大學的第三使命─透過發展研究商業化活動加強對經濟社會的貢獻。在相關的法令通過後，大學商業化的活動日漸興盛。過去文獻多在大學環境體制、組織和人員文化的變革，加強大學朝創業型大學發展。然而，對於創業型大學的商業化活動，缺乏其本身的商業化策略(專利活動、產學合作、技術移轉、創新育成)的探討，例如：如何執行運作、如何相互配合等。因此，本研究透過次集資料蒐集、專家訪談，以國立清華大學和國立交通大學兩校個案為例，進行創業型大學商業化策略的探討。
創業型大學在發展商業化活動時，深受到環境因素的差異影響。國立清華大學在提倡學術卓越、研究自主的前提下，研究人員從事的研究比較缺乏明確的商業化共識，從事產學合作的進入障礙相對較低。因此，清大的商業化策略是以產學合作做為驅動力，透過較長的商業化活動週期，發揮其深且遠的商業化效益。再者，國立交通大學在其過去校園文化與發展歷史下，具有較高商業化共識，組織和體制提供許多商業化的資源。在師生、校友都積極參與的狀況下，所發展出的四項商業化策略是均衡發展的形式，透過快速回應產業與市場需求，為區域產業創新與創業提供重要的驅動力量。
綜合本研究發現，本研究以為創業型大學在發展商業化策略時，應依循學校背景發展自己的特色，因應環境因素的差別，選擇合適商業化活動策略。無論採取那一種策略，良好研究商業化活動的發展，都有助於大學在各面向的成長，如商業化共識、教學活動、研究活動等。

關鍵字：創業型大學、商業化策略、技術移轉、產學合作

The concept of entrepreneurial university, contributing in economy and society, is more and more valued after reforming the related institutional contexts. Entrepreneurial universities take researches or knowledge as commercial value putted on the market. The literature emphasized more on how environment makes commercialization activities worked. However, there are less discussion on what kinds of the commercialization strategies in campus are. This research pay more attention to how to operate and integrate commercialization strategies in entrepreneurial universities, including, University-Industry collaboration, technology transfer, and business incubation, studied with data collection, interview, and case study to investigate NTHU and NCTU.
We found that the commercialization strategies are deeply influenced by the environmental contexts. The ones in NTHU concentrating on academic excellence and faculty autonomy are driven by U-I collaboration. The ones in NCTU with high consensus of contributing industry are developed in patents, U-I collaboration, technology transfer, and business incubation in balance.
The commercial strategy in entrepreneurial university should develop their characteristic by their background and different factors of environment. In addition, the strategy to put academic knowledge on the market should be revised by their environment and business strategies to approach their goal.

Keyword: entrepreneurial university, commercialization strategies, technology transfer, University-Industry collaboration

1. 宋欣穎. (2012). 專利授權暨拍賣平台 2012年首度秋拍即將登場. DIGITIMES中文網. 新竹市
2. 吳亞君. (2000). 航太科技教育產學聯盟策略之研究. 臺灣師範大學. Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database. (2000年)
3. 李聖賢. (2009). 產學關係持續性之研究. 暨南大學國際企業學系學位論文(2009 年), 1-113.
4. 孟繼洛. (2003). 產學合作教育的新思維: 技術及職業教育雙月刊.
5. 洪友芳, 何. (2013). 交大成員不當使用IP 台積電提告.
6. 洪鉛財, & 張文龍. (2002). 創新育成中心進駐戶類型與培育服務需求關系探討—進駐戶觀點. [A Study on the Nurturing Services Demand Among the Type of Incubator Tenants — The Tenants' Point of View]. 中華管理學報, 3(2), 17-29.
7. 徐作聖. (1999). 全球化科技政策與企業經營, 華泰出版社, 台灣台北.
8. 馬自明. (2011). 新交大幫「吃軟不吃硬」. 財訊雙週刊.
9. 國立交通大學. (2009). 97年度學校自訂績效及目標值達成情形. 國立交通大學.
10. 國立交通大學. (2012). 交通大學十年發展藍圖. 新竹市.
11. 國立清華大學. (2013). 國立清華大學2012校務年報. 新竹市,台灣.
12. 國立清華大學產學合作辦公室. (2012). 創業清華. 國立清華大學出版社. 新竹市,台灣
13. 國立清華大學教師借調兼職兼課處理要點 (2014).
14. 張元杰, 朱詣尹, 洪世章, & 林博文. (2003). Stimulating technology transfer through effective policy mechanisms (Vol. Final Report). Taipei: APEC-STPRC.
15. 張元杰, 周雅燕, 高建, 蔡林彤飛, & 范舜雯. (2013). 創業型大學之發展-對大學評鑑的省思. 評鑑雙月刊, (43), 37-42.
16. 張翼. (2014). 教授們~您辛苦的智慧財產/研究結晶，請不要再輕忽了! [Press release]
17. 教育部. (2009). 97年度大專校院產學合作績效評量結果公布！. 教育部電子報.
18. 教育部高教司. (2012). 100年度大專校院產學合作績效評量結果. 高教技職簡訊, 70(教育部).
19. 許秩維. (2013). 交大研發電晶體 速度世界第一, 中央社.
20. 陳姿伶. (2004). 個案研究法 (Case Study).
21. 陳達仁, & 耿筠. (2007). 95 年度大專校院產學合作績效評量結果. 評鑑雙月刊, (10)
22. 陳達仁, & 耿筠. (2008). 96 年度大專校院產學合作績效評量結果. 評鑑雙月刊, (15), 38-42.
23. 陳達仁, & 耿筠. (2010). 98 年度大專校院產學合作績效評量結果. 評鑑雙月刊, (28)
24. 陳達仁. (2011). 99年度大專校院產學合作績效評量結果. 評鑑雙月刊, 34(財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會).
25. 耿筠, & 張明華. (2010). 從產學合作績效評量看技專校院如何做好智財管理制度的精進. 評鑑雙月刊, (28), 37-41.
26. 彭明輝. (2011). 清大彭明輝的部落格.
27. 黃彥瑜. (2013). 邁向華人首學─清華全面品質管理的創新與實踐. 台北市: 遠見天下文化.
28. 黃琬婷. (2009). 台灣公私立大學經營為創業型大學之研究. (博士(Doctor)), 國立臺灣師範大學, 台北市.
29. 葉重新. (2001). 教育研究法. 台北: 心理.
30. 葛孟堯, 劉江彬, & 耿筠. (2010). 影響我國大學技術移轉績效因素之研究. [The Research of the Factors of Technology Transfers Performance of Universities in Taiwan]. 科技管理學刊, 15(2), 55-82.
31. Chang, Y.-C., Chen, M.-H., Hua, M., & Yang, P. Y. (2006). Managing academic innovation in Taiwan: Towards a ‘scientific–economic’framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(2), 199-213.
32. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education: ERIC.
33. Clark, B. R. (2000). Collegical Entrepreneurialism In Proactive Universities: Lessons From Europe. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(1), 10-19.
34. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Mustar, P., & Knockaert, M. (2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4).
35. Corman, J., Perles, B., & Vancini, P. (1988). Motivational factors influencing high-technology entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(1), 36-42.
36. 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.
37. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.
38. Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research policy, 34(3), 349-367.
39. Duke, C. R. (1995). Organizational conflicts affecting technology commercialization from nonprofit laboratories. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 4(5), 5-13.
40. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
41. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research policy, 27(8), 823-833.
42. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research policy, 32(1), 109-121.
43. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple Helix: university-industry-government. Innovation in action.
44. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
45. Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 127-141.
46. Ghosh, B., & Kwan, W. (1996). An analysis of key success factors of SMEs: a comparative study of Singapore/Malaysia and Australia/New Zealand. Paper presented at the The 41st ICSB World Conference Proceedings I.
47. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research policy, 32(4), 639-658.
48. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.
49. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119-127.
50. Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research policy, 38(6), 922-935.
51. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 240-259.
52. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research policy, 35(10), 1599-1615.
53. 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.
54. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations. Science and public policy, 23(5), 279-286.
55. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
56. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research policy, 27(8), 835-851.
57. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research policy, 30(1), 99-119.
58. Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayhā€“Dole act in the United States. Research policy, 31(3), 399-418.
59. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648-687.
60. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research policy, 33(3), 455-471.
61. O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research policy, 34(7), 994-1009.
62. O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O'Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R&D Management, 37(1), 1-16.
63. Ounjian, M., Carne, EB. (1987). .A study factors witch affect technology transfer in a multiplication multibusiness unit corporation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(3), 194-201.
64. Partha, D., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research policy, 23(5), 487-521.
65. Peters, L., & Fusfeld, H. (1982). University-industry research relationships. National Science Foundation, USA.
66. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O'Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161-170.
67. Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227-239.
68. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university linkages. Research policy, 34(7), 1076-1090.
69. Shane, S. (2004a). Academic entrepreneurship: Edward Elgar Publishing.
70. Shane, S. (2004b). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127-151.
71. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640-660.
72. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.
73. Stankiewicz, R. (1986). Academics and entrepreneurs: developing university-industry relations: Pinter London.
74. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation: Brookings Institution Press.
75. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90-104.
76. Upstill, G., & Symington, D. (2002). Technology transfer and the creation of companies: the CSIRO experience. R&D Management, 32(3), 233-239.
77. Wallmark, J. T. (1997). Inventions and patents at universities: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Technovation, 17(3), 127-139.
78. Wong, P.-K., Ho, Y.-P., & Singh, A. (2007). Towards an “entrepreneurial university” model to support knowledge-based economic development: The case of the National University of Singapore. World Development, 35(6), 941-958.
79. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods.