Technical universities is an omnibus concept, which may conceal variations. This is the fundamental assumption of this chapter, which deals with three technical universities in three European countries: KTH in Sweden, DTU in Denmark, and EPFL in Switzerland. Based on an analysis of scientific impact profiles and their alignment with government steering, funding and internal organisation and leadership, it is concluded that there are marked variations between the three technical universities. It cannot be said that one technical university is better than others; only that they configure tasks and roles differently.

Science has become a central political concern with massive increases in public investments and expectations, but resources are embedded in a complex web of societal expectations, which vary between countries and regions. This book outlines an insightful understanding of science policy as both concerning the governance of science itself (priority-setting, funding, organization and articulation with polity, society, and economy) and its extra-organizational connections, in terms of higher education, innovation and national policy concerns.

The concept of a knowledge triangle, i.e., the principle of strengthening the linkages between research, education and innovation, has emerged as a result of policymakers' expectations that universities assume a broader societal responsibility. Yet, little is known about how these tasks and their interactions are orchestrated at universities. We explore concept of how the knowledge triangle is manifested in the organisation and strategy of three different Swedish universities, and how these manifestations are shaped by the policy landscape. The article highlights the fact that although the knowledge triangle remains a priority, explicit national policies are lacking, with the responsibility of integration falling upon universities themselves. We observe great diversity in how the principles of the knowledge triangle are orchestrated at the universities, e.g., through individuals' interpretations and attitudes, and through management strategies and incentive schemes. However, the three tasks have largely been handled separately, with weak coordination and generally limited ambition demonstrated by university management teams to forge new combinations of remits. At the individual and group levels, we observe weak task articulation, although some role models serve as inspiration. Tensions emerge as the responsibilities of operationalising the knowledge triangle falls on individuals who sometimes lack the appropriate mandate and resources. These findings raise questions for further research and implications for policy and university management.