Purpose: The overall objective of the current study is to explore how universities can better developing new educational services. The purpose of this paper is to develop framework for technology entrepreneurship education (TEPE) within universities. Design/Methodology/Approach: Qualitative and quantitative research approaches were employed. This study passes through four phase: reviewing of good practices; a survey of academics (n = 150 respondents); semi-structured interviews with leaders of Ministry of Higher Education, the Social Fund for Development, and the ILO Sub-regional Office (n = 30 respondents); and two workshop with expert group and stakeholders (n = 65 respondents). Findings: This study developed framework for TEPE within universities from three aspects (center for innovation and entrepreneurship (CIE), technology entrepreneurship professors/educators, and technology entrepreneurship programs/courses). Research Limitations/Implications: TEPE will have an impact at the individual and enterprise. It prepares students to be responsible, enterprising individuals who become entrepreneurs, enhances life skills and life learning experiences and contributes to economic development and sustainable communities; at the enterprise level, this education is expected to create and operate a new venture, help innovation, enhance the level of competitiveness, and develop a more practical entrepreneurial environment. Practical Implications: It is important for practitioners and policy makers to gain insights on how academic entrepreneurship support works elsewhere as inspiration for the further development of their approaches. Social Implications: TEPE can assist in obtaining higher economic growth and sustainable development, in keeping up with the fast pace of an open-market capitalist society and in promoting self-employment and training, which all lead to the reduction of unemployment. Originality/Value: This study offers three principal contributions: first, development of framework for the TEPE from all perspectives within universities as TEPE differentiates from other entrepreneurship education types; second, development of an uncommon concept of new educational services in the marketing literature that is incoherent and lacks theoretical models that reflect good practice of entrepreneurship education; third, identification best practices of TEPE in universities by reviewing and analyzing policy and continuing to experiment.