A Multi-Criteria Assessment Model for Cooperative Technology Transfer Projects from Universities to Industries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Assessment Model Development
2.1. University–Industry Collaboration Models
2.2. The Assessment Model for the Cooperative Technology Transfer
2.2.1. Environment
2.2.2. University Environment and Orientation
2.2.3. Enterprises’ Comprehensive Strength and Willingness to Cooperate
2.2.4. Technical Product Evaluation
2.2.5. R&D Strategy and Contract
2.2.6. Technology Transfer Team
2.2.7. Organization Management
2.2.8. Quality Management
2.2.9. Progress Management
2.2.10. Capital Management
2.2.11. Feasibility of Business Model
2.2.12. Availability and Preparation of Resources
2.2.13. Achievement Transformation Team
3. Methodology
3.1. Assessment Tool Design
3.2. Gray Relation Analysis
3.3. Dempster–Shafer Evidence
4. Results
4.1. Factor Weight Allocation
4.2. Case Study 1—Composite Spinning Technique
- (1)
- Description of the early stage of the project (establishment of the cooperative relationship).
- (2)
- Description of the medium stage of the project (cooperative R&D process).
- (3)
- Description of the later stage of the project (transformation of technical achievements).
- (4)
- Analysis of the evaluation results of the core members.
4.2.1. Early Stage: Establishment of Cooperative Relationship
4.2.2. Medium Stage: Cooperative R&D Process
4.2.3. Later Stage: The Transformation of Technical Achievements
4.2.4. Evaluation Results and Analysis
4.3. Case Study 2—Intelligent Production Control System
- (1)
- Project background and technical requirements.
- (2)
- Evaluation results and analysis.
- (3)
- Adjustment and completion.
4.3.1. Project Background and Technical Requirements
4.3.2. Evaluation Results and Analysis
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Part A | Environment | Weight in Each Part/% | Weight of the Whole Model/% |
---|---|---|---|
A1 | The government provides corresponding funds for technology transfer | 9.81 | 0.59 |
A2 | The government promotes financing institutions of technology transfer | 5.95 | 0.36 |
A3 | The government vigorously introduces foreign technical talents | 3.92 | 0.24 |
A4 | The government makes preferential technology transfer policies, such as credit transfer policies and tax preference policies | 10.39 | 0.63 |
A5 | The government encourages schools and enterprises to transfer technology, such as promoting industrialization research | 12.04 | 0.73 |
A6 | Strong operability of relevant government policies | 13.24 | 0.80 |
A7 | Strong functional diversity of technology transfer intermediaries | 4.31 | 0.26 |
A8 | Effective technology evaluation mechanism and authoritative technology evaluation organization | 5.95 | 0.36 |
A9 | High strength of the technology transfer incubator | 14.71 | 0.89 |
A10 | The government has a perfect legal system for technology transfer | 8.41 | 0.51 |
A11 | Our country provides a stable environment for technology transfer, such as infrastructure and public services | 11.27 | 0.68 |
Sum of part A | 100 | 6.04 | |
Part B | University environment and orientation | ||
B1 | In addition to basic education, universities strongly support the development of the industrialization of scientific and technological achievements | 7.69 | 0.84 |
B2 | Universities take incentive measures for scientific research achievements to cultivate the enthusiasm of scientific researchers | 7.90 | 0.86 |
B3 | Universities invest enough funds to scientific research teams | 7.13 | 0.78 |
B4 | Universities provide sufficient research equipment and laboratories | 14.61 | 1.60 |
B5 | Universities formulate a reasonable distribution ratio of technology transfer income | 8.86 | 0.97 |
B6 | Universities have a perfect management system of technology transfer | 6.49 | 0.71 |
B7 | University teachers have rich experience in technology transfer | 2.73 | 0.30 |
B8 | University teachers and students value innovation | 8.59 | 0.94 |
B9 | Scientific research teams of universities have a good understanding of business knowledge | 1.87 | 0.20 |
B10 | Scientific research teams have a good understanding of market dynamics | 2.30 | 0.25 |
B11 | Universities have a high degree of interdisciplinary connection | 5.04 | 0.55 |
B12 | Projects are highly compatible with the universities’ research direction | 14.61 | 1.60 |
B13 | Universities have excellent professors with strong scientific research strength related to projects | 12.18 | 1.33 |
Sum of part B | 100 | 10.94 | |
Part C | Enterprises’ comprehensive strength and willingness to cooperate | ||
C1 | The enterprise’s legal person has strong capability | 3.38 | 0.29 |
C2 | Enterprises’ ownership structures are reasonable | 3.54 | 0.30 |
C3 | Annual inspection reports of enterprises are qualified | 4.58 | 0.39 |
C4 | The business of enterprises is in good condition | 6.48 | 0.55 |
C5 | The credit of enterprises is good | 14.45 | 1.23 |
C6 | Enterprises have strong innovation ability | 5.44 | 0.46 |
C7 | Enterprises have a reliable technical foundation, such as technical personnel with on-site process and engineering experience | 7.51 | 0.64 |
C8 | Enterprises have strong insight into the market, for example, enterprises can put forward technical suggestions with commercial value | 5.37 | 0.46 |
C9 | Enterprises have the ability and willingness to take risks, for example, they can support technology development with uncertain prospects | 11.74 | 1.00 |
C10 | Enterprises invest enough research funds in technology transfer projects | 20.87 | 1.78 |
C11 | Enterprises have incentive systems for technology transfer | 6.96 | 0.59 |
C12 | Enterprises have perfect management systems of technology transfer and responsible personnel | 6.16 | 0.52 |
C13 | Enterprises have cooperation experience in technology transfer in the past | 3.51 | 0.30 |
Sum of part C | 100 | 8.51 | |
Part D | Technical product evaluation | ||
D1 | The technology has a great advantage over other technologies in the same industry | 7.28 | 0.68 |
D2 | The difficulty of research and development of the technology matches the strength of scientific researchers, for example, the low maturity matches the strong research strength | 19.01 | 1.78 |
D3 | The economic feasibility of technical products is high | 8.35 | 0.78 |
D4 | Technology products have good application prospects for major business problems | 8.15 | 0.76 |
D5 | Technical products are easy to use | 3.84 | 0.36 |
D6 | The feasibility of transforming technological achievements is high | 5.90 | 0.55 |
D7 | Technology products can be tested and test results can be expected | 5.35 | 0.50 |
D8 | The difficulty of the managing technology product is low | 3.03 | 0.28 |
D9 | Technical products conform to market rules | 4.33 | 0.40 |
D10 | Technical products can bring benefits to enterprises | 17.11 | 1.60 |
D11 | Technology transfer can bring benefits to universities | 3.98 | 0.37 |
D12 | The technology product has a positive social impact and can bring benefits to society | 13.69 | 1.28 |
Sum of part D | 100 | 9.35 | |
Part E | Technology transfer team | ||
E1 | The organization structure and scale of the team are reasonable | 3.96 | 0.55 |
E2 | The team has a clear task assignment | 4.42 | 0.61 |
E3 | Key figures have experience in technology transfer for similar projects | 3.70 | 0.52 |
E4 | R&D personnel have high maturity for technical product solutions | 28.70 | 4.00 |
E5 | Key figures are willing to maintain an open and up-to-date learning attitude | 6.38 | 0.89 |
E6 | The team’s work enthusiasm is high | 6.38 | 0.89 |
E7 | Researchers have excellent scientific research ability | 12.08 | 1.68 |
E8 | Team members have innovative ability | 5.34 | 0.74 |
E9 | High involvement of key R&D figures | 9.98 | 1.39 |
E10 | The team has talents in different fields to meet all requirements of the project | 6.20 | 0.86 |
E11 | R&D personnel can well integrate technologies in various fields | 6.04 | 0.84 |
E12 | The team has a strong ability to predict technical demand (market demand) | 3.59 | 0.50 |
E13 | The team can improve the technology in the direction of requirements | 3.23 | 0.45 |
Sum of part E | 100 | 13.93 | |
Part F | R&D strategy and contract | ||
F1 | Clear project duration | 12.04 | 1.33 |
F2 | Final product requirements of the project are clear | 20.64 | 2.28 |
F3 | Technical products are reasonably priced | 4.74 | 0.52 |
F4 | The measurement standard of the technical products is clear | 12.04 | 1.33 |
F5 | The allocation of resources provided by both parties in the contract is clear | 6.57 | 0.73 |
F6 | The provisions of the inspection system are clear | 4.45 | 0.49 |
F7 | Incentive clauses in the contracts are reasonable, such as milestone awards | 6.28 | 0.70 |
F8 | Penalty clauses in the contracts are reasonable, such as penalties for delayed delivery | 3.52 | 0.39 |
F9 | Contracts involve the reasonable distribution of revenue | 10.70 | 1.18 |
F10 | Payment methods are reasonable and formal, such as one-off payments, installments, payment channels, etc. | 3.85 | 0.43 |
F11 | The ownership of intellectual property rights of technical achievements is clear | 4.90 | 0.54 |
F12 | The agreement on the patent application is clear | 7.05 | 0.78 |
F13 | Contract modification procedures are flexible | 3.21 | 0.36 |
Sum of part F | 100 | 11.07 | |
Part G | Organization management | ||
G1 | Project managers have excellent leadership | 16.15 | 0.54 |
G2 | The team has professional managers | 10.71 | 0.36 |
G3 | The team has a good incentive system | 13.61 | 0.46 |
G4 | The team has a stable and reasonable reporting system | 8.82 | 0.30 |
G5 | Team members pay attention to communication, and information exchange is timely and correct | 25.75 | 0.86 |
G6 | Team members respond quickly to project progress | 15.62 | 0.52 |
G7 | The performance evaluation system of the team is complete | 9.34 | 0.31 |
Sum of part G | 100 | 3.36 | |
Part H | Quality management | ||
H1 | Clear quality objectives | 12.54 | 1.18 |
H2 | Key technical nodes are reasonably established | 5.64 | 0.53 |
H3 | There are measures and methods to assess the quality of R&D at key technical nodes | 4.18 | 0.39 |
H4 | Strict technical inspection path | 5.21 | 0.49 |
H5 | Availability of experimental equipment and site | 4.40 | 0.42 |
H6 | Raw materials are of high quality | 4.18 | 0.39 |
H7 | The team has quality monitors | 3.02 | 0.29 |
H8 | The frequency of quality inspection is high and reasonable | 4.51 | 0.43 |
H9 | Quality inspection system is very detailed | 4.34 | 0.41 |
H10 | The method of quality inspection is highly operable | 11.67 | 1.10 |
H11 | The project has a detailed progress confirmation form | 4.23 | 0.40 |
H12 | Records the completion situation of the task regularly | 5.05 | 0.48 |
H13 | Records quality monitoring results continuously | 4.57 | 0.43 |
H14 | There are comprehensive predictions of possible quality problems | 12.09 | 1.14 |
H15 | There are practical countermeasures for possible quality problems | 9.15 | 0.86 |
H16 | The establishment and implementation of the pilot test are good | 5.21 | 0.49 |
Sum of part H | 100 | 9.45 | |
Part I | Progress management | ||
I1 | The total time of the project is set reasonably | 19.59 | 0.97 |
I2 | Key nodes and milestones are established reasonably | 9.37 | 0.46 |
I3 | The schedule is highly detailed | 6.10 | 0.30 |
I4 | The schedule is set reasonably, such as clarifying the juxtaposition and prioritization of the task | 7.43 | 0.37 |
I5 | Regular progress inspection and supervision | 16.57 | 0.82 |
I6 | Detailed progress record | 6.46 | 0.32 |
I7 | Operability of progress adjustment | 17.01 | 0.84 |
I8 | Enough safety time is reserved for emergencies | 17.47 | 0.86 |
Sum of part I | 100 | 4.95 | |
Part J | Capital management | ||
J1 | The capital budget is highly detailed | 11.89 | 0.47 |
J2 | The accuracy of the capital budget is high | 10.78 | 0.43 |
J3 | Feasible saving plan | 5.82 | 0.23 |
J4 | Sufficient emergency fund (sahgty hadtor) | 19.73 | 0.78 |
J5 | Detailed expenditure records | 9.86 | 0.39 |
J6 | Strict expense declaration system | 7.16 | 0.28 |
J7 | Regular expense check to see if there is any deviation from the budget | 21.28 | 0.84 |
J8 | Cause analysis and error correction of deviation | 13.48 | 0.53 |
Sum of part J | 100 | 3.95 | |
Part K | Feasibility of business model | ||
K1 | Correct establishment of customer group | 19.81 | 0.84 |
K2 | Reasonable price | 8.75 | 0.37 |
K3 | Reasonable market scale | 8.65 | 0.37 |
K4 | A full analysis of competitors | 11.23 | 0.48 |
K5 | Reasonable goals for transformation results (profit, effect, etc.) | 13.20 | 0.56 |
K6 | Good practice schemes and skills (marketing mix, etc.) | 11.23 | 0.48 |
K7 | Continuous demand survey | 12.14 | 0.52 |
K8 | Corresponding business adjustment plan after the technical demand survey | 8.65 | 0.37 |
K9 | Business model for reference | 6.33 | 0.27 |
Sum of part K | 100 | 4.25 | |
Part L | Availability and preparation of resources | ||
L1 | The production capital is adequate | 11.62 | 0.84 |
L2 | Necessary materials are adequate | 7.88 | 0.57 |
L3 | Necessary production site is well prepared | 9.01 | 0.65 |
L4 | Skilled and sufficient labor force suitable to produce this technology | 7.01 | 0.51 |
L5 | The training content and methods of the production technicians are reasonable | 8.33 | 0.60 |
L6 | Enterprise technicians have a strong ability to absorb technology | 31.54 | 2.28 |
L7 | Enterprise staff are compatible with the project | 6.31 | 0.46 |
L8 | Availability of distribution and transportation network | 3.84 | 0.28 |
L9 | Reliability and adequacy of standby funds | 4.37 | 0.32 |
L10 | Availability of back-up production sites | 3.87 | 0.28 |
L11 | Sufficient marketing resources | 6.22 | 0.45 |
Sum of part L | 100 | 7.24 | |
Part M | Achievement transformation team | ||
M1 | The organization structure of the team is complete | 5.53 | 0.39 |
M2 | The task division of the team is clear | 11.19 | 0.78 |
M3 | The financial incentive system of the team is clear | 8.19 | 0.57 |
M4 | The team has good business communication skills | 13.50 | 0.94 |
M5 | Team members have a positive and correct working attitude | 5.81 | 0.40 |
M6 | Team members have rich practical (business) experience | 4.45 | 0.31 |
M7 | A high degree of corporate cultural inheritance | 2.73 | 0.19 |
M8 | The team is entrepreneurial | 3.56 | 0.25 |
M9 | R&D team actively participates in the process of the achievement transformation and provides technical guidance | 30.59 | 2.13 |
M10 | The team has an open attitude towards learning | 7.17 | 0.50 |
M11 | The team can conduct self-assessment | 7.28 | 0.51 |
Sum of part M | 100 | 6.97 | |
Sum of whole model | 100 |
References
- Arenas, J.J.; González, D. Technology transfer models and elements in the university-industry collaboration. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, D.; Cai, Z.; Zhu, C. Technology transfer efficiency of universities in China: A three-stage framework based on the dynamic network slacks-based measurement model. Technol. Soc. 2022, 70, 102031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, W.-H. Willingness-to-engage in technology transfer in industry–university collaborations. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 1218–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wit-de Vries, E.; Dolfsma, W.A.; van der Windt, H.J.; Gerkema, M.P. Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: A review. J. Technol. Transf. 2019, 44, 1236–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, J.C.; Mok, C.K.; Yam, R.C.; Chin, K.-S.; Pun, K.F. Technology transfer and innovation performance: Evidence from Chinese firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73, 666–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McAdam, R.; McAdam, M.; Brown, V. Proof of concept processes in UK university technology transfer: An absorptive capacity perspective. RD Manag. 2009, 39, 192–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woerter, M. Technology proximity between firms and universities and technology transfer. J. Technol. Transf. 2012, 37, 828–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.; Li, B. Effect of digitalization on knowledge transfer from universities to enterprises: Evidence from postdoctoral workstation of Chinese enterprises. Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M.; Carayannis, E.G.; Kurihara, K.; Allbritton, M.M. Cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) as technology transfer mechanisms. RD Manag. 1998, 28, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heslop, L.A.; McGregor, E.; Griffith, M. Development of a technology readiness assessment measure: The cloverleaf model of technology transfer. J. Technol. Transf. 2001, 26, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, J.; Silberman, J. University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? J. Technol. Transf. 2003, 28, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, H. University-industry technology transfer: Framework and constraints. J. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 3, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markman, G.D.; Phan, P.H.; Balkin, D.B.; Gianiodis, P.T. Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20, 241–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes, J.N.; Farinha, L.M.; Ferreira, J.J.; Ferreira, F.A. Peeking beyond the wall: Analysing university technology transfer and commercialisation processes. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2018, 78, 107–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendoza, X.P.L.; Sanchez, D.S.M. A systematic literature review on technology transfer from university to industry. Int. J. Bus. Syst. Res. 2018, 12, 197–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, Y. A study of institutional alternative for hi-tech industry development of Chinese universities. J. High. Educ. 2005, 8, 42–46. [Google Scholar]
- Luong, J.H.; Male, K.B.; Glennon, J.D. Biosensor technology: Technology push versus market pull. Biotechnol. Adv. 2008, 26, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, L.P. Model selection for the transformation of scientific and technological achievements in universities and research institutions in Zhengzhou. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2009, 29, 265–267+273. [Google Scholar]
- Brem, A.; Voigt, K.-I. Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate front end and innovation management—Insights from the German software industry. Technovation 2009, 29, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, Y. Obstacles and pathways for the transformation of scientific and technological achievements in universities. Tsinghua J. Educ. 2004, 3, 97–101. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y. Analysis of the dual process of university technology transfer. Sci. Sci. Manag. S T 2004, 7, 27–30. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Meseri, O.; Maital, S. A survey analysis of university-technology transfer in Israel: Evaluation of projects and determinants of success. J. Technol. Transf. 2001, 26, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’shea, R.P.; Allen, T.J.; Chevalier, A.; Roche, F. Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 994–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comacchio, A.; Bonesso, S.; Pizzi, C. Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of Technology Transfer Centres. J. Technol. Transf. 2012, 37, 943–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babu, A.; Suresh, N. Project management with time, cost, and quality considerations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996, 88, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y. Study on Influence Factors of Technology Transfer in Universities. Sci. Sci. Manag. S T 2007, 11, 43–47. [Google Scholar]
- Băzăvan, A. Chinese government’s shifting role in the national innovation system. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 148, 119738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filippetti, A.; Archibugi, D. Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schacht, W.H. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements; Quorum Books: Westport, CT, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Aghion, P.; Tirole, J. The management of innovation. Q. J. Econ. 1994, 109, 1185–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owen-Smith, J. From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Res. Policy 2003, 32, 1081–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thursby, J.G.; Jensen, R.; Thursby, M.C. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. J. Technol. Transf. 2001, 26, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarysse, B.; Wright, M.; Van de Velde, E. Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 1420–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thursby, J.G.; Kemp, S. Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.M.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, L. An Empirical Study on Influencing Factors of Technology Transfer in Scientific Research Institutions: Based on the Perspective of Technology Supply-Side. Sci. Sci. Manag. S T 2014, 35, 108–116. [Google Scholar]
- Aldridge, T.T.; Audretsch, D. The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 1058–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, R.A.; Thursby, J.G.; Thursby, M.C. Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s** t we get to work with’. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2003, 21, 1271–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, X.; Chen, Q.; Fong, P.S. Scientific disclosure and commercialization mode selection for university technology transfer. Sci. Public Policy 2015, 43, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markman, G.D.; Gianiodis, P.T.; Panagopoulos, A. Scientists or Entrepreneurs: Rent (Mis) appropriation from discoveries made in university labs. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2007; Volume 2007, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Thursby, J.G.; Thursby, M.C. Faculty participation in licensing: Implications for research. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, R.; Thursby, M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 240–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crespi, G.A.; Geuna, A.; Nomaler, Ö.; Verspagen, B. University IPRs and knowledge transfer: Is university ownership more efficient? Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2010, 19, 627–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thursby, J.; Fuller, A.W.; Thursby, M. US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senoo, D.; Fukushima, M.; Yoneyama, S.; Watanabe, T. Technology transfer as team building: An empirical analysis of university TLOs in Japan. In Proceedings of the 2006 Technology Management for the Global Future-PICMET 2006 Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 8–13 July 2006; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2006; Volume 4, pp. 1836–1844. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.L. Research on influencing factors of successful technology transfer in universities—Taking the transfer of high-efficiency short-process embedded composite spinning technology as an example. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2012, 29, 16–19. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, S.Y. Research on the mode and policy of technology transfer in Chinese universities. Peoples Trib. 2010, 17, 164–165. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, M.; Birley, S.; Mosey, S. Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. J. Technol. Transf. 2004, 29, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinzl, J.; Kor, A.-L.; Orange, G.; Kaufmann, H.R. Technology transfer model for Austrian higher education institutions. J. Technol. Transf. 2013, 38, 607–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, D.A.; Atwater, L.E.; Link, A.N. Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2003, 14, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Rungtusanatham, M.; Schroeder, R.G.; Devaraj, S. A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: Preliminary empirical findings. Decis. Sci. 1995, 26, 637–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.Y. A product perspective on total data quality management. Commun. ACM 1998, 41, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J. Research on Project Management Theory and Operation Mechanism of University Technology Transfer. Ph.D. Thesis, North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Jain, R.; Hamel, M.; Sullivan, T. Commitment-process project-management methods and systems. U.S. Patent Application 11/274,757, 5 July 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.H.; Lin, M.; Ma, S.H. An Integrated and Dynamic Multi-Object Trade-Off Mechanism Model Based on Process Management in Construction Project. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2005, 5, 95–101. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, F. Risks in Construction Project Capital Management and Related Countermeasures. Nat. Gas Technol. Econ. 2011, 5, 69–70+80. [Google Scholar]
- Hou, D.M. Contract project capital management of water and power construction enterprise. Guanxi Water Resour. Hydropower Eng. 2008, 4, 69–70. [Google Scholar]
- Brady, T.; Davies, A.; Gann, D. Can integrated solutions business models work in construction? Build. Res. Inf. 2005, 33, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-J. Technology commercialization, incubator and venture capital, and new venture performance. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godfrey, P.C. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005, 30, 777–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H.; Ni, W.; Huang, L. Fuzzy Assessment of Management Consulting Projects: Model Validation and Case Studies. Mathematics 2023, 11, 4381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y. From an analytical framework for understanding the innovation process in higher education to an emerging research field of innovations in higher education. Rev. High. Educ. 2017, 40, 585–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, D.; Link, A. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Res. Policy 2003, 32, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.L. University Technology Transfer Research. Ph.D. Thesis, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, A.H.; Wang, W.-M.; Lin, T.-Y. An evaluation framework for technology transfer of new equipment in high technology industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.-C.; Chang, S.-H.; Lin, G.T.; Yu, H.-C. A hybrid selection model for emerging technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavoie, J.R.; Daim, T. Towards the assessment of technology transfer capabilities: An action research-enhanced HDM model. Technol. Soc. 2020, 60, 101217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, J.; Dang, Y.; Liu, S. An improved method for solving index weights based on grey correlation degree. Chin. Manag. Sci. 2008, 16, 141–144. [Google Scholar]
- Walley, P. Measures of uncertainty in expert systems. Artif. Intell. 1996, 83, 1–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.Y. Conflict Evidence Fusion Algorithm Based on D-S Theory. Master’s Thesis, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Murphy, C.K. Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts. Decis. Support Syst. 2000, 29, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Liu, H.B.; Wang, T.T. Performance evaluation method of defense procurement based on improved D-S evidence theory. Proj. Manag. Technol. 2017, 15, 35–41. [Google Scholar]
- SowaJ, A. Technology Transfer and Potential of Cooperation with SMEs. Association of European Border Regions: Germany. 2022. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3156830/technology-transfer-and-potential-of-cooperation-with-smes/ (accessed on 16 June 2024).
Factor | Supporting References | |
---|---|---|
A | Environment | [29] |
B | University environment and orientation | [33,36,62] |
C | Enterprises’ comprehensive strength and willingness to cooperate | [63] |
D | Technical product evaluation | [38,39,40] |
E | Technology transfer team | [42,43] |
F | R&D strategy and contract | [46] |
G | Organization management | [64] |
H | Quality management | [51,53] |
I | Progress management | [53] |
J | Capital management | [53] |
K | Feasibility of business model | [58] |
L | Availability and preparation of resources | [59] |
M | Achievement transformation team | [51] |
Expert | Industry | Years of Experience of Work in China | Years of Experience in CTT Projects in China | Number of CTT Projects in China |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Electrical engineering | 18 | 7 | 5 |
2 | Manufacturing | 16 | 6 | 4 |
3 | Textile | 30 | 16 | 9 |
4 | Computer | 6 | 3 | 3 |
5 | Automobile manufacturing | 10 | 5 | 4 |
6 | Education—marine Technology | 35 | 6 | 5 |
7 | Education—machinery | 30 | 12 | 8 |
8 | Computer | 14 | 7 | 6 |
9 | Education—electrical Information | 18 | 15 | 7 |
10 | Manufacturing | 10 | 10 | 7 |
11 | Education—chemistry | 7 | 3 | 2 |
12 | Education—energy | 20 | 15 | 15 |
13 | Education—machinery | 20 | 10 | 5 |
14 | Manufacturing | 10 | 5 | 5 |
E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 | E5 | E6 | E7 | E8 | E9 | E10 | E11 | E12 | E13 | E14 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
G1 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 |
G2 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
G3 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 6 |
G4 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 6 |
G5 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 8 |
G6 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
G7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 |
G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | G5 | G6 | G7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weight | 0.1615 | 0.1071 | 0.1361 | 0.0882 | 0.2575 | 0.1562 | 0.0934 |
Factor | Weights | |
---|---|---|
A | Environment | 6.04 |
B | University environment and orientation | 10.94 |
C | Enterprises’ comprehensive strength and willingness to cooperate | 8.51 |
D | Technical product evaluation | 9.35 |
E | Technology transfer team | 13.93 |
F | R&D strategy and contract | 11.07 |
G | Organization management | 3.36 |
H | Quality management | 9.45 |
I | Progress management | 4.95 |
J | Capital management | 3.95 |
K | Feasibility of business model | 4.25 |
L | Availability and preparation of resources | 7.24 |
M | Achievement transformation team | 6.97 |
Sum | 100 |
Industry | Company | Position | Project Responsibility | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Textile | Company A | Production manager | Resource management, team management, and technology communication |
2 | Education—textiles | University B | Professor | Research and development |
Score of Each Sub-Factor | Weight of Each Sub-Factor | |
---|---|---|
G1 | 4 | 0.1615 |
G2 | 4 | 0.1071 |
G3 | 5 | 0.1361 |
G4 | 3 | 0.0882 |
G5 | 4 | 0.2575 |
G6 | 4 | 0.1562 |
G7 | 3 | 0.0934 |
G | m2(U1) | m2(U2) | m2(U3) | m2(U4) | m2(U5) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0.390668 | 0.609332 |
U1 | U2 | U3 | U4 | U5 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Environment | 0 | 0 | 0.2241 | 0.7759 | 0 |
B | University environment and orientation | 0 | 0 | 0.3252 | 0.3113 | 0.3635 |
C | Enterprises’ comprehensive strength and willingness to cooperate | 0 | 0 | 0.0001 | 0.0117 | 0.9882 |
D | Technical product evaluation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0137 | 0.9863 |
E | Technology transfer team | 0 | 0 | 0.0002 | 0.0966 | 0.9032 |
F | R&D strategy and contract | 0 | 0 | 0.0117 | 0.0055 | 0.9828 |
G | Organization management | 0 | 0 | 0.0106 | 0.6498 | 0.3397 |
H | Quality management | 0 | 0 | 0.0029 | 0.0212 | 0.9760 |
I | Progress management | 0 | 0.0118 | 0.9702 | 0.0180 | 0 |
J | Capital management | 0 | 0.5085 | 0.4637 | 0.0278 | 0 |
K | Feasibility of business model | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0693 | 0.9307 |
L | Availability and preparation of resources | 0 | 0 | 0.0261 | 0.7160 | 0.2579 |
M | Achievement transformation team | 0 | 0 | 0.0026 | 0.1233 | 0.8741 |
Whole | 0 | 0.0004 | 0.0285 | 0.1140 | 0.8571 |
Industry | Company | Position | Project Responsibility | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Education—computer | University D | Professor | Head of R&D |
2 | Education—computer | University D | Ph.D. student | A member of the R&D team |
3 | Computer | Company C | Manager | R&D and project hub |
4 | Computer | Company C | Operations manager | Deliver customer needs and team management |
U1 | U2 | U3 | U4 | U5 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Environment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2004 | 0.7996 |
B | University environment and orientation | 0 | 0 | 0.0001 | 0.3212 | 0.6787 |
C | Enterprises’ comprehensive strength and willingness to cooperate | 0 | 0 | 0.0146 | 0.9410 | 0.0444 |
D | Technical product evaluation | 0 | 0 | 0.0029 | 0.8752 | 0.1219 |
E | Technology transfer team | 0 | 0 | 0.0057 | 0.4091 | 0.5852 |
F | R&D strategy and contract | 0 | 0 | 0.0052 | 0.5272 | 0.4676 |
G | Organization management | 0 | 0.7810 | 0.0789 | 0.1401 | 0 |
H | Quality management | 0 | 0.2815 | 0.3654 | 0.3129 | 0.0402 |
I | Progress management | 0 | 0.3162 | 0.6361 | 0.0477 | 0 |
J | Capital management | 0 | 0.3507 | 0.4009 | 0.2485 | 0 |
K | Feasibility of business model | 0 | 0 | 0.0143 | 0.7338 | 0.2519 |
L | Availability and preparation of resources | 0.0004 | 0.4136 | 0.3159 | 0.2701 | 0 |
M | Achievement transformation team | 0 | 0.0504 | 0.7680 | 0.1816 | 0 |
Whole | 1 × 10−6 | 0.0196 | 0.0490 | 0.5354 | 0.3961 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xiong, R.; Sun, H.; Zheng, S.; Liu, S. A Multi-Criteria Assessment Model for Cooperative Technology Transfer Projects from Universities to Industries. Mathematics 2024, 12, 1894. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12121894
Xiong R, Sun H, Zheng S, Liu S. A Multi-Criteria Assessment Model for Cooperative Technology Transfer Projects from Universities to Industries. Mathematics. 2024; 12(12):1894. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12121894
Chicago/Turabian StyleXiong, Rui, Hongyi Sun, Shufen Zheng, and Sichu Liu. 2024. "A Multi-Criteria Assessment Model for Cooperative Technology Transfer Projects from Universities to Industries" Mathematics 12, no. 12: 1894. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12121894