Create a Startup or License the Technology?

A researcher has developed a new technology through scientific work. Initial conversations suggest that it could have a commercial application. However, the potential for a viable business model has not yet been sufficiently investigated.

The founder sees two main options:

Both routes appear plausible. Each involves different requirements, risks and personal consequences.

No suitable partners for a startup have yet been identified. The researcher also does not know which steps would be required first. The licensing route is equally vague. Potential licensees have not been identified systematically, and the requirements of possible industry partners remain unknown.

The initial question is therefore: Should I create a startup or license the technology?

The question is understandable, but it is still too broad for a well-founded decision. Before it can be answered, the assumptions behind both options and the missing information need to be identified.

This is a fictional case, but it reflects challenges that are common in research-based entrepreneurial projects.

The primary needs are initially Structuring and Reflection. Without a clearer basis for the decision, it would be premature to start looking immediately for an investor, co-founder or licensee.

The startup coach first helps the founder turn the general question into a series of questions that can be investigated.

This turns a difficult strategic question into a structured process of investigation.

The coach does not need to know all the specialist answers. The role is to connect the relevant topics, identify gaps and establish a useful sequence together with the founder.

The decision between creating a company and licensing a technology is not purely commercial. It also affects the founder's personal goals, interests and circumstances.

A founder may assume that licensing automatically requires less effort. In practice, identifying suitable licensees, negotiating agreements, producing technical evidence and resolving intellectual property questions can also take considerable time.

Conversely, creating a company may appear more attractive because it promises greater control. The capital requirements, responsibility for a team and necessary market development may be underestimated.

Reflection is not intended to persuade the founder to choose a particular route. It helps the founder examine personal criteria and assumptions more consciously.

The initial structuring process reveals which information cannot be developed through coaching alone. This is where Access becomes important.

The founder may need access to:

One person does not need to answer every question.

A mentor with experience in research-based startups can explain which requirements are often underestimated when building a spin-off. A technology transfer expert can explain the licensing process and possible agreement models. An industry mentor can assess which companies might be suitable development partners or licensees.

The startup coach helps coordinate these contributions and place them within the overall process.

The founder does not need to make a final decision immediately. At an early stage, both options can be investigated in parallel.

This parallel investigation reduces the risk of making an early decision based on incomplete information.

Within Transfer, open questions become concrete activities. An initial coaching roadmap could include the following steps:

The roadmap does not eliminate uncertainty. It turns uncertainty into a process that can be managed.

Motivation is not the primary concern at the beginning of this example. It may nevertheless become important as the process continues.

Research commercialisation often takes considerable time. Conversations may produce no result, potential partners may decline and additional technical requirements may become visible. Different expectations among researchers, universities and industry can also create strain.

Motivational support does not mean persuading the founder to create a startup. It helps the founder manage uncertainty and setbacks, recognise progress and remain able to act.

This may also involve deliberately discontinuing one option. A well-founded decision not to create a company is not a failure.

The SMART diagnosis does not produce one ideal mentor. It creates a differentiated support profile.

The coach acts as an orchestrator. The coach does not control access to other people, but helps the founder integrate different contributions into a coherent venture-building process.

Relevant experience and functional fit are not sufficient for a strong working relationship. Trust, communication style, mutual expectations and a willingness to engage in constructive disagreement also matter.

SMART Compass can show which type of experience or support is currently required. However, it does not use AI to assess personal chemistry among the founder, coach and mentor. Personal fit should be examined through direct interaction.

SMART Compass does not decide whether a technology should be commercialised through a startup or a licence. Nor does it automatically assess market potential, patent quality or the founder's personal suitability.

It helps reflect on the current situation, make support needs visible across the five SMART dimensions and translate the results into a structured coaching roadmap.

AI can help organise information, identify open questions and prepare further conversations. Specialist, legal, commercial and personal decisions remain with the people involved.

After several customer conversations, the founder may find that an attractive market exists but that the technology requires further development. At the same time, the founder may meet a person with complementary entrepreneurial experience who is interested in creating a company together. In this case, the startup route could be investigated further.

Alternatively, the investigation may reveal that only a small number of specialist companies are potential customers and that these companies already have the necessary development and sales structures. Licensing may then be the more suitable route.

A combination is also possible. The researcher could initially collaborate with an industry partner, develop further technical evidence and make the final commercialisation decision later.

What matters is not which option appears more attractive from the outside. The choice should be based on a transparent investigation rather than unresolved assumptions.

The question “Should I create a startup or license the technology?” cannot be answered through a single recommendation.

Structuring breaks the complex decision into questions that can be investigated. Reflection reveals personal goals and untested assumptions. Access connects the founder with relevant people, knowledge and resources. Transfer translates insights into concrete investigations and next steps. Motivation helps the founder remain able to act throughout a lengthy and uncertain process.

The startup coach connects the overall process. Mentors and experts contribute targeted experience and specialist depth.

SMART Compass does not provide an automated decision. It creates a stronger foundation for founders, coaches and other participants to shape the next steps consciously and transparently.