簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 盧詩佩
Lu, Shih Pei
論文名稱： 大學研究的商業化策略：以台灣科技大學和逢甲大學為例
Universities’ Research Commercialization Strategy: The Cases of Taiwan University of Science and Technology and Feng Chia University
指導教授： 張元杰
Chang, Yuan Chieh
口試委員: 胡美智
張元杰
陳旻男
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 科技管理學院 - 科技管理研究所
Institute of Technology Management
論文出版年： 2016
畢業學年度： 104
語文別： 中文
論文頁數： 97
中文關鍵詞： 創業型大學、商業化策略、技術移轉、產學合作
外文關鍵詞： entrepreneurial university, commercialization strategies, technology transfer, University-Industry collaboration
相關次數： 點閱：2  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 伴隨創業型大學的盛行發展風氣下，大學的角色逐漸走出象牙塔，並將研究能量與產業界接軌，增加對社會與經濟的貢獻價值。本研究建立一個分析創業型大學發展的架構，嘗試透過國立台灣科技大學和逢甲大學兩校的個案研究，利用專家訪談、相關文獻與次級資料的蒐集與整理，以商業化活動發展為核心，結合環境與績效為分析構面，探討大學的商業化活動的可能策略。
    台灣科技大學在側重務實的學校定位下，研究人員的研發成果側重市場應用性。其商業化策略大致依循著一套脈絡，由專利申請作為保護成果的前導手段開端，進入到以技術服務為主的產學合作活動，強調快速且務實的解決業界問題，並以技術授權與新創企業的成立來延續並發揮較長遠的商業化效益，且校園創業風氣其來有自，在體制和組織上提供許多資源。再者，逢甲大學在區位與歷史發展下，發展出的是以多態樣的產學合作為中心，像一頂大傘，帶動傘下多目標的商業化活動（專利活動、技術移轉和創新育成），不像台灣科技大學，逢甲的商業化活動並無固定的路徑可循，彼此間互為獨立的關係。但是和台科大相同的是，逢甲也是透過快速回應產業與市場需求，提供即時商業化效益，在學術創業家和學生積極的參與下，校園的創業風氣由放任演變為策略引導，學校在法規制度上亦積極倡導學術與商業化並重之風氣。
    研究發現大學在體制上必須鼓勵研究商業化，輔以彈性的政策，透過專責的單位加強支援機制，藉由師生的意願投入與積極參與，建立良好發展環境；各大學因為本身資源的不同，在專利、產學合作、技術移轉與師生創業，由四者間不同的策略推動商業化的發展，這四種商業化策略是互動影響與增強關係。

    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 into 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 NTUST and FCU.
    We found that the commercialization strategies are deeply influenced by the environmental contexts. The ones in NTUST concentrating on industrial excellence and faculty autonomy are developed in patents, U-I collaboration, technology transfer, and business incubation in balance. The ones in FCU with high consensus of contributing industry are mainly driven by U-I collaboration.
    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.

    ABSTRACT II 致謝詞 III 圖目錄 VII 表目錄 VIII 第一章 緒論 1 1.1研究背景 1 1.2研究動機與目的 1 1.3章節架構 4 第二章 文獻探討 4 2.1創業型大學的三大環境構面 4 2.2.1專利活動 10 2.3.2技術移轉 11 2.3.3產學合作 12 2.3.4創業與育成 13 2.3 四大商業化策略的相互影響 14 2.3.1商業化策略的交互影響 14 2.3.2商業化活動對學術研究與教學的影響 15 2.4 研究架構 16 第三章 研究方法 18 3.1 個案研究法 18 3.2個案選擇 19 3.2.1台灣科技大學 19 3.2.2逢甲大學 23 3.3 資料蒐集來源與彙整 25 3.4 訪談對象 27 第四章 個案一 28 4.1 國立台灣科技大學過去發展與現況 28 4.2 環境因子 29 4.2.1環境與體制構面 29 4.2.2組織構面 35 4.2.3學術創業家構面 40 4.3 商業化策略的執行狀況 41 4.3.1產學合作以提供技術服務的方式進行 41 4.3.2專利活動作為保護技術價值的前置手段 44 4.3.3技術移轉為產學合作的最終目的 45 4.3.4創新與育成打造親產學環境 46 4.4 商業化策略的交互作用 49 4.4.1四項商業化策略的功能 50 4.4.2商業化策略間互動關係較短較明確 50 4.5 績效 51 4.5.1對教學活動的影響 51 4.5.2對研究議題與學術發表的影響 52 4.5.3對再次投入商業化活動意願的影響 54 4.6 小結 55 第五章 個案二：逢甲大學 57 5.1 逢甲大學過去發展與現況 57 5.2 環境因子 58 5.2.1環境與體制構面 58 5.2.2組織構面 65 5.2.3學術創業家構面 71 5.3 商業化策略的執行狀況 73 5.3.1產學合作態樣多元 驅動其他商業化活動 73 5.3.2專利活動保護後續商業化價值 76 5.3.3技術移轉落實商業化的輸出 77 5.3.4創新與育成將業界資源統整 78 5.4 商業化策略的交互作用 80 5.4.1四項商業化策略的功能 81 5.4.2商業化策略間互動關係較短較明確 81 5.5 績效 82 5.5.1對教學活動的影響 82 5.5.2對研究議題與學術發表的影響 83 5.5.3對再次投入商業化活動意願的影響 83 5.6 小結 84 第六章 討論 85 第七章 結論與建議 87 7.1 結論與建議 87 7.2 研究貢獻 89 參考文獻 91

    1. 孟繼洛. (2003). 產學合作教育的新思維: 技術及職業教育雙月刊.
    2. 陳姿伶. (2004). 個案研究法 (Case Study).
    3. 葉重新. (2001). 教育研究法: 心理出版社.
    4. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. 1997. Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. JOURNAL OF URBAN ECONOMICS, 42: 422-448.
    5. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. 2007. The determinants of faculty patenting behavior : Demographics or opportunities. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63(4): 599-623.
    6. Bathelt, H., Kogler, D. F., & Munro, A. K. (2010). A knowledge-based typology of university spin-offs in the context of regional economic development. Technovation, 30(9–10), 519-532.
    7. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level. Organization Science, 19(1),69
    8. Chang, Y.-C., & Yang, P. Y. (2008). The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffusion: a test of the anti-commons effect in Taiwan. R&D Management, 38(3), 321-334.
    9. Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M.-H. 2009. The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6): 936-946.
    10. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education: ERIC.
    11. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business venturing, 20(2), 183-216.
    12. Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. 1997. Regional innovation systems Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26: 475-491.
    13. David, P. A. (1998). Common agency contracting and the emergence of" open science" institutions. American Economic Review, 15-21.
    14. 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.
    15. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. 2010. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3): 316-339.
    16. 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.
    17. Etzkowitz, H. 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science cognitive effects of the new university industry linkages. Research Policy, 27: 823-833
    18. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
    19. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple Helix: university-industry-government. Innovation in action.
    20. Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation: Psychology Press.
    21. Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.
    22. 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.
    23. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies: Sage.
    24. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.
    25. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2014). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4
    26. Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersaeter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. Universities and strategic knowledge creation, 112-143.
    27. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenber, M. 1998. Universities as a Source of commercial technoogy a detailed analysis of university patenting 1965-1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1): 119-127.
    28. 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.
    29. Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the UK: Applying Entrepreneurship Theory to Practice. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599-603.
    30. 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.
    31. Martin, B. R., & Etzkowitz, H. (2000). The origin and evolution of the university species. VEST Journal for Science and Technology Studies,13(3-4),9-24
    32. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835-851
    33. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99-119.
    34. 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.
    35. 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.
    36. 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.
    37. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O'Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161-170.
    38. Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. 2010. Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical test. Technovation, 30(5-6): 332-347.
    39. Rorida, R. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development.
    40. Shane, S. (2004a). Academic entrepreneurship: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    41. 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.
    42. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 115-142.
    43. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27-48.
    44. Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies: Wiley Online Library.
    45. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 59-72.
    46. Upstill, G., & Symington, D. 2002. Technology transfer and the creation of companies the SCRO experience. R&D Management, 32(3): 233-239.
    47. Wallmark, J. T. 1997. Inventions and patents at universities : The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Technovation, 17: 127-139.
    48. Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541-567
    49. Whitley, R. (2003). Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organization academic science. Research Policy, 32(6), 1015-1029.
    50. Yang, P. Y., & Chang, Y.-C. 2009. Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: the moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment. Scientometrics, 83(2): 403-421.
    51. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods.
    52. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications.

    無法下載圖示 全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
    全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

    QR CODE