三螺旋模式下大学技术转移组织构建研究
|
摘要
大学促进经济增长的实质也就是大学丰富的技术资源向产业转移，最终转化为现实生产力的过程。而我国目前科技成果转化率大约在25%左右，真正实现产业化的不足5%，可见我国大学创新与经济结合存在比较大的问题。但是大学技术转移涉及的对象和问题很广泛，有一定程度的复杂性。本文力图把大学技术转移这个复杂的问题尽可能结构化在一个比较容易操作的层面，所以选取三螺旋模式下大学技术转移组织（TTO）构建为切入点进行研究。
本文在综合国内外文献的基础上，从三螺旋模式的角度，结合创新基本理论、交易成本理论，采用规范研究、实证研究等方法对我国大学技术转移组织构建的理论框架模型、国外大学技术转移组织的发展模式、我国三螺旋模式下大学技术转移组织的效率、我国大学技术转移组织三螺旋模式构建的具体框架及对策等进行了比较全面深入的研究，并得出具有一定理论意义和实践意义的研究结论。
首先，从三螺旋角度提出大学技术转移组织构建的理论框架模型。本文基于创新基本理论分析了三螺旋模式对创新环境推动的内在机理；并且基于交易成本视角，分析了大学技术转移组织对交易成本的抑制机制；在此基础上提出了以“三螺旋环境—TTO行为—绩效”为核心的TTO构建理论框架模型。
其次，从三螺旋角度诠释美国、日本大学技术转移组织的发展模式。本文从宏观背景、组织模式和运行成效分别对美国和日本大学技术转移组织进行了分析，并在此基础上总结了双方大学技术转移组织构建的模式。本文指出美国和日本大学技术转移组织的构建同“三螺旋环境—TTO行为—绩效”为核心的理论框架模型是相符合的，同时日本政府参与三螺旋更直接、更深入，而且日本政府这种差别性的参与三螺旋的方式同样值得我们借鉴。
再次，采用因子分析、随机前沿等方法，本文测量了三螺旋模式下我国大学技术转移组织的效率。本文基于资源观，通过对资源性综合指标及相关经济效益指标的统计从总体上对我国三螺旋各方的参与状况进行分析，并从中进一步挖掘三螺旋模式发展的问题，并且采用因子分析法来测量我国区域三螺旋关系的相对强度；在此基础上，以教育部直属的所有大学国家技术转移示范机构为样本，以区域三螺旋强度和组织内部相关因素为影响变量，采用随机前沿方法测量大学国家技术转移示范机构的效率，最终得到我国三螺旋模式下大学技术转移组织的效率状况及其影响因素。
最后，基于一般框架模型和实证研究结果，本文提出我国大学技术转移组织构建的政府驱动型多重复合三螺旋具体框架和对策，其中包括政府驱动型的创新主体三螺旋关系、创新战略三螺旋关系、大学技术转移中介多元螺旋关系、大学内部创新主体三螺旋关系；同时提出采用企业化运作、社会化服务等运行导向以及规范技术转移流程机制、构建经费来源和收益分享机制、人力资源管理机制和技术转移扩散机制等策略有效构建大学技术转移组织。
University promotes economic growth, which is the transfer process of richtechnology resources from university to industry and finally becomes practicallyproductive forces. However, China’s current transfer rate of technological achievements isabout25%, and the final industrialization rate is less than5%, which demonstrates theintegration of innovation and economy is expected to be much improved, and accelerationof university’s technology transfer becomes an important research topic. But universitytechnology transfer has been involved in a wide range of parties and problems, and it has acertain degree of complexity. To construct the complicated issue of university technologytransfer in a relatively easy level, this paper selects the construction of universitytechnology transfer organization （TTO）based on triple helix model as an entry point.
Based on the theories of innovation and transaction cost, this paper focuses on theproposed systematical theory model of university technology transfer’s construction,foreign university technology transfer organization’s development model, efficiency ofChina’s university technology transfer organization based on the triple helix model,specific framework model of triple helix and the countermeasures for China’s universitytechnology transfer organization. Again, it combines normative research and empiricalresearch. And some theoretical and practical conclusions are made as follows:
Firstly, a framework model is built for university technology transfer organizationfrom triple helix perspective. Based on the innovation theory, this paper analyzes theinherent mechanism of triple helix model to drive innovation environment, and theinhibition mechanism for transaction cost in triple helix relations. After that, asystematical theory model is constructed to push university technology transferorganization, which takes the interactive model of ‘triple helix environment-TTO’soperation-performance’ as a core.
Secondly, the models of university technology transfer organizations in U.S. andJapan are interpreted. This paper respectively analyzes the model of university technologytransfer organization from macro background, operation model and performance for U.S.and Japan, accordingly summarizes the characteristics of both university technologytransfer organizations. This paper points out that the construction of university technologytransfer organization in U.S and Japan is consistent with the proposed systematical theorymodel assumption which takes ‘triple helix environment-TTO’s operation-performance’ as a core, while the Japanese government participates in triple helix model more directly andmore in-depth that is what we should learn from.
Thirdly, combined with factor analysis, stochastic frontier analysis, etc. this papercalculates the efficiency for university technology transfer organization based on the triplehelix model. With the theory of resource view, this paper measures the active participationlevel and its efficiency in China’s triple helix with the integrated resource and economicindicators, and also analyzes the problems in triple helix’s development. Then, it measuresthe relative intensity of China’s regional triple helix relation. In addition, Using NationalTechnology Transfer Model Organizations in universities as samples, it measures itsefficiency with the method of stochastic frontier analysis, while regional intensity of triplehelix and internal factors in organization are taken as efficiency factors. Then the status ofChina’s university technology transfer organization ultimately comes out.
Finally, based on the proposed systematical theory model and the results from theempirical research, the model of multiple composite triple helix driven by government andits countermeasures are proposed for China’s university technology transfer organization,including the triple helix of innovation parties driven by the government, the triple helix ofinnovation strategy, the spiral relations of university technology transfer intermediaries,the triple helix of innovation parties in university. Meanwhile for interior management ofthe university technology transfer organization, this paper proposes its operation ascompany and social service, etc. as guidance, and mechanisms of university technologytransfer process, funding sources and revenue sharing, human resource management,technology transfer diffusion should be standardized.
本文在综合国内外文献的基础上，从三螺旋模式的角度，结合创新基本理论、交易成本理论，采用规范研究、实证研究等方法对我国大学技术转移组织构建的理论框架模型、国外大学技术转移组织的发展模式、我国三螺旋模式下大学技术转移组织的效率、我国大学技术转移组织三螺旋模式构建的具体框架及对策等进行了比较全面深入的研究，并得出具有一定理论意义和实践意义的研究结论。
首先，从三螺旋角度提出大学技术转移组织构建的理论框架模型。本文基于创新基本理论分析了三螺旋模式对创新环境推动的内在机理；并且基于交易成本视角，分析了大学技术转移组织对交易成本的抑制机制；在此基础上提出了以“三螺旋环境—TTO行为—绩效”为核心的TTO构建理论框架模型。
其次，从三螺旋角度诠释美国、日本大学技术转移组织的发展模式。本文从宏观背景、组织模式和运行成效分别对美国和日本大学技术转移组织进行了分析，并在此基础上总结了双方大学技术转移组织构建的模式。本文指出美国和日本大学技术转移组织的构建同“三螺旋环境—TTO行为—绩效”为核心的理论框架模型是相符合的，同时日本政府参与三螺旋更直接、更深入，而且日本政府这种差别性的参与三螺旋的方式同样值得我们借鉴。
再次，采用因子分析、随机前沿等方法，本文测量了三螺旋模式下我国大学技术转移组织的效率。本文基于资源观，通过对资源性综合指标及相关经济效益指标的统计从总体上对我国三螺旋各方的参与状况进行分析，并从中进一步挖掘三螺旋模式发展的问题，并且采用因子分析法来测量我国区域三螺旋关系的相对强度；在此基础上，以教育部直属的所有大学国家技术转移示范机构为样本，以区域三螺旋强度和组织内部相关因素为影响变量，采用随机前沿方法测量大学国家技术转移示范机构的效率，最终得到我国三螺旋模式下大学技术转移组织的效率状况及其影响因素。
最后，基于一般框架模型和实证研究结果，本文提出我国大学技术转移组织构建的政府驱动型多重复合三螺旋具体框架和对策，其中包括政府驱动型的创新主体三螺旋关系、创新战略三螺旋关系、大学技术转移中介多元螺旋关系、大学内部创新主体三螺旋关系；同时提出采用企业化运作、社会化服务等运行导向以及规范技术转移流程机制、构建经费来源和收益分享机制、人力资源管理机制和技术转移扩散机制等策略有效构建大学技术转移组织。
University promotes economic growth, which is the transfer process of richtechnology resources from university to industry and finally becomes practicallyproductive forces. However, China’s current transfer rate of technological achievements isabout25%, and the final industrialization rate is less than5%, which demonstrates theintegration of innovation and economy is expected to be much improved, and accelerationof university’s technology transfer becomes an important research topic. But universitytechnology transfer has been involved in a wide range of parties and problems, and it has acertain degree of complexity. To construct the complicated issue of university technologytransfer in a relatively easy level, this paper selects the construction of universitytechnology transfer organization （TTO）based on triple helix model as an entry point.
Based on the theories of innovation and transaction cost, this paper focuses on theproposed systematical theory model of university technology transfer’s construction,foreign university technology transfer organization’s development model, efficiency ofChina’s university technology transfer organization based on the triple helix model,specific framework model of triple helix and the countermeasures for China’s universitytechnology transfer organization. Again, it combines normative research and empiricalresearch. And some theoretical and practical conclusions are made as follows:
Firstly, a framework model is built for university technology transfer organizationfrom triple helix perspective. Based on the innovation theory, this paper analyzes theinherent mechanism of triple helix model to drive innovation environment, and theinhibition mechanism for transaction cost in triple helix relations. After that, asystematical theory model is constructed to push university technology transferorganization, which takes the interactive model of ‘triple helix environment-TTO’soperation-performance’ as a core.
Secondly, the models of university technology transfer organizations in U.S. andJapan are interpreted. This paper respectively analyzes the model of university technologytransfer organization from macro background, operation model and performance for U.S.and Japan, accordingly summarizes the characteristics of both university technologytransfer organizations. This paper points out that the construction of university technologytransfer organization in U.S and Japan is consistent with the proposed systematical theorymodel assumption which takes ‘triple helix environment-TTO’s operation-performance’ as a core, while the Japanese government participates in triple helix model more directly andmore in-depth that is what we should learn from.
Thirdly, combined with factor analysis, stochastic frontier analysis, etc. this papercalculates the efficiency for university technology transfer organization based on the triplehelix model. With the theory of resource view, this paper measures the active participationlevel and its efficiency in China’s triple helix with the integrated resource and economicindicators, and also analyzes the problems in triple helix’s development. Then, it measuresthe relative intensity of China’s regional triple helix relation. In addition, Using NationalTechnology Transfer Model Organizations in universities as samples, it measures itsefficiency with the method of stochastic frontier analysis, while regional intensity of triplehelix and internal factors in organization are taken as efficiency factors. Then the status ofChina’s university technology transfer organization ultimately comes out.
Finally, based on the proposed systematical theory model and the results from theempirical research, the model of multiple composite triple helix driven by government andits countermeasures are proposed for China’s university technology transfer organization,including the triple helix of innovation parties driven by the government, the triple helix ofinnovation strategy, the spiral relations of university technology transfer intermediaries,the triple helix of innovation parties in university. Meanwhile for interior management ofthe university technology transfer organization, this paper proposes its operation ascompany and social service, etc. as guidance, and mechanisms of university technologytransfer process, funding sources and revenue sharing, human resource management,technology transfer diffusion should be standardized.
引文
[1] Aggarwal N, Walden E A. Intellectual property bundle (IPB) theory: managingtransaction costs in technology development through network governance [J].Decision Support Systems,2009,48(1):23-32.
[2] Ahmad D. R, Luis C R. Assessment framework for the evaluation and prioritizationof university technologies for licensing and commercialization [J]. EngineeringManagement Journal,2006,18(4):28-36.
[3] Ahuja G, Lampert C M. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinalstudy of how established firms create breakthrough inventions [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,2001,22(6-7):521-543.
[4] Aigner D J, Lovell C A, Schmidt P. Formulation and estimation of stochasticfrontier production function models [J]. Journal of Econometrics,1977,6(1):21-37.
[5] Anderson T R, Daim T U, Lavoie F. Measuring the efficiency of universitytechnology transfer [J]. Technovation,2007,27(5):306-318.
[6] Antonio P. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographicaldistance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis OriginalResearch Article [J]. Technovation,2011,31(7):309-319.
[7] AUTM U.S. Licensing activity survey [R]. AUTM, FY2008.
[8] AUTM U.S. Licensing activity survey [R]. AUTM, FY2007.
[9] AUTM U.S. Licensing activity survey [R]. AUTM, FY2011.
[10] Azagra C, Fernandez L, Gutierrez Gracia A., University patents: output and inputindicators of what?[J]. Research Evaluation,2003,(12):5-16.
[11] Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, et al. Biased judgments of fairness inbargaining [J]. American Economic Review1995,85(5):1337-1343.
[12] Bangun I, Sukarya F. Calling for ABG (Academic-business-government) leadershipearly identification of effective characteristics of leadership to support triple helixmodel [J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,2012,52:187-196.
[13] Battese G, Corra G, Estimation of a production frontier model with application tothe pastoral zone of eastern Australia [J]. Australian Journal of AgriculturalEconomics,1977,21(3):169-179.
[14] Beise M, Stahl H. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany [J].Research Policy,1999,28(4):397-422.
[15] Belenzon N, Schankerman M. Harnessing success: determinants of universitytechnology licensing performance, CEPR Discussion Paper,2007.
[16] Bercovitz J, Feller I, Burton R. Organizational structure as determinants ofacademic patent and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke, JohnsHopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer,2001,26(1-2):21-35.
[17] Caldera A, Debande O. Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer:An empirical analysis [J]. Research Policy,2010,39(9):1160-1173.
[18] Chames A, Coope W W, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision makingunits [J]. European Journal of Operational Research,1978,2(6):429-444.
[19] Chandler A. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the history of the Americanindustrial enterprise [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1962.
[20] Chanthes S. Increasing faculty research productivity via a triple-helix Modeleduniversity outreach project: empirical evidence from Thailand.[J]. Procedia-Socialand Behavioral Sciences,2012,52:253-258.
[21] Chapple W, Lockett A, Siegel D S, Wright M. Assessing the relative performance ofuniversity technology transfer offices in the UK: parametric and non-parametricEvidence [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(3):369-384.
[22] Chesbrough H. Open innovation, the new imperative for creating and profiting fromtechnology [M]. Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[23] Chesbrough H. The Era of open innovation [J]. MIT Sloan Management Review,2003,44(3):35-41.
[24] Cockburn I, Henderson R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and theorganization of research in drug discovery [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2):157-182.
[25] Cohen W M, Levinthal D A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learningand innovation [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1):128-152.
[26] Coupé T. Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents [J]. Journal ofTechnology Transfer,2003,28(1):31-46.
[27] Danneels E, Kleinschmidt E J. Product innovativeness from the firm's perspective:its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance [J]. Journalof Product Innovation Management,2001,18(6):357-373.
[28] Debackere K, Veugelers R. The role of academic technology transfer organizationsin improving industry science links [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(3):321-342.
[29] Di Gregorio D, Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups thanothers?[J]. Research Policy,2003,32(2):209-227.
[30] Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, et al. The future of the university and theuniversity of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm [J].Research Policy,2000,29(2):313-330.
[31] Etzkowitz H, Goktepe-Hulten D. Maybe they can? University technology transferoffices as regional growth engines [J]. International Journal of Technology Transferand Commercialization,2010,9(1):166-181.
[32] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. Introduction to special issue on science policydimensions of the triple helix of university-industry-government relations [J].Science and Public Policy,1997,24(1):2-5.
[33] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from national systemsand ‘model2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations [J].Research Policy,2000,29(2):109-123.
[34] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The endless transition: A ‘triple helix’ ofuniversity-industry-government relations [J]. Minerva,1998,36(3):203-208.
[35] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The triple helix of university-industry-governmentrelations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development [J]. EASSTReview1995,14(1):14-19.
[36] Etzkowitz H, The triple helix: science, technology and the entrepreneurial spirit [J].Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China,2011,3(2):76-90.
[37] Florida R, Kenney M. Venture capital financed innovation and technological changethe United States [J]. Research Policy,1998,17(3):119-137.
[38] Fred P, Paul G. Commercializing inventions resulting from university research:analyzing the impact of technology characteristics on subsequent business modelsOriginal Research Article [J]. Technovation,2011,31(4):151-160.
[39] Friedman J, Silberman J. University technology transfer: do incentives,management, and location matter?[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer,2003,28(1):17-30.
[40] Fukugawa N. Determinants of licensing activities of local public technology centersin Japan [J]. Technovation,2009,29(12):885-892.
[41] Ghafele R, Gibert B. The transaction cost benefits of electronic patent licensingplatforms: a discussion at the example of the patent books model, working paper,2011.
[42] Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny. The new production of knowledge: theDynamics of science and research in contemporary societies [M]. London: Sage,1994.
[43] Gompers P, Lerner J. The venture capital cycle, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
[44] Granieri M. beyond traditional technology transfer of faculty-generates inventions:building a bridge toward R&D [J]. Les Nouvelles,2003,38(4):167-175.
[45] Gupta A, Sapienza H. Determinants of venture capital firms' preferences regardingthe industry diversity and geographic scope of their investments [J]. Journal ofBusiness Venturing,1992,7(5):347-362.
[46] Hellmann T. The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap [J]. Journalof Economic Behavior&Organization,2007,63(4):624-647.
[47] Henderson R, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercialtechnology: a detailed analysis of university patenting,1965-1988[J]. Review ofEconomics and Statistics,1998,80(1):119-127.
[48] Hertzfeld H R, Link A N, Vonortas N. S. Intellectual property protectionmechanisms in research partnerships [J]. Research Policy,2006,35(6):825-39.
[49] Higashino. Changing environment for Japanese venture business [J]. JapanEconomic Monthly,2005,(5):1-10.
[50] Hines S. Administration of a large technology transfer office in intellectual propertymanagement in health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices,MIHR: Oxford, U.K., and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. Available online atwww.ipHandbook.org.2007.
[51] Hoppe H C, Emre O. Intermediation in innovation: The role of technology transferoffices [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2005,23:483-503
[52] Hoye K, Pries F. Repeat commercializers? The habitual entrepreneurs of universityindustry technology transfer [J]. Technovation,2009,29(10):682-689.
[53] Hsu D, Bernstein T. Managing the university technology licensing process:Findings from case studies [J]. Journal of the Association of University TechnologyManagers,1997,(9):1-33.
[54] Jensen R, Thursby J G, Thursby M C. Disclosure and licensing of Universityinventions.[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2003,21(9):1271-1300.
[55] Jensen R, Thursby M C. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of universityinventions [J]. American Economic Review,2001,91(1):240-259.
[56] Johnson A. Managing university technology development using organizationalcontrol theory [J]. Research Policy,2011,40(6):842-852.
[57] Johnson W. Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizationssupportingtriple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarnintermediateorganizations [J]. Technovation,2008,28(8):495-505.
[58] Japan Patent Office. Annual Report [R] FY2012.
[59] Kano S. Introduction and comparison of technology transfer models inuniversity-industry relations: the concept of technology-transfer effectivenessfrontier and its Application [J]. Business Model (Electronic Journal of JapaneseSociety for Business Model),2001,1(1):1-10.
[60] Kodama T. The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitatinguniversity-industry linkages: an empirical study of TAMA in Japan [J]. ResearchPolicy,2008,37(8):1224-1240.
[61] Kodd David A, Palm Franz C. Wald criteria for jointly testing equality andinequality restrictions [J]. Econometrical,1986,54(5):1243-1248.
[62] Kroll H, Liefner I. Spin-off enterprises as a means of technology commercializationin a transforming economy: evidence from three universities in China.[J].Technovation,2008,28(5):298-313.
[63] Kenney M, Patton D. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current UniversityInvention Ownership Model [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(9):1407-1422.
[64] Lach S, Schankerman M. Incentives and invention in Universities [J]. The RANDJournal of Economics,2006,39(2):403-433.
[65] Lai W H. Willingness-to-engage in technology transfer in industry-universitycollaborations [J]. Journal of Business Research,2011,64(11):1218-1223.
[66] Loewenberg S. The Bayh-Dole Act: a model for promoting research translation?[J].Molecular Oncology,2009.3(2):91-93.
[67] Lerner J. Patenting in the shadow of competitors [J]. Journal of Law and Economics,1995,38(10):463-495.
[68] Levin R, Klevorick A, Nelson R, Winter S.1987. Appropriating the returns fromindustrial research and development [J]. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,1987,1987(3):783-831.
[69] Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H. A triple helix of university-industry-governmentrelations:‘model2’and the globalization of national systems of innovation [A].Science under Pressure Proceedings [C]. Layout: New Com (Denmark),2001
[70] Leydesdorff L, Martin M. The triple helix of university industry governmentrelations: introduction to the topical Issue [J]. Scientometrics,2003,58(2):191-203.
[71] Leydesdorff L. The measurement and evaluation of triple helix relations amonguniversities, industries, and governments [C]. The Fourth International Triple HelixConference, Copenhagen, November2002.
[72] Leydesdorff L. The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations [J]. ResearchPolicy,2000,29(2):243-255.
[73] Lieberman M B, Montgomery D B. First-mover advantages [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,1988,9(s1):41-58.
[74] Link A. N, Siegel D S. Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysisof the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry TechnologyTransfer [J]. European Journal of Finance,2005,11(3):169-181.
[75] Lockett A, Wright M. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation ofuniversity spin-out companies [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(7):1043-1057.
[76] Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, Camerer C, et al. Self-Serving assessments offairness and pretrial bargaining [J]. Journal of Legal Studies1993,22(1):135-159.
[77] Louis G. Building state economics by promoting university-industry technologytransfer [R]. National Governors Association. Washington D.C.,2000:1-31.
[78] Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D, Veugelers R. Licensing of university inventions:The role of a technology transfer office [J]. International Journal of IndustrialOrganization,2007,25(3):483-510.
[79] Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D. Incentives in university technology transfers [J].International Journal of Industrial Organization,2010,28(4):362-367.
[80] March J. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J]. OrganizationScience,1991,2(1):71-87.
[81] Mard M J, Hyden S, Rigby J S. Intellectual property valuation [J]. FinancialValuation Group, Los Angeles. Retrieved December,9,2011.
[82] Maria M N, Joao P, Carlos F. The triple helix model and dynamics of innovation: acase study [J]. Journal of Knowledge-based innovation in China,2012,4(1):36-54.
[83] Markman G, Gianiodis P, Phan P, Balkin D B. The innovation speed: transferringuniversity technology to market [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(7):1058-1075.
[84] Markman G, Gianiodis P, Phan P. An agency theoretic study of the relationshipbetween knowledge agents and university technology transfer offices. WorkingPaper,2006.
[85] Merges R, Nelson R. On the complex economics of patent scope [J]. Columbia LawReview1990,90(4):839-916.
[86] Michael J. R. The Bayh-Dole Act at twenty-five years: looking back, taking stock,acting for the future [J]. Industry and Higher Education.2005,19(6):408-415.
[87] Mowery D, Nelson R, Sampat B, et al. Ivory tower and industrial innovation:university-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act [M].Stanford University Press,2004.
[88] Mowery D, Nelson R, Sampat B, et al. The growth of patenting and licensing byU.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of1980[J].Research Policy,2001,30(1):99-119.
[89] Mu Qing, Keun Lee. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technologicalcatch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(6):759-783.
[90] Müller K. Academic spin-off's transfer speed: analyzing the time from leavinguniversity to venture [J]. Research Policy,2010,39(2):189-199.
[91] Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1998,25(2):242－266.
[92] Nakwa K, Zawdie G, Intarakumnerd P. Role of intermediaries in accelerating thetransformation of inter-firm networks into triple helix networks: a case study ofSME-based industries in Thailand [J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,2012,52:52-61.
[93] Nerkar A, Shane S. Determinants of technology commercialization: an empiricalexamination of academically sourced inventions [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(11):1155-1166.
[94] Nevens M, Summe G, Uttal B. Commercializing technology: what the bestcompanies do?[J]. Harvard Business Review,1990,68(3):154-164.
[95] OECD.‘Access to capital’ in OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard
[R] OECD Publishing,2011.
[96] Pitt M, Lee L. The measurement and sources of technical inefficiency in Indonesianweaving industry [J]. Journal of Development Economics,1981,9(1):43-64.
[97] Posner R A. Transaction costs and antitrust concerns in the licensing of intellectualproperty [J]. John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law,2005,(4):325-559.
[98] Rasmussen E, Borch O J. University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: Alongitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities [J]. Research Policy,2010,39(5):602-612.
[99] Ratinho T, Henriques E. The role of science parks and business incubators inconverging countries [J]. Technovation,2010,30(4):278-290.
[100] Robert E Litan, Lesa M, Reedy E J. The university as innovator [J]. Issues inScience and Technology,2007,23(4):57-66.
[101] Roberts P. Product innovation, product-market competition and persistentprofitability in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(7):655-670.
[102] Roessner J D, Wise A. Public policy and emerging sources of technology andtechnical information available to industry [J]. Policy Studies Journal,1994,22(2):349-358.
[103] Rogers E M, Yin J, Hoffmann J. Assessing the effectiveness of technology transferoffices at U.S. research universities [J]. Journal of the Association of UniversityTechnology Managers,2000,(12):47-80.
[104] Rogers E M. Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.)[M]. New York, NY: The Free Press,1995.
[105] Rosenberg N, Nelson R. American universities and technical advance in industry.[J]. Research Policy,1994,23(3):323-348.
[106] Rousel P, Saad K, Erickson T. Third Generation of R&D: Managing the link toCorporate. Strategy [M]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,1991.
[107] Schankerman M, Pakes A. Estimates of the value of patent rights in Europeancountries during the post-1950period [J]. The Economic Journal,1986,(12):1052-1076.
[108] Shane S. Encouraging University entrepreneurship？The effect of the Bayh-DoleAct on university patenting in the United States [J]. Journal of Business Venturing,2004,19(1)：127-151.
[109] Shane S. Technological opportunities and new firm creation [J]. ManagementScience,2001,47(2):205-220.
[110] Shane S, Stuart T. Organizational endowments and the performance of universitystart-ups [J]. Management Science,2002,48(1):151-170.
[111] Sheila S, Gary R. Academic capitalism and the New Economy: markets, states, andhigher education [M]. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press,2004.
[112] Siegel D S, Waldman D A, Atwater L E, et al. Toward a model of the effectivetransfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitativeevidence from the commercialization of university technologies [J]. Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management,2004,21(1-2):115-142.
[113] Siegel D S, Waldman D A, Atwater L E, et al. Commercial knowledge transfersfrom universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industrycollaboration [J]. Technology Management Research,2003a,14(1):111-133.
[114] Siegel D. S. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of universityintellectual property: performance and policy implications [J]. Oxford Review ofEconomic Policy,2007,23(4):640-660.
[115] Siegel D S, Waldman D A, Link A. Assessing the impact of organizational practiceson the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratorystudy [J]. Research Policy,2003b,32(1):27-48.
[116] Somaya D. Combining patented inventions in multi-invention products:transactional challenges and organizational choices. University of California atBerkeley Working Paper,2001.
[117] Sorenson O, Stuart T. Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venturecapital [J]. American Journal of Sociology,2001,106(6):1546-1588.
[118] Sugandhavanija P, Sukchai S. Ketjoy N. Determination of effective universityindustry joint research for photovoltaic technology transfer (UIJRPTT) in Thailand[J]. Renewable Energy,2011,36(2):600-607.
[119] Sunitiyoso Y, Wicaksono A, Utomo D S, et al. Developing strategic initiativesthrough triple helix interactions: systems modeling for policy development [J].Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,2012,52:140-149.
[120] Teece D J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration,collaboration, licensing and public policy [J]. Research Policy,1986,15(6):285-305.
[121] Thursby J G, Kemp S. Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectualproperty licensing [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(1):109-124.
[122] Thursby J G, Thursby M C. Industry perspectives on Licensing UniversityTechnologies: Sources and Problems [J]. Industry and Higher Education,2000,15(4):289-294.
[123] Thursby J G, Thursby M C. Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth inuniversity licensing [J]. Management Science,2002,48(1):90-104.
[124] Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value ofinnovations [J]. Rand Journal of Economics,1990,21(1):172-188.
[125] Wesley D S, Scott S, Di Gregorio D. The halo effect and technology licensing: Theinfluence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions [J].Management Science,2003,49(4):478–496.
[126] Williamson O E. Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust Implications [M].New York: Free Press,1975.
[127] Winter S. Four Rs for profitability: rents, resources, routines and replication inresource-based and evolutionary theories of the firm: towards a synthesis,Montgomery CA （ed）[M]. Kluwer: Norwell, MA:14
[128] Zahra S, Nielsen A. Sources of capabilities, integration and technologycommercialization [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(5):377-398.
[129] Zucker L, Darby M, Brewer M. Intellectual human capital and the birth of USbiotechnology enterprises [J]. American Economic Review,1998,88(1):290-306.
[130]白俊红,江可申,李婧.应用随机前沿模型评测中国区域研发创新效率[J].管理世界,2009,(10):51-61.
[131]柴明勤.国外高校技术转移机构建设的现状与经验[J].高等农业教育,2007,(10):87-89.
[132]陈佩伶.产学技术移转之研究－建构国内大学技术移转中心管理模式[D].台北大学,2005.
[133]戴国强.美国风险投资成功经验及对中国的启示[J].经济体制改革,2003,(02):141-145.
[134]董洁,黄付杰.中国科技成果转化效率及其影响因素研究-基于随机前沿函数的实证分析[J].软科学,2012,(10):15-20.
[135]段存广,高国武.基于大学功能演进的大学生创业研究[J].中国高校科技与产业,2009,(10):38-41.
[136]付晔,张乐平,马强等. R＆D资源投入对不同类型高校专利产出的影响[J].研究与发展管理,2010,22(3):103-111.
[137]亨利埃茨科维兹,周春彦.区域创新发动者—不同三螺旋模式下的创业型大学[C].第六届国际三螺旋大会主题论文,2007.
[138]黄亦鹏,魏国平,李华军.产学研合作模式下的高校知识产权战略研究[J].中国高校科技,2012,(7):70-71.
[139]黄运鑫.高校科技成果转化的敏捷性研究[D].江西师范大学,2007.
[140]纪玉山,钟绍峰,张忠字.中介组织的经济学分析[J].工业技术经济学,2008,27(3):84-88.
[141]江山.科研事业单位成果转化中技术类无形资产管理政策研究[D].中国科学技术信息研究所,2011.
[142]金永红.我国风险投资退出机制的实证考察[J].科技进步与对策,2012,29(24):16-20.
[143]亢霞,刘秀梅.我国粮食生产的技术效率分析-基于随机前沿分析方法[J].中国农村观察,2005,(4):25-32.
[144]李春生.日本大学科技成果转让机构产生的背景及现状分析[J].世界教育信息,2003,(3):8-13.
[145]李春生.日本大学科技成果转让机构的模式及其现状[J].高等教育研究,2003,24(6):93-97.
[146]李小丽.大学技术转移成功影响因素研究—以高效短流程嵌入式复合纺纱技术转移为例.[J].科技进步与对策,2012,29(02):16-20.
[147]李小丽.中外有效专利存量的比较研究[J].情报杂志,2009,28(11):5-9.
[148]李小丽.三螺旋模型下美国大学专利技术转移机构的动态演进及其启示[J].图书情报工作,2011,55(14):36-41.
[149]李祖超,梁春晓.协同创新运行机制探析—基于高校创新主体的视角[J].中国高教研究,2012,(7):81-84.
[150]廖述梅,徐升华.我国校企技术转移效率及影响因素分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009,(11):52-56.
[151]林意茵.我国大学研发成果之专利保护对技术移转绩效之影响性研究－以国立成功大学为例[D].成功大学,2009.
[152]刘凤朝.基于专利结构视角的中国区域创新能力差异研究[J].管理评论,2006,(11):43－47.
[153]刘和东.中国区域研发效率及其影响因素研究-基于随机前沿函数的实证分析[J].科学学研究,2011,(4):548-556.
[154]刘力.走向“三重螺旋”:我国产学研合作的战略选择[J].北京大学教育评论,2004,(10):44-48.
[155]刘斯敖.中间组织的制度分析[D].浙江师范大学,2003.
[156]刘彦.大学技术许可机构的制度分析与国际比较[J].中国科技论坛,2007,(8):140-144.
[157]卢兵,廖貅武,岳亮.组织的知识转移分析[J].科研管理,2007,28(6):22－30.
[158]栾春娟,侯海燕.中国"拜杜法"对中国学术机构专利申请的影响[J].科技管理研究,2010,(10):128-130.
[159]罗德权.日本创新体系中TLO的研究[D].台湾淡水大学,2008
[160]孟凡昌.我国科技成果转化问题与法律对策[D].东北大学,2008.
[161]平力群.《日本TLO法》在促进科技成果转化中的作用[J].国际技术经济研究,2006,(4):32-36.
[162]日本文部科学省. White Paper2010[R]. FY2010.
[163]邵景波,张立新.美日政府在高校技术转移中的作用比较[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2003,5(4):62-67.
[164]司尚奇,冯锋.我国技术转移机构服务项目与比较研究[J].中国科技论坛,2009,(8):3-6.
[165]孙理军,黄花叶.美日技术转移实践及其对我国技术转移中心的启示[J].科技管理研究,2003,(1):70-72.
[166]王怀祖,熊中楷,黄俊.交易成本视角下的专利池治理结构研究[J].科技进步与对策,2009,26(10):30-34.
[167]王雁,孔寒冰.王沛民.两次学术革命与大学的两次转型[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,(3):162-167.
[168]威廉姆森.资本主义经济制度[M].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[169]吴凡,董正英.高等学校技术转移能力影响因素及实证分析[J].科技进步与对策,2010,27(10):137-140.
[170]吴知音,倪乃顺.我国财政科技支出研究析[J].财经问题研究,2012,(5):75-79.
[171]吴贵生.技术创新管理[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2000.
[172]新华网.科技成果转化率不足5%[EB/OL].http://www.chinanews.com/cj/2011/09-30/3365935.shtml2011年09月30日.
[173]徐辉,王正青.大学-产业-政府的三重螺旋:内涵、层次与大学的变革[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(5):115-119.
[174]徐辉.《贝多法案》在美国大学技术转移中遭遇困境[N].科学时报,2009-4-28.
[175]杨琼.我国高校技术转移制度研究[D].华中科技大学,2007.
[176]叶桂林.大学技术转移中心运作模式研究[J].经济问题探索,2004,(4):92-95.
[177]原长弘,赵文红,周林海.政府支持、市场不确定性对校企知识转移效率的影响[J].科研管理,2012,(10):106-113.
[178]袁晓东.我国专利资产证券化的制度环境研究[J].科技与法律,2007,(5):84-92.
[179]袁晓东,孟奇勋.开放式创新条件下的专利集中战略研究[J].科研管理,2010,31(5):157-163.
[180]张健华.高校科技成果转化中的政府职能研究[D].南开大学,2010.
[181]张明之,刘刚.论知识创新成果产业化的螺旋运动[J].南京政治学院学报,2000,(6):39-43.
[182]张万彬,罗海山.促进高校科技成果转化之法律环境研究[J].华北电力大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(5):63-66.
[183]张卫国.三螺旋理论下欧洲创业型大学的组织转型及其启示[J].外国教育研究,2010,37(3).53-58.
[184]章琰.大学技术转移的双重过程分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2004,25(7):27-30.
[185]赵捷,邸晓燕,张杰军.关于落实促进科技成果转化政策的若干思考[J].中国科技论坛,2010,(12):10-14.
[186]教育部.中国高校知识产权报告[R].2010.
[187]张铁男,陈娟.基于三螺旋模型的大学科技园孵化模式研究[J].情报杂志,2011,30(2):66-71.
[188]中国知识产权网.解读《发明专利申请优先审查管理办法》[EB/OL].http://www.cnipr.com/law/zl/zlgnfl/zlsfjs/201208/t20120810_145114.html2013年01月30日.
[189]周凤华,朱雪忠.资源因素与大学技术转移绩效研究[J].研究与发展管理,2007,19(5):87-94.
[190]周延鹏.一堂课2000亿[M].台北:商讯文化事业股份有限公司,2006.
[2] Ahmad D. R, Luis C R. Assessment framework for the evaluation and prioritizationof university technologies for licensing and commercialization [J]. EngineeringManagement Journal,2006,18(4):28-36.
[3] Ahuja G, Lampert C M. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinalstudy of how established firms create breakthrough inventions [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,2001,22(6-7):521-543.
[4] Aigner D J, Lovell C A, Schmidt P. Formulation and estimation of stochasticfrontier production function models [J]. Journal of Econometrics,1977,6(1):21-37.
[5] Anderson T R, Daim T U, Lavoie F. Measuring the efficiency of universitytechnology transfer [J]. Technovation,2007,27(5):306-318.
[6] Antonio P. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographicaldistance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis OriginalResearch Article [J]. Technovation,2011,31(7):309-319.
[7] AUTM U.S. Licensing activity survey [R]. AUTM, FY2008.
[8] AUTM U.S. Licensing activity survey [R]. AUTM, FY2007.
[9] AUTM U.S. Licensing activity survey [R]. AUTM, FY2011.
[10] Azagra C, Fernandez L, Gutierrez Gracia A., University patents: output and inputindicators of what?[J]. Research Evaluation,2003,(12):5-16.
[11] Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, et al. Biased judgments of fairness inbargaining [J]. American Economic Review1995,85(5):1337-1343.
[12] Bangun I, Sukarya F. Calling for ABG (Academic-business-government) leadershipearly identification of effective characteristics of leadership to support triple helixmodel [J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,2012,52:187-196.
[13] Battese G, Corra G, Estimation of a production frontier model with application tothe pastoral zone of eastern Australia [J]. Australian Journal of AgriculturalEconomics,1977,21(3):169-179.
[14] Beise M, Stahl H. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany [J].Research Policy,1999,28(4):397-422.
[15] Belenzon N, Schankerman M. Harnessing success: determinants of universitytechnology licensing performance, CEPR Discussion Paper,2007.
[16] Bercovitz J, Feller I, Burton R. Organizational structure as determinants ofacademic patent and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke, JohnsHopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer,2001,26(1-2):21-35.
[17] Caldera A, Debande O. Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer:An empirical analysis [J]. Research Policy,2010,39(9):1160-1173.
[18] Chames A, Coope W W, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision makingunits [J]. European Journal of Operational Research,1978,2(6):429-444.
[19] Chandler A. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the history of the Americanindustrial enterprise [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1962.
[20] Chanthes S. Increasing faculty research productivity via a triple-helix Modeleduniversity outreach project: empirical evidence from Thailand.[J]. Procedia-Socialand Behavioral Sciences,2012,52:253-258.
[21] Chapple W, Lockett A, Siegel D S, Wright M. Assessing the relative performance ofuniversity technology transfer offices in the UK: parametric and non-parametricEvidence [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(3):369-384.
[22] Chesbrough H. Open innovation, the new imperative for creating and profiting fromtechnology [M]. Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[23] Chesbrough H. The Era of open innovation [J]. MIT Sloan Management Review,2003,44(3):35-41.
[24] Cockburn I, Henderson R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and theorganization of research in drug discovery [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2):157-182.
[25] Cohen W M, Levinthal D A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learningand innovation [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1):128-152.
[26] Coupé T. Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents [J]. Journal ofTechnology Transfer,2003,28(1):31-46.
[27] Danneels E, Kleinschmidt E J. Product innovativeness from the firm's perspective:its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance [J]. Journalof Product Innovation Management,2001,18(6):357-373.
[28] Debackere K, Veugelers R. The role of academic technology transfer organizationsin improving industry science links [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(3):321-342.
[29] Di Gregorio D, Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups thanothers?[J]. Research Policy,2003,32(2):209-227.
[30] Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, et al. The future of the university and theuniversity of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm [J].Research Policy,2000,29(2):313-330.
[31] Etzkowitz H, Goktepe-Hulten D. Maybe they can? University technology transferoffices as regional growth engines [J]. International Journal of Technology Transferand Commercialization,2010,9(1):166-181.
[32] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. Introduction to special issue on science policydimensions of the triple helix of university-industry-government relations [J].Science and Public Policy,1997,24(1):2-5.
[33] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from national systemsand ‘model2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations [J].Research Policy,2000,29(2):109-123.
[34] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The endless transition: A ‘triple helix’ ofuniversity-industry-government relations [J]. Minerva,1998,36(3):203-208.
[35] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The triple helix of university-industry-governmentrelations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development [J]. EASSTReview1995,14(1):14-19.
[36] Etzkowitz H, The triple helix: science, technology and the entrepreneurial spirit [J].Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China,2011,3(2):76-90.
[37] Florida R, Kenney M. Venture capital financed innovation and technological changethe United States [J]. Research Policy,1998,17(3):119-137.
[38] Fred P, Paul G. Commercializing inventions resulting from university research:analyzing the impact of technology characteristics on subsequent business modelsOriginal Research Article [J]. Technovation,2011,31(4):151-160.
[39] Friedman J, Silberman J. University technology transfer: do incentives,management, and location matter?[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer,2003,28(1):17-30.
[40] Fukugawa N. Determinants of licensing activities of local public technology centersin Japan [J]. Technovation,2009,29(12):885-892.
[41] Ghafele R, Gibert B. The transaction cost benefits of electronic patent licensingplatforms: a discussion at the example of the patent books model, working paper,2011.
[42] Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny. The new production of knowledge: theDynamics of science and research in contemporary societies [M]. London: Sage,1994.
[43] Gompers P, Lerner J. The venture capital cycle, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
[44] Granieri M. beyond traditional technology transfer of faculty-generates inventions:building a bridge toward R&D [J]. Les Nouvelles,2003,38(4):167-175.
[45] Gupta A, Sapienza H. Determinants of venture capital firms' preferences regardingthe industry diversity and geographic scope of their investments [J]. Journal ofBusiness Venturing,1992,7(5):347-362.
[46] Hellmann T. The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap [J]. Journalof Economic Behavior&Organization,2007,63(4):624-647.
[47] Henderson R, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercialtechnology: a detailed analysis of university patenting,1965-1988[J]. Review ofEconomics and Statistics,1998,80(1):119-127.
[48] Hertzfeld H R, Link A N, Vonortas N. S. Intellectual property protectionmechanisms in research partnerships [J]. Research Policy,2006,35(6):825-39.
[49] Higashino. Changing environment for Japanese venture business [J]. JapanEconomic Monthly,2005,(5):1-10.
[50] Hines S. Administration of a large technology transfer office in intellectual propertymanagement in health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices,MIHR: Oxford, U.K., and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. Available online atwww.ipHandbook.org.2007.
[51] Hoppe H C, Emre O. Intermediation in innovation: The role of technology transferoffices [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2005,23:483-503
[52] Hoye K, Pries F. Repeat commercializers? The habitual entrepreneurs of universityindustry technology transfer [J]. Technovation,2009,29(10):682-689.
[53] Hsu D, Bernstein T. Managing the university technology licensing process:Findings from case studies [J]. Journal of the Association of University TechnologyManagers,1997,(9):1-33.
[54] Jensen R, Thursby J G, Thursby M C. Disclosure and licensing of Universityinventions.[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2003,21(9):1271-1300.
[55] Jensen R, Thursby M C. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of universityinventions [J]. American Economic Review,2001,91(1):240-259.
[56] Johnson A. Managing university technology development using organizationalcontrol theory [J]. Research Policy,2011,40(6):842-852.
[57] Johnson W. Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizationssupportingtriple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarnintermediateorganizations [J]. Technovation,2008,28(8):495-505.
[58] Japan Patent Office. Annual Report [R] FY2012.
[59] Kano S. Introduction and comparison of technology transfer models inuniversity-industry relations: the concept of technology-transfer effectivenessfrontier and its Application [J]. Business Model (Electronic Journal of JapaneseSociety for Business Model),2001,1(1):1-10.
[60] Kodama T. The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitatinguniversity-industry linkages: an empirical study of TAMA in Japan [J]. ResearchPolicy,2008,37(8):1224-1240.
[61] Kodd David A, Palm Franz C. Wald criteria for jointly testing equality andinequality restrictions [J]. Econometrical,1986,54(5):1243-1248.
[62] Kroll H, Liefner I. Spin-off enterprises as a means of technology commercializationin a transforming economy: evidence from three universities in China.[J].Technovation,2008,28(5):298-313.
[63] Kenney M, Patton D. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current UniversityInvention Ownership Model [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(9):1407-1422.
[64] Lach S, Schankerman M. Incentives and invention in Universities [J]. The RANDJournal of Economics,2006,39(2):403-433.
[65] Lai W H. Willingness-to-engage in technology transfer in industry-universitycollaborations [J]. Journal of Business Research,2011,64(11):1218-1223.
[66] Loewenberg S. The Bayh-Dole Act: a model for promoting research translation?[J].Molecular Oncology,2009.3(2):91-93.
[67] Lerner J. Patenting in the shadow of competitors [J]. Journal of Law and Economics,1995,38(10):463-495.
[68] Levin R, Klevorick A, Nelson R, Winter S.1987. Appropriating the returns fromindustrial research and development [J]. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,1987,1987(3):783-831.
[69] Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H. A triple helix of university-industry-governmentrelations:‘model2’and the globalization of national systems of innovation [A].Science under Pressure Proceedings [C]. Layout: New Com (Denmark),2001
[70] Leydesdorff L, Martin M. The triple helix of university industry governmentrelations: introduction to the topical Issue [J]. Scientometrics,2003,58(2):191-203.
[71] Leydesdorff L. The measurement and evaluation of triple helix relations amonguniversities, industries, and governments [C]. The Fourth International Triple HelixConference, Copenhagen, November2002.
[72] Leydesdorff L. The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations [J]. ResearchPolicy,2000,29(2):243-255.
[73] Lieberman M B, Montgomery D B. First-mover advantages [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,1988,9(s1):41-58.
[74] Link A. N, Siegel D S. Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysisof the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry TechnologyTransfer [J]. European Journal of Finance,2005,11(3):169-181.
[75] Lockett A, Wright M. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation ofuniversity spin-out companies [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(7):1043-1057.
[76] Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, Camerer C, et al. Self-Serving assessments offairness and pretrial bargaining [J]. Journal of Legal Studies1993,22(1):135-159.
[77] Louis G. Building state economics by promoting university-industry technologytransfer [R]. National Governors Association. Washington D.C.,2000:1-31.
[78] Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D, Veugelers R. Licensing of university inventions:The role of a technology transfer office [J]. International Journal of IndustrialOrganization,2007,25(3):483-510.
[79] Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D. Incentives in university technology transfers [J].International Journal of Industrial Organization,2010,28(4):362-367.
[80] March J. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J]. OrganizationScience,1991,2(1):71-87.
[81] Mard M J, Hyden S, Rigby J S. Intellectual property valuation [J]. FinancialValuation Group, Los Angeles. Retrieved December,9,2011.
[82] Maria M N, Joao P, Carlos F. The triple helix model and dynamics of innovation: acase study [J]. Journal of Knowledge-based innovation in China,2012,4(1):36-54.
[83] Markman G, Gianiodis P, Phan P, Balkin D B. The innovation speed: transferringuniversity technology to market [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(7):1058-1075.
[84] Markman G, Gianiodis P, Phan P. An agency theoretic study of the relationshipbetween knowledge agents and university technology transfer offices. WorkingPaper,2006.
[85] Merges R, Nelson R. On the complex economics of patent scope [J]. Columbia LawReview1990,90(4):839-916.
[86] Michael J. R. The Bayh-Dole Act at twenty-five years: looking back, taking stock,acting for the future [J]. Industry and Higher Education.2005,19(6):408-415.
[87] Mowery D, Nelson R, Sampat B, et al. Ivory tower and industrial innovation:university-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act [M].Stanford University Press,2004.
[88] Mowery D, Nelson R, Sampat B, et al. The growth of patenting and licensing byU.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of1980[J].Research Policy,2001,30(1):99-119.
[89] Mu Qing, Keun Lee. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technologicalcatch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China [J]. Research Policy,2005,34(6):759-783.
[90] Müller K. Academic spin-off's transfer speed: analyzing the time from leavinguniversity to venture [J]. Research Policy,2010,39(2):189-199.
[91] Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1998,25(2):242－266.
[92] Nakwa K, Zawdie G, Intarakumnerd P. Role of intermediaries in accelerating thetransformation of inter-firm networks into triple helix networks: a case study ofSME-based industries in Thailand [J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,2012,52:52-61.
[93] Nerkar A, Shane S. Determinants of technology commercialization: an empiricalexamination of academically sourced inventions [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(11):1155-1166.
[94] Nevens M, Summe G, Uttal B. Commercializing technology: what the bestcompanies do?[J]. Harvard Business Review,1990,68(3):154-164.
[95] OECD.‘Access to capital’ in OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard
[R] OECD Publishing,2011.
[96] Pitt M, Lee L. The measurement and sources of technical inefficiency in Indonesianweaving industry [J]. Journal of Development Economics,1981,9(1):43-64.
[97] Posner R A. Transaction costs and antitrust concerns in the licensing of intellectualproperty [J]. John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law,2005,(4):325-559.
[98] Rasmussen E, Borch O J. University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: Alongitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities [J]. Research Policy,2010,39(5):602-612.
[99] Ratinho T, Henriques E. The role of science parks and business incubators inconverging countries [J]. Technovation,2010,30(4):278-290.
[100] Robert E Litan, Lesa M, Reedy E J. The university as innovator [J]. Issues inScience and Technology,2007,23(4):57-66.
[101] Roberts P. Product innovation, product-market competition and persistentprofitability in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(7):655-670.
[102] Roessner J D, Wise A. Public policy and emerging sources of technology andtechnical information available to industry [J]. Policy Studies Journal,1994,22(2):349-358.
[103] Rogers E M, Yin J, Hoffmann J. Assessing the effectiveness of technology transferoffices at U.S. research universities [J]. Journal of the Association of UniversityTechnology Managers,2000,(12):47-80.
[104] Rogers E M. Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.)[M]. New York, NY: The Free Press,1995.
[105] Rosenberg N, Nelson R. American universities and technical advance in industry.[J]. Research Policy,1994,23(3):323-348.
[106] Rousel P, Saad K, Erickson T. Third Generation of R&D: Managing the link toCorporate. Strategy [M]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,1991.
[107] Schankerman M, Pakes A. Estimates of the value of patent rights in Europeancountries during the post-1950period [J]. The Economic Journal,1986,(12):1052-1076.
[108] Shane S. Encouraging University entrepreneurship？The effect of the Bayh-DoleAct on university patenting in the United States [J]. Journal of Business Venturing,2004,19(1)：127-151.
[109] Shane S. Technological opportunities and new firm creation [J]. ManagementScience,2001,47(2):205-220.
[110] Shane S, Stuart T. Organizational endowments and the performance of universitystart-ups [J]. Management Science,2002,48(1):151-170.
[111] Sheila S, Gary R. Academic capitalism and the New Economy: markets, states, andhigher education [M]. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press,2004.
[112] Siegel D S, Waldman D A, Atwater L E, et al. Toward a model of the effectivetransfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitativeevidence from the commercialization of university technologies [J]. Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management,2004,21(1-2):115-142.
[113] Siegel D S, Waldman D A, Atwater L E, et al. Commercial knowledge transfersfrom universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industrycollaboration [J]. Technology Management Research,2003a,14(1):111-133.
[114] Siegel D. S. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of universityintellectual property: performance and policy implications [J]. Oxford Review ofEconomic Policy,2007,23(4):640-660.
[115] Siegel D S, Waldman D A, Link A. Assessing the impact of organizational practiceson the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratorystudy [J]. Research Policy,2003b,32(1):27-48.
[116] Somaya D. Combining patented inventions in multi-invention products:transactional challenges and organizational choices. University of California atBerkeley Working Paper,2001.
[117] Sorenson O, Stuart T. Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venturecapital [J]. American Journal of Sociology,2001,106(6):1546-1588.
[118] Sugandhavanija P, Sukchai S. Ketjoy N. Determination of effective universityindustry joint research for photovoltaic technology transfer (UIJRPTT) in Thailand[J]. Renewable Energy,2011,36(2):600-607.
[119] Sunitiyoso Y, Wicaksono A, Utomo D S, et al. Developing strategic initiativesthrough triple helix interactions: systems modeling for policy development [J].Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,2012,52:140-149.
[120] Teece D J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration,collaboration, licensing and public policy [J]. Research Policy,1986,15(6):285-305.
[121] Thursby J G, Kemp S. Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectualproperty licensing [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(1):109-124.
[122] Thursby J G, Thursby M C. Industry perspectives on Licensing UniversityTechnologies: Sources and Problems [J]. Industry and Higher Education,2000,15(4):289-294.
[123] Thursby J G, Thursby M C. Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth inuniversity licensing [J]. Management Science,2002,48(1):90-104.
[124] Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value ofinnovations [J]. Rand Journal of Economics,1990,21(1):172-188.
[125] Wesley D S, Scott S, Di Gregorio D. The halo effect and technology licensing: Theinfluence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions [J].Management Science,2003,49(4):478–496.
[126] Williamson O E. Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust Implications [M].New York: Free Press,1975.
[127] Winter S. Four Rs for profitability: rents, resources, routines and replication inresource-based and evolutionary theories of the firm: towards a synthesis,Montgomery CA （ed）[M]. Kluwer: Norwell, MA:14
[128] Zahra S, Nielsen A. Sources of capabilities, integration and technologycommercialization [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(5):377-398.
[129] Zucker L, Darby M, Brewer M. Intellectual human capital and the birth of USbiotechnology enterprises [J]. American Economic Review,1998,88(1):290-306.
[130]白俊红,江可申,李婧.应用随机前沿模型评测中国区域研发创新效率[J].管理世界,2009,(10):51-61.
[131]柴明勤.国外高校技术转移机构建设的现状与经验[J].高等农业教育,2007,(10):87-89.
[132]陈佩伶.产学技术移转之研究－建构国内大学技术移转中心管理模式[D].台北大学,2005.
[133]戴国强.美国风险投资成功经验及对中国的启示[J].经济体制改革,2003,(02):141-145.
[134]董洁,黄付杰.中国科技成果转化效率及其影响因素研究-基于随机前沿函数的实证分析[J].软科学,2012,(10):15-20.
[135]段存广,高国武.基于大学功能演进的大学生创业研究[J].中国高校科技与产业,2009,(10):38-41.
[136]付晔,张乐平,马强等. R＆D资源投入对不同类型高校专利产出的影响[J].研究与发展管理,2010,22(3):103-111.
[137]亨利埃茨科维兹,周春彦.区域创新发动者—不同三螺旋模式下的创业型大学[C].第六届国际三螺旋大会主题论文,2007.
[138]黄亦鹏,魏国平,李华军.产学研合作模式下的高校知识产权战略研究[J].中国高校科技,2012,(7):70-71.
[139]黄运鑫.高校科技成果转化的敏捷性研究[D].江西师范大学,2007.
[140]纪玉山,钟绍峰,张忠字.中介组织的经济学分析[J].工业技术经济学,2008,27(3):84-88.
[141]江山.科研事业单位成果转化中技术类无形资产管理政策研究[D].中国科学技术信息研究所,2011.
[142]金永红.我国风险投资退出机制的实证考察[J].科技进步与对策,2012,29(24):16-20.
[143]亢霞,刘秀梅.我国粮食生产的技术效率分析-基于随机前沿分析方法[J].中国农村观察,2005,(4):25-32.
[144]李春生.日本大学科技成果转让机构产生的背景及现状分析[J].世界教育信息,2003,(3):8-13.
[145]李春生.日本大学科技成果转让机构的模式及其现状[J].高等教育研究,2003,24(6):93-97.
[146]李小丽.大学技术转移成功影响因素研究—以高效短流程嵌入式复合纺纱技术转移为例.[J].科技进步与对策,2012,29(02):16-20.
[147]李小丽.中外有效专利存量的比较研究[J].情报杂志,2009,28(11):5-9.
[148]李小丽.三螺旋模型下美国大学专利技术转移机构的动态演进及其启示[J].图书情报工作,2011,55(14):36-41.
[149]李祖超,梁春晓.协同创新运行机制探析—基于高校创新主体的视角[J].中国高教研究,2012,(7):81-84.
[150]廖述梅,徐升华.我国校企技术转移效率及影响因素分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009,(11):52-56.
[151]林意茵.我国大学研发成果之专利保护对技术移转绩效之影响性研究－以国立成功大学为例[D].成功大学,2009.
[152]刘凤朝.基于专利结构视角的中国区域创新能力差异研究[J].管理评论,2006,(11):43－47.
[153]刘和东.中国区域研发效率及其影响因素研究-基于随机前沿函数的实证分析[J].科学学研究,2011,(4):548-556.
[154]刘力.走向“三重螺旋”:我国产学研合作的战略选择[J].北京大学教育评论,2004,(10):44-48.
[155]刘斯敖.中间组织的制度分析[D].浙江师范大学,2003.
[156]刘彦.大学技术许可机构的制度分析与国际比较[J].中国科技论坛,2007,(8):140-144.
[157]卢兵,廖貅武,岳亮.组织的知识转移分析[J].科研管理,2007,28(6):22－30.
[158]栾春娟,侯海燕.中国"拜杜法"对中国学术机构专利申请的影响[J].科技管理研究,2010,(10):128-130.
[159]罗德权.日本创新体系中TLO的研究[D].台湾淡水大学,2008
[160]孟凡昌.我国科技成果转化问题与法律对策[D].东北大学,2008.
[161]平力群.《日本TLO法》在促进科技成果转化中的作用[J].国际技术经济研究,2006,(4):32-36.
[162]日本文部科学省. White Paper2010[R]. FY2010.
[163]邵景波,张立新.美日政府在高校技术转移中的作用比较[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2003,5(4):62-67.
[164]司尚奇,冯锋.我国技术转移机构服务项目与比较研究[J].中国科技论坛,2009,(8):3-6.
[165]孙理军,黄花叶.美日技术转移实践及其对我国技术转移中心的启示[J].科技管理研究,2003,(1):70-72.
[166]王怀祖,熊中楷,黄俊.交易成本视角下的专利池治理结构研究[J].科技进步与对策,2009,26(10):30-34.
[167]王雁,孔寒冰.王沛民.两次学术革命与大学的两次转型[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,(3):162-167.
[168]威廉姆森.资本主义经济制度[M].北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[169]吴凡,董正英.高等学校技术转移能力影响因素及实证分析[J].科技进步与对策,2010,27(10):137-140.
[170]吴知音,倪乃顺.我国财政科技支出研究析[J].财经问题研究,2012,(5):75-79.
[171]吴贵生.技术创新管理[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2000.
[172]新华网.科技成果转化率不足5%[EB/OL].http://www.chinanews.com/cj/2011/09-30/3365935.shtml2011年09月30日.
[173]徐辉,王正青.大学-产业-政府的三重螺旋:内涵、层次与大学的变革[J].西南大学学报(社会科学版),2007,(5):115-119.
[174]徐辉.《贝多法案》在美国大学技术转移中遭遇困境[N].科学时报,2009-4-28.
[175]杨琼.我国高校技术转移制度研究[D].华中科技大学,2007.
[176]叶桂林.大学技术转移中心运作模式研究[J].经济问题探索,2004,(4):92-95.
[177]原长弘,赵文红,周林海.政府支持、市场不确定性对校企知识转移效率的影响[J].科研管理,2012,(10):106-113.
[178]袁晓东.我国专利资产证券化的制度环境研究[J].科技与法律,2007,(5):84-92.
[179]袁晓东,孟奇勋.开放式创新条件下的专利集中战略研究[J].科研管理,2010,31(5):157-163.
[180]张健华.高校科技成果转化中的政府职能研究[D].南开大学,2010.
[181]张明之,刘刚.论知识创新成果产业化的螺旋运动[J].南京政治学院学报,2000,(6):39-43.
[182]张万彬,罗海山.促进高校科技成果转化之法律环境研究[J].华北电力大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(5):63-66.
[183]张卫国.三螺旋理论下欧洲创业型大学的组织转型及其启示[J].外国教育研究,2010,37(3).53-58.
[184]章琰.大学技术转移的双重过程分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2004,25(7):27-30.
[185]赵捷,邸晓燕,张杰军.关于落实促进科技成果转化政策的若干思考[J].中国科技论坛,2010,(12):10-14.
[186]教育部.中国高校知识产权报告[R].2010.
[187]张铁男,陈娟.基于三螺旋模型的大学科技园孵化模式研究[J].情报杂志,2011,30(2):66-71.
[188]中国知识产权网.解读《发明专利申请优先审查管理办法》[EB/OL].http://www.cnipr.com/law/zl/zlgnfl/zlsfjs/201208/t20120810_145114.html2013年01月30日.
[189]周凤华,朱雪忠.资源因素与大学技术转移绩效研究[J].研究与发展管理,2007,19(5):87-94.
[190]周延鹏.一堂课2000亿[M].台北:商讯文化事业股份有限公司,2006.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |