Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34284
|
| Title: | 從國家創新系統的觀點探討大學智慧資本與成果擴散效益之關聯
The Relations between Intellectual Capital and the Innovation-derived Benefit in View of National Innovation System |
| Authors: | 江雪嬌
Chiang, Hsueh Chiao |
| Contributors: | 李仁芳
Lee, Jen Fang
江雪嬌
Chiang, Hsueh Chiao |
| Keywords: | 國家創新系統
智慧資本
創新管理系統
結構方程模式
National Innovation System
Intellectual Capital
Innovation Management System
Structural Equation Model,SEM |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 09:15:30 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來我國在高等教育的學校與人數上均有大幅的成長。而這些豐富的研究人力，需要充沛的研究經費予以支援學術研究工作。實務上，我國於開放高等教育機構的設立後，各界所提供的研發經費並未相對應的增加，各校為因應整體環境趨勢的改變，乃積極研議如何強化學術研究成果的擴散，以提升學術聲望並獲得更多的實質效益。本研究在此情境下，試圖從國內大學之知識創新的實務發展，建構一套研究成果擴散效益的運作模式。
大學知識產業化是知識經濟發展的趨勢，尤其基礎研究是技術發展與應用研究的主要來源。大學知識創新過程是科學知識在創新系統內的生產、運用與擴散的過程。而建立有效的成果管理機制，減少外在環境的不確定性並改善知識流動的效率，是創新系統成功的關鍵。
鑑於大學係國家創新系統的重要成員之一，而創新的效率取決於系統內各成員之財務、知識、人力與法規的交流，即所謂的「三螺旋(Triple Helix)」的觀念。因此，為尋求最佳的創新系統，亟須建立有效的衡量項目，並促使創新成果在市場機制的導引下，獲得知識創新與擴散的經濟效益。如美國為因應創新系統失靈，於1980年以後，研訂一連串的相關法令，透過研發經費的補助、智財權下放與鼓勵設置專責技轉單位等措施，刺激大學將豐富的研究產出移轉到產業界，政府的研究資源分配亦更加重視目標導向與產業導向的發展計畫，結果所獲得的回收遠超過預期，其作法吸引世界各國競相仿效。我國亦於近年來透過相關法令的制定以及經費補助等措施，期望將大學的研究產出從知識的創造轉變為知識的加值與運用，以帶動產業知識化，並促進知識產業化之效益。
因此，欲探討大學的成果擴散效益時，不只是依循過去大多數學者從產學合作的觀點，更應考量政府在創新過程中所扮演的角色與功能，以及將衡量國家創新系統績效之方法運用到大學的成果擴散效益的呈現上，以建立適合我國大學創新成效的衡量模式。
本研究架構從教師的「研究人力」、「研究經費」以及「產學關係」等三構念探究對於「研究產出」以及成果推廣所產生的「擴散效益」之關聯，另外，再從學校的研究成果「管理機制」以及「政府措施」等二構念探究對於其他構念所帶來的影響，以瞭解彼此之關聯，並建立適合我國大學研究投入、產出以及擴散的運作模式。
因此，除了收集國內外的文獻以歸納整理美日等國在大學研究成果擴散效益的探討內容與衡量項目外，並透過問卷調查與實地訪問國內大學教師與研究成果推廣中心(或技轉中心)主管，以瞭解國內大學研究成果的實務運作，以獲得本研究的初步架構，繼而從美日以及我國大學的個案研究，探討國家創新系統的角色所帶來的影響，以強化研究架構之各構念的關聯性。
其次，採取初級資料的收集方法，以國內大學校院教師為問卷調查對象，進行敘述統計以計算樣本的各項指標分布狀況，以信效度指標確認問卷的可靠性與有效性，並運用探索性因素分析來萃取出本研究重要之變數，再以線性結構關係模型分析本研究變數之間的關係，以驗證各構念彼此之間的關聯性。
本研究獲得以下的結論：
一、「研究人力」與其他構念之關聯
「研究人力」對「產學關係」有直接的正向影響，對「研究經費」、「研究產出」與「擴散效益」則有間接的正向影響效果，而且整體的影響效果是顯著的。所以，研究人力是成果散效益的基本要素，配合其他構念的運作可以對研發成果之擴散效益產生正向的影響。
二、「研究經費」與其他構念之關聯
「研究經費」對於「研究產出」與「擴散效益」均沒有顯著的正向影響。顯示一味強調大學研究經費投入的作法無法帶來實質的成效，反而浪費有限的資源，因此，研究經費投入前，宜先制定一套評估機制，充分考量學校的研究人力、以往的研究產出與擴散效益之表現，以有效地配置研究經費。
三、「研究產出」與其他構念之關聯
「研究產出」對於「擴散效益」有直接的正向影響，表示大學教師所創造出來的成果越多，則相對地促使成果擴散的效益越大。此外，研究產出的增加亦可影響其他構念對「擴散效益」的關聯性。因此，為提高擴散效益，學校宜積極鼓勵教師增加研究成果的產出。
四、「產學關係」與其他構念之關聯
「產學關係」除了對「研究產出」與「研究經費」產生直接的正向影響外，亦間接影響「研究經費」與「研究產出」分別對「擴散效益」的關聯性。顯示產學關係可彌補大學與企業的技術落差，提高產業對學校研究成果之需求，促使教師研究產出的擴散效益更佳。
五、「管理機制」與其他構念之關聯
「管理機制」對「產學關係」與「擴散效益」均有直接的正向影響，顯示學校在成果管理與運用的積極作為(如技轉單位的設置、技轉人員的規模與培訓、獎勵措施的制定等)以及促進產學之間的關係可提高研究成果推廣所帶來的效益。
六、政府措施與其他構念之關聯
「政府措施」不但對「擴散效益」有直接的正向影響，亦對「產學關係」有直接的正向影響，此外，對「研究經費」與「研究產出」亦有間接的正向影響。因此，未來應加強我國政府的角色，充分發揮驅動與強化的功能，解決大學研究成果擴散的管制與障礙、營造產學研發資源共享環境以提高大學研究產出的擴散效益。
After the government lifted the restriction on the number of higher education institutes, in the past two decades the number of university in Taiwan has increased dramatically (16 in 1986, and 102 in 2008). The government apparently could not match up this increase, with its slow pace of education budget increase. The shortage of development funds from governmental agency in charge is no doubt obvious for all universities. Therefore, to receive an ample share of governmental education budget has become competitive and even difficult.
As the global economy weighs more on the generation and dissemination of knowledge nowadays, universities seems to see themselves clearer in the business picture for their role on the economic market. University officials and the government both also understand that a productive conversion of university intellectual assets, referring to knowledge-based creation or innovation, to innovation-derived benefit can be crucial for future university development. Thus, not only the university finance will be improved, its academic performance shall also be expected to enhance when this conversion is being well performed productively.
An innovation management system here refers to a university system to manage its intellectual capital, such as support and process infrastructures, in facilitating the conversion process that enable the university to convert its intellectual assets into commercially viable properties. An important aspect of this study is to analyze national and international innovation management systems currently practiced in universities for greatest innovation-derived benefit.
In the current of knowledge–based economic development, the knowledge-based innovations owned by universities is inevitably weighed more than ever in value. Many Universities may fall in a dilemma about how to weigh market–oriented research in comparison with fundamental scientific knowledge, since the latter never the less could lead to market–oriented innovation in the future. Furthermore, to maximize the value of innovation, it is commonly accepted that a proper management for conversion is almost as important as the producing of it. When it comes to determine the value or the benefit the innovations could bring, other than university’s innovation capability, which tends to have the potential to incubate more research outcomes, the performance of innovation management system is one of the most decisive factors. To achieve a good performance, three conditions are proposed to maintain an efficient innovation management system: an effective management mechanism, reduce adverse influences on incubating innovation assets, and increase knowledge sharing.
The maintenance of such a system is then further categorized as seven conceptual indices (CIs) for later evaluation: research manpower, research grant, innovation outcomes, management mechanism, university-industry relations, government policy, and innovation-derived benefit. The first four are regarded as part of intellectual capital, while the other three are considered as strongly linked to the performance of the innovation management system currently being operated in Taiwan’s universities. They will be discussed in connection the first five CIs for their inter-relations.
Since universities is under the scheme of National Innovation Systems (NIS), which covers primarily a finance and service system, a technological innovation system, and a knowledge-based innovation system, any management taking place in a university on each of any sub-system under the NIS will affect the NIS to some extent. By the same token, considering those mentioned above several conceptual indices are proposed to elucidate the results of the evaluation model applied in this study to examine similar management systems in different universities for comparison. This evaluation model is expected to help optimize the current managerial models to best meet the knowledge-based economic development needs and enlarge the innovation-derived benefit from university innovation assets.
Prior to 1980s, the promotion on innovation in the U.S. was generally considered failed. To save the failing systems, the U.S. government announced a series of new regulations to promote the capitalization of academic innovations by universities. Those policy measures mainly included governmental subsidy to research grants, less constraints on intellectual property (IP) licensing, and start-ups for IP transfer. Furthermore, the government diverted more its research support into market-oriented development projects. Since such moves later resulted in a positive outcome beyond expectation, Taiwan as well as some other countries began to replicate those measures in their own countries.
As the sources of future development increasingly depend on the derived benefit from innovation, the success of NSI originated by the U.S. government has indicated a new approach different from previously predominated models of solely university-industry cooperation. The involvement of government role in the NSI has been proved essential for its success. Similarly, the innovation management system being operated with the university intellectual capital to enhance the conversion to innovation-derived benefit is defined as the innovation assets management system (IAMS). It can be considered as a sub-system of the NSI, and the use of the evaluation model to examine the IAMSs can properly shows the difference among all the IAMSs by university.
Furthermore, the evaluation model proposed takes account of surveys including interviews with IP transfer professionals and research professors. Cases of universities practicing the IAMS along with others published in literature are also studied to help access the relations among index items in the model.
The model is constructed with several measures, including Structural Equation Model (SEM), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), to evaluate the performance of the IAMS on successful conversion from intellectual assets into benefit. The model results are depicted with CIs as the conclusions.
A qualitative survey is carried out on the evaluation of inter-relations among the seven CIs described above with Taiwan’s university educators as respondents. Confidence interval is applied to assure data reliability and validity. Significant model variables are identified using the explorative factor analysis. Finally the linear regression is applied to examine the relations among those CIs.
The results of this study can be concluded as the following:
1.Research manpower
It has positive influence directly towards university-industry cooperation when affecting positively towards research grant, innovation outcomes and innovation-derived benefit. The result suggests that it be the fundamental CI responsible to innovation-derived benefit. And along with other CIs, this CI could result in a comprehensive enhancement on the innovation-derived benefit.
2.Research grant
It shows less significant effect over innovation outcomes and innovation-derived benefit. This conclusion indicates that the scale of innovation outcomes will not necessarily in proportion to the financial investment on research. It is suggested that a comprehensive evaluation on research manpower, innovation capability, and research capacity, etc. should be conducted prior to market-oriented investment on research.
3.Innovation outcomes
This term shows a positive relation with the innovation-derived benefit. It is easy to understand that university educators with more innovation outcomes tend to receive more innovation-derived benefit. Furthermore, increase in innovation outcomes will also help induce stronger links among the other CIs towards the innovation-derived benefit. Thus, encouraging educators for more innovation outcomes is no doubt a good measure for universities.
4.University-industry relations
University-industry relations bear positive influence to innovation outcomes and research grant. It also shows its positive effect on the relations between research grant to innovation-derived benefit and between innovation outcomes to innovation-derived benefit. The role of university-industry relations can be depicted as to lessen the technological gap between university and industry, facilitate the industry need for university innovation outcomes, and multiply innovation-derived benefit.
5.Management mechanism
The management mechanism shows positive influence on university-industry relations and innovation-derived benefit. An effective management mechanism on innovation outcomes would directly lead to excellent benefit derived from innovation outcomes.
6.Government policy
Government policy shows straight links to university-industry relations and innovation-derived benefit. It also indicates an indirect effect on enhancing both research grant and innovation outcomes. In the future, the government should play a key role in promoting universities to practice such a system and help resolve difficulties arisen. |
| Reference: | 中國時報論壇，民國92年10月22日.
北澤宏一（2005），日本研究成果實用化推廣-以JST產學合作推廣為例，
國科會科資中心演講資料.
台灣經濟研究所(1988).產業技術能力指標模式之研究.
台灣經濟研究院(2003).運用學界研發能量支援產業科技創新調查計畫報告.
李仁芳（1998）.合作研發與國家創新系統.科技政策報導(SR8702),541-
551.
江雪嬌(2004),從國家創新系統探討大學推動研發服務業的發展, 經濟情勢暨
評論，10(3)，19-34.
江雪嬌，李蕙瑩，林芳美，梅家瑜(2005).智慧資本之創造與管理運作機制—
從創新體系與知識產業化之觀點探討，國科會93年度研究計畫。
吳安妮（2002）.剖析智慧資本.會計研究月刊，204期。
吳安妮(2003).智慧資本的類別與評價機制.智慧資本的創造與管理研討會，
民國92年10月2日，政大公企中心.
吳安妮、王泰昌、彭火樹(2002).台灣會計學術單位期刊著作表現之研究，
國科會社會科學研究中心計畫.
吳思華、吳安妮、彭火樹等(2002).我國資訊產業智慧資本評價之研究.
二00二經濟部技術處學界科專非技術領域學術研討會論文集，448-
459。
吳思華(2000)網際網路智慧資本與發展措施研究計畫，資策會資訊市場情報中心。
吳清山（1998）.學校效能研究,台北：五南.
吳清山（2000）.學校行政,台北：心理.
吳榮義，林秀英(2003).台灣產業科技創新之國際競爭力.2003產業科技創
新:關鍵年代的科技政策與挑戰國際研討會，2003年10月30-31日，台北.
吳豐祥（1998）.產學合作創新的機會與挑戰.第七屆產學管理研討會.
李怡禎(2007).智慧資本與組織績效之研究.政治大學企業管理研究所，未出
版之博士論文.
李廉水和傅家驥（1999）.論國家創新系統的內涵、層次、功能.1999中華民
國科技管理研討會，2084-2092.
林秀英(2003).政府出資之科技計畫研發成果績效運用之比較.2003年7月25日簡報資料.
林欣吾(2007).大專校院技研創新與產官學合作之研究.人才培育與競爭力之
研究期中發表研討會，台灣經濟研究院，2007年4月9日，台北.
林秉毅(2005).日本大學與研發機構之技術移轉辦公室促進研發成果商品化研
究.未出版之碩士論文，政治大學科技管理研究所.
林鴻六、郭榮富、黃汝慧、業程瑋（2005）.我國產業科技創新之智慧財產機
制.科技發展政策報導，3，235-258.
林東正(2003).企業市場顧客滿意構面之探討：以資訊系統委外發展為例，未
出版博士論文，國立台北大學企業管理學系，台北.
林碧芳(2004).中小學教師創意教學自我效能感與創意教學行為的結構方程模
式之檢驗.未出版之碩士論文，東海大學教育研究所.
邱皓正（2005）.結構方程模式：LISREL的理論、技術與應用，台北：雙葉書
廊.
范建得(2006).工業局簡報資料。
翁榮銅(2003).技專校院知識資產指標建構研究，國立台灣師範大學工業教育
研究所未出版之博士論文.
涂瑞德，劉江彬（1999）.美國、日本與瑞典大學技術移轉政策與模式之研
究.中華民國科技管理研討會，1961-1972.
國科會（1997）.中華民國科學技術統計要覽.
國科會（2004）.國科會成果推廣措施研討會,2004年8月16日，台北.
國科會(2005).國科會補助專題研究計畫作業要點.
國科會（2006a）.中華民國科學技術統計要覽.
國科會（2006b）.技術移轉手冊.
國科會(2007).98年度政府科技計畫概算編製暨審議作業手冊」.
國科會企劃處，經濟部技術處(2003)，台灣地區技術創新調查報告.
國科會科學技術資料中心(2003).國科會專利資料彙整暨產學合作與技術移轉
績效評量研究.
國科會科學技術資料中心(2004).亞洲國家科學技術力論壇論文集.
教育部(2007).科技研發資源投入策略調整-推動產學加值跨部會產學合作績
效目標.教育部簡報資料，2007年5月29日.
曹添旺、賴景昌、張嘉峰（2002）.台灣經濟學術單位在Econlit資料庫的學
術表現.國科會社會科學研究中心計畫.
梭羅(Leste C. Thurow)(1992).世紀之爭：競爭全球新霸主.台北：天下文
化.
梭羅(Leste C. Thurow)(1998).資本主義的未來.北京：中國社會科學。
郭敏如(2005).技專校院學校效能指標及其權重建構之研究.國立彰化師範大
學商業教育學系未出版之碩士論文.
陳怡之(2003).政府科技施政成果之智慧資本管理.，智慧資本的創造與管理
研討會，4-1~4-53.
陳達仁(2007).由專利看美國大學科技創新研發能量的表現.評鑑雙月刊，8，
29-35.
陳達仁、黃慕萱(2003).專利資訊與專利檢索.文華圖書館管理資訊股份有限
公司。
陸永昶，彭火樹（2003）.政府部門智慧資本指標發展之研究—以我國審計單位為例.創新與知識學術研討會，976-1014.
黃芳銘(2002).結構方程模式:理論與應用.台北，五南出版社.
黃俊英，劉江彬(1995).大學及研究機構技術移轉中心制度之建立與運作，中
山大學企管研究所.
黃政傑、李隆盛（1996）.技職教育概論.台北，師大書苑.
黃紀、湯京平、吳重禮(2001).我國政治學系所期刊著作學術表現之研究.國
科會社會科學研究中心計畫。
黃家齊（2000）.人力資源管理、智慧資本與組織績效.2000科技整合管理國
際研討會，498-516，台北.
黃家齊(2002).人力資源管理系統與組織績效—智慧資本的觀點.管理學報，
19(3)，415-450.
黃慕萱（2004）.書目計量與學術評鑑—國內七所研究型大學論文發表概況分
析.引文分析與學術評鑑研討會論文集,135-152，台北市：國家圖書館.
黃慕萱(2007).擇優公佈國內目前20%大學名單.評鑑雙月刊，7，9-22。
黃慕萱，陳達仁，張翰文(2003).從專利計量的觀點評估國家科技競爭力.中
國圖書館學會會報，70，18-30.
楊君琦(2000).技術移轉互動模式失靈及重塑之研究--以研究機構與中小企業
技術為例.未出版之博士論文，國立台灣大學商學研究所.
劉江彬，黃俊英(2004).智慧財產管理總論.台北：華泰文化.
劉勁楊（2002）.知識創新、技術創新與制度創新概念的再界定，科學學與科
學技術管理，5-8.
德瑞克.伯克（Derek Bok）著(2003)，楊振富譯，大學何價：高等教育商業
化（Universities in the Marketplace：The
Commercialization of Higher Education）, Princeton
University Press.台北市：天下遠見,2004
蔡明璋、蘇國賢(2003).我國社會學系所期刊著作學術表現之研究，國科會社
會科學研究中心計畫.
諾斯(Douglass C. North)，劉瑞華譯(1995).經濟史的結構與變遷
（Structure and Change in Economic History）.台北：時報出
版社.
諶家蘭，張宗凱(1999).構成高科技產業標竿政策因素之初探.科技管理學
刊,4(2),67-103.
賴香菊、黃三益(2001).台灣資訊管理學術單位在學術期刊上的發表狀況之研
究.國科會社會科學研究中心計畫.
戴曉霞(2000).新世紀高等教育的展望.回顧與前瞻教育研究集刊，35-59.
薛又軒(2002).研發成果商品化-大學技術移轉中心運作模式之探討，未出版
之碩士論文.國立中山大學企業管理研究所.
魏文欽（2004）.引進技術授權意圖決定因素之實證研究-以台灣電子業為例.
未出版之博士論文，國立台北大學企業研究所。
羅於陵（2004），大學校院研究績效分析計畫—國際期刊論文績效指標，國科
會科學技術資料中心，民國93年10月。
羅於陵、柏安東、李杏芬(2001).國家創新體系：向知識經濟轉化，國科會科
學技術資料中心.
羅思嘉、張慧珠(2007)，2004-2006年台灣地區大專校院專利計量分析，評
鑑雙月刊，8，24-28。
二、日文
兒玉文雄（2004）.産学連携論考 Receiver-Active Paradigm─技術の受
け手主導の移転パラダイムー（產學合作論－技術接受者主導的技術移轉
典範）,技術と経済,449,44~53.
坊田佳紀(1998).美、英，德,法四國的技術動向.工業技術,39(6),22-27.
近藤正幸（2002）.對大學衍生創業的期待,技術與經濟,429,4-11.
研究振興局研究環境.產業連攜課（2002）.二一世紀の產学官連携の在
り方（二十一世紀產官學合作的方法），文部科學時報,1521,50-59.
清川寬（2004）.日本經濟產業研究所(RIETI),「日本高科技中小企業的發
展趨勢與政策」,推動台日新興科技小企業發展研討會，亞東關係協會科
技交流委員會.
塚本芳昭（2000）.東京工業大學創造新產業技術之方式，生物科學與工
業,58（3）,206-209.
三、英文
Acs, J.Z.,Varga, A. and Anselin, L(2002).Patents and
Innovation Counts as Measures of Regional Production of
New Knowledge. Research Policy,31(7),1069-1085.
Agor,W.H.(1997).The Measurement, Use and Development of
Intellectual Capital to Increase Public Sector
Productivity. Public Personnel Management,26(2),175-186.
AUTM (1998). AUTM US Licensing Survey.
AUTM (2005). AUTM US Licensing Survey.
AUTM (2006). AUTM US Licensing Survey.
Baba, M.and Kimebappu, T.（2000）.Contemporary Development
of Research Cooperation in University-Industry Relations
in Japan. Industry & Higher Education,14(1),17-23
Bagozzi, R. P. and Y. Yi(1988). On the Evaluation of
Structural Equation Model.Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science,16(1): 74-94.
Bagozzi R.P., Yi Y. and Philips, L.W. (1991). Assessing
construct validity in organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly,36, 421-458.
Barney,J.B.(1991).Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantages.Journal of Management,17,99-120.
Bassi,L.J. and McMurer,D.P.（1998）.Training investment can
mean financial performance. Training & Development,52
(5),40-42.
Behrens,T.R. and Gray,D.O.（2001）.Unitended Consequences
of Cooperative Research：Impact of Industry Sponsorship
on Climate for Academic Freedom and Other Graduate
student Outcom. Research Policy,30（2）,179-199.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I. and Burton, R.
（2001）. Organizational structure as a determinant of
academic patenting and licensing behavior: an
exploratory study of Duke, John Hopkins, and Penn State
Universities.Journal of Technology Transfer,26, 21-135.
Bollen,K.A.(1989).Structural Equations with Latnet
Variable, N.Y.:Wiley.
Bontis,N.（1998）. Intellectual Capital：An Exploratory
Study That Develops Measures and Models.Management
Decision, 36(2), 63-76.
Bozeman(2000).Technology transfer and public policy：a
review of research and theory. Research Policy,29,627-
655.
Brooking, A.（1996）. Intellectual capital：Core Assets for
the Third Millenium Enterprise. Thomson Business Press,
London, United Kingdom.
Brooking, A.（1997）. The Management of Intellectual
Capital.Long Range Planning,30(3), 364-365.
Caraynnis,D.G.and Alexer,J.（1999）.The Wealth of
Knowledge: Converting Intellectual Property to
Intellectual Capital in Competitive Research and
Technology Management Settings. International Journal of
Technology Management, 18(3/4), 326-352.
Carlsson, B.and Fridh,A. (2002). Technology transfer in
United States universities: a survey and statistical
analysis.Journal of Evolutionary Economics,12,199-232
Carlsson,B.,Jacobsson,S.,Holmen,M.and Rickne,A.
(2002).Innovation systems:analytical and methodological
issues.Research Policy, 31(2),233-245.
Cohen, W.M.,Nagata, A.,Walsh, J.P.,Goto, A.and Nelson R.
（2002）. R&D Spillovers, Patents and the Incentives to Innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy,31
(8/9),1349-1367.
Cooke, P.; Uranga,M. G. and Etxebarria, G.（1997）.
Regional Innovation Systems: Institutional and
Organizational Dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4-5),
pp475-491.
Cordero, R.(1990). The measurement of innovation
performance in the firm: an overview. Research
Policy,19,185-192.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 163, 297-334.
Damanpour, F.(1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-
analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.
Academy of Management Journal,34(3),555-590.
Dasgupta,P. and David, P.A.（1994）.Toward a new economics
of science.Research Policy,23(5),487-521.
Davenport, T.H.; Long, D. and Beers, M.C.(1998).Successful
Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review,
39(2),43–57
Davenport,S. and Bibby, D.（1999）.Rethinking a National
Innovation System; The Small Country
as "SME”,Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,11
(3), 431-462.
Davenport,S; Carr,A. and Bibby,D.(2002). Leveraging talent:
spin-off strategy at Industrial Research,R&D Management,
32(3),241-254
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Principles of successful innovation.
Research Management,28(5),10-12.
Dzinkowski, R. (2000).The value of intellectual capital.The
Journal of Business Strategy,21(4),3-4.
Edvinsson,H. and Sullivan.（1996）.Developing a Model for
Managing Intellectual Capital.European Management
Journal,14(4), 356-364.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997).Intellectual Capital：
Realizing your company’s true value by finding its
hidden roots. USA： Happer Collins.
Edwards J.R. and Bagozzi R.P.(2000).On the nature and
direction of relationships between constructs and
measures. Psychol. Methods,5,155–174.
Edvinsson,L.（1997）.Developing Intellectual Capital at
Skandia. Long Range Planning,30(3),366-373
Ernst,H.(1998).Patent portfolio for strategic R&D planning.
Journal of Engineering Technology Management,15(4),279-
308.
Ernst,H.(2001).Patent Applications and Subsequent Changes
of Performance: Evidence from Time-Series Cross-Section
Analysis on the Firm Level.Research Policy,30(1),143-157.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff,L.(1997). Universities and
the Global Knowledge Economy: Triple-Helix of University- Industry- Government Relations. London: Printer.
Etzkowitz,H.（1999）.The Norms of Entrepreneurial
Science :Cognitive Effects of the New University-
Industry Linkages.Research Policy,27(8),823-833.
Etzkowitz,H. and 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(2/3),109-123.
Fagerberg J.；Mowery, D.and Nelson, R.（2004）. Systems of
Innovation—A Critical Review of The State of the Art,
Chapter 7 in Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University
Press.
Freeman. C.(1987). The Economics of Industrial Innovation.
The MIT press
Freitas,Isabel Maria(2007).Exploring patterns of knowledge
transfer from university to industry: Do sectors matter?
The 6th Triple Helix Conference.
Friedman, J. and Silberman,J.(2003). University Technology
Transfer：Do Incentive , Management and Location Matter?
Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1),17-30.
Fritsch,M. and Schwirten,C.(1999).Enterprise-University Co-
operation and the Role of Public Research Institutions
in Regional Innovation Systems.Industry and Innovation,6
(1),69-83.
Fuijsue, K.（1998）. Promotion of Academia-Industry
Cooperation in Japan-Establishing the "Law of Promoting
Technology Transfer from University to Industry" in
Japan. Technovation,18(6/7), 371-381.
Furman, J. L., Stern, S and Porter, M.E.（2002）.The
Determinants of National Innovative Capacity.Research
Policy31（6）,pp 899-933.
Geregorio , D. D. and Shane, S.（2003）.Why do some
Universities Generate Start-ups than Others?Research
policy,32(2) 209-227.
Geuna,A. and Nesta,L.J.J.（2006）. University patenting and
its effects on academic research: The emerging European
evidence.Research Policy,35(6),790-807.
Gibbon,M. and Johnston,R.（1974）.The roles of sciences in
technological innovation.Research Policy,3(3),220-242.
Goldfarb, B. and Henrekson,M.（2003）.Bottom-up versus top-
down policies towards the commercialization of
university intellectual property.Research Policy,32
(4),639-658.
Granieri,M.(2003).Beyond Traditional Technology Transfer of
Faculty- Generates Inventions: Building a Bridge Toward
R&D. Les Nouvelles, 38(4),167-175.
Griliches, Z.(1990).Patent Statistics as Economic
Indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic
Literature,92,630-653.
Gruetzmacher,R.R., Khoury,S. and Willey, T.(2000).License
Pricing- The Role of Company and University
Complementary Assets, Les Nouvelles,45(3),116-123.
Grupp,H. and Mogee,M.E.(2004).Indicators for national
science and technology policy:how robust are composite
indicators? Research Policy,33(9),1373-1384.
Hair,J.F.,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R.L.&Black,W.C.(1998).
Multivariate Data Analysis.N.Y.Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Hameri, A. (1996). Technology transfers between basic
research and industry.Technovation,16(2),51-57.
Harmon,B.,Ardishvili,A.and Cardozo,R.（1997）.Mapping the
university technology transfer process.Journal of
Business Venturing,12(6),423-434.
Hatcher, L.(1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS
system for factor analysis and structural equation
modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Hawkins,Richard W., Langford, Cooper H. and Sidhu,Kiran S.
(2007). University research in an “innovation
society”. The 6th Triple Helix Conference.
Henderson, R. ,Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M.（1998）.
Universities as a source of commercial technology: a
detailed analysis of university patenting,1965-
1988.Review of Economics and Statistics, 80,119-127.
Higgins, J. M.(1995).Innovate or evaporate: creative
technique for strategists.Long Range Planning,23(12),32-
35。
Howells,J. and Mckinlay,C.(1999).Commercialisation of
University in Europe,PREST, University of Manchester,
Feb.1999.
Hubert,Saint-Onge（1996）.Tacit knowledge：the key to the
strategic alignment of intellectual capital.Strategy &
Leadership, 24(2),10-14.
Ines Macho-Stadler, David Perez-Castrillo and Reinhilde
Veugelers (2007). Licensing of university inventions:
The role of technology transfer office. International
Journal of Industrial Organization, 25,483-510.
Jacobsson,S.(2000). University and industrial
transfermation: an interpretative and selective
literature study with special emphasis on Sweden,
Science and Policy,29(5)345-365
Jensen, R. ,Thursby, J.G.and Thursby, M.C.
（2003）.Disclosure and licensing of University
innovations：The best we can do with the s**t we get to
work with. International.Journal of Industrial
Organization, 21(9),1271-1330.
Jensen, R. A. and Thursby, M.C.（2001）. Proofs and
prototypes for sale: the licensing of university
inventions. American Economic Review , 91,240-259.
Johnson, W.H.A.(1999).An integrative taxonomy of
intellectual capital：measuring the stock and flow of
intellectual capital components in the firm.
International Journal of Technology Management, 18(5-
8),562-575.
Jones-Evans,D. and Klofsten,M.(1998).Roles of the
university in the technology transfer process: a
European view. Science and Public, 25(6),373-380.
Joreskog,K.G. and Sorbom,D.(1993).LISREL 8: Structural
Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language.
Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbam.
Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992).The Balanced
Scorecard Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard
Business Review, 70(1),71-79.
Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996).Using the Balanced
Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard
Business Review,74(1), 75-78.
Kast, F. E. and Rosenzweig, J. E. (1979).Organization and
Management: A systems and Contingency Approach. McGraw-
Hill. Inc., New York, NY.
Katz,R. and Tushman,M.(1983). A longitudinal study of the
effects of boundary spanning supervison on turnover
promotion in research and development. Academy of
Management Journal, 26,437-456.
Kneller,R（1999）.Intellectual Property Rights and
University- Industry Technology Transfer in Japan.
Science and Public Policy, 26(2), 113-124.
Lambe,C.J.and Spekman,R.E.（1997）.Alliances, external
technology acquisition and discontinuous technological
change. Journal of Production Innovation
Management,14,102-116.
Langford, C.H.,Hall,J.,Josty,P.,Matos,S.and Jacobson,A.
(2006). Indicators and Outcomes of Canadian university
research: proxies becoming goals? Research Policy ,35
(10),1586-1598.
Lee, J. and Win, H.N. (2004). Technology transfer between
university research centers and industry in
Singapore,Technovation, 24(5), 433-442.
Lee,Y.S.（1996）.Technology Transfer and Research
University: A Search for Boundaries of University-
Industry Collaboration. Research Policy ,25(6),843-863.
Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: an evolutionary
model of innovations. Research Policy,29,243-255.
Link, A.N. and Siegel, D. S.（2005）.University – based
technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative
evidence. Research Policy, 34, 253-257.
Lipsey, R.G.（2002）.Some Implications of Endogenous
Technological Change for Technology Policies in
Developing Countries. Economics of Innovation New
Tech ,11(4-5),321-351.
Lundvall,B-A（1992）.National Systems of Innovation：
Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive learning,
London：Printer.
Lundvall,B-A and Borrans,S.(1998). The globalizing learning
economy: implication for innovation policy. The European
Commission, DGXII-TSER, Bruxelles.
Luu, N., Williams, P.,Wykes,J.and Weir T.（2001）.Invisible
Value: The Case for Measuring and Reporting Intellectual
Capital,ISR New Economy Issues Paper,1,1-18.
Lynn, B. E.（1998）.Performance evaluation in the new
economy：bring the measurement and evaluation of
intellectual capital into the management planning and
control system. International Journal of Technology
Management,16,162-176.
Lynn,B.E.(1999).Culture and intellectual capital
management：a key factor in successful ICM implement.
International Journal of Technology Management,18,591-
818.
Lyuton,E.A.（1996）.Internal Constraints to Fuller
University Engagement in Regional Economic Development-
Experiences in the USA.Industry and Higher Education ,10
(2),79-87
Macho-Stadler,I.,Perez-Castrillo,D. and Veugelers,R.
（2006）. Licensing of university inventions: The role
of a technology transfer office.International Journal of
Industrial Organization, Article in Press
Mansfield, E.and Lee, J.Y.（1996）, The modern university
contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of
industrial R&D support.Research Policy,25,1047-1058
Markham, S.K.; Lewis, R.J.; Kingon, A.I. and Zapata I.M.
（2002）.The University’s Role in Creating radical New
Products. International Journal of Technology Transfer
and Commercialization, 1(1/2),163-172
Markman,G.D；Gianiodis,P.T.；Plan,P.H. and Balkin,D.B.
（2005）.The Innovation speed：Transferring university
technology to market. Research Policy, 34,1058-1075.
Mason, G.and Wagner, K.（1999）.Knowledge Transfer and
Innovation in Germany and Britain:"Intermediate
Institution" Models of Knowledge Transfer under Strain?
Industry and Innovation,6(1), 85-109.
Morgan,R.P.and Strickland D.E.（2001）.US University
Research Contributions to Industry：Findings and
Conjectures.Science and Public Policy,28(2),113-121.
Mowery D.C., Nelson R. and Fagerberg J.（2004）.Systems of
Innovation-A Critical Review of the State of the Art,
Chapter7 in Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University
Press.
Mowery, D.C.（1998）. The Changing Structure of the US
National Innovation System: Implications for
International Conflict and Cooperation in R&D
Policy.Rsearch Policy,27(6),639-654
Mowery,D.C.,Nelson,R.R.,Sampat,B.N. and Ziedonis,A.A.
（2001）.The gorwth 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.
Narayanan, V. K.（2001）.Managing Technology and Innovation
for Competitive Advantage,New Jersey：Prentice-Hall.
Nelson, R. (1992). Recent writings on competitiveness:
Boxing the compass. California Management Review,34,127-
137.
Nelson, R. R.(1993).National Innovation System: A
comparative Analysis.Oxford University Press
Niosi J.(2002).National systems of innovations are “ X-
efficient” ( and x-effective) Why some are slow
learners. Research Policy ,31(2),291-302.
Nonaka,I.(1994).A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation. Organization Science,5(1),14-37.
O’Shea,P.R.,Allen,T.J.,Chevalier,A.and Roche F.（2005）.
Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and
spinoff performance of U.S. university.Research Policy,34
(7),994-1009.
OECD (1999).Science, Technology, and Industry Scoreboard
1999 : Benchmarking Knowledge-Based Economies, Paris.
OECD (2003).Science, Technology, and Industry Scoreboard
2003 : Benchmarking Knowledge-Based Economies, Paris.
OECD(1976).The Measurement of Scientific and Technical
Activities.Frascati Manual. Paris.
OECD（1996a）.Knowledge Based Economy.OECD, Paris.
OECD（1996b）.Technology and Industrial Performance,Paris.
OECD（1996c）.Managing National Innovations System.Paris.
OECD（1997）.National Innovatin Systems.Paris.
OECD（2002）.Science, Technology and Industry Outlook.Paris.
Pavitt, K.(1988).Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In:
Van Raan (Ed.)”.Handbook of Quantitative Studies of
Science and Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Pavitt, K.（1999）.The Social shaping of the National
Science Base. Research Policy,27(8),793-805
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations.
NewYork: Free Press.
Prahalad, C.K.and Hamel,G.（1990）.The Core Competence of
the Corporation.Harvard Business Review,68(May-June),79-
91.
Rappert B.;Webster A.（1997）.Regimes of Ordering: The
Commercialization of Intellectual Property in
Industrial: Academic Collaborations.Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 9(2),115-130.
Rasmussen,E. ,Moen,Φ. and Gulbrandsen, M.
（2006）.Initiatives to promote commercialization of
university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518-533.
Reitzig, M.(2003). What Determines Patent Value-Insights
from the Semiconductor Industry.Research Policy,32(1),13-
26.
Roberts, P. W. and Dowling, G. R. (2002).Corporate
Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 23(2),1077-1093.
Rogers ,E.M. and Takegami,S.（2001）.Lessons learned about
technology transfer.Technovation ,21(4),253-261.
Roos, J., Roos, G.and Edvinsson,L. (1997). Intellectual
Capital：Navigation in the new business Landscape. New
York：New York University Press.
Roos, J., Roos, R., Edvinsson, L. and Dragonetti, N.
（1998）. Intellectual Capital : Navigating in the New
Business Landscape. New York : New York University
Press.
Rosenberg,N and Nelson,R.R(1994). American universities and
technical advance in industry. Research Policy,23,323-
348.
Roussel,P.A.,K.N. Saad and Erickson,T.J.（1991）.Third
Generation R&D, Harvard Business School Press.
Salter, A., D’ Este, P., Pavitt, K., Scott, A., Martin,
B., Geuna, A., Nightingale, P.and Patel, P.（2000）.
Talent, Not Technology: The Impact of Publicly Funded
Research on Innovation in the UK. Science Policy
Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK.
Sampat, B. N.（2006）.Patenting and US academic research in
the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-
Dole,Research Policy, 35(6),772-789.
Sampat,B.N.,Mowery, D.C. and Ziedonis,A.A.（2003）.Changes
in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a
re-examination. International Journal of Industrial
Organization,21(9),1371-1390.
Santoro, M.D.（2000）.Success Breeds Success: The Linkage
between Relationship Intensity and Tangible Outcomes in
Industry-University Collaborative Venture.TheJournal of
High Technology Management Research,11(2),255-273.
Schartinger, D.；Rammer, C.；Fischer, M. and Frohic, T.
（2002）. Knowledge Interactions Between Universities and
Industry in Austria：Sectoral Pattern and Determinants.
Research Policy,31(3), 303-328.
Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the
development of process indicators of school functioning.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement,1(1),61-80.
Segars, A. H. and Grover, V.（1998）.Strategic Information
Systems Planning Success: An investigation of The
Construct and Its Measurement.MIS Quarterly,139-163.
Shane, S. (2004).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.
Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A. and Link, A.N.
（1999）.Assessing the impact of organizational
practices on the productivity of university technology
transfer offices: An exploratory study, NBER Working
Paper 7256.
Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, D.A. and Link, A.N.
（2003）.Assessing the impact of organizational
practices on the relative productivity of university
technology transfer offices：an exploratory study.
Research Policy, 32(1), pp27-48.
Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, D.A.; Atwater,A.D.and 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.
Singh,Annette; Wong,Poh Kan and Ping,Ho Yuen(2007).
Understanding academic inventors:the cases of the
National University of Singapore,The 6th Triple Helix
Conference.
Sornn-Foriese, H.（2000）.Frontiers of Research in
Industrial Dynamics and National System of Innovation,
Industry and Innovation, 7(1),1-13.
Stewart,T.A.(1997).Intellectual Capital：The New Wealth of
Organizations. New York：Bantam Doubleday Dell
Publishing Group, Inc.
Stufflebeam, D. L.(1971).The releverance of the CIPP model
for educational account ability.Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 5(1),19-25.
Sullivan, Sr P.H. and Sullivan J. P.H.(2000).Valuing
intangible companies: An intellectual capital
approach.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4),328-340.
Tamimi N.(1998).A Second-Order Factor Analysis of Critical
TQM Factors,The International Journal of Quality
Science,3(1): 71-79
Thursby,J.and Kemp,S.（2001）.Growth and productive
efficiency of university intellectual property
licensing. Purdue University, Mimeo.
Thursby,J.and Thursby, M.C.（2001）.Industry Perspectives
on Licensing University Technologies. Industry & Higher
Education, 15(4), 289-294.
Thursby,J.G.and Kemp,S. (2002). Growth and productive
efficiency of university intellectual property
licensing, Research Policy,31, 109-124.
Thursby,J.G.; Thursby,M.C.and Jensen,R.（2001）.
Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university
licensing：a survey of major US universities. Journal of
Technology Transfer ,26(1/2) , 59-72.
Tijssen,R.J.W.; Buter,R.K.and VanLeeuwen,N.
（2002）.Technological Relevance of Science: An
Assessment of Citation Linkages Between Patents and
Research Papers. Scientometrics, 47(2), 389-412.
Tushman,M.L. and O’Reilly,C.A.(1996).Winning Through
Innovation-A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational
Change and renewa.MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Valentin,E.M.(2000).University-Industry Cooperation：A
framework of Benefits and Obstacles.Industry & Higher
Education,165-172.
Van Buren,M.E.(1999).A Yardstick for Knowledge
Management.Training & Development,53(5),71-78.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986).Measurement of
Business Performance in Strategy Research: A Comparison
of Approaches. Academy of Management Review,11(4),801-
815.
Wernerfelt,B.(1984).A Resource-based View of the Firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 171-180.
WorldBank（2000）.World development report 1999/2000.UK :
Oxford University Press.
四、網站
AUTM(2006), Licensing Survey,http://www.autm.net/events/file/ AUTM_06_US%
20LSS_FNL.pdf
OECD(2006),Science,Technology and Industry
Outlook,http://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,
2340,fr_2649_201185_37675902_1_1_1_1,00.html
IMD(2007), Competitiveness Scoreboard
2007,http://www.imd.ch/
research/publications/wcy/competitiveness_
scoreboard.cfm
Stanford university,http：//otl.Stanford. edu/about/
resources/ startups.html
TOUDAI,http://www.casti.co.jp/english/about/corporate.html
USPTO, http://www.uspto.gov/main/glossary/
WIPO,http://www.wipo.int/about-
ip/en/studies/publications/ip_definitions.htm
教育部公私立大學校務資訊評鑑系統,http://twaea.cycu.edu.tw/ |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理研究所
88359504
97 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0088359504 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理研究所] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
