University of Twente’s reimagined model to stimulate external engagement

We all know that collaboration between universities and external partners is valuable. But how do we move from good intentions to impactful, sustainable partnerships, especially as individual researchers or professionals? Dr. Anne Bergen and Caroline Van Bers, Impact Development Managers on AI and Resilience, respectively, along with Annelies Tielenburg, Project Manager at the University of Twente’s Strategic Business Development Office (SBD) led a workshop at the 2025 UIIN Conference to specifically explore practical strategies that researchers from universities and industry can use and adapt for more effective collaboration.

A framework for purpose-driven collaborations

In forming partnerships, the University of Twente (UT) has moved beyond the traditional separation of its academic “activity clusters” of education, research and knowledge exchange. These core activities remain central but are now integrated and connected through four societal impact themes that are key for the university: Health, Climate, Safety & Security, and Chip Technology.

To ensure that partnerships start with purpose, the SBD team is utilising a framework that maps the journey from “Ideation to Impact” of its collaborations with industry, government and other external stakeholders.

1. The Motivation Phase, to align the drivers for partnering

The “Why” before the “How”

Universities and external partners often operate on fundamentally different wavelengths. Universities thrive on deep exploration, long-term research horizons, and academic publication. On the other hand, external stakeholders need agility, shorter timelines, access to existing talent, and solutions to immediate challenges. As one workshop participant highlighted, “Universities need projects, industry wants speed”.

This inherent tension around differing time horizons and motivations is the first hurdle any collaboration must consciously address. The SBD team ensures that they and their academic community acknowledge these tensions and the divergent priorities of their external partners, finding a middle ground to meet the needs of both the university and partner. Additionally, they reframe the motivation from a different goal for each partnering organisation to a common one, i.e., the shared societal impact, which falls under one of the four impact pillars mentioned above.

2. The Formation Phase, to curate the partner portfolio

Building bridges, not transactions

From the motivation phase, the SBD team moves to the formation phase, during which they intentionally approach partnership formation as a co-design process. In practice, they focus on curating relationships where alignment transcends contractual obligations to embed shared values, complementary capabilities, and mutual vulnerability.

One real-life partnership example is UT’s Industry Fellowship, whereby the university invites professionals into its campus ecosystem to explore potential avenues of collaboration, rather than immediately assigning them to predefined projects. Fellows can access labs, attend seminars, and build connections, transforming “sales pitches” into co-created opportunities. Another example is the Hettrix, an Innovation Partnership, which uses informal meetings to convene representatives from high-tech companies, municipal stakeholders, and academics. This dissolves hierarchies, accelerating trust through shared human experiences rather than bureaucratic negotiations.

3. The Integration Phase, to embed partnerships into the university’s tapestry

Dismantling academic silos for a shared purpose

As mentioned, fragmenting partnerships across education, research, and knowledge exchange activities dilutes their impact. The SBD team’s approach is to weave together all three types of activities into unified, mission-driven offers. By focusing on real-world problems rather than academic silos, the UT creates partnerships where activities naturally amplify one another.
Here’s an example of what this approach can look like in practice: a student project (education) in the SME Data Lab can evolve into an applied research initiative, then be scaled up to a commercial solution, with all activities falling under the umbrella of one shared societal goal. A success factor of SME Data Lab is the delivery of quick wins for industry, while giving students real-world experience, meeting the different needs addressed above.

4. The Impact Phase, to understand the value of the partnership

Measuring what truly matters

The SBD team recognises that impact isn’t an endpoint, but a stepping stone for refining their partnership approach to capture value from their future collaborations. During the workshop, they stressed that measuring success in dual returns, both academic and societal, ignites motivation and starts the cycle of purpose-driven partnerships. The results, such as frequently cited research (a significant academic motivator), indicate that “most highly cited academic papers are often within partnerships with leading corporates” alongside societal or commercial benefits.

How was this framework received?

Workshop attendees were encouraged to reflect on how UT’s integrated partnership framework resonated with them in their work, e.g., in valorising research results, facilitating knowledge transfer, or informing policies, etc. After dissecting partnership cases that would work in their organisational contexts, attendees identified the different challenges of working with their external partners. Finally, they brainstormed and developed more polished examples of purpose-driven collaborations.

Two such examples were particularly popular and relatable among the academics, professional staff and industry representatives in attendance. These are summarised below.

1. High-level external partnership committees

This example included establishing high-level external partnership committees to advocate for more strategic university partnerships that would secure senior management’s buy-in, promising top-down alignment in developing collaborations.

Attendees shared some well-thought-out criticism:

• Such a committee’s role should be clear; is it for policymaking (e.g., metrics/frameworks) or partnership cultivation? One attendee warned: “High-level committees often detach from on-the-ground needs.”
• The approval of such a committee supports a partnership initiative and would constitute a top-down approval for resource allocation. The success of the initiative, however, will lie with the teams or individuals that will have the partnership’s ownership, i.e., for clearing logistical hurdles and pushing the work forward. Moreover, initiatives risk collapsing if champions leave or priorities shift.
• The sustainability of such a committee should be designed in a way that aligns with the existing values, working styles, and decision-making processes of the university and its partner organisations. For example, depending on the type of organisations involved, the committee’s decisions would not be adopted if one faculty or department does not want to adopt them. Such a committee cannot be an external, rigid structure forcing decisions upon faculties, but should rather act like an integrated part of how the university operates.

For this partnership committee to be successful, the committee would need clear outcomes and consist of diverse representatives from the university stakeholders and partner organisations to maximise their impact, cultural fit and long-term sustainability.

2. A membership programme for university partners

Lastly, attendees singled out the possibility of establishing tiered membership programmes with a range of incentives for participating stakeholders. Attendees shared some interesting considerations that could enable such implementation:

The membership tiers should be thoughtfully designed to include SMEs, startups and other smaller organisations that otherwise could not afford or justify the cost of a membership with the local university. Otherwise, large corporations will dominate access, creating a “monoculture of partners” and limiting the impact.

Charging for regional engagement could spark a societal backlash. The membership incentives should be able to answer the question: “Why pay when collaboration should be mutually beneficial?”.

Some partners may insist on having a tangible return on their investment from such a membership. Would the universities be able to provide them access to experts, or would memberships only offer vague promises of ‘network access’?

In order for such an incentive to be successful, it should transparently state the university’s offer to the potential members; a balance of accessibility to knowledge and talent that doesn’t jeopardise the university’s agency.

Conclusion

Reimagining your university’s partnership strategy means shifting from transactional projects to transformative relationships. This requires that the teams designated to establish and manage the university’s partnerships should design partnerships woven into the fabric of the institution’s education, research, and impact goals. As hinted at through the discussions that took place during the UIIN conference’s workshop on Twente University’s partnerships’ approach, sustainable collaboration is not achieved through top-down mandates, but by fostering mutual trust, dismantling internal silos, and building flexible frameworks that allow genuine partnerships to flourish.

Ready for more?

For more on universities that have transformed their partnerships’ approach, read on the University of Bristol’s roadmap to partnering success or listen to the University of Oslo’s process in lowering the barriers for collaboration with Norway’s innovation ecosystem.

Déspina Kortesidou (author) is a senior consultant at UIIN and holds an MSc in Behavioural Neuroscience Sciences and a BSc in Molecular Biology. In her work, she supports institutions on topics relating to social innovation, institutional transformation and strategic partnerships.