., editors, ICE-B 2021,

pages 109–115. SCITEPRESS , Set

ubal.

Doering, C., Reiche, F., and Timinger, H. (2022). Cross-

university platforms as an enabler for knowledge man-

agement and transfer. In Proceedings of the 14th In-

ternational Joint Conference on Knowledge Discov-

ery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Manage-

ment, pages 185–191. SCITEPRESS .

Fettke, P. and Loos, P. (2003). Multiperspective evalu-

ation of reference models – towards a framework.

In Conceptual Modeling for Novel Application Do-

mains: ER 2003 Workshops ECOMO, IWCMQ, AOIS,

and XSDM, Chicago, IL, USA, October 13, 2003. Pro-

ceedings 22, pages 80–91. Springer, Berlin, Heidel-

berg.

Hevner, A. R. and Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design research in

information systems theory and practice. Integrated

Series in Information Systems Volume 22.

Hinderks, A., Schrepp, M., Dom

ınguez Mayo, F. J.,

Escalona, M. J., and Thomaschewski, J. (2019). De-

veloping a ux kpi based on the user experience ques-

tionnaire. Computer Standards & Interfaces.

Hornbæk, K., Høegh, R. T., Pedersen, M. B., and Stage,

J. (2007). Use case evaluation (uce): A method for

early usability evaluation in software development. In

Baranauskas, C., Palanque, P., Abascal, J., and Bar-

bosa, S. D. J., editors, Human-Computer Interaction

- INTERACT 2007, volume 4662 of Lecture Notes in

Computer Science, pages 578–591. Springer, Berlin.

International Organization for Standardization

(24.05.2023). Iso 9241-210:2019 - ergonomics

of human-system interaction — part 210: Human-

centred design for interactive systems.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Group,

P., et al. (2010). Preferred reporting items for system-

atic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement.

International journal of surgery, 8(5):336–341.

Offermann, P., Levina, O., Sch

onherr, M., and Bub, U.

(2009). Outline of a design science research process.

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on

Design Science Research in Information Systems and

Technology, New York, USA.

Rupp, C. (2009). Requirements Engineering and Manage-

ment: Professional, Iterative Requirements Analysis

for Practice). Hanser, 5. edition.

Santoro, M. D. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). The insti-

tutionalization of knowledge transfer activities within

industry–university collaborative ventures. Journal of

Engineering and Technology Management.

Schrepp, M. (2020). A comparison of ux questionnaires -

what is their underlying concept of user experience?

Mensch und Computer 2020 - Workshopband.

Schrepp, M., Kollmorgen, J., and Thomaschewski, J.

(2023). A comparison of sus, umux-lite, and ueq-s

- jux. JUX - The Journal of User Experience.

Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., and Luck, J. (2021). The use of

case study design in learning management system re-

search: A label of convenience? International Journal

of Qualitative Methods, 20:160940692110041.

Urdari, C., Farcas, T. V., and Tiron-Tudor, A. (2017). As-

sessing the legitimacy of heis’ contributions to soci-

ety. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Pol-

icy Journal, 8(2):191–215.

Wissenschaftsrat (2016). Knowledge and technology trans-

fer as subject of institutional strategies). Technical Re-

port Drs. 5665-16, Wissenschaftsrat, Berlin.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications.

Design and methods. SAGE, sixth edition.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. Cal-

ifornia Management Review, 41(3):125–145.

Zomer, A. and Benneworth, P. (2011). The rise of the uni-

versity’s third mission. In J. Enders, H. F. Boer, D.

F. W., editor, Reform of higher education in Europe,

pages 81–101. Springer.

Knowledge Sharing Between Higher Educational Institutions: Evaluation of a Transfer Platform

173