進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-2702201910043900
論文名稱(中文) 以服務設計概念模型探討產學合作
論文名稱(英文) A Service Design Conceptual Framework of University-Industry Collaboration
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工業設計學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial Design
學年度 107
學期 1
出版年 107
研究生(中文) 劉家秀
研究生(英文) Chia-Hsiu Liu
學號 P36054098
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 91頁
口試委員 指導教授-陳建旭
口試委員-侯明欽
口試委員-張志涵
口試委員-楊佳翰
口試委員-林彥呈
中文關鍵字 服務設計  服務藍圖  技術移轉生態圈  學術創業  利益關係者 
英文關鍵字 service design  service blueprint  technology transfer ecosystem  academic entrepreneurship  stakeholders 
學科別分類
中文摘要 近年來,高速的創新科技主導著全球社會與經濟發展,各國政府透過與大學合作進行技術移轉(Technology Transfer)將技術商品化、培養創新創業氛圍與鼓勵創業等措施達成經濟成長的驅力。「學術創業(Academic Entrepreneur)」一詞,為了將此概念具體化而被提出,同時全球有許多大學已經或者正在從「研究型大學」轉型為「創業型大學」(Entrepreneurial University),達到整合經濟與社會發展之任務。大學角色的轉變,讓產業界、學術界與政府三方共同參與研究型大學的轉型,其中大學裡的技術移轉單位,為將技術創新商業化(Innovation Commercialization)的主要角色,透過技轉單位作為媒介,將學術界之研究成果轉化為有價值潛力的專利,並進一步將其專利透過學術創業或者授權等商業模式,開發成商品並推廣至市場,產官學界的緊密互動,逐漸形成一個龐大的生態系(Ecosystem)。
在此生態系中所形成的技轉服務模式,需要許多不同的利益關係者(Stakeholder)共同合作參與所組成,在這些互動中,利益關係者間對於相同的計畫常各有立場與考量,在要達成更有效率及精準的成效,需要有相互了解及良好溝通合作,才能發揮最大產能。過去研究將技術移轉的相關活動與學術創業,透過組織管理學或者社會科學的角度分析其脈絡,並未曾以生態系的角度考量不同利益關係者的文化與立場,導致難以全盤考量並瞭解利益關係者間的不同需求。為了能夠系統性瞭解技轉單位之服務流程,本篇論文採用服務設計來探討產學合作,由於服務設計方法能夠系統性考量他的整體流程和軟硬體,藉此能協助相關的利益關係者(包含政府、企業、研發的學者和學校),達到彼此之間雙贏或多贏的機會。這是本研究最主要的概念跟目的。然而,現有的服務設計工具以及分析無法直接這樣套用,因此,本研究的透過修該現有的服務設計工具,提出一個架構模型,並且以成功大學整體產學合作的發展歷史,並訪談相關的人,運用我提出的架構模型,去做出這張流程圖。
本研究採用服務設計(service design) 研究的方法,檢視國立成功大學技轉育成中心之成長脈絡,並架構概念模型分析過去、現在與未來的轉變,提出三點該模型與過去研究方法不同之特點,(一)該模型具有能將具產學與技轉生態系中(TT&AE)的流程,透過時間軸表現出具有不同元素的脈絡,(二)以視覺化的方式凸顯問題點的互動性,(三)透過利益關係者地圖(Stakeholder Maps)視覺化具體呈現存在的問題,並在成大為個案之脈動中,找其經驗汲取與結合現有未考量的觀點,作為未來決策思考之脈絡,發現收斂及聚合之營運模式,並且發現中心的營運十年為一個循環之概念,最後為該中心規劃未來技轉國際化所應考量的要點與建議。
英文摘要 In recent years, the development of the economy is led by innovations. As a result, governments around the world have started to commercialize technology through licensing, cultivating innovation, and encouraging entrepreneurship to achieve economic growth. In order to clarify the concept, the term “Academic Entrepreneur” was raised. In the same time, more and more universities had become or are going to become Entrepreneurial University with the responsibility to integrate the economic and social development. The changing role of the university allows government, industry, and academia all become coordinators to realize the ideal Entrepreneurial University. Technology Transfer Office (TTO) in universities plays a critical role in translating scientific research into patents with value potential. Meanwhile, the patents can be developed into the commodities and promoted to the market. The closed interaction among government, industry and academia has gradually formed a huge ecosystem.
The service offered by TTO and from the concept of academic entrepreneurship requires the involvement of various stakeholders. Among the interactions between the stakeholders, they have different considerations and viewpoints to the same project. In the prior researches, most of them discuss the topics of technology transfer or academic entrepreneurship respectively. They are seldom mentioned in a holistic way as ecosystem. Thus, it is difficult to consider the different culture and needs among various stakeholders as a whole. In order to achieve the ideal result in a systematic way, the collaboration between the stakeholders requires mutual understanding and good communication to maximize the capacity.
The main purpose of this research is to adopt the viewpoint of service design research, and examine the growth and development of the successful university technology transfer center. A conceptual model is constructed to analyze the past, present and future changes. Three different characteristics are found by my model, which are different from those by the past research methods. Firstly, the model presents the process in technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Moreover, it is able to show different elements of the contexts, including time, physical evidence, goal and value, service, and stakeholders map. Secondly, the diagram shows the interaction of the problems through visualized method. Thirdly, through stakeholders map, the practitioners are able to visualize the existing but hidden problems, which are unable to figure out in the first view. Furthermore, the conceptual model is applied to a case study, which provides a further chance to test the model. I find there is a ten-year circular operation model and also a convergent and divergent mode of the organization. Eventually, the conceptual model and the case study provide the points and suggestions, which should be considered by TTO in the future.
論文目次 摘要................................................................................................................................... i
SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................. xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 13
1.1 Research Background and Motivation ................................................................ 13
1.2 Research Purpose ............................................................................................... 16
1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 17
1.4 Research Contribution ........................................................................................ 17
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 18
2.1 University-Industry Collaboration ...................................................................... 18
2.1.1 Theories of University-Industry Collaboration ......................................... 18
2.1.2 The importance of clarifying stakeholders in the context of UIC .............. 19
2.2 Technology Transfer Ecosystem ........................................................................ 19
2.2.1 Theories of Technology Transfer ............................................................. 20
2.2.2 Technology Transfer Ecosystem .............................................................. 23
2.2.3 Two Cases of Technology Transfer Framework in TT Ecosystem ........... 25
2.2.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 27
2.3 Academic Entrepreneurship ............................................................................... 28
2.3.1 Changing Modes of the Knowledge and the Appearance of Academic
Entrepreneurship .............................................................................................. 28
2.3.2 University-Industry Collaboration in Entrepreneurial University ............. 29
2.3.3 Different Channels of University-Industry Collaboration ......................... 32
2.3.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 34
2.4 TT Ecosystem and Academic Entrepreneurship: University-Industry
Collaboration ........................................................................................................... 35
2.4.1 Stakeholders in TT Ecosystem and Academic Entrepreneurship .............. 35
2.5 Service Design Methods ..................................................................................... 38
2.5.1 Contextual Design: General Background ................................................. 40
2.5.2 Contextual Interview ............................................................................... 42
2.5.3 Stakeholder Maps .................................................................................... 42
2.5.4 Service Blueprint ..................................................................................... 43
2.5.5 Scenario Description Swimlanes .............................................................. 43
2.5.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER 3 Methodology .............................................................................................. 45
3.1 Phase 1: Explore, collect data, and define ........................................................... 46
3.1.1 Semi-structured interview ........................................................................ 47
3.1.2 Stakeholder maps .................................................................................... 48
3.1.3 Projects and Data Analysis ...................................................................... 49
3.2 Phase 2: Concept development ........................................................................... 49
3.2.1 Culture Model in Contextual Design ........................................................ 49
3.2.2 Service blueprint ..................................................................................... 50
3.3 Phase 3: Conceptual Model Creation .................................................................. 51
CHAPTER 4 Results and analysis ................................................................................... 52
4.1 Case Study ......................................................................................................... 52
4.2 Descriptive Statistics Data Analysis ................................................................... 52
4.3 Definition and Introduction of TT&AE Conceptual Model ................................. 58
4.3.1 Stakeholders in TT ecosystem analyzing by stakeholder maps ................. 58
4.3.2 Stakeholders in TT ecosystem analyzing by culture model ...................... 59
4.3.3 The synthesizing of stakeholder maps and culture model ......................... 59
4.3.4 The example of service blueprint in TT ecosystem .................................. 60
4.3.5 TT&AE Conceptual Model...................................................................... 63
4.4 The result of TT&AE Conceptual Model in the case study ................................. 64
4.4.1 The first phase of building up TT&AE ecosystem from 1996 to 2007 ...... 65
4.4.2 The second phase of building up TT&AE ecosystem from 2008 to 2018 . 66
4.4.3 The conclusion of the first and second phases of building up TT&AE
ecosystem ........................................................................................................ 68
CHAPTER 5 conclusions and discussions ....................................................................... 70
5.1 Discussion.......................................................................................................... 70
5.1.1 The feature of using a timeline................................................................. 70
5.1.2 The feature of the visualization in the timeline ......................................... 71
5.1.3 The feature of visualizing touchpoints ..................................................... 71
5.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 77
5.2.1 The contributions of TT&AE Conceptual Model ..................................... 77
5.2.2 TT&AE Conceptual Model in the Future ................................................. 78
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 79
Introduction of The technical univeristy of MUNICH .................................. 90
A.1 Innovation of TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH............................... 90
A.1.1 TUM entrepreneurship Education .......................................................... 90
參考文獻 成功大學主管會報(2012年,8月8日). 國立成功大學技轉育成中心進駐企業回饋
要點. 取自http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?cateid=1&serno=53
成功大學研究總中心(2018). 研究總中心簡介. 取自
http://rsh.ncku.edu.tw/p/412-1033-3912.php?Lang=zh-tw
成功大學技轉育成中心(2018).技轉育成中心介紹. 取自
http://ttbic.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/p/412-1085-10721.php?Lang=zh-tw
林天柱(2010). 成功大學產學合作經營之道與發展遠景. 取自
http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?cateid=4&serno=33
林天柱(2011). 蛻變,先從制度完備做起—淺談大專院校產學合作. 取自。
http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?mcateid=65&serno=11
南部科學園區產學協會(2018).南科產學協會簡介. 取自
https://www.aicsp.org.tw/index.php
陳素琴(2013). 創業精神與大學發展. 教育研究與發展期刊,9(3),87-114
陳曉莉(2000,4月14日). 成大將設立成鑫、大德創投,募集3至6億台幣投資通
訊、光電. 取自https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/1242
鄭昱芸(2011). 南科育成中心,「她」抓得住我!.
http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?cateid=1&serno=45
鄭昱芸、翁翠霞(2011). 與時俱進的成功大學技轉育成中心. http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?cateid=1&serno=53
薛欣怡(2015).歐洲創業型大學發展研究:以德國慕尼黑工業大學為例(未發表
的博士論文).國立中山大學教育研究所。
羅德禎(2014,5月6日). 以熱忱服務媒合產學合作,良性循環創造雙贏. 取自
http://www.niia.tw/share_detail.aspx?NO=57
Abiteboul, S. (1997, January). Querying semi-structured data. In International Conference
on Database Theory (pp. 1-18). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2009). Knowledge exchange
between academics and the business, public and third sectors. University of
Cambridge; Imperial College London.
Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK:
Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408-422.
Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship:
Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476-494.
Aldrich, H. E. (2012). The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A personal
essay on institutional entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 41(7), 1240-1248.
Alexander, A. T., Miller, K., & Fielding, S. (2015). Open for business: Universities,
entrepreneurial academics and open innovation. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 19(06), 1540013.
Allen, T. J., & O'Shea, R. P. (Eds.). (2014). Building technology transfer within research
universities: An entrepreneurial approach. Cambridge University Press.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial
affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72-95.
Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and
technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-
operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865-1883.
Bagstad, K. J., Villa, F., Batker, D., Harrison-Cox, J., Voigt, B., & Johnson, G. W. (2014).
From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecology and Society, 19(2).
Barba-Sánchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial intention among
engineering students: The role of entrepreneurship education. European Research
on Management and Business Economics, 24(1), 53-61.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer:
A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic
development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175-188.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual design: defining customer-centered
systems. Elsevier.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and
theory. Research policy, 29(4-5), 627-655.
Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university
technology transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571-650.
Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and
analysis techniques. Public management review, 6(1), 21-53.
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy and
planning, 15(3), 239-246.
Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity,
experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1084-1093.
Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
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.
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.
Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge
economy. Industrial and corporate change, 10(4), 945-974.
Davis, J. P. (2016). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships: Collaborating
with multiple partners in innovation ecosystems. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 61(4), 621-661.
Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and
Entrepreneurialism in Universities: is the local dimension still
important?. Comparative education, 37(1), 7-20.
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.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?. Research policy, 32(2), 209-227.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21(2-3), 198-233.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International
Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64-77.
Etzkowitz, H. (2016). The entrepreneurial university: vision and metrics. Industry and
Higher Education, 30(2), 83-97.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix--University-industry-
government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development.
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.
Feldman, M. P., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J. E., & Burton, R. M. (2002). University technology
transfer and the system of innovation. In Institutions and Systems in the Geography of Innovation (pp. 55-77). Springer, Boston, MA.
Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D
projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research
policy, 35(2), 309-323.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge
university press.
Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford
University Press on Demand.
Garrido, P., Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Plieninger, T., Pulido, F., & Moreno, G. (2017).
Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: A case study from
Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy, 60, 324-333.
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.
Gilsing, V., Bekkers, R., Freitas, I. M. B., & Van der Steen, M. (2011). Differences in
technology transfer between science-based and development-based industries:
Transfer mechanisms and barriers. Technovation, 31(12), 638-647.
Good, M., Knockaert, M., Soppe, B., & Wright, M. (2018). The technology transfer
ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective. Technovation. Grimble, R. J., Aglionby, J., & Quan, J. (1994). Tree resources and environmental policy: a stakeholder approach (Vol. 7). Natural Resources Institute.
Goldstein, S. M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., & Rao, J. (2002). The service concept: the
missing link in service design research?. Journal of Operations management, 20(2),
121-134.
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole:
Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.
Grosse, R. (1996). International technology transfer in services. Journal of international business studies, 27(4), 781-800.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional
competitiveness: evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. The Journal
of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 105-131.
Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge
intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business
Economics, 47(3), 633-656.
Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2015). On the economic impact of university proof of
concept centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 178-183.
Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. (2014). Contextual design: evolved. Synthesis Lectures on
Human-Centered Informatics, 7(4), 1-91.
Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. (2016). Contextual design: Design for life. Morgan Kaufmann.
Holtzblatt, K., Wendell, J. B., & Wood, S. (2004). Rapid contextual design: a how-to
guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Elsevier.
Hsu, D. W., Shen, Y. C., Yuan, B. J., & Chou, C. J. (2015). Toward successful
commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university
technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 25-39.
Isenberg, D. (2014). What an entrepreneurship ecosystem actually is. Harvard Business Review, 5, 1-7.
Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem. National Science Foundation, 1.

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.
Johnston, A., & Huggins, R. (2016). Drivers of university-industry links: The case of
knowledge-intensive business service firms in rural locations. Regional
Studies, 50(8), 1330-1345.
Karlsen, J. T. (2002). Project stakeholder management. Engineering Management Journal, 14(4), 19-24.
Karam, G. M. (1994, August). Visualization using timelines. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis (pp. 125-137). ACM.
Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An
empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6),
947-956.
Lan, H., Zhang, C., & Li, H. (2008). An open design methodology for automotive
electrical/electronic system based on quantum platform. Advances in Engineering
Software, 39(6), 526-534.
Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2016). University–industry collaboration and regional
wealth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1284-1307.
Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An
empirical assessment. The journal of Technology transfer, 25(2), 111-133.
Lin, R. T. (2007). Transforming Taiwan aboriginal cultural features into modern product
design: A case study of a cross-cultural product design model. International
Journal of Design, 1(2).
Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (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), 169-181.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research policy, 31(6), 859-876.
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in
geography, 117-132.
Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact
on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy, 44(7),
1341-1359.
Maurer, I., Bartsch, V., & Ebers, M. (2011). The value of intra-organizational social
capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organization Studies, 32(2), 157-185.
McAdam, R., Miller, K., McAdam, M., & Teague, S. (2012). The development of
University Technology Transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level:
Lessons for the future. Technovation, 32(1), 57-67.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Publishing, 77-78.
Meyers, A. D., & Pruthi, S. (2011). Academic entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial universities and biotechnology. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 17(4), 349-357.
Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model:
a stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265-287.
Miller, K., Alexander, A., Cunningham, J. A., & Albats, E. (2018). Entrepreneurial
academics and academic entrepreneurs: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Technology Management, 77(1-3), 9-37.
Mindruta, D. (2013). Value creation in university‐firm research collaborations: A matching
approach. Strategic Management Journal, 34(6), 644-665.
Mowery, D. C., & Shane, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer. Management Science, 48(1), v-ix.
Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university–
industry relationships drive economic growth. Research policy, 35(10), 1499-1508.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. (2008). Is the tendency
to engage in entrepreneurship genetic?. Management Science, 54(1), 167-179.
Nikiforou, A., Zabara, T., Clarysse, B., & Gruber, M. (2018). The Role of Teams in
Academic Spin-Offs. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 78-103.
OECD Publishing. (2010). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2010. OECD
Pub..
Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical
examination. Technovation, 54, 1-6.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., & Adebowale, B. A. (2017). University-industry collaboration as a
determinant of innovation in Nigeria. Institutions and Economies, 21-46.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., ... &
Krabel, S. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the
literature on university–industry relations. Research policy, 42(2), 423-442.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open
innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard
Business Press.
Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30,
199-220.
Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26-50.
Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). 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.
Qu, M., Yu, S., Chen, D., Chu, J., & Tian, B. (2016). State-of-the-art of design, evaluation,
and operation methodologies in product service systems. Computers in industry, 77, 1-14.
Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161-175.
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments
on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research
Policy, 43(1), 92-106.
Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs?
An entrepreneurial competency perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(5), 782-799.
Raum, S. (2018). A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in
ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in
the UK. Ecosystem Services, 29, 170-184.
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature
review. Biological conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2007. Research Methods for Business Students. Financial Times, Prentice Hall.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the
front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS.
Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., & Fröhlich, J. (2006). Knowledge interactions between
universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. In Innovation, Networks, and Knowledge Spillovers (pp. 135-166). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Shane, S. (2010). Born entrepreneurs, born leaders: How your genes affect your work life.
Oxford University Press.
Sieger, P., & Minola, T. (2017). The family's financial support as a “Poisoned gift”: A
family embeddedness perspective on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small
Business Management, 55, 179-204.
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.
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.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: the assessment. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 23(4), 529-540.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: time for a
rethink?. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582-595.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
entrepreneurial university. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2715 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218-4319.
Slaughter, S., Slaughter, S. A., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new
economy: Markets, state, and higher education. JHU Press.
Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., Andrews, K., & Lawrence, A. (2011). This is service design
thinking: Basics, tools, cases(Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Swiss Federal Council (24. June. 2015). Swiss Roadmap for Research Infrastructures in
view of the ERI Dispatch 2017-2020. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi1pvCdkKHfAhVJhbwKHSBwB9IQFjABegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbfi.admin.ch%2Fdam%2Fsbfi%2Fen%2Fdokumente%2Fschweizer_roadmapfuerforschungsinfrastrukturenimhinblickaufdiebf.pdf.download.pdf%2Fswiss_roadmap_forresearchinfrastructuresinviewoftheeridispatch20.pdf&usg=AOvVaw32b1V26HVZgTVtjX0jYjI_
Technical University of Munich (2018). Homepage of TUM. Retrieved from
https://www.tum.de/nc/en/homepage/
Tijssen, R. J. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35(10), 1569-1585.
Tran, G. B., Tran, T. A., Tran, N. K., Alrifai, M., & Kanhabua, N. (2013, August).
Leveraging learning to rank in an optimization framework for timeline
summarization. In SIGIR 2013 Workshop on Time-aware Information Access (TAIA.
Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., Van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere,
K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical
assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553-564.
Viegas, F. B., & Wattenberg, M. (2006). Communication-minded visualization: A call to
action. IBM Systems Journal, 45(4), 801.
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.
Wang, Y., Hu, R., Li, W., & Pan, X. (2016). Does teaching benefit from university–
industry collaboration? Investigating the role of academic commercialization and
engagement. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1037-1055.
Ward, S., & Chapman, C. (2008). Stakeholders and uncertainty management in
projects. Construction management and economics, 26(6), 563-577.
Wixon, D., Holtzblatt, K., & Knox, S. (1990, March). Contextual design: an emergent
view of system design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 329-336). ACM.
Wong, P. K. (2003). From using to creating technology: the evolution of Singapore’s national innovation system and the changing role of public policy. Competitiveness, FDI and technological activity in East Asia, 191-238.
Wong, P. K. (Ed.). (2011). Academic entrepreneurship in Asia: The role and impact of
universities in national innovation systems. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic
growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small business economics, 24(3), 335-350.
Wong, P. K., & Singh, A. (2010). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 83(1), 271-294.
Wolstenholme, D. (2016). Service Design: From Insight to Implementation
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.
Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business
Horizons, 54(2), 153-161.
Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology
transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4), 235-246.
Zhang, Y., & O'Halloran, K. L. (2013). ‘Toward a global knowledge enterprise’: university websites as portals to the ongoing marketization of higher education. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 468-485
Zheng, P. (2010). The" Second Academic Revolution": Interpretations of Academic
Entrepreneurship. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(2), 3
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and
future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1019-1042.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw