Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 1218–1223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Willingness-to-engage in technology transfer in industry–university collaborations☆

Wen-Hsiang Lai
Feng Chia University, Graduate Institute of Management of Technology, 100, Wenhwa Rd., Seatwen, Taichung, 40724 Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Formal collaboration between universities and industries is a recent phenomenon. Currently the role of an
Received 1 July 2010 industry–university collaboration (IUC) is to close the gap between industry and academia. This study aims to
Received in revised form 1 December 2010 analyze the willingness to engage in technology transfer (TT) in IUCs from the three vantage points of the
Accepted 1 March 2011
technology transferor (university), the technology transferee (industry), and the TT intermediary institute.
Available online 2 July 2011
This study mainly observes the pairwise relationships between influencing variables and sub-variables and
Keywords:
willingness to participate in TT in an IUC. From the vantage point of universities, this study shows that the
Industry–university collaboration (IUC) “transferor's incentive” and “capability of transferor” variables positively influence willingness to participate
Technology transfer (TT) in TT in an IUC. From the vantage point of industry, the results indicate that “capability of transferee” and
TT intermediary institute “incentive for establishing technological resources” have major influences on willingness to participate in
TT in an IUC. From the vantage point of TT intermediary institutes, the results show that “intermediary's
fundamental resources” and “intermediary's transferring process” have a positive impact on willingness to
participate in TT in an IUC.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction with industry, such as TT centers, technology authorization centers,

With the fast pace of evolution of high technology, advanced
technology becomes one of the key drivers to enhance productivity in
a firm or even in a country. According to statistical results provided by
Taiwan's National Science Council, over 70% of Taiwan's Ph.D.
researchers work in universities, and because of the maturity of
industry–university collaborations (IUC) and the use of intermediary
institutes for technology transfer (TT) between industry and univer-
sities, TT activities between industry and universities have been
gradually increasing. Because collaboration within IUCs is receiving
great attention, governments devote huge portions of their budgets to
national research and development (R&D) to develop technologies
that will likely elevate industry standards as well as improve national
competitiveness. In addition, governments are amending relevant acts
and regulations relating to IUC collaboration so as to follow trends in
innovation.
One of the most important of these acts is the Bayh–Dole Act
adopted in 1980 in the United States. This act not only builds bridges
between industry and universities, but also makes it possible to
disseminate the latest innovative technological results from univer-
sities to industry. In Taiwan, according to the Fundamental Science &
Technology Act adopted in 1998, achievements and results belong to
those R&D organizations which accept government grants. This act
helps Taiwan's colleges and universities set up intermediaries to deal
☆ The author appreciates the financial support from Taiwan's National Science
Council (project ID: 97-2221-E-035-065-MY2).
E-mail address: whlai@fcu.edu.tw.
innovation and incubation centers, entrepreneurship centers, and
new venture centers. The term “TT intermediary institute” in an IUC
usually refers to the TT centers and technology authorization centers
established inside colleges and universities.
Although the volume of TT in Taiwan has been gradually increasing,
TT collaboration in IUCs is not as well established as in the United
States or Japan because of many practical issues that need to be
resolved, such as government policies and the willingness of the
transferor (university), the transferee (industry), and the TT interme-
diary institute to engage in TT. This study aims to analyze willingness
to engage in TT within IUCs to find the influential variables and sub-
variables for universities, industry, and TT intermediary institutes and
to provide an analytical model for future practical study of the TT
process in IUCs.
2. Literature review
In the era of knowledge-based economy, speeding up technological
innovation, establishing an effective TT process, accumulating knowl-
edge, and constructing intellectual property rights represent an
efficient way to promote industrial competitiveness. Therefore, in
order to speed up technological innovation, accumulate knowledge,
and construct intellectual property rights, smoothening the TT process
within IUC becomes an important issue. Since new technology is
developing at an astonishing rate in countries across the world, TT
becomes a highly complex issue in developing countries and regions.
Zhao and Reisman (1992) inform us that TT is quite a complicated
interactive process between organizations. Looking at the TT process

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.026
 W.-H. Lai / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 1218–1223 1219

defined by Roger (1972), TT is an innovation process adopted by Table 1

organizations or systems from another organization or a system. Motivation for collaboration in an IUC.

Harvey (1987) also explains that TT is a process of making profit from Industry College/university
other business. Spann, Adams, and Sounder (1995) indicate that many
Santoro and Gopalakrishnan (2000) Santoro and Gopalakrishnan (2000)
scholars present conceptual, mathematical, economic, communica- • Train high-quality employees • Access opportunities to handle and
tion-based, strategic marketing, and integrative models to measure operate special instruments
TT's processes, outcomes, and performances; however, the results are and resources
• Enhance company's reputation • Obtain practical experience
usually deficient in the standardization and agreement, even though
• Use university resources and • Gain financial support from industry
these models capture a variety of perspectives. These differences in instruments
perspectives, goals, and roles may contribute to the measuring of • Knowledge transfer • Provide working opportunities
transferring progress, final success, and overall effectiveness. for graduates
Due to TT's broad research areas with diverse contexts and
Motohashi (2005) Slotte and Tynjälä (2003)
different research perspectives, the effectiveness of TT should be
• Look for new products and new • Gain practically oriented education
measured with various aspects instead of focusing on one particular technologies
dimension (Bozeman 2000; Roger 1972). Madu (1989) provides eight • Train talent • Gain practical support in the
successful key factors in TT: (1) structure; (2) educational training; form of resources
• Upgrade R&D capability • Establish links with industry
(3) the firm's capability; (4) the political system; (5) management;
• Integrate academic theory with
(6) goals; (7) defining proper technology; (8) R&D. Lai and Tsai industrial practice
(2009) express that industrial feature, organizational feature, per-
sonnel feature and technological feature are encountered in evaluat-
ing the effectiveness of TT. Chen (1995) indicates that TT should
provide technology training courses and services for the transferee in address the point that the technology owner may obtain profits by
order to enhance their acquisition capabilities. Meanwhile, estab- disclosing the technology to the public as well as by commercializing
lished conflict-solving mechanisms and infrastructure are sufficient the technology to the market during the TT process.
for TT, and the features of senior managers, such as age, educational The degree of technology commercialization affects the decision of
background and working experience, are valuable influential factors technology owners whether or not to disclose their technology to the
toward technology assessment and decisions (Spann et al. 1995). public. Based on interviews with experts in the areas of TT and IUC,
An IUC is a platform that provides a communication channel for TT this study concludes that the technology transfer partners in industry
between industry and universities. The changing global economy and usually have close relationships with the professors who own
the fast-moving nature of technological research are reinforcing IUC particular technologies in the university. Certain particular technol-
activities (Furino and Kozmetsky, 1998; Ohmae, 1989;). Bloedon and ogies are in demand by industry, and therefore TT occurs through the
Stokes (1994) depict IUC collaboration as an ongoing cooperation IUC. Harmon et al. (1997) show that the TT process between industry
in research and planning. The university focuses on research, and and the university is already underway before signing the IUC
industry is responsible for planning the research budget. Santoro and collaboration contract. Moiral and Carne (1987) note that the factors
Chakrabarti (2002) indicate that collaboration in an IUC is more like influencing TT include characteristics of both the TT partners and the
teamwork because industry may gain unique knowledge and technologies.
technologies from the cooperating universities and the universities If the transferred technology is highly related to the transfer
may gain additional financial support from industry for future partner's existing technology, this will strongly increase the willing-
advanced research. Basically, an IUC is a complementary collaboration ness to participate in TT in an IUC. Teece (1977) states that the speed
bridging industry and the university, which transforms knowledge of dissemination of transferred technology is an important factor in
into novel technologies which move from the university to industry. willingness to engage in TT. Also, the essence of bounded rationality in
Cooperation and interaction in an IUC have involved work-based business and industrial marketing contexts is another suitable area for
learning by university students in both the private and public sectors the exploration of willingness of TT in an IUC (Woodside, Lai, Kim, and
(Tynjälä, Välimaa, and Sarja, 2003). Lai and Tsai (2010) indicate that Jung 2009).
regulation, organization, education, and incentives are critical compo- The TT intermediary institute is a TT bridge and is responsible for
nents for integrating collaboration in an IUC. However, there are still the execution of TT between the technology transferee and the
many missing links between universities and industry because of transferor. The TT intermediary institute is one of the crucial factors in
natural differences in their research motivations and mechanisms, the success of TT in an IUC (Friedman and Silberman, 2003; Louis,
for example willingness to cooperate, degree of absorption of Blumenthal, Gluck, and Stoto 1989). Because most TT intermediary
new technologies, growth rate of labor productivity, and unbalanced institutes are in colleges and universities, not only should colleges and
fulfillment of supply and demand. In this study, the term “IUC universities support these intermediaries, but also the TT intermedi-
collaboration” refers to industry–university cooperation in R&D, allied ary institute should have a clear picture of how to execute and bridge
strategies, theory integration, and practical application for the purposes
of enhancing technology innovatively, sharing resources effectively, and
training talent actively. Table 1 shows the motivations for IUC
Table 2
collaboration from the vantage points of industry and the university. Sub-variables affecting willingness to engage in TT in an IUC.
Because talent is an important resource in the process of upgrading
and enhancing industrial technology, combining outstanding talent Transferor (university) Transferee (industry) TT intermediary institute

with industrial technology usually achieves the positive outcome of Cultural system Technological capability Quality of manpower
industry–university synergy. According to Lee's (1996) investigation Degree of government TT condition TT channel
support
of 1000 professors from 115 universities in the United States, reward-
Distribution of license fee Degree of administrative Technology evaluation
based incentives and motivation affect professors' willingness to support ability
engage in TT collaboration in IUCs. Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, and Link Degree of technology TT experience TT experience
(2004) indicate that a TT license fee could provide a research fund to commercialization
support laboratories or graduate students and also could be a major Degree of partnership IUC network Constant technological
support
incentive for professors to participate in TT. Siegel et al. (2004) also
1220 W.-H. Lai / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 1218–1223

Motivation of Transferor (university) Table 4

Transferor's incentive Results of regression analysis (N = 112).
Capability of transferor H1 Variables KMO Eigenvalue Cronbach's
α
Motivation of Transferee (industry)
Motivation of transferor Transferor's incentive .85 4.67 .87
Capability of transferee H2 Willingness of (university) Capability of transferor .76 3.10 .81
Incentive for establishing TT in IUC Motivation of transferee Capability of transferee .79 4.44 .86
technological resources (industry) Incentive for establishing .82 3.46 .85
technological resources
Quality of TT Intermediary Institute H3 Quality of TT intermediary Intermediary's .83 3.52 .86
institute fundamental resources
Intermediary’s fundamental resources Intermediary's transfer .89 5.35 .91
Intermediary’s transferring process process
Willingness to engage in Willingness to engage .76 2.86 .77
Fig. 1. Research framework. TT in an IUC in TT in an IUC

TT between industry and the university. It is very important for the TT

shows the research framework, and Table 3 shows the hypotheses
intermediary institutes to have explicit policies, information systems,
proposed in this study.
and working processes established internally.
This study sent the questionnaires for the transferor (university) to
Smilor and Matthews (2004) address the point that the quality of
professors specializing in technology management, patents, law, and
manpower in TT intermediary institutes directly affects TT perfor-
related fields, as well as to professors who have practical experience in
mance. If the TT intermediary institutes have enough TT experience,
TT. For the transferee (industry), this study delivered the question-
patent knowledge, legal or technological domain know-how, and
naires to companies that have TT experience with collaboration
customer-oriented services, the execution of TT process in an IUC will
in IUCs. For the TT intermediary institutes, this study mailed the
be smooth. Smilor and Matthews (2004) further indicate that the TT
questionnaires to subsidiary organizations such as technology autho-
intermediary institute should have the capability to evaluate the
rization centers and TT centers located within colleges and universi-
potential for technology commercialization.
ties. The contents of the questionnaire have been determined from
The capability to establish successful transfer processes and services in
literature reviews and expert interviews. The analytical software used
the TT intermediary institute not only influences a professor's willingness
in this study includes SPSS 12.0 and Excel to collate and verify the
to provide repeatedly updated technologies to the TT intermediary
data gathered from the questionnaires.
institute, but also affects a company's willingness to accept TT from the
transfer partners suggested by the TT intermediary institute. Lai and Tsai
(2010) construct an intermediary IUC model which provides a two-stage 4. Analysis results
concept to bridge industries and universities. Table 2 shows the sub-
variables influencing the willingness to engage in TT for the transferor 4.1. Descriptive analysis
(university), the transferee (industry), and the TT intermediary institute
in an IUC. This study included the distribution of 210 questionnaires by mail
and e-mail and 118 responses to the questionnaire, which constitutes
a 56% response rate. Out of the 118 questionnaires returned, 112 were
3. Research methodology valid. Among the 112 valid respondents, 27 questionnaires came from
professors in colleges and universities, 64 from managers in industry,
This study reviews scholars' literature and information gathered and 21 from staff in TT intermediary institutes. To ensure the validity
from expert interviews and constructs three categories of willingness of the analysis, only indicators for which the eigenvalues are greater
engaging in TT in an IUC: “motivation of transferor (university)”, than 1.0 and Cronbach's α values are greater than .7 were retained.
“motivation of transferee (industry)”, and “quality of TT intermediary Table 4 shows the values of the eigenvalues and Cronbach's α
institute”. This study also investigates the variables affecting willing- obtained in this study. Table 5 shows the mean values and standard
ness to engage in TT within an IUC for these three categories. Fig. 1 deviations of the variables for all the survey questions in the
questionnaire.
Table 3
Hypotheses proposed in this study.
Table 5
Hypothesis Description
Mean values and standard deviations (N = 112).
H1 The motivation of the transferor (university) has a significant impact
on the willingness to engage in TT in an IUC. Variable Mean (M) Sd. deviation
H1a The transferor's incentive has a significant impact on the willingness Transferor's incentive 2.13 .58
to engage in TT in an IUC. Capability of transferor 2.17 .60
H1b The capability of the transferor has a significant impact on the Capability of transferee 2.17 .54
willingness to engage in TT in an IUC. Incentive for establishing technological resources 2.11 .59
H2 The motivation of the transferee (industry) has a significant impact on Intermediary's fundamental resources 2.13 .59
the willingness to engage in TT in an IUC. Intermediary's transfer process 2.11 .60
H2a The capability of the transferee has a significant impact on the
willingness to engage in TT in an IUC.
H2b Incentives for establishing technological resources have a significant Table 6
impact on the willingness to engage in TT in an IUC. Order of importance of TT participants in the three categories (N = 112).
H3 The quality of the TT intermediary institute has a significant impact on
Category Transferor Transferee TT intermediary
the willingness to engage in TT in an IUC.
(university) (industry) institute
H3a The intermediary's fundamental resources have a significant impact
(24.11%) (57.14%) (18.75%)
on the willingness to engage in TT in an IUC.
H3b The intermediary's transfer process has a significant impact on the Importance 2.19 2.46 1.34
willingness to engage in TT in an IUC. Order 2 1 3
 W.-H. Lai / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 1218–1223 1221

Table 7
Orders of importance of TT in an IUC (university) (N = 27).

Variable Transferor's incentive Capability of transferor

Importance 3 2.99
Order 1 2

Sub-variable Cultural system Degree of government support Distribution of license fee Degree of technology commercialization Degree of partnership

Importance 2.63 2.98 3.39 3.59 2.4

Order 4 3 2 1 5

This study investigates three categories of TT participants. The
transferors (universities) accounted for 24.11% of the total survey
samples, the transferees (industry) for 57.14%, and the TT interme-
diary institutes for 18.75%. Those responding to the questionnaires
included professors, industrial managers, and staff members in the
categories of transferor (university), transferee (industry), and TT
intermediary institute respectively. Since the professors and staffs in
TT intermediary institutes usually deal with multiple TT cases, and
they both are in universities or colleges, the ratio of questionnaire
samplers between the academy (42.86%) and industry (57.14%) is
appropriate and valid in this study. Table 6 depicts the average scores
and order of importance for the three categories. Table 6 also indicates
that the transferee (industry) plays the most important and critical
role in TT (importance = 2.46) and that the TT intermediary institute
is the least important (importance = 1.34).
In the transferor (university) category, two variables, “transferor's
incentive” and “capability of transferor”, are considered, as well as five
sub-variables: “cultural system”, “degree of government support”,
“distribution of license fee”, “degree of technology commercialization”,
and “degree of partnership”. In Table 7, because the importance scores of
“transferor's incentive” (importance = 3) and “capability of transferor”
(importance = 2.99) are similar, this study concludes that their sub-
variables, “transferor's incentive” and “capability of transferor”, have
the same degree of importance from the viewpoint of colleges and
universities. As for the five sub-variables, “degree of technology
commercialization” illustrates the most important sub-variable in the
transferor (university) category (importance = 3.59), and the “degree
of partnership” is the least important (importance = 2.4).
In the transferee (industry) category, this study considers two
variables of “capability of transferee” and “incentive for establishing
technological resources” and five sub-variables of “technological
capability”, “TT condition”, “degree of administrative support”, “TT
experience”, and “IUC network”. In Table 8, the “capability of transferee”
variable (importance = 3.35) is more important than the “incentive for
establishing technological resources” variable (importance = 2.48). As
for the five sub-variables, “TT condition” explains the most important
sub-variable in the transferee (industry) category (importance= 3.63),
and “IUC network” is the least important (importance = 1.63).
In the TT intermediary institute category, this study evaluates two
variables of “intermediary's fundamental resources” and “intermediary's
transfer process” and five sub-variables of “quality of manpower”, “TT
channel”, “technology evaluation ability”, “TT experience”, and “constant
technological support”. In Table 9, the “intermediary's fundamental
resources” variable (importance= 3.17) is more important than the
“intermediary's transferring process” variable (importance= 2.89). As
for the five sub-variables, “technology evaluation ability” is the most
important sub-variable in the TT intermediary institute category
(importance=3.63), and “constant technological support” is the least
important (importance= 2.1).
The purpose of correlation analysis is to describe the linear
relationship between two or more continuous variables. The most
common type of correlation analysis is the Pearson correlation
coefficient, which is sensitive mainly to the linear relationship
between two variables. This study adapts the SPSS software to obtain
the Pearson correlation coefficients of all variables and to understand
the correlation structure of the TT variables within an IUC. From
Table 10, it is obvious that the correlation coefficients of the six
variables all fall within the .5–.8 range, which demonstrates that the
degree of multicollinearity existing in the variables is acceptable and
will not affect the following regression analysis.
4.2. Regression analysis
Regression analysis includes techniques for modeling and analyz-
ing variables with a focus on the relationships between one or more
independent variables. The multiple stepwise regression analysis

Table 8
Orders of importance of TT in an IUC (industry) (N = 64).

Variable Capability of transferee Incentive for establishing

technological resources

Importance 3.35 2.48

Order 1 2

Sub-variable Technological capability TT condition Degree of administrative support TT experience IUC network

Importance 3.58 3.63 2.83 3.33 1.63

Order 2 1 4 3 5

Table 9
Orders of importance of TT in an IUC (TT intermediary institute) (N = 21).

Variable Intermediary's fundamental resources Intermediary's transferring process

Importance 3.17 2.89

Order 1 2

Sub-variable Quality of manpower TT channel Technology evaluation ability TT experience Constant technological support

Importance 2.96 3.38 3.63 2.93 2.1

Order 3 2 1 4 5
1222 W.-H. Lai / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 1218–1223

Table 10
Correlation analysis (N = 112).

Transferor's Capability of Capability of Incentive for establishing Intermediary's fundamental Intermediary's

incentive transferor transferee technological resources resources transfer process

Transferor's incentive Pearson correlation 1 .63(**) .68(**) .65(**) .68(**) .74(**)

Sig.(2 tail) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Capability of transferor Pearson correlation .63(**) 1 .68(**) .64(**) .54(**) .60(**)
Sig.(2 tail) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Capability of transferee Pearson correlation .68(**) .68(**) 1 .72(**) .72(**) .78(**)
Sig.(2 tail) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Incentive for establishing Pearson correlation .65(**) .64(**) .72(**) 1 .65(**) .75(**)
technological resources Sig.(2 tail) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Intermediary's fundamental Pearson correlation .68(**) .54(**) .72(**) .65(**) 1 .75(**)
resources Sig.(2 tail) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Intermediary's transfer process Pearson correlation .74(**) .60(**) .76(**) .75(**) .75(**) 1
Sig.(2 tail) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

*P b .1, **.P b .05, *** P b .01.

in this study verifies the relationship between variables (the six
variables, “transferor's incentive”, “capability of transferor”, “capabil-
ity of transferee”, “incentive for establishing technological resources”,
“intermediary's fundamental resources”, and “intermediary's transfer
process”) and willingness to engage in TT in an IUC. For the “transferor
(university)” category, two variables, “transferor's incentive” and
“capability of transferor”, are discussed, and the predicted relation-
ship between these two variables and willingness to engage in TT in
an IUC is explored. In Table 11, both “transferor's incentive” (β = .49)
and “capability of transferor” (β = .47) satisfy the significance test for
standard regression coefficients (.00 b .05), and therefore it demon-
strates that if the transferor (university) provides more motivation to
professors to participate, these professors will be more willing to
engage in TT in an IUC.
This study also examines the “transferee (industry)” category
using two variables, “capability of transferee” and “incentive for
establishing technological capability”, to test the relationship of these
variables with willingness to engage in TT in an IUC. Table 12 shows
that both “capability of transferee” (β = .48) and “incentive for
establishing technological resources” (β = .44) satisfy the significance
test for standard regression coefficients (.00 b .05). Therefore, this
study infers that if the transferee (industry) has its own technological
capability and provides more motivation to participate by providing
the technological requirements, the willingness of industry to
participate in TT in an IUC will be stronger.
As for the “TT intermediary institute” category, it is examined using
two variables, “intermediary's fundamental resources” and “interme-
diary's transfer process”, to test these variables' relationship with the
willingness to engage in TT in an IUC. In Table 13, it can be seen that both
“intermediary's fundamental resources” (β = .56) and “intermediary's
transferring process” (β = .31) satisfy the significance test for standard
regression coefficients (.00 b .05). Therefore, this study infers that if the
TT intermediary institute provides more basic resources as well as better
TT channels and experience, the willingness of the TT intermediary
institute to participate in TT in an IUC will be stronger.
Table 14 shows that the regression coefficients for “motivation of
transferee (industry)” (β = .35), “motivation of transferor (university)”
(β = .39), and “quality of TT intermediary institute” (β = .28) all satisfy
the significance test for standard regression coefficients (.00 b .05). This
indicates that the higher the participation motivations of both
Table 13
Multiple stepwise regression procedure (H3).

Mode Std. coefficient R R2 △R

Table 11
β
Multiple stepwise regression for transferor (university) (H1).
1. Intermediary's fundamental resources .58⁎⁎⁎ .83(a) .70 .70
Std. coefficient R R2 △R 2. Intermediary's transfer process .31⁎⁎⁎ .85(b) .72 .03
β a. Predicted variable: intermediary's transfer process.
1.Transferor's incentive .49⁎⁎⁎ .79(a) .62 .62 b. Predicted variables: intermediary's transfer process, intermediary's fundamental
2.Capability of transferor .47⁎⁎⁎ .87(b) .76 .13 resources.
*P b .1, **P b .05, ***P b .01.
a. Predicted variable: transferor's incentive.
b. Predicted variables: transferor's incentive, capability of transferor.
*P b .1, **P b .05, ***P b .01.

Table 14
Multiple stepwise regression procedure (willingness to engage in TT in an IUC).
Table 12
Multiple stepwise regression procedure (H2). Mode Std. coefficient R R2 △R

2 β
Std. coefficient R R △R
1. Motivation of transferee (industry) .35⁎⁎⁎ .87(a) .75 .75
β
2. Motivation of transferor (university) .39⁎⁎⁎ .92(b) .85 .10
1. Capability of transferee .46⁎⁎⁎ .83(a) .69 .69 3. Quality of TT intermediary institute .28⁎⁎⁎ .93(c) .87 .02
2. Incentive for establishing technological .44⁎⁎⁎ .87(b) .75 .06
a. Predicted variable: motivation of transferee (industry).
resources
b. Predicted variables: motivation of transferee (industry), Motivation of transferor
a. Predicted variable: capability of transferee. (university).
b. Predicted variables: capability of transferee, incentive for establishing technological c. Predicted variables: motivation of transferee (industry), motivation of transferor
resources. (university), quality of TT intermediary institute.
*P b .1, **P b .05, ***P b .01. *P b .1, **P b .05, ***P b .01.
 W.-H. Lai / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 1218–1223
universities and industry in conjunction with outstanding TT quality
from the TT intermediary institute, the more positive will be the
influence on the willingness to participate in TT in an IUC.
5. Conclusions
In the face of rapid transitions in global technologies and markets,
R&D has become one of the influential ways for firms to engage in
innovation (Huarng 2010; Lai and Chang 2010). From the vantage
point of the university, the “transferor's incentive” and “capability of
transferor” variables have the same degrees of importance, the
“degree of technology commercialization” and “distribution of license
fees” sub-variables play the most crucial roles in the view of the
transferor (university), and “degree of partnership” is the least
important sub-variable. Based on the statistical analysis of the
transferor (university) category, “transferor's incentive” and “capa-
bility of transferor” both have significant relationships with “willing-
ness to engage in TT in an IUC”.
These results imply that professors in colleges and universities
believe that the person who possesses a better capability to create
technologies should gain more incentives from the advanced
technologies which result. Professors in colleges and universities
prefer to do individual research when exploring new technologies,
and when in collaboration in an IUC, professors emphasize the potential
for technology commercialization to obtain a better license fee. This
emphasis also contributes to the decisions made by professors regarding
willingness to license and transfer technologies to industry through an
IUC. From the vantage point of industry, the “capability of transferee”
variable has the greatest degree of importance, the “TT condition”,
“technological capability”, and “TT experience” sub-variables play the
most crucial roles in the view of the transferee (industry), and “IUC
network” is the least important sub-variable.
Based on statistical analysis of the transferee (industry) category,
“capability of transferee” and “incentives for establishing technolog-
ical resources” both have significant relationships with “willingness to
engage in TT in an IUC”. These results imply that whether the
technologies provided by universities match the company's require-
ments will be important for a company to accept TT from universities
through an IUC. Because “TT experience” is the most important sub-
variable with respect to the “incentive for establishing technological
resources” variable, an employee's TT experience and performance
are key issues for industry to consider when deciding whether to
accept TT from universities in the context of an IUC collaboration.
From the vantage point of the TT intermediary institute, the
“intermediary's fundamental resources” variable has the greatest
degree of importance, the “technology evaluation ability” and “TT
channel” sub-variables play the most crucial roles in the view of the TT
intermediary institute, and “constant technological support” is the
least important sub-variable. Based on statistical analysis of the TT
intermediary institute category, “intermediary's fundamental re-
sources” and “intermediary's transfer process” both have significant
relationships with “willingness to engage in TT in an IUC”.
These results imply that the TT intermediary institute should focus
on improving its own abilities in technology evaluation and on
constructing well-organized TT channels to both universities and
industry to bridge and maintain the relationships in an IUC. Because
1223
“technology evaluation ability” is the most important sub-variable
with respect to the “intermediary's fundamental resources” variable,
leveraging and upgrading the technical knowledge of the staff of the
TT intermediary institute should perform better and smoother TT in
the context of an IUC.
References
Bloedon RV, Stokes DR. Making university/industry collaborative research succeed. Res
Technol Manage 1994;37(2):44–8.
Bozeman B. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Res
Policy 2000;29:627–55.
Chen Y. Teaching material in technology transfer. Jongli City: Yuan Ze University Press;
1995.
Friedman J, Silberman J. University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management,
and Location Matter? J Technol Trans 2003;28(1):17–30.
Furino A, Kozmetsky G. Emerging policies and strategies. Coop & Compet Glob Econ
1998:257–8.
Harmon B, Alexnder A, Cardozo R, Tait E, Leuthold J, Parshall J, et al. Mapping the
technology transfer process. J Bus Ventur 1997;12:423–34.
Harvey IA. Technology transfer—an international two-way street. Ind Manage & Date
Syst 1987;7(8):3–9.
Huarng K-H. Essential research in technology management. J Bus Res 2010;63(5):
451–3.
Lai WH, Chang PL. Corporate motivation and performance in R&D alliances. J Bus Res
2010;63(5):490–6.
Lai WH, Tsai CT. Fuzzy rule-based analysis of firm's technology transfer in Taiwan's
machinery industry. Expert Syst Appl 2009;36(10):12012–22.
Lai WH, Tsai CT. Energising R&D accumulation and innovation diffusion: an
intermediary model of integrating industry–university collaborations. Int J Technol
Transf & Commer 2010;9(1/2):150–65.
Lee YS. Technology transfer and research university: a search for the boundaries of
university industry collaboration. Res Policy 1996;25(6):843–63.
Louis KS, Blumenthal D, Gluck ME, Stoto MA. Entrepreneurs in academe: an exploration
of behaviors among life scientists. Adm Sci Q 1989;34:110–31.
Madu NC. Transferring technology to developing countries—critical factors for success.
Long Range Plann 1989;22(4):115–24.
Moiral LO, Carne EB. A study of the factors which affect TT in a multilocation
multibusiness unit corporation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1987;34(3):194–201.
Motohashi K. University–industry collaboration in Japan: the role of new technology-
based firms in transforming the National Innovation System. Res Policy 2005;34:
583–94.
Ohmae K. The global logic of strategic alliances. Harv Bus Rev 1989:143–54.
Roger EM. Key concepts and models: including technology change for economic growth
and development. Michigan State University Press; 1972.
Santoro MD, Chakrabarti AK. Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university
interaction. Res Policy 2002;31:1163–80.
Santoro MD, Gopalakrishnan S. The institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities
within industry–university collaborative ventures. J Eng & Technol Manage
2000;17:299–319.
Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater LE, Link AN. Toward a model of the effective transfer of
scientific knowledge form academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from
the commercialization of university technologies. J Eng & Technol Manage 2004;21
(1/2):115–42.
Slotte V, Tynjälä P. Industry–university collaboration for continuing professional
development. J Educ & Work 2003;16(4):445–63.
Smilor R, Matthews J. University venturing: technology transfer and commercialization
in higher education. Technol Trans & Commer 2004:111–28.
Spann MS, Adams M, Sounder E. Measures of technology transfer effectiveness: key
dimensions and differences in their use by sponsors, developers and adopters. IEEE
Trans Eng Manage 1995;42:19–29.
Teece DJ. TT by the multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological
know-how. Econ J 1977;87(2):242–61.
Tynjälä P, Välimaa J, Sarja A. Pedagogical perspectives into the relationships between
higher education and working life. High Educ 2003;46(2):147–66.
Woodside AG, Lai WH, Kim KH, Jung DK. Interpreting bounded rationality in business
and industrial marketing contexts: executive training case studies. J Glob Acad
Mark Sci 2009;19(3):49–61.
Zhao L, Reisman A. Toward meta research on technology transfer. IEEE Trans Eng
Manage 1992;39(1):13–21.