Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs) are under growing pressure to convert publicly funded knowledge assets into market-facing ventures, yet the mechanisms through which RTOs reconfigure knowledge across the parent-spin-off boundary remain insufficiently theorized. Drawing on the Knowledge-Based View, knowledge-creation theory, and intellectual-capital theory, this paper asks how RTOs combine intellectual property (IP), tangible assets, tacit know-how, human capital, and relational capital during spin-off development, and how Resource Coordination Capability enables such reconfiguration. The study uses a qualitative, theory-elaborating design based on semi-structured interviews with twenty-two respondents, including thirteen investors and nine policymakers with direct exposure to RTO spin-off cases. This external stakeholder sample was selected because investors and policymakers observe multiple reconfiguration attempts and evaluate whether ventures are investment-ready or policy-ready. A six-phase thematic analysis generated two linked theoretical artifacts. First, the Knowledge Asset Reconfiguration (KAR) Model shows that licensing, assignment, and joint development are normally combined across different subsets of the knowledge-asset portfolio rather than chosen as mutually exclusive alternatives. Second, the Progressive Separation Model explains spin-off emergence as a three-phase process of incubation, acceleration, and independent operation, with different capital forms moving at different speeds. Findings indicate that structural capital can be formalized relatively quickly, human capital migrates in clusters around formation, and relational capital remains the slowest and most consequential asset to rebuild. Across both models, Resource Coordination Capability acts as the meta-capability that allows RTOs to assemble, sequence, and reallocate heterogeneous resources across a changing boundary. The paper contributes to RTO spin-off research by replacing a single-transfer view with a boundary-reconfiguration view. This processual framing treats the venture not as an entity born at incorporation but as an evolving arrangement through which codified IP, people, routines, facilities, and relationships are progressively recombined. It is especially relevant for publicly funded technologies, where market uncertainty, policy accountability, and knowledge-leakage concerns must be balanced. The paper offers managers, investors, and policymakers practical diagnostics for judging reconfiguration readiness.