Total views : 338

Exploring the Barriers Affecting Malaysian University Symbiosis Program in University-Industry Commercialization

Affiliations

  • Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Abstract


Objectives: The purpose of this paper is to explore the barriers that could affect the University Symbiosis Program. Methods/Statistical Analysis: Research synthesis technique and pearl growing technique are used to identify the barriers relevant to university-industry collaborative effort. Findings: Past studies indicated that there is a fuzzy relationship affecting university-industry collaborative effort and their commercialized outcome. Though there exist factors that could trigger university-industry commercialization, nevertheless the same factors have shown to produce different effect on the said collaborative result. Hence, there exist a suspected variable that could explain the observed fuzzy relationship between the university-industry collaborative effort and university-industry commercialization outcome. With this in mind, the University Symbiosis Program i.e., a type of university-industry collaborative effort that requires university researchers and technopreneurs to work hand-in-hand from the inception of an innovation to the final market was seen as the possible variable to the above exhortation. Based on the review of previous findings on barriers relevant to university-industry collaborative effort, this paper proposed a conceptual framework that describes the relationships between the barriers affecting university-industry collaborative effort, the University Symbiosis Program, and the final commercialized outcome. Barriers include competency, dedication, management of government funding, culture, and expectation were found to be relevant. Application/Improvements: This paper is expected to contribute to the body of knowledge on university-industry collaborative effort via the University Symbiosis Program.

Keywords

Commercialization, Spin-Off, Technology-Based Product, University-Industry, University Symbiosis Program.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 303)

References


  • Aslan AS. University-industry research and technological links in Malaysia [PhD thesis]. United Kingdom: The University of Manchester; 2006.
  • Owolabi SW, Owolabi OO, Adeleke YS, Abubakar K. Strategic approach to R and D commercialization in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovation. 2012 Aug; 3(4):382–6.
  • Major hurdles for M'sian universities to commercialise R&D. Available from: http://test.thedailyant.mobi/Main/Major-hurdles-for-M-sian-universities-to-commercialise-R-D
  • Zeufack AG, Lim KY, Nadaraja D. National innovation strategy: Knowledge, innovation and long-run growth. Khazanah Research and Investment Strategy Macro Modeling Project; 2011.
  • Official Portal of Malaysian Intellectual Property Corporation. Available from: http://www.myipo.gov.my/web/guest/paten-statistik
  • Low HH. Drivers affecting the perception of feasibility towards commercialization of universities research and development activities [PhD thesis]. Johor, Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; 2011.
  • Kamariah I, Azhar AA, Wan Zaidi WO, Arham A, Izaidin AM. University-government backed venture capitalist strategic partnership in the formation of spin-off companies. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovations; 2011 Nov. p. 484–93.
  • Research synthesis as a scientific process. Available from: https://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/Cooper_Hedges_2d_Chap1_0.pdf
  • Cooper H. Evaluating and interpreting research syntheses in adult learning and literacy. NCSALL Occasional Paper; 2007 Jan. p. 1–71.
  • Roberts EB, Malone DE. Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations; 1995. p. 29–31.
  • Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the research synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2009 Aug; 9:1–59.
  • Ramer SL. Site-ation pearl growing: Methods and librarianship history and theory. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2005 Jul; 93(3):397–400.
  • Fassin Y. The strategic role of university-industry liaison offices. The Journal of Research Administration. 2000; 1(2):31–42.
  • Politis D, Gabrielsson J, Shveykina O. Early-stage finance and the role of external entrepreneurs in the commercialization of university-generated knowledge. Venture Capital. 2012 Apr; 14(2-3):175–98.
  • Abeda MI, Adnan SK, Saima I, Aslan AS. Designing of success criteria-based evaluation model for assessing the research collaboration between university and industry. International Journal of Business Research and Management. 2011 May-Jun; 2(2):59–73.
  • Rasmussen E, Mosey S, Wright M. The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies. 2011 Sep; 48(6):1314–45.
  • Chiesa V, Piccaluga A. Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Management. 2000 Oct; 30(4):329–39.
  • Phillips L. Success factors powering university. Industry collaboration in Australia; 2009.
  • Franklin SJ, Wright M, Lockett A. Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2001 Jan; 26(1):127–41.
  • Radelet S, Siddiqi B. Global fund grant programmes: An analysis of evaluation scores. Lancet. 2007 May; 369:1807–13.
  • Udoh DJ. Estimation of loan default among beneficiaries of a state government owned agricultural loan scheme, Nigeria. Journal of Central European Agriculture. 2008 Jul; 9(2):343–51.
  • Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater LE, Link AN. Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research. 2003; 14(1):111–33.
  • Englund M, Felice Q. Barriers and outcomes of the collaboration between university and academia in a new approach: The Living Labs [Master thesis]. Sweden: Halmstad University; 2010. p. 1–35.
  • Hall BH, Link AN, Scott JT. Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the Advanced Technology Program. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2001 Jan; 26(1):87–98.
  • Eom BY, Lee K. Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy. 2010 Jun; 39(5):625–39.
  • Rajah R, Govindaraju VGRC. University-industry R&D collaboration in the automotive, biotechnology and electronics firms in Malaysia. Seoul Journal of Economics. 2009; 22(4):529–50.
  • Audretsch DB, Aldridge T, Oettl A. The knowledge filter and economic growth: The role of scientist entrepreneurship. Germany: Max Planck Institute of Economics Group Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy; 2006 Mar. p. 1–67.
  • Nilsson AS, Rickne A, Bengtsson L. Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2010 Dec; 35(6):617–36.
  • Wade M, Hulland J. The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly. 2004 Mar; 28(1):107–42.
  • Meyskens M, Robb-Post C, Stamp JA, Carsrud AL, Reynolds PD. Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2010 Jul; 34(4):661–80.
  • Chen CJ. Technology commercialization, incubator and venture capital, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Research. 2009 Jan; 62(1):93–103.
  • Nath P, Nachiappan S, Ramanathan R. The impact of marketing capability, operations capability and diversification strategy on performance: A resource-based view. Industrial Marketing Management. 2010 Feb; 39(2):317–29.
  • Paiva EL, Roth AV, Fensterseifer JE. Organizational knowledge and the manufacturing strategy process: A resource-based view analysis. Journal of Operations Management. 2008 Jan; 26(1):115–32.
  • Kleinschmidt EJ, Brentani UD, Salomo S. Performance of global new product development programs: A resource-based view. Journal Production Innovation Management. 2007 Sep; 24(5):419–41.
  • Lockett A, Wright M. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy. 2005 Sep; 34(7):1043–57.
  • Heirman A, Clarysse B. How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer. 2004 Aug; 29(3):247–68.
  • Tyler BB. The complementarity of cooperative and technological competencies: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 2001 Mar; 18(1):1–27.
  • Christensen JF. Asset profiles for technological innovation. Research Policy. 1995 Sep; 24(5):727–45.
  • Persaud A. Accelerating technology commercialization in Canada: The role of medium-sized firms. Ottawa, Canada: The Administrative Sciences Association of Canada; 2007.
  • Mahoney JT. A resource-based theory of sustainable rents. Journal of Management. 2001 Dec; 27(6):651–60.
  • Das TK, Teng BS. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management. 2000 Feb; 26(1):31–61.
  • Song M, Droge C, Hanvanich S, Calantone R. Marketing and technology resource complementarity: An analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic Management Journal. 2005 Mar; 26(3):259–76.
  • Barratt M, Oke A. Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains: A resource-based theory perspective. Journal of Operations Management. 2007 Nov; 25(6):1217–33.
  • Alvarez SA, Busenitz LW. The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management. 2001 Jan; 27(6):755–75.
  • Morton NA, Hu Q. Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: A structural contingency theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management. 2008 Oct; 28(5):391–402.
  • Buttermann G, Germain R, Iyer KNS. Contingency theory ‘‘fit” as gestalt: An application to supply chain management. Transportation Research. 2008 Nov; 44(6):955–69.
  • Donaldson L. The contingency theory of organizational design: Challenges and opportunities. Organization Design. 2006; 6:19–40.
  • Powers JB, McDougall P. Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy. 2005 Sep; 34(7):1028–42.
  • Matyusz Z. The effect of contingency factors on the use of manufacturing practices and operations performance [PhD thesis]. Hungary: Corvinus University of Budapest; 2012. p. 1–198.
  • Malhotra N, Morris T, Hinings CR. Professional service firms variation in organizational form among professional service organizations. Professional Service Firms. 2006; 24:171–202.
  • Zemlickiene V. Analysis of high-technology product development models. Intellectual Economics. 2011; 5(2/10):283–97.
  • Boezerooij P. E-learning strategies of higher education institutions [PhD thesis]. Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente; 2006.
  • Tidd J. Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2001 Sep; 3(3):169–83.
  • Gumport PJ, Sporn B. Institutional adaptation: Demands for management reform and university administration. United States: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement; 1999.
  • Hoffmann WH. Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances. Strategic Management Journal. 2007 Aug; 28(8):827–56.
  • Fredericks E. Infusing flexibility into business-to-business firms: A contingency theory and resource-based view perspective and practical implications. Industrial Marketing Management. 2005 Aug; 34(6):555–65.
  • Gardner DM, Johnson F, Lee M, Wilkinson I. A contingency approach to marketing high technology products. European Journal of Marketing. 2000; 34(9/10):1053–77.
  • Lee J, Miller D. Strategy, environment and performance in two technological contexts: Contingency theory in Korea. Organization Studies. 1996 Sep; 17(5):729–50.
  • Anokhin S, Wincent J, Frishammar J. A conceptual framework for misfit technology commercialization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2011 Jul; 78(6):1060–71.
  • Maine E. Radical innovation through internal corporate venturing: Degussa’s commercialization of Nanomaterials. R&D Management. 2008 Sep; 38(4):359–371.
  • Yee SV. Critical success factors of strategic university-industry collaborations in Malaysia: A dyadic approach. Malaysian Academic Library Union Catalog; 2010.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.