عوامل سازمانی موثر بر بهره وری مراکز انتقال فناوری دانشگاهی
محورهای موضوعی : عمومىحجت اله حاجي حسيني 1 , قاسم رمضانپور نرگسي 2 , ثمینه سلطانزاده 3
1 - سازمان پژوهش هاي علمي و صنعتي ايران. تهران،ايران
2 - سازمان پژوهش هاي علمي و صنعتي ايران. تهران،ايران
3 - دانشكده كارافريني دانشگاه تهران تهران، ايران
کلید واژه: عوامل سازمانی, بهره وری, مراکزانتقال فناوری دانشگاهی,
چکیده مقاله :
از آنجایی که ابعاد و ویژگی های سازمانی تاثیر مستقیم بر بهره وری مراکزانتقال فناوری دانشگاهی دارند هدف از انجام تحقیق حاضر شناسایی عوامل سازمانی موثر بر بهره وری مراکز انتقال فناوری دانشگاهی است. جامعه آماری تحقیق اساتید دانشکده فنی دانشگاه تهران بودند که در زمینه انتقال فناوری تجربه علمی و اجرایی دارند. رویکرد این پژوهش ارزیابی آینده نگر است که با توجه به آن، از خبرگان این حوزه و بر اساس متغیرهای شناسایی شده در ادبیات خواسته شد عوامل سازمانی موثر بر بهره وری مراکز انتقال فناوری دانشگاهی را شناسایی کنند. پرسشنامه ها به میزانی توزیع شد که تعداد 126 پرسشنامه گردآوری شد. تجزیه و تحلیل داده های بر اساس آزمون میانگین یک طرفه و میانگین فریدمن و با استفاده از نرم افزار Spss,22 انجام گرفت. نتایج نشان می دهد ساختار سازمانی دفاتر انتقال فناوری، تعداد کارکنان دفاتر انتقال فناوری، سن وتجربیات گذشته دفاترانتقال فناوری، سیستمهای پاداش، اندازه دفاترانتقال فناوری ومنابع دردسترس عوامل سازمانی موثر بر بهرهوری مراکزانتقال فناوری دانشگاهی است.
Since organizarional aspects and specifications directly influence the productivity of academic technology transfer centers, this study investigates organizational factors influencing the productivity of academic technology transfer centers. The statistical population of this study includes professors at University of Tehran's Faculty of Engineering with a scientific and executive experience in technology transfer. This sudy applies forcastive assessment approach. In this regard, a number of experts were requested to discover the factors influencing productivity of academic technology transfer centers based on factors investigated in literature. Of all the questionnaires distributed, 126 questionnaires were collected. Data analysis was performed applying One-tailed Mean Test and Friedman Test using SPSS 22. The results show that technology transfer centers' organizational structure, number of employees, age and previous experience, reward systems, office space and available resources are all the factors influencing the productivity of academic technology transfer centers.
1. جعفری ، اخوان ، رفیعی ، (1394) بررسی رابطه بین مدیریت دانش و انتقال اثر بخش فناوری ، فصلنامه علمی ـ پژوهشی نوآوری و ارزش آفرینی ، شماره 9 صفحات 113ـ122
2. فقیه نصیری ، نیازی آذر ،(1394) ، طراحی مدل جهت انتقال فناوری نوین در نظام آموزش عالی ، فصلنامه علمی ـپژوهشی نوآوری و ارزش آفرینی ، شماره 8 ، صفحات 55ـ66
3. اکبری ، مهرابی فیروز آباد ، مبینی دهکردی ، (1394) ، ارزیابی و اولویت بندی مولفه های موثر بر انتقال موفق نانوفناوری ، نشریه علمی ـ پژوهشی مدیریت نوآوری ، شماره 3 ، صفحات 96ـ75
4. شفیع زاده ، محسنی (1391) ، نقش دفاتر انتقال فناوری و دانشگاه ها در تجاری سازی دانش ، نشریه صنعت و دانشگاه ، جلد 5 ـ صفحات 17ـ26
5. Bercovitz, J., and Feldman, M. (2004), ‘Academic Entrepreneurs: Social Learning and Participation in University Technology Transfer’, University of Toronto, mimeo
6. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2000). Strategy and structure as determinants of academic patent and licensing behavior.Organizational Issues in University-Industry Technology Transfer
7. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., and Wright, M. (2005), ‘Assessing the Relative Performance ofUniversity Technology Transfer Offices in the UK: Parametric and Non-Parametric Evidence’, ResearchPolicy, 34(3), 369–34
8. Chesbrough, H., (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
9. Etzkowitz, H., (2002), MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science., Routledge
10. Feldman, M. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S., (2002), The economics of science and technology. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishing
11. Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., Burton, R., (2002). Equity and technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Manage. Sci. 48, 105–121
12. Klofsten, M. and Jones-Evans, D., 2000, Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe - The case of Sweden and Ireland”, Small Business Economics 14: 299-309
13. Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty P., Matos, S., Jacobson, A., 2006, Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? ’, Research Policy, vol. 35, pp. 1586–1598
14. Link, A. N. and D. S. Siegel., 2005, Generating Science-Based Growth: An Econometric Analysis of the Impact of Organizational Incentives on University-Industry Technology Transfer’. European Journal of Finance 11(3), 169–182
15. Link, A., Rothaermel, F. and Siegel, D. (2008). “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing:A Survey of Major U.S. Universities” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 5-8
16. Llano, J. A., 2006, The university environment and academic entrepreneurship: a behavioral model for measuring environment success, Howe School of Technology Management
17. Markman, G., P. Gianiodis, and P. Phan, 2006, An Agency Theoretic Study of the Relationship Between Knowledge Agents and University Technology Transfer Offices’. Rensselaer Polytechnic Working Paper, Troy, NY
18. Markman, G., P. Phan, D. Balkin, and P. T. Gianiodis., 2005b, Innovation Speed: Transferring University Technology to Market. Research Policy 34(7), 1058–1075
19. Markman, G., P. Phan, D. Balkin, and P. T. Gianiodis., 2005b, Innovation Speed: Transferring University Technology to Market’. Research Policy 34(7), 1058–1075
20. Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K., 2005, Performance measurement system design A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 1228-1263
21. Nilsson, A., 2001, Interaction between researchers, firm managers and venture capitalists: The essence of biotechnology business, Doctoral thesis, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm
22. Nordfors .D (editor), J. S., 2003, Commercialization of Academic Research Results. Swedish: Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems
23. Phan, Ph., Siegel,D., (2006) “The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned, Managerial and Policy Implications, and the Road Forward,” Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 77-144
24. Powers, J. B. and P. McDougall, 2005a, University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing 20(3), 291–311
25. Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø. and Gulbrandsen, M., 2006, Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge”, Technovation Vol.26: 518–33
26. Reamer, A., Icerman, L., Youtie, J., 2003, Technology Transfer and Commercialization: Their Role in Economic Development. Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington
27. Roberts, E. B., 2007, Managing Invention and Innovation. Research-Technology Management, VOL:50, Number 1, pp. 35-54(20)
28. Roberts, E., 1991, Entrepreneurs in High Technology, Lessons from MIT and Beyond. Oxford University Press
29. Rothaermel, F. T. , Agung, S. D. and Jiang, L., 2006, university entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature, in S. Siegel. and M. Wright and A. Lockett (Eds), Special Issue of Industrial and Corporate Change “The Rise of Entrepreneurial Activity at Universities: Organizational and Societal Implications”
30. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D. and Jiang, L., 2007, University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691–791
31. Sandelin, J., 2001, Commercializing new technology: current status and trends—an American perspective. In: Proceedings of the Presentation at the Tao Pi Annual Conference. Athens, Greece, April
32. Shain, S. A., 2001, Executive Forum: University technology transfer to entrepreneurial companies
33. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A. and Link, A. N., 2003b, Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study, Research Policy Vol.32 : 27–48
34. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L.E., Link, A. N., 2003a, Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration , Journal of High Technology Management Research 14: 111–33
35. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., and Link, A, (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, Vol. 21, Nos. 1-2, pp. 115-142
36. Thursby, J. G., and Thursby, M. C. (2002), ‘Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing’, Management Science, 48, 90–104
37. Thursby, J. G., and Thursby, M. C. (2003), ‘The 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), 1271–300
38. US General Accounting Office., 1998, Technology transfer: administration of the Bayh–Dole Act by research universities. Washington, DC: Author
39. Utterback, J.M., 1971, The process of technological innovation within the firm’. Academy of management Journal, JSTOR
40. Wright, M., and Filatotchev, I., 2007, Stimulating Academic Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: A Case Study of Kings College London Commercialization Strategies’, in T. Allen and R. O’Shea (eds), Building Technology Transfer in Research Universities: An Entrepreneurial Approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
41. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar P. and Lockett A., 2007, Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe”, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar
42. Zhao, F., 2004, Commercialization of research: a case study of Australianuniversities. Higher Education Research & Development . 23:2,223 — 236
