An Evaluation System for University–Industry Partnership Sustainability: Enhancing Options for Entrepreneurial Universities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Related Work
3. Methodology and System Development
3.1. Methodological Processes
- -
- the optimisation of value xij for any criteria during e approximations;
- -
- the calculation by approximation e cycle to determine what the value xij (cycle e) should be for the alternative aj to become the best among all of the candidate alternatives.
3.2. Development of a UIPS Evaluation System
4. Practical Application
4.1. Background
4.2. Calculation of the UIPS Utility Degree
4.3. Calculation of the VGTU–LREDA UIPS Fair Value
4.4. Value Optimisation
4.5. Recommendations
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bstieler, L.; Hemmert, M.; Barczak, G. The changing bases of mutual trust formation in inter-organizational relationships: A dyadic study of university-industry research collaborations. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 74, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajalo, S.; Vadi, M. University-industry innovation collaboration: Reconceptualization. Technovation 2017, 62–63, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarpong, D.; AbdRazak, A.; Alexander, E.; Meissner, D. Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 123, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.S. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Res. Policy 1996, 25, 843–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mowery, D.C.; Sampat, B.N. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? J. Technol. Transf. 2004, 30, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malairaja, C.; Zawdie, G. Science parks and university-industry collaboration in Malaysia. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2008, 20, 727–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruneel, J.; d’Este, P.; Salter, A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 858–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freitas, I.M.B.; Marques, R.A.; e Silva, E.M.D.P. University-industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galati, F.; Bigliardi, B.; Petroni, A.; Marolla, G. Which factors are perceived as obstacles for the growth of Italian academic spin-offs? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 84–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albats, E.; Fiegenbaum, I.; Cunningham, J. A micro level study of university industry collaborative lifecycle key performance indicators. J. Technol. Transf. 2017, 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, L.; Pope, S.; Kateeb, I.; Rhodes, C.; Cobb, R.; Graham, T.; Tsay, L.; Seay, C. A college-industry partnership for enterprise computing. In Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition; Article Number: AC 2012-3509; ASEE: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Giuliani, L.; Revez, A.; Sparf, J.; Jayasena, S.; Faber, M.H. Social and technological aspects of disaster resilience. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2016, 20, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harwood, J.; Smith, D.; Henderson, D. Building community cyclone resilience through academic and insurance industry partnership. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2016, 31, 24–30. [Google Scholar]
- Iwatsuki, K. The projects of Disaster-Resistant Information Communication Network at the Research Organization of Electrical Communication, Tohoku University. In Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Optical Metro Networks and Short-Haul Systems V; Article Number: UNSP 86460B; SPIE OPTO: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Mortazavi-Ravari, S.; Mehrabanfar, E.; Banaitis, A.; Banaitienė, N. Framework for assessing technological innovation capability in research and technology organizations. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2016, 17, 825–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, A.; Udeaja, C.; Babatunde, S.O.; Ekundayo, D. Sustainable development in a construction related curriculum—Quantity surveying students’ perspective. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2017, 21, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salleh, M.S.; Omar, M.Z. University-industry collaboration models in Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 102, 654–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plewa, C.; Korff, N.; Johnson, C.; Macpherson, G.; Rampersad, G. The evolution of university-industry linkages: A framework. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2013, 30, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ankrah, S.; AL-Tabbaa, O. Universities-industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scand. J. Manag. 2015, 31, 387–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Lin, W. The dynamic role of universities in developing an emerging sector: A case study of the biotechnology sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 123, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garousi, V.; Petersen, K.; Ozkan, B. Challenges and best practices in industry-academia collaborations in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2016, 79, 106–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irani, Z.; Kamal, M. Intelligent Systems Research in the Construction Industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 934–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, C.; Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of current industry practice. Energy Build. 2017, 140, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minnillo, R. Academic Industry Partnership Project. 2015. Available online: http://www.sidnet.org/page/AIPP (accessed on 3 October 2017).
- Ahrweiler, P.; Pyka, A.; Gilbert, N. A New Model for University-Industry Links in Knowledge-Based Economies. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2011, 28, 218–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaklauskas, A. Degree of Project Utility and Investment Value Assessments. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2016, 11, 666–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berbegal-Mirabent, J.; Sánchez García, J.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. University-industry partnerships for the provision of R&D services. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1407–1413. [Google Scholar]
- Del Río, P.; Carrillo-Hermosilla, J.; Könnölä, T.; Bleda, M. Resources, capabilities and competences for eco-innovation. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 22, 274–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zemlickienė, V.; Mačiulis, A.; Tvaronavičienė, M. Factors impacting the commercial potential of technologies: Expert approach. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2017, 23, 410–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muscio, A.; Quaglione, D.; Scarpinato, M. The effects of universities’ proximity to industrial districts on university–industry collaboration. China Econ. Rev. 2012, 23, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banal-Estañol, A.; Jofre-Bonet, M.; Lawson, C. The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1160–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callaert, J.; Landoni, P.; van Looy, B.; Verganti, R. Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: The relevance of researchers’ strategic approaches. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 990–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuentes, C.; Dutrénit, G. Best channels of academia-industry interaction for long-term benefit. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1666–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemmert, M.; Bstieler, L.; Okamuro, H. Bridging the cultural divide: Trust formation in university-industry research collaborations in the US, Japan, and South Korea. Technovation 2014, 34, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myneni, S.; Patel, V.; Bova, G.; Wang, J.; Ackerman, C.; Berlinicke, C.; Chen, S.; Lindvall, M.; Zack, D. Resolving complex research data management issues in biomedical laboratories: Qualitative study of an industry-academia collaboration. Comput. Methods Progr. Biomed. 2016, 126, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perkmann, M.; King, Z.; Pavelin, S. Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 539–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dornbusch, F.; Neuhäusler, P. Composition of inventor teams and technological progress—The role of collaboration between academia and industry. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1360–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, F.; Zhang, L.; Du, Y.; Wang, W. Visualization and quantitative study in bibliographic databases: A case in the field of university-industry cooperation. J. Informetr. 2015, 9, 118–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Este, P.; Guy, F.; Iammarino, S. Shaping the Formation of University-Industry Research Collaborations: What Type of Proximiy Does Really Matter? 2012. Available online: http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/soj71aahjen3994vu7p484x83uba.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2017).
- Prigge, G.; Torraco, R. University-Industry Partnerships: A Study of How Top American Research Universities Establish and Maintain Successful Partnerships. J. High. Educ. Outreach Engagem. 2006, 11, 89–100. [Google Scholar]
- Schoen, A.; Potterie, B.; Henkel, J. Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. J. Technol. Transf. 2014, 39, 435–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teller, R.; Validova, A. Innovation Management in the Light of University-Industry Collaboration in Post-Socialist Countries. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 24, 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giuliani, E.; Morrison, A.; Pietrobelli, C.; Rabellotti, R. Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 748–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bumblauskas, D.; Gemmill, D.; Igou, A.; Anzengruber, J. Smart Maintenance Decision Support Systems (SMDSS) based on corporate big data analytics. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 90, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrese, F.; Corallo, A.; Margherita, A.; Zizzari, A. A knowledge-based Decision Support system for shipboard damage control. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 8204–8211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horváth, G.; Harazin, P. A framework for an industrial ecological Decision Support system to foster partnerships between businesses and governments for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prince, R. Fleshing out expertise: The making of creative industries experts in the United Kingdom. Geoforum 2010, 41, 875–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rong, K.; Shi, Y.; Shang, T.; Chen, Y.; Hao, H. Organizing business ecosystems in emerging electric vehicle industry: Structure, mechanism, and integrated configuration. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, W. The Collaboration Imperative: Universities and Industry as Partners in the 21st Century Knowledge Economy. 2006. Available online: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_051414.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2017).
- Johnson, W. Research: Open Innovation, Open Collaboration, Trends, Challenges, and Advances in the Global Landscape. 2008. Available online: https://www.ncsu.edu/iucrc/Jan’08/WayneJohnson-IUCRCtalk-10JAN08.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2017).
- Zavadskas, E.; Kaklauskas, A. Model for Lithuanian construction industry development. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2008, 7, 152–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanapeckienė, L.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E.; Raslanas, S. Method and system for multi-attribute market value assessment in analysis of construction and retrofit projects. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 14196–14207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urbanavičienė, V.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. The conceptual model of construction and real estate negotiation. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2009, 13, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karsak, E.; Dursun, M. An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015, 82, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chithambaranathan, P.; Subramanian, N.; Gunasekaran, A.; Palaniappan, P. Service supply chain environmental performance evaluation using grey based hybrid MCDM approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 166, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prakash, C.; Barua, M. A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2016, 7, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deveci, M.; Demirel, N.Ç.; Ahmetoğlu, E. Airline new route selection based on interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM: A case study of new route between Turkey- North American region destinations. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2017, 59, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Büyüközkan, G.; Karabulut, Y.; Arsenyan, J. RFID service provider selection: An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach. Measurement 2017, 112, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdani, M.; Chatterjee, P.; Zavadskas, E.; Zolfani, S. Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3728–3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendoza, G.A.; Prabhu, R. Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: A case study. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 131, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.-E.; Liu, H.-C.; Quan, M.-Y. Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 102, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, N.; Gao, Y.; Fang, J.; Feng, Z.; Sun, G.; Li, Q. Crashworthiness analysis and design of multi-cell hexagonal columns under multiple loading cases. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2015, 104, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuuter, T.; Lill, I.; Tupenaite, L. Comparison of housing market sustainability in European countries based on multi-criteria assessment. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 642–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, P.; Athawale, V.M.; Chakraborty, S. Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 851–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, H.; Xiao, Y.; Wen, G.; Qing, Q.; Deng, Y. Multiobjective optimization for foam-filled multi-cell thin-walled structures under lateral impact. Thin-Walled Struct. 2015, 94, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E.; Banaitis, A.; Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I.; Liberman, A.; Dzitac, S.; Ubartė, I.; Binkytė, A.; Cerkauskas, J.; Kuzminskė, A.; et al. A neuro-advertising property video recommendation system. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. Decision support system for innovation with a special emphasis on pollution. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 30, 518–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, E.; Turskis, Z. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2011, 17, 397–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Vilutiene, T.; Adeli, H. Sustainable Decision-Making in Civil Engineering, Construction and Building Technology. Sustainability 2018, 10, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criteria Describing the Candidate Alternatives | * | Weight | Units | U–I Partnership Alternatives under Comparison | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | … | j | … | n | ||||
University–Industry Partnership Database | |||||||||
X1 | – | q1 | m1 | x11 | x12 | … | x1j | … | x1n |
X2 | + | q2 | m2 | x21 | x22 | … | x2j | … | x2n |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
Xi | + | qi | mi | xi1 | xi2 | … | xij | … | xin |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
Xt | + | qt | mt | xt1 | xt2 | … | xtj | … | xtn |
Vk | V1 | V2 | … | Vj | … | Vn |
No | Evaluation Criteria for UIPS | * | Measurement Units | Weight | Compared UIPS Alternatives | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LREDA | Consultus Magnus | EIKA | Capital Experts | |||||
a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | |||||
U–I partnership costs | ||||||||
1. | Costs | - | EUR | 0.5 | 16,000 | 26,000 | 10,000 | 4500 |
Criteria for awareness | ||||||||
2. | Career fairs | + | Points | 0.125 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
3. | Interviews | + | Points | 0.1 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 8 |
Criteria for involvement | ||||||||
4. | Industry affiliates/advisory program | + | Points | 0.02 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
5. | Research grants | + | Points | 0.1 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 1 |
6. | Internship | + | Points | 0.02 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 1 |
7. | Software grants | + | Points | 0.01 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Criteria for support | ||||||||
8. | Students’ consultant | + | Points | 0.21 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 7 |
9. | Hardware grants | + | Points | 0.01 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
10. | Curriculum development | + | Points | 0.2 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 2 |
11. | Workshops/seminars | + | Points | 0.05 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 8 |
12. | Support contract | + | Points | 0.025 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 2 |
13. | Students organisations’ sponsorship | + | Points | 0.01 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
14. | Guest speaking/lectures | + | Points | 0.05 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 8 |
Criteria for sponsorship | ||||||||
15. | Undergraduate research program support | + | Points | 0.1 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 5 |
16. | Graduate fellowships | + | Points | 0.045 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 6 |
17. | Collaborative research program report | + | Points | 0.15 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 3 |
18. | Support for proposal for education | + | Points | 0.1 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 3 |
Criteria for strategic partner | ||||||||
19. | Executive sponsorship | + | Points | 0.1 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 2 |
20. | Joint partnership | + | Points | 0.25 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
21. | State education lobbying | + | Points | 0.033 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 2 |
22. | Major gifts | + | Points | 0.01 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
23. | Business development | + | Points | 0.18 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 |
Steps | Equations | Calculations |
---|---|---|
Step 1 | Equation (1) | d11 = 0.5 × 16,000:(16,000 + 26,000 + 10,000 + 4500) = 0.1416 |
d12 = 0.5 × 26,000:(16,000 + 26,000 + 10,000 + 4500) = 0.2301 | ||
d13 = 0.5 × 10,000:(16,000 + 26,000 + 10,000 + 4500) = 0.0885 | ||
d14 = 0.5 × 45,000:(16,000 + 26,000 + 10,000 + 4500) = 0.0398 | ||
Step 1 | Equation (2) | For example, q2 = 0.0347 + 0.0312 + 0.0278 + 0.0312 = 0.125 |
q4 = 0.002 + 0.014 + 0.002 + 0.002 = 0.02, etc. | ||
Step 2 | Equation (3) | S+1 = 0.0347 + 0.0294 + 0.2709 + 0.002 + 0.0083 + 0.0018 + 0.002 + 0.0656 + 0.002 + 0.07 + 0.0167 + 0.0087 + 0.0017 + 0.0156 + 0.0267 + 0.0123 + 0.0409 + 0.0345 + 0.0296 + 0.0625 + 0.0099 + 0.0025 + 0.0474 = 0.5248 |
S−1 = 0.1416, etc. | ||
Step 2 | Equation (4) | S+ = 0.5248 + 0.6553 + 0.3822 + 0.3354 = 1.8977 |
S− = 0.1416 + 0.2301 + 0.0885 + 0.0398 = 0.5 | ||
Step 3 | Equation (5) | etc. |
Step 4 | Q2 > Q1 > Q4 > Q3 (see Table 4: 0.7007 > 0.5986 > 0.598 > 0.5003) | |
Step 5 | Equation (6) | U1 = (0.5986:0.7007) × 100% = 85.43% |
U2 = (0.7007:0.7007) × 100% = 100% | ||
U3 = (0.5003:0.7007) × 100% = 71.4% | ||
U4 = (0.598:0.7007) × 100% = 85.35% |
No | Evaluation Criteria for UIPS | * | Measurement Units | Weight | Compared UIPS Alternatives | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LREDA | Consultus Magnus | EIKA | Capital Experts | |||||
a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | |||||
U–I partnership costs | ||||||||
1. | Costs | − | EURO | 0.5 | 0.1416 | 0.2301 | 0.0885 | 0.0398 |
Criteria for awareness | ||||||||
2. | Career fairs | + | Points | 0.125 | 0.0347 | 0.0312 | 0.0278 | 0.0312 |
3. | Interviews | + | Points | 0.1 | 0.0294 | 0.0265 | 0.0206 | 0.0235 |
Criteria for involvement | ||||||||
4. | Industry affiliates/advisory program | + | Points | 0.02 | 0.002 | 0.014 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
5. | Research grants | + | Points | 0.1 | 0.0083 | 0.0583 | 0.025 | 0.0083 |
6. | Internship | + | Points | 0.02 | 0.0018 | 0.0127 | 0.0036 | 0.0018 |
7. | Software grants | + | Points | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Criteria for support | ||||||||
8. | Students’ consultant | + | Points | 0.21 | 0.0656 | 0.0656 | 0.0328 | 0.0459 |
9. | Hardware grants | + | Points | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
10. | Curriculum development | + | Points | 0.2 | 0.07 | 0.1 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
11. | Workshops/seminars | + | Points | 0.05 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0033 | 0.0133 |
12. | Support contract | + | Points | 0.025 | 0.0087 | 0.0096 | 0.0048 | 0.0019 |
13. | Students organisations’ sponsorship | + | Points | 0.01 | 0.0017 | 0.0017 | 0.005 | 0.0017 |
14. | Guest speaking/lectures | + | Points | 0.05 | 0.0156 | 0.0125 | 0.0094 | 0.0125 |
Criteria for sponsorship | ||||||||
15. | Undergraduate research program support | + | Points | 0.1 | 0.0267 | 0.0333 | 0.0233 | 0.0167 |
16. | Graduate fellowships | + | Points | 0.045 | 0.0123 | 0.0136 | 0.0109 | 0.0082 |
17. | Collaborative research program report | + | Points | 0.15 | 0.0409 | 0.0545 | 0.0341 | 0.0205 |
18. | Support for proposal for education | + | Points | 0.1 | 0.0345 | 0.0345 | 0.0207 | 0.0103 |
Criteria for strategic partner | ||||||||
19. | Executive sponsorship | + | Points | 0.1 | 0.0296 | 0.037 | 0.0259 | 0.0074 |
20. | Joint partnership | + | Points | 0.25 | 0.0625 | 0.0625 | 0.0625 | 0.0625 |
21. | State education lobbying | + | Points | 0.033 | 0.0099 | 0.0132 | 0.0066 | 0.0033 |
22. | Major gifts | + | Points | 0.01 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 |
23. | Business development | + | Points | 0.18 | 0.0474 | 0.0474 | 0.0474 | 0.0379 |
Sums of weighted normalised maximising indices (UIPS “pluses”) of the university–industry partnership sustainability continuum | 0.5248 | 0.6553 | 0.3822 | 0.3354 | ||||
Sums of weighted normalised minimising (VGTU–industry partnership continuum “minuses”) indices of the university–industry partnership sustainability continuum | 0.1416 | 0.2301 | 0.0885 | 0.0398 | ||||
Significance of the university–industry partnership sustainability continuum | 0.5986 | 0.7007 | 0.5003 | 0.598 | ||||
Priority of the university–industry partnership sustainability continuum | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | ||||
Utility degree of the university–industry partnership sustainability continuum (%) | 85.43% | 100% | 71.4% | 85.35% |
Approximation Cycle | * | Utility Degree Change in UIPS under Analysis by Rationalising the Corrected Value x11 cycle e of a1 | (U1e + U2e +U3e + + U4e):4 | Imparity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
U1e | U2e | U3e | U4e | ||||
0 | 16,000 | 85.43% | 100% | 71.4% | 85.35% | 85,55% | −0.12% > 0.00% |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
120 | 15,880 | 85.51% | 100% | 71.39% | 85.3% | 85.55% | −0.04% > 0.00% |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
190 | 15,810 | 85.55% | 100% | 71.39% | 85.26% | 85.55% | 0.00 = 0.00% |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
1000 | x1j iv = 15,000 | 86.08% | 100% | 71.27% | 85.03% | 85.56% | 0.52 > 0.00% |
Approximation Cycle | x104 cycle e | U4e | U1e | U2e | U3e | (U1e + U2e + U3e + + U4e) : 4 | Imparity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 2 | 85.35 | 85.43 | 100 | 71.4 | 85.55 | −0.19% > 0.01% |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
10 | 2.1 | 85.53 | 85.45 | 100 | 71.45 | 85.61 | −0.08% > 0.01% |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
14 | 2.14 | 85.62 | 85.44 | 100 | 71.46 | 85.63 | −0.01% = 0.01% |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
20 | 2.2 | 85.72 | 85.45 | 100 | 71.49 | 85.67 | 0.05% = 0.01% |
Criteria Describing the Candidate Alternatives | * | Measurement Units | Criterion Value (xij) Possible Improvement of the Analysed Criterion xij, by % (iij) Possible Increase in Utility Degree Uj of the Candidate Alternative aj, by % (rij) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | |||
5. Research grants | + | Points | 1 | x52 = 7 | x53 = 3 | 1 |
(600%) | (0%) | (i53 = 133.33%) | (600%) | |||
(25.0209%) | (0%) | (r53 = 5.5602%) | (25.0209%) |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kaklauskas, A.; Banaitis, A.; Ferreira, F.A.F.; Ferreira, J.J.M.; Amaratunga, D.; Lepkova, N.; Ubartė, I.; Banaitienė, N. An Evaluation System for University–Industry Partnership Sustainability: Enhancing Options for Entrepreneurial Universities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010119
Kaklauskas A, Banaitis A, Ferreira FAF, Ferreira JJM, Amaratunga D, Lepkova N, Ubartė I, Banaitienė N. An Evaluation System for University–Industry Partnership Sustainability: Enhancing Options for Entrepreneurial Universities. Sustainability. 2018; 10(1):119. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010119
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaklauskas, Artūras, Audrius Banaitis, Fernando A. F. Ferreira, João J. M. Ferreira, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Natalija Lepkova, Ieva Ubartė, and Nerija Banaitienė. 2018. "An Evaluation System for University–Industry Partnership Sustainability: Enhancing Options for Entrepreneurial Universities" Sustainability 10, no. 1: 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010119