策略性產學技術合作之研究__臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	策略性產學技術合作之研究
作者：	郭麗華
作者(外文)：	Kuo, Beryl Lihua
校院名稱：	國立暨南國際大學
系所名稱：	國際企業學系
指導教授：	佘日新博士施信佑博士
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2011
主題關鍵詞：	產學合作；策略意圖；利用-探索差距；創新能力；大學技術授權；研發合作；University-industry collaboration；Strategic intent；Exploitative-exploratory gap；Innovation capability；University licensing；R&D cooperation
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:27

美國拜杜法案頒布實施後，各國政府和大學無不費盡心思戮力將學術研究成果推廣至產業界，尤其是通過技術專利和授權來實現學術研究成果商品化。但是，產業界如果想只是想要建立產學關係以及以互動來強化自己的技術能力時，官、學界如果一味使用專利申請、獲證或新創公司設立來衡量學術研究成果商品化的成效時，此績效衡量便顯得失當。因此，我們有必要以廠商角度來探究產學合作的本質。
三十餘年來，絕大多數的研究都是由技術供給角度去探討如何將學術研究成果推廣至產業界，較少以技術需求角度來探討相關議題。鼓勵學術研究成果專利化，無法真正提升產業應用成效，也許商品化並非產學合作的真正目的。本研究由廠商的合作意圖與廠商創新能力來探究廠商對產學合作方式的選擇考量。
本研究透過問卷調查有了幾項發現。第一，文獻通常將產學合作目的區分為積極和消極兩類，積極型是長期導向的，以技術多角化為主，消極型是短期導向的，以營運問題解決為主。但是當我們以因素分析獲得效率強化、資源連結和技術內化三種策略性合作意圖時，我們發現三分類比二分類更能預測產學合作方式。當產學合作是為了消極的、短期的、解決問題時，廠商會選擇以專案合作方式執行產學計畫。但是如果廠商的需求是積極的、長期的、新產品開發時，廠商絕對不會以技術授權進行產學計畫。
相對的，廠商如果有資源連結或技術內化的任一類策略意圖時，廠商可能會選擇專案合作方式執行產學計畫，但是絕對不會以技術授權進行產學計畫。然而，當廠商是為了效率強化時，廠商只會選擇以專案合作方式執行產學計畫。這個發現讓我們推論，如果我們將技術內化、資源連結和效率強化三類意圖定位在時間軸時，技術內化意圖是積極的、長期的，效率強化意圖是消極的、短期的，而資源連結意圖則是處於兩類之間。
另外，當我們將廠商創新能力分為利用式能力和探索式能力時，其中利用式能力的產出是漸近式創新，而探索式能力的出則是嶄新式創新。我們發現當廠商擁有較佳的利用式能力時，廠商會選擇以技術授權進行產學計畫。但是如果廠商同時俱備利用式能力和探索式能力時，廠商就不會以專案合作方式執行產學計畫。因此，儘管技術內化、資源連結和效率強化等意圖都可以促進廠商以專案合作方式執行產學計畫，但是當廠商本身的創新能力愈強時，可能愈不會與學術單位合作，反倒自專注在內部自行研發。
以上研究發現非常值得學術技術移轉和產學推廣從業人士逐一推敲、細細玩味，適當地修正學術技術行銷策略，也許可以進一步提升學術研究成果推廣績效。

以文找文

It is over thirty years since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act. Many governments and universities have made varying efforts to push academic technologies into marketplace, especially patenting and licensing. When firms intend to learn by collaboration, the proxy for measuring the efficacy of academic patent application or start-up formation becomes inappropriate. It is therefore legitimate to ask what the nature of the university-industry collaboration is. In the mean time, the analysis of the strategic effect of innovation capability on the choice of university-industry collaboration modes is sparse whereas there are extant studies on the effect of innovation capability on innovation.
Using information from a mail survey, this study examines the optimal collaboration mode for conveying the firms’ strategic intents to interact with universities by considering the deviation between firms’ exploitative capabilities and exploitative-exploratory capabilities. Drawing on absorptive capacity and dynamic capability views, we address the strategic intents and exploitative-exploratory capability gap affect the choice between licensing and R&D cooperation.
Several findings emerge in our study. First, our study suggests that the effects of the three strategic intents fit better than that of the two strategic intents on the choice of university-industry collaboration mode. In terms of the two intents, firms tend to collaborate with universities when they aim at ‘passive’ intents but it is less likely for firms to license in university technologies based on ‘proactive’ intents. In terms of the three intents, firms may collaborate with universities by taking account of ‘efficiency-seeking, asset-seeking or internalization-seeking’ intent. However, firms tend not to license in university technologies when they aim at asset-seeking or internalization-seeking intents. We then conjecture that internalization-seeking intent is proactive and long-term oriented, efficiency-seeking intent is passive and short-term oriented, and asset-seeking intent is amid these two.
Second, firms are more likely to license in university technologies when they have more superior exploitative capability than exploratory capability. But, firms are less likely to collaborate with universities when they simultaneously own exploitative capability and exploratory capability. Our results suggest that university licensing and R&D cooperation with universities are not the major routes for firms to reconfigure innovation capability, especially when firms simultaneously own exploitative capability and exploratory capability.

以文找文

Agrawal, A. 2006. Engaging the inventor: exploring licensing strategies for academic technology and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal 27 (1), 63-79. new window

Agrawal, A., Henderson, R. 2002. Putting patents in context exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 (1), 44-60. new window

Amesse, F., Cohendet, P. 2001. Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy 30 (9), 1459-1478.
Anderson, T.R., Daim, T.U., Lavoie, F.F. 2007. Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation 27 (5), 306-318.
Argyres, N. 1996. Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management Journal 17 (5), 395-410.
Armstron, S., Overton, T. 1977. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396-402.
Arza, V. 2010. Channels, benefits and risks of public–private interactions for knowledge transfer: conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Science and Public Policy 37 (7), 473-484.
Atuahene-Gima, K. 2005. Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing 69 (4), 61–83.
AUTM, 2010. About Technology Transfer. http://www.autm.net/Tech_Transfer.htm accessed on 11/20/2010.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120. new window

Bekkers, R., Bodas Freitas, I.M. 2008. Analyzing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37 (10), 1837-1853.
Bercovitz J., Feldman, M.P. 2007. Fishing upstream Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy 36 (7), 930-948.
Bierly, P.E., Damanpour, F., Santoro, M.D. 2009. The application of external knowledge: organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies 46 (3), 481-509.
Bishop, K., D'Este, P., Neely, A. 2011. Gaining from interactions with universities: multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Research Policy 40 (1), 30-40. new window

Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science 20 (4), 781-796.
Carson, S.J., Madhok, A., Varman, R., John, G. 2003. Information processing moderators of the effectiveness of trust-based governance in interfirm R&D collabortion. Organization Science14 (1), 45-56. new window

Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M.C., Valentini, G. 2010. Organizing links with science: cooperate or contract? A project-level analysis. Research Policy 39 (7), 882-892.
Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1), 128-152. new window

Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P. 2002. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48 (1), 1-23. new window

Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R.R., Rosengerg, N., Sampat, B.N. 2002. How do university inventions get into practice. Management Science 48 (1), 61-72. new window

D’Este, P., Patel, P. 2007. University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy 36 (9), 1295-1313.
Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal 23, 1095-1121
Dutrénit, G., Arza, V. 2010. Channels and benefits of interactions between public research organizations and industry: comparing four Latin American countries. Science and Public Policy 37 (7), 541-553.
Eisenhardt, K., Martin, J. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal 21 (10-11), 1105-1121.
Elfenbein, D.W. 2007. Publications, patents, and the market for academic technology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63 (4), 688-715.
Eom, B., Lee, K. 2009. Modes of knowledge transfer from PROS and firm performance: the case of Korea. Seoul Journal of Economics 22(4), 449-428.
Fey, C.F., Birkinshaw, J. 2005. External sources of knowledge, governance mode, and R&D performance. Journal of Management 31 (4), 597-621.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1), 39-50. new window

Gibson, C. B., Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating: role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 47 (2), 209-226.
Grant, R.M., Baden-Fuller, C. 2004. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliance. Journal of Management Studies 41 (1), 61-84. new window

Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning with international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 12(Special issue 1), 83-103. new window

He, Z.L., Wong, P. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science 15 (4), 481-494.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting 1965-1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics 80 (1), 119-127. new window

Huber, G.P. 1991. Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science 2 (1), 88-115. new window

Jansen, J.J.P. van den Bosch, A.J., Volberda, H.W. 2005. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter. Academy of Management Journal 48 (6), 999-1015.
Jensen, R . Thursby, J., Thursby, M. 2003. Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: 'The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with'. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21(9), 1271-1300.
Jensen, R., Thursby, M. 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review 91 (1), 240-259. new window

Katila, R, Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45 (6), 1183-1194.
Kogut, B., Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3 (3), 383-397.
Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., Ouimet, M. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39 (10), 1387-1403.
Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R., Pathak, S. 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review 31 (4): 833-863.
Lane, P.J., Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal 19 (5), 461-477.
Lane, P.J., Salk, J.E., Lyles, M.A. 2001. Absorptive capacity, learning and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal 22 (12), 1139–1161.
Langford, C.H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., Jacobson, A. 2007. Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: proxies becoming goals. Research Policy 35 (10), 1586-1598.
Lavie, D., Rosenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal 49 (4), 797-818.
Leiponen, A., Helfat, C.E. 2010. Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal 31 (2), 224-236.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1988. Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy 17 (5), 251-267.
Lichtenthaler, U. 2009. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal 52 (4), 822-846.
Lin, B.W. 2003. Technology transfer as technological learning: a source of competitive advantage for firms with limited RD resources. R&D Management 33 (3), 327-341.
Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S., Bozeman, B. 2007. An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16 (4), 641–655.
Lorenzoni, G., Lipparini, A. 1999. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal 20 (4), 317–338.
Makino, S., Delios, S., 1996. Local knowledge transfer and performance: Implications for alliance formation in Asia. Journal of International Business Studies 27 (5), 905-927.
Mansfield, E. 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 20 (1), 1-12. new window

Mansfield, E. 1998. Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy 26 (7-8), 773-776.
March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1), 71-87. new window

Markman, G.D., Gianiodis, P.T., Phan, P.H. 2008. Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55 (1), 29-36. new window

Meyer, M. 2006. Academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship: on the Importance of start-up companies in commercializing academic patents. Journal of Technology Transfer 31 (4), 501-510.
Nerkar, A., Shane, S. 2007. Determinants of invention commercialization: an empirical examination of academically sourced inventions. Strategic Management Journal 28 (11), 1155–1166.
NSC, 2004. Definitions of Science and Technology Statistics Terminology (科技統計名詞定義手冊). National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C. (in Chinese).
Nunnally J C. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
O’Reilly, C.A., & Tushman, M.L. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28 (1), 185–206. new window

OECD. 1991. The nature of innovation and the evolution of the productive system, technology and productivity - the challenge for economic policy. OECD, Paris. 303–314.
Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. 2007. University-industry relationships and open innovation: towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Review 9(4), 259-280.
Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. 2008a. How firms source knowledge from universities: partnering versus contracting. In Bessant, J., Venables, T. (eds.) Creating Wealth From Knowledge. Pp. 273-296, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. 2008b. Engaging the scholar: three type of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy 37 (10), 1884-1891.
Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. 2009. the two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change 18 (6), 1033-1065.
Podsakoff, P., Organ, D. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4), 531-544.
Popper, M., Lipshitz, R. 1998. Organizational learning mechanisms: A structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 34 (2), 161-179.
Powell, W.W., Owen-Smith, J. 1998. Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17 (2), 253-277.
Rahal, A.D., Rabelo, L.C. 2006. Assessment framework for the evaluation and prioritization of academic technology for licensing and commercialization. Engineering Management Journal 18 (4), 28-36.
Reed, R., DeFillippi, R. J. 1990. Casual ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 15 (1), 88-102. new window

Rogers, E.M. 2002. The nature of technology transfer. Science Communication 23(3), 323-341.
Rogers, E.M., Yin, J., Hoffmann, J. 2000. Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at U.S. research universities. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 12, 47-79.
Rosenberg, N., Nelson, R.R. 1994. American universities and technical advance. Research Policy 23 (3), 323–348.
Rothaermel, F.T., Deeds, D.L. 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal 25 (3), 201-221.
Santoro, M.D., Bierly, P.E. 2006. Facilitators of knowledge transfer in university-industry collaborations: a knowledge-based perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53 (4), 495-507.
Santoro, M.D., Chakrabarti, A. K. 2002. Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Research Policy 31 (7), 1163–1180.
Santoro, M.D., Chakrabarti, A.K. 2001. Corporate strategic objectives for establishing relationships with university research centers. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48 (2), 157-163.
Santoro, M.D., Gopalakrishnan, S. 2001. Relationship dynamics between university research centers and industrial firms: their impact on technology transfer activities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (1-2), 163-171.
Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M., Fröhlich, J. 2002. Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy 31 (3), 303–328.
Schön, D.A. 1967. Technology and Change: The New Heraclitus. Oxford: Pergamon.
Shane, S. 2002. Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Management Science 48 (1), 122-137. new window

Sicotte, H., Langley, A., 2000. Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 17 (1), 1–37. new window

Subramaniam, M., Venkatraman, N. 2001. Determinants of transnational new product development capability. Strategic Management Journal 22 (4), 359-378.
Tatikonda, M.V., Stock, G.N. 2003. Product technology transfer in the upstream supply chain. Journal of Product Innovation Management 20 (6), 444-467.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (7), 509-533.
Thursby, J., Jensen, R., Thursby, M. 2001. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (1-2), 59–72.
Thursby, J., Thursby, M. 2002. Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science 48 (1), 90–104. new window

Thursby, J., Thursby, M. 2004. Are faculty critical? Their role in university– industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy 22 (2), 162–178.
Todorova, G., Durisin, B. 2007. Absorptive capacity: valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review 32 (3), 774-786.
Tsang, 2002. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy. Strategic Management Journal 23, 835–854.
van Wijk, R., Jansen, J.J.P., Lyles, M.A. 2008. Inter- and Intra-organizational knowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies 45 (4), 830-853.
Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B. 1999. Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy 28 (1), 63-80. new window

Wang, C.C., Kuo, C.K. 2004. Logistic Regression Models: Methods and Application. Taipei: Wunan (in Chinese).
Wang, C.L., Ahmed, P.K. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Review9 (1), 31-51. new window

Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5 (2), 171-180.
Zahra, S., George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review 27 (2), 185-203.
Zahra, S., Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal 43 (5), 925-950.
Zahra, S.A., Nielsen, A.P. 2002. Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal 23 (5), 377–398.
Zander, U., Kogut, B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organization Science 6 (1), 76-92. new window

Zollo, M., Winter, S. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science 13 (3), 339-351.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	創新來源、創新產出與公司績效間關係之探討：臺灣半導體產業之實證研究
2.	以動態能力觀點探討產學研發合作行為

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫