Abstract:

[Purpose/Significance] As the knowledge economy grows and global technological competition intensifies, universities have become essential drivers of innovation within national innovation systems. Not only do high‑level research universities generate original scientific discoveries, they also serve as catalysts for technological innovation and drivers of industrial upgrading. Their roles span from conceiving breakthrough ideas to shepherding technologies through product development and into marketable applications. Nevertheless, the multifaceted nature of these contributions remains insufficiently characterized, making it difficult for policymakers and university leaders to fine‑tune strategies that maximize impact. A comprehensive understanding of how universities contribute at each stage of the innovation continuum is therefore vital for optimizing their functions, informing targeted policy interventions, and reinforcing the synergetic linkages between academia, industry, and government in both national and global contexts. [Method/Process] To clarify universities' distinct contributions at each stage of innovation, this study presents an innovation value chain model and corresponding analytical framework that systematically maps their core functions - serving as knowledge innovators during basic research, technology developers in applied research, transfer agents in product development, and academic entrepreneurs in commercialization. Based on this model, we constructed an analytical framework comprising qualitative and quantitative indicators tailored to capture university activities at each stage. During the basic research phase, metrics such as publication volume, citation impact, and basic science funding shed light on the roles of universities as innovators of knowledge. During applied research, patent filings, joint industry‑university project counts, and collaborative R&D expenditure serve as proxies for technology development capacity. The product development phase assessment centers on technology licensing volume, spin‑off formation rate, and prototype demonstration projects to gauge technology transfer effectiveness. Finally, commercialization was examined via start‑up success rates, venture funding attracted, and market penetration of university‑originated products. Empirical analysis was conducted on representative samples drawn from China's C9 League universities and the U.S. Ivy League universities, leveraging bibliometric databases, patent offices, and institutional reports to ensure data robustness. [Results/Conclusions] The findings demonstrate that universities in China and the U.S. play distinct yet complementary roles at different innovation stages. Chinese universities exhibit rapidly growing research outputs and increasing basic research capability, signaling a powerful catching‑up momentum in building technological reserves. Their strengths lie primarily in knowledge generation and early‑stage technology development, supported by substantial increases in R&D investment and talent cultivation. In contrast, U.S. universities maintain leadership in original innovation quality and commercialization efficiency, underpinned by high‑impact publications, a mature ecosystem of technology transfer offices, and established venture funding networks. They excel at translating research breakthroughs into market‑ready products and ventures, achieving higher license income per patent and greater market penetration. This comparative analysis underscores the necessity of diverse, stage‑specific university roles and highlights opportunities for cross‑border learning. In the future, Chinese higher education institutions (HEIs) can enhance their commercialization performance by adopting proven U.S. strategies, such as streamlined intellectual property policies, incentive programs for faculty entrepreneurship, and extensive industry partnerships, while adapting these practices to local contexts. By doing so, they can improve the quality and market depth of their knowledge and technology outputs, and optimize the university technology transfer system, thereby providing robust support for achieving sustainable, high‑quality economic development.

Key words: university roles, innovation value chain, technological innovation, C9 league, IVY league, China-U.S. comparison