产学合作推动模式与创新绩效关系研究
|
摘要
1970至1980年代的台湾,在总体经济及国民收入增加率方面,曾因表现卓越而居于新加坡、南韩、香港等“亚洲四小龙”之首,当年缔造“台湾经济奇迹”的众多中小企业,如今却在大型企业及跨国公司的挑战下,面临着转型及产业升级的压力,受限于研发经费及人力的不足,如何寻求外部资源的挹注,结合产学研合作,推动企业创新绩效、永续经营发展,为本研究关注的议题。
本文提出“以产学合作关系建构台湾产业创新绩效之模式”的研究架构,分就产学合作的推动模式、影响产学绩效的关键因素、及创新产业等部分来进行分析。研究程序为透过文献分析,提出一概念性架构,再运用搜集的资料与证据,依研究构念进行个案研究及深度访谈,并经由个案分析后,撰写个案之研究发现与研究结论。
本研究采用Yin(1994)的多重个案研究法,依据台湾产学合作类型,选择六个产学合作研究个案的分析,以复现逻辑(replication logic)来加强研究证据,增加个案实证的解释力。透过此多重个案研究结果,验证本研究所构建的概念架构确实可行。中小企业厂商透过有效的组织学习,密切社会资本关系,可加速在技术知识的创造,与知识移转的创新绩效;而政府积极推动产学合作,不仅达到联结学术界的研发与开创企业界加值应用的目的,对台湾经济发展、扶助中小企业、提升国民竞争力也有极大帮助。
According to the indicators of national research and industrial innovation performance proposed by OECD, some indicators of knowledge creation such as the number of patents and academic articles show that Taiwan can keep consistent with the world. In the rankings of many indicators in recent years, Taiwan are right after the developed countries such as America, Japan, and Germany, which is closely related to the generalization of higher education and the cultivation of intellectuals’innovation and research capabilities on which the education system in Taiwan focus.
Taiwan is far behind these countries, however, according to other indicators of technological balance of payments and trade in highly research and development intensive industries proposed by OECD. For example, some production equipments, key components, and critical process-control skills, which are necessary to the development of industries in Taiwan, largely depend on importing.
Knowledge creation of Taiwan can not be effectively applied to industrial innovation and improvement of technological capability, mainly because most firms are small and medium sized. According to the statistics of 2007, there were 1,236,000 small and medium sized firms, which accounted for 97.63% of the total. Most of these firms do not have enough research manpower and capital, so that in-depth innovation can not be implemented effectively. They can only make some gradual and minor improvement to products and manufacturing skills, resulting in the difficulty of industrial upgrading and technology innovating.
This dissertation, therefore, mainly deal with how the advantageous knowledge creation and research innovation of academic institutions can be effectively used to promote the development of industries in Taiwan and improve their technology capability and how the local government can play an important role of an intermediary and facilitator of business and education cooperation by making relevant policies and regulations, providing financial support, and the opportunities of education and training, building more research institutions, and promoting the development of small and medium sized firms. What is more, this dissertation focuses on the impact of organizational learning, social capital, and knowledge creation on the performance of research innovation during the process of promoting business and education cooperation.
As to methodology, literature review, case study, in-depth interview, and other qualitative research methods are used. To begin with, the author extensively reviews literature on organizational learning, social capital, knowledge creation, innovation and performance to identify important variables. By doing so, the author find that the knowledge required for enterprise innovation comes from the inside and outside of an organization. Therefore, complex and diverse knowledge should be effectively integrated so that it can be transformed into key advantages. This dissertation attempts to establish a causal relationship between organizational learning, social capital, and knowledge creation, and innovation performance. Key variables will be identified by literature review so that a conceptual framework can be built, and then case study and in-depth interview will be done according to the constructs under discussion. Finally, Research conclusions will be drawn based on analyzing the cases.
Six industry and education cooperation cases will be chosen in this dissertation. With evidence being strengthened by replication logic, the analytic generalization will be used to analyze the model of industrial innovation performance based on industry and education cooperation, proposed by this dissertation. Multiple cases can test the feasibility of this model. According to the seven types of Taiwan's industry and education co-operation, six types are selected. Then in-depth interviews are done with relevant professors of industry-education cooperation program, industry executives or top management to know about the effectiveness of its implementation in order to test the feasibility of this model. Those cases of failure will be explained from the perspective of theory.
Case study shows that the cooperation relationship between industry and education can make up for being lack of innovation capabilities and research resources and address the issue of local government helping small and medium enterprises upgrade and promoting national research of forward-looking industry. However, the success of maintaining the industry and education cooperation mainly depends on the causal relationship between organizational learning, social capital, knowledge creation, and innovation performance. The conceptual framework is indeed feasible, which is tested by multiple cases. At the same time, the conclusions drawn from it are as follows:
First, building partnerships between the local government, education, and industry to meet the needs of industrial innovation during the era of knowledge economy with technological development and rapid change in market. The role played by the local government in promoting cooperation between industry and education should be from providing financial support to each party to linking the two parties, building partnership between the local government, industry, and education and maintaining the competitive ability of industrial development and economic growth through building basic industrial infrastructure and the environment. The industries should make full use of rich research manpower accumulated in the academic field to make up for being lack of revolutionary innovation capability. The academic institutions should put its theories, research results, product ideas and design into application, so that businesses can be benefited and all parties involved win finally.
Second, after the partnership between industry and education being established, industries should mainly focus on gradually-improving innovation, while the academic institutions contribute to revolutionary innovation. Technology development, the development of prototype technologies, and volume production technology based on the cooperation relationship between industry and education are beneficial to creating skills and knowledge required by industrial innovation and efficiently making use of them. The academic institutions are good at proposing new innovative concepts. Many revolutionary innovations are made through this type of cooperation. In facing of rapid change in market and research time reducing, new ideas and inventions of revolutionary innovation must be effectively utilized. Academic institutions are appropriate for making revolutionary innovation.
Third, during the implementing process of industry and education cooperation, organizational learning, social capital, knowledge creation, as measuring dimensions, are determinants of the cooperation. With the increasing of organizational learning and social capital, the impact of them on knowledge creation increase consequently. With the increasing of knowledge innovation, its effects on the performance of innovation will be more practical. Otherwise, if there is no breakthrough in organizational learning and knowledge innovation, the cooperation program may be stopped and cooperation can not proceed.
Fourth, a good industry and education cooperation will eventually contribute to improvement in the major field or innovation in a new field. Improvements can be made in the present field by forming critical industrial skills. In addition, industry and education cooperation can also promote innovation performance of new areas including next-generation products and technology innovation, and revolutionary products and technical innovation.
In the era of knowledge economy, the success of industrial innovation depends on whether innovation knowledge and technology can be quickly and accurately applied to industrial innovation and commoditization. This is the driving force that many developed countries actively promote industry and education cooperation to enhance one nation's economic competitive ability. As small and medium enterprises are the main components of Taiwan's industries, the local government has actively promoted industry and education cooperation, and linked academic research and industry application to improve companies’innovation performance in terms of technical knowledge creation and knowledge transfer through industry-education cooperation, effective organizational learning, and close relationship of social capital, which will benefit a lot to Taiwan's economic growth, national competitiveness, industrial upgrading and practical development.
本文提出“以产学合作关系建构台湾产业创新绩效之模式”的研究架构,分就产学合作的推动模式、影响产学绩效的关键因素、及创新产业等部分来进行分析。研究程序为透过文献分析,提出一概念性架构,再运用搜集的资料与证据,依研究构念进行个案研究及深度访谈,并经由个案分析后,撰写个案之研究发现与研究结论。
本研究采用Yin(1994)的多重个案研究法,依据台湾产学合作类型,选择六个产学合作研究个案的分析,以复现逻辑(replication logic)来加强研究证据,增加个案实证的解释力。透过此多重个案研究结果,验证本研究所构建的概念架构确实可行。中小企业厂商透过有效的组织学习,密切社会资本关系,可加速在技术知识的创造,与知识移转的创新绩效;而政府积极推动产学合作,不仅达到联结学术界的研发与开创企业界加值应用的目的,对台湾经济发展、扶助中小企业、提升国民竞争力也有极大帮助。
According to the indicators of national research and industrial innovation performance proposed by OECD, some indicators of knowledge creation such as the number of patents and academic articles show that Taiwan can keep consistent with the world. In the rankings of many indicators in recent years, Taiwan are right after the developed countries such as America, Japan, and Germany, which is closely related to the generalization of higher education and the cultivation of intellectuals’innovation and research capabilities on which the education system in Taiwan focus.
Taiwan is far behind these countries, however, according to other indicators of technological balance of payments and trade in highly research and development intensive industries proposed by OECD. For example, some production equipments, key components, and critical process-control skills, which are necessary to the development of industries in Taiwan, largely depend on importing.
Knowledge creation of Taiwan can not be effectively applied to industrial innovation and improvement of technological capability, mainly because most firms are small and medium sized. According to the statistics of 2007, there were 1,236,000 small and medium sized firms, which accounted for 97.63% of the total. Most of these firms do not have enough research manpower and capital, so that in-depth innovation can not be implemented effectively. They can only make some gradual and minor improvement to products and manufacturing skills, resulting in the difficulty of industrial upgrading and technology innovating.
This dissertation, therefore, mainly deal with how the advantageous knowledge creation and research innovation of academic institutions can be effectively used to promote the development of industries in Taiwan and improve their technology capability and how the local government can play an important role of an intermediary and facilitator of business and education cooperation by making relevant policies and regulations, providing financial support, and the opportunities of education and training, building more research institutions, and promoting the development of small and medium sized firms. What is more, this dissertation focuses on the impact of organizational learning, social capital, and knowledge creation on the performance of research innovation during the process of promoting business and education cooperation.
As to methodology, literature review, case study, in-depth interview, and other qualitative research methods are used. To begin with, the author extensively reviews literature on organizational learning, social capital, knowledge creation, innovation and performance to identify important variables. By doing so, the author find that the knowledge required for enterprise innovation comes from the inside and outside of an organization. Therefore, complex and diverse knowledge should be effectively integrated so that it can be transformed into key advantages. This dissertation attempts to establish a causal relationship between organizational learning, social capital, and knowledge creation, and innovation performance. Key variables will be identified by literature review so that a conceptual framework can be built, and then case study and in-depth interview will be done according to the constructs under discussion. Finally, Research conclusions will be drawn based on analyzing the cases.
Six industry and education cooperation cases will be chosen in this dissertation. With evidence being strengthened by replication logic, the analytic generalization will be used to analyze the model of industrial innovation performance based on industry and education cooperation, proposed by this dissertation. Multiple cases can test the feasibility of this model. According to the seven types of Taiwan's industry and education co-operation, six types are selected. Then in-depth interviews are done with relevant professors of industry-education cooperation program, industry executives or top management to know about the effectiveness of its implementation in order to test the feasibility of this model. Those cases of failure will be explained from the perspective of theory.
Case study shows that the cooperation relationship between industry and education can make up for being lack of innovation capabilities and research resources and address the issue of local government helping small and medium enterprises upgrade and promoting national research of forward-looking industry. However, the success of maintaining the industry and education cooperation mainly depends on the causal relationship between organizational learning, social capital, knowledge creation, and innovation performance. The conceptual framework is indeed feasible, which is tested by multiple cases. At the same time, the conclusions drawn from it are as follows:
First, building partnerships between the local government, education, and industry to meet the needs of industrial innovation during the era of knowledge economy with technological development and rapid change in market. The role played by the local government in promoting cooperation between industry and education should be from providing financial support to each party to linking the two parties, building partnership between the local government, industry, and education and maintaining the competitive ability of industrial development and economic growth through building basic industrial infrastructure and the environment. The industries should make full use of rich research manpower accumulated in the academic field to make up for being lack of revolutionary innovation capability. The academic institutions should put its theories, research results, product ideas and design into application, so that businesses can be benefited and all parties involved win finally.
Second, after the partnership between industry and education being established, industries should mainly focus on gradually-improving innovation, while the academic institutions contribute to revolutionary innovation. Technology development, the development of prototype technologies, and volume production technology based on the cooperation relationship between industry and education are beneficial to creating skills and knowledge required by industrial innovation and efficiently making use of them. The academic institutions are good at proposing new innovative concepts. Many revolutionary innovations are made through this type of cooperation. In facing of rapid change in market and research time reducing, new ideas and inventions of revolutionary innovation must be effectively utilized. Academic institutions are appropriate for making revolutionary innovation.
Third, during the implementing process of industry and education cooperation, organizational learning, social capital, knowledge creation, as measuring dimensions, are determinants of the cooperation. With the increasing of organizational learning and social capital, the impact of them on knowledge creation increase consequently. With the increasing of knowledge innovation, its effects on the performance of innovation will be more practical. Otherwise, if there is no breakthrough in organizational learning and knowledge innovation, the cooperation program may be stopped and cooperation can not proceed.
Fourth, a good industry and education cooperation will eventually contribute to improvement in the major field or innovation in a new field. Improvements can be made in the present field by forming critical industrial skills. In addition, industry and education cooperation can also promote innovation performance of new areas including next-generation products and technology innovation, and revolutionary products and technical innovation.
In the era of knowledge economy, the success of industrial innovation depends on whether innovation knowledge and technology can be quickly and accurately applied to industrial innovation and commoditization. This is the driving force that many developed countries actively promote industry and education cooperation to enhance one nation's economic competitive ability. As small and medium enterprises are the main components of Taiwan's industries, the local government has actively promoted industry and education cooperation, and linked academic research and industry application to improve companies’innovation performance in terms of technical knowledge creation and knowledge transfer through industry-education cooperation, effective organizational learning, and close relationship of social capital, which will benefit a lot to Taiwan's economic growth, national competitiveness, industrial upgrading and practical development.
引文
1.王健全,《对新政府的产业政策建议》,经济前瞻,2003年5月,p.60-64。
2.江义平,《以产学合作模式发展技术人力资源之研究─台湾省职业学校产学合作实施现况分析》,技术学刊,2000,15(1),p.139-148。
3.许文秀、张保隆,《中小企业创新模式之探讨─产学合作计划案例分析》,科学管理学刊,2000,第5卷第1期。
4.陈忠仁、蔡淑茹《知识创造来源、知识管理能力及知识属性对创新绩效影响之研究-组织学习理论观点》,中山管理评论,2005,第13卷第2期。
5.陈向明,《质的研究方法与社会科学研究》,北京:教育科学出版社,2000,p.12。
6.张芬芬译(Miles/Huberman着),《质性研究资料分析》,台北:双叶书廊,2005,p.15。
7.张吉成,《美国产学合作的省思》,技职校院产学合作运作机制及配套措施论文集专刊,台北:国立台湾科技大学产学合作中心,2003,p.105-113。
8.张国保,《产学合作加值计划》,技职简讯,2006。
9.谷家恒,《推动“最后一哩”就业学程创造产学双赢契机》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2004,第80期,p.58-61。
10.李仁芳,《产学研合作创新与国家竞争力》,国科会科资中心,1998。
11.李晋求,《知识管理活动中信息科技与知识分享活动如何提升组织动态能力之研究》,国立暨南国际大学国际企业研究所未出版论文,2001。
12.李元墩、林育理、陈启光,《银行业主管领导型态与部属人格特质、组织承诺其及生产力关系模式之研究》,人力资源管理学报,2001,第1卷第2期,p.1-23。
13.吴思华,《知识流通对产业创新的影响》,第七届产业管理研讨会,1998。
14.吴清山、林天佑,《产学合作》,教育资料与研究,2004,p.59-115。
15.吴丰祥,《产学合作创新的机会与挑战》,第七届产业管理研讨会论文集,1998,p.215-299。
16.吴凯琳译(Christensen, M.C., The innovator’s dilemma: when newtechnologies causegreat firms to fail),《创新的两难》,台北:商周出版,2000年6月。
17.柯雅琪译(明兹伯格等着),《组织学习》,台北:天下远见股份有限公司,2002。
18.尚荣安译(Yin RK.着),《个案研究》,台北:弘智文化事业有限公司,2001。
19.林文宝,《技术知识整合、知识能量与组织学习对核心竞争力及创新绩效关联性之研究》,国立成功大学企业管理研究所博士论文,2001。
20.林义屏,《市场导向、组织学习、组织创新、组织绩效间关系研究-以科学园区信息电子产业为例》,国立中山大学企业管理学系研究所博士论文,2001。
21.林东清,《知识管理》,台北:智胜文化事业,2003。
22.林清和,《产学合作之特色》,技职双月刊,2004,第23期,p.32-35。
23.林莉莉,《知识经济产业灵魂─R&D:以电子产业科技研发之绩效评估为例》,台湾经济研究月刊,2001,第24卷第1期,p.73-77。
24.林豪杰,《CEO权力支配性、高阶人力资源管理系统、高阶经营团队社会凝合、竞争行为与组织绩效之关系》,国立中山大学人力资源管理研究所博士论文,2005。
25.祝康伟,《职场人际关系学》Career职业情报杂志,2006,328期。
26.洪德生,《台湾的产学合作关系现况》台北:亚东关系协会科技交流委员会、中华经济研究院“台日产学合作研讨会”会议论文集,2005,p.1A-1-1A-22。
27.洪荣昭,《知识创新与学习型组织》,台北:五南图书公司,2001。
28.孟继洛,《美国产学合作在技专校院的借镜》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2003,第78期,p.20-25。
29.翁明祥、崔上麟,《产品创新性、研发团队自主性与产品创新绩效关系之研究-南韩计算机产业资源依赖观点为例》,辅仁大学国际企业管理研讨会论文集1996。
30.徐作圣,《全球化科技政策与企业经营》,台北:华泰文化事业公司,1999。
31.徐作圣,邱奕嘉译(Allan, and Afuah, Innovation Management, Oxford University Press, 1998),《创新管理》,台北:华泰书局,2000。
32.徐明珠《产学合作激发市场的竞争力》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2004,第82期,p.27-30。
33.庄世杰,《深度汇谈促进团队学习与团队决策效能之研究》,人力资源学报,2004夏季号,第4卷第2期。
34.陈川正,《非营利组织的“认同”管理──以基督教的“细胞小组模式”等教会为例》,国立政治大学企业管理研究所博士论文,1999。
35.陈鸿庆,《产学合作的具体作法》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2001,61期,p.57-61。
36.康自立,《大学与产业界的合作》,台北:汉文出版,1997,p.47-63。
37.许文秀、张保隆,《中小企业创新模式之探讨─产学合作计划案例分析》,科技管理学刊,2000,第5卷第1期,p.167-187。
38.黄英忠、蔡正飞、陈锦辉、黄毓华、葉叔祯,《高等管理教育产学合作模式探讨:资源依赖观点》,长荣学报,2002,第6卷第2期,p.15-31。
39.黄俊英,《市场导向、组织学习、组织创新与绩效关系之研究》,台北:行政院国家科学委员会,2001。
40.黄家齐、黄荷婷,《团队成员目标导向对于自我与集体效能及创新之影响—一个多层次研究》,台北:东吴大学科际整合管理国际研讨会,2004,p.991-1012。
41.黄识铭、余泰魁、吴桂森,《关系连结与未来关系互动之研究—关系质量中介效果》,管理与系统,2006。
42.汤尧、成群豪,《高等教育经营》,台北:高等教育,2004。
43.彭台光、高月慈、林钲棽，《管理研究中的共同方法变异：问题本质、影响、测试和补救》,管理学报,2006,第23卷第1期。
44.曾铭深,《OECD国家推动产学合作之作法》,经济情势暨评论,1999,第5卷第3期,p.80-98。
45.台湾经济部中小企业处,《中小企业白皮书》,2008年。
46.台湾经济部技术处,《产业技术白皮书》,2008年。
47.郑伶如《技术竞争力、创新资本与绩效关联性之研究—以台湾信息电子业为例》,台北大学企业管理系博论文,2003。
48.邓成连,《设计管理-产品设计之组织、沟通与运作》,台北:晓园出版社,1999,p.12。
49.蔡明达,《市场信息处理程序与组织记忆对营销创新影响之研究》,国立政治大学企业管理学系未出版博士论文,2000。
50.萧锡锜,《我国工业教育建教合作教育之探讨》,教育资料集刊,1997,第19辑,p.161-177。
51.萧龙生,《产学合作人才培育的角色及定位》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2000,第60期,p.12-13。
52.萧富峰、李田树译(Peter F. Drucker着),《创新与创业精神》,台北:脸谱出版社,2005。
53.赖香菊、苏芳霈,《策略信息系统应用分析》,中山管理评論,1999,第7卷第2期,p.383-412。
54.赖杉桂,《我国育成产业的现况与挑战》,创业创新育成,2005,第22期。
55.谢龙发、张根荣,《创新观点之企业竞争策略与竞争力的相关研究》,管理与信息学报,2004,第9期,p.89-112。
56.戴晓霞,《协助中小企业改善经营体质强化竞争力》,全国经济发展会议,2000,取自http://news.cepd.gov.tw/EcoDev/Default.htm。
57.苏显扬、靖心慈,《美、日政府协助业界(含中小企业)开发产业技术之相关制度研究》,台北:中华经济研究院,2000。
58.苏显扬,《日本产学合作概况》,经济前瞻双月刊,2003年。
59.严玉华,《网络观点之医疗产业合作动机、合作策略类型、统治机制与经营绩效之研究》,长荣管理学院经营管理研究所硕士论文,2000。
1.ABIresearch, (2003),“RFID-Emerging Application Driving R&D Investmentand End-User Demand"
2.Adler, P. S. & Kwon Seok-Woo (2002),”Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept”, Academy of Management Review, 27, pp.17-40.
3.AIM Inc., (2000),”Draft Paper on the Characteristics of RFID Systems",Frequency Forum White Paper,2000/07, V 1.0.
4.Arias, D.,(2003).“Service operations strategy, flexibility and performance in engineering consulting firms,”International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Vol.12, No.1, pp.1401–1421.
5.Argyris, C. and Schon, D.(1978), Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective , New York: Addision-Wesley.
6.Atlan, Taylar (1987); Bring Together Industry and University Engineering Schools, In Getting More Out for R & D and Technology, The Conference Board, Research Report No. 904.
7.Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 35 (2).pp.93-103.
8.Baer, M. and M. Frese, (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative andpsychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 24(1): 45-68.
9.Batemen, Thomas S (2002),”Management, competing in the new Era“, 5th edition.
10.Barber, Albert, (1985); University-Industry Research Cooperation, Journal of Society of Research Administrator, pp.19-29.
11.Bart Clarysse, Mike Wright, Andy Lockett, Els Van de Velde, Ajay Vohora,(2005),“Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20(2), March, 2005, pp: 183-216.
12.Bhaven N. Sampat, David C. Mowery, Arvids A. Ziedonis, (2003),“Changes in unverisity patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: areexamination " ,International Journal of Industrial Organization,Vol.20,pp.1371-1390.
13.Bloedon ,R. V. and Stokes , D. R. ( 1994 )。”Making University Industry Collaborative Research Succeed. Research”,Technology Management, 37(2),pp.44-49.
14.Burt, R. S. (1992), Structural holes: The social structure of competition, Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
15.Burt, R. S. (1997),“The Contingent Value of Social Capital”,Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp.339-365.
16.Byrd, T. A. and Davidson, N. W, (2003).”Examining possible antecedents of IT impact on the supply chain and its effect on firm performance,”Information & Management, Vol.41, pp.243-255.
17.Chuang, S. H.,(2004).“A resourced-based perspective on knowledge management capability and competitive advantage: an empirical investigation,”Expert Systems with Application, Vol.27, No.1, pp.459-465.
18.Clarysse, Bart; Wright, Mike; Lockett, Andy; Van de Velde, Els; Vohora, Ajay,(2005),“Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.20(2), 2005/03, pp. 183-216.
19.Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990).‘Absorptive Capacity: a New Perspective on Learning and Innovatin’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol35, No1, pp. 128-152.
20.Coleman, J. S.(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, pp.94: 95-120.
21.Cooper, R. G.,(1985),‘Industrial firms’s new product strategies,’Journal ofBusiness Research,Vol.13, pp.107-121.
22.Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). Winning businesses in productdevelopment: The critical success factors. Research Technology Management,39(4): pp.18.
23.Cordero, R. (1990),“The Measurement of Innovation performance in thefirm”, and overview, Research Police, 19(2), pp.180-195.
24.Craighead, C.W. and LaForge, R.L., (2003).“Taxonomy of information technology adoption patterns in manufacturing firms,”Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol.41, pp.2431–2449.
25.Damanpour, F..(1991),“rganization Innovation”, A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Management Journal, 34(3),pp.555-590.
26.Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Baston Massachusetts.
27.David B. Audretsch, Eric E. Lehmann and Susanne Warning, (2005)”University spillovers and new firm location", Research Policy, Vol. 34, pp 1113–1122.
28.Dietzenbacher,E.(2000),Spillovers of Innovation Effects.,Journal of Policy Modeling,22(1),pp.27-42.
29.Dodgeson, M.(1993),“Organizationa l Learning: A Review of Some Literature,”Organization Studies, Vol.14, No.3, pp.375-394.
30.Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
31.Duncan, R. and Weiss, A.(1979),“Organizational Learning: Implications for Organizational Design”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.1, pp.75-123.
32.Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985),”Organizational Learning”,Academy of Management Review, 10(4),pp. 803-813.
33.Freeman, C.,(1987)“Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan (Surveys and analyses the process of innovation in Japan, including the role of Government)”, France Printer, London.
34.Friedman & Silberman ( 2003 )”University technology transfer : Do incentive.Managemant,and Location Matter ?”Journal of Technology transfer,28,pp.17-30.
35.Garvin, David A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. July/August: pp.78-91.
36.Gary Lundquist(2003),A Rich Vision of Technology Transfer Technology Value Management,Journal of Technology Transfer,28,pp265-284.
37.Gattiker, E. and Larwood, L. (1990), Technological Innovation and Human Resource, New York: McGraw-Hill.
38.Geisler, E. and A. Rubenstein, (1989)“University-Industry Relations: A Review of 82.
39.Gideon D. Markman, Phillip H. Phan, David B. Balkin and Peter T. Gianiodis, (2005),“Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 20, pp.241-263.
40.Granieri, Massimiliano.(2003)Beyond Traditional Technology Transfer of Faculty-Generation Inventions:Building A Bridge Toward R & D.Les Nouvelles,December.pp167-175.
41.Grant,R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environment:Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7:pp.375-387.
42.Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 17, Winter Special Issue, pp.109-122.
43.Greg Brue (2002). Six Sigma for Managers McGraw-Hill. pp. 29-93.
44.Gulati, R. (1995).‘Dose Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliance’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 85-112.
45.Hall B.H., (2001) University-Industry research partnerships and intellectualproperty, NSF-CISTP Workshop, pp.1-7.
46.Hamel, G. (1991),”Competition for Competence and Inter-partner Learning Within International Strategic Alliances”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp.83-104.
47.Harman, G. (2001). University-Industry research partnerships in Australia: Extent,benefits and risks. Higher Education Research & Development,20(3),PP. 245-264.
48.Harman, G., & Sherwell, V. (2002). Risks in university-industry research links and the implications for university management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(1), pp.37-51.
49.Huber, G. P. (1991),“Organizational Learning: the Contributing Processes and the Literatures”, Organization Science, 2(1), pp.88-115.
50.Hult, G. Tomas M. & O. C. Ferrell(1997),”Global Organizational Learning Capacity in Purchasing: Construct and Measurement,”Journal of Business Research, Vol.40,pp.97-111.
51.J.Lee&H.N.Win(2004), Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore, Technovation, 24(5), pp.433~442.
52.Joseph Friedman and Silberman Jonathan(2003),University Technology Transfer:Do incentive,Management,and Location Matter?, Journal of Technology transfer,vol.28 ,Number1.pp.17-30.
53.Jung, S., Imm, K.Y., (2002),“The patent activities of Korea and Taiwan: a comparative case of patent statistics " , World Patent Information, Vol.24,pp.303-311.
54.Kanagavel P.,(2003) ,“Intellectual Property Rights: A Comprehensive Overview ", 2003/08 ,pp.663-686.
55.Kogut, B. (1998), O”Joint Venture: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp.319-331.
56.Leana, C. R. & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital & employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24: pp.538-556.
57.Lesser, E. L. (2000).‘Leveraging Social Capital in Organizations’, In Lesser E. L. (ed.),Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, pp.3-16.
58.Leonard-Barton, D.(1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press.Levitt, T. 1965. Exploit the Product Life Cycle. Journal of Harvard Business Review,Nov.-Dec:pp.81-94.
59.Lundvall, B. (1999), National Systems of Innovation.In: Dosi, D.Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. (eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Printer, London, pp.349-369.
60.Lyon, D. W. and W. J. Ferrier (2002). Enhancing performance with product-market innovation: The influence of the top management team. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(4): pp.452-469.
61.March J. G. & J. P. Olsen (1975). The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning Under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3: pp.147-171.
62.McGill, M., Slocum, C. and Lei, D. (1992),“Management Practices in Learning Organizations”, Organizational Dynamics , 20(2), pp.5-17.
63.Meyers, P. W.(1990),“Non-linear Learning in Technological Firms,”Research Policy,Vol.19, pp.97-115.
64.Miller,J.G., Meyer,A.D. & Nakane,J.(1992), Benchmarking Global Manufacturing Understanding International Suppliers,Customers,and Competitors., Irwin.
65.Morgan, G. and Ramirez, R.(1983),“Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Change,”Human Relations, Vol.37, No.1, pp.1-28.
66.Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998),“Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage”, Academy of Management Review, 23,pp. 242-266.
67.Nelson R.R.(1993)National Innovation Systems,Oxford,New York.
68.Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J. and Gould, J. M.,(1995).“Understanding Organizations as Learning systems,”Sloan Management Review, Vol.36, No.6, pp.73-86.
69.Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, 5(1), pp.14-37.
70.Nonaka, I. & Takuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating company, Oxford University Press, New York. pp.70-85,
71.Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. (2000).‘SECI, Ba and Leadership: aUnified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation’, Long Range Planning, 33, pp. 5-34.
72.OECD (1997). Technology Incubators Background Report. Paris.
73.Osterloh,M. & Frey,B.S. (2000),“Motivation, knowledge trans for and organizational forms”, Organization Science, 11(5),pp.538-550.
74.Pashby T. Barnes, I., Gibbons A., (2002) Effective University-Industry interaction:a multi-case evaluation of collaborative R & D projects, European Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 3, pp.272-285.
75.Patrick Vock ( 2003 ) University technology transfer in Switzerland-Organization,LegalFramework,PolicyandPerfprmance, The Center for Science and Technology Studies.pp.1-19.
76.Peter, & Fusfeld, H. (1982); University industry research relationships. NationalScience Foundation, USA.
77.Pisano, G. (1994),“Knowledge, Integration, and the Locus of Learning:an Empirical Analysis of Process Development”, Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.85-100.
78.Putnam, R. D.(1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13:pp.35-42.
79.Rindfleisch, A. & Moorman, C. (2001),“The Acquisition and Utilization of Information in New Product Alliances: A Strengh-of-Ties Perspective”,Journal of Marketing, 65(April), pp.1-18.
80.Rivett, D.,(1992) Project Management, in: Lydiate, L (ed.), Professional Practice in Design Consultancy, The Design Council, London, pp.15-20.
81.Rochford, Linda (1991),“Generating and Screening New Product Ideas”, Industrial Marketing Management, 20(4), pp.287-297.
82.Rosenbloom, Richard S. and Cusumano, Michael A. (1987),”Technological Pinoeering and Competitive Advantage: the Birth of the VCR Industry”, California Management Review, 29(4), pp.51-77.
83.Ruth,S.K(1996)“Successful business alliance, classroom strategies”The Methodology of business education, 34, pp.10-23.
84.Schroeder,R.G.,Benson,P.G.,Saraph,J.V(1989)., An Instrument for Measuring The Critical Factors of Quality Management., Decision Science,20,pp.810-829.
85.Senge, Peter M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline-the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York :Publishing Doubleday.
86.Shrivastava, Paul(1983),“A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems,”The Journal of Management Studies, Vol.20, Iss.1, pp.7 -28.
87.Siegel, D. S. ; Waldman, D. A. ; Atwater, L. E. ; Link, A. N.(2003)Commercial Knowledge Transfers from Universities to Firms:Improving t he Effectiveness of University–industry Collaboration,Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1),pp.111-133.
88.Siegel, D. S. ; Waldman, D. A. ; Atwater, L. E. ; Link, A. N(2004), Toward a Model of the Effective Transfer of Scientific Knowledge from Academicians to Practitioners : Qualitative Evidence from the Commercialization of University Technologies, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1/2), pp.115-42
89.Sinkula, James M. (1994). Market Infromation Processing and Organizational Learning. Journal of Marketing, January: pp.33-45.
90.Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W., & Noordewier. T. G.., (1997), A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking Values, Knowledge, and Behavior, Academy of Marketing Science, Fall, 25(4):pp.305-318.
91.Smilor, R.and Matthews, J.(2004)University Venturing: Technology Transfer and ommercialisation in Higher Education. Int. J. Technology Transfer and Commercialisation. pp. 111-128.
92.Souder, W. E. (1988),“Management Relations Between R & D and Marketing in New Product Development Project“, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, pp.6-19.
93.Srihari, K. & Sammakia, B. G. (2002)“Industry-University Partnership in Graduate Research and Education,“in Proc. of 2002 Electronic Components and TechnologyConf., pp.768-771.
94.Teece DJ, Pisano G, and Shuen A.(1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18: pp.509-533.
95.Tushman, M. & Nadler, D.(1986). Organizing for innovation. CaliforniaManagement Review, 28(3): pp.74-92.
96.Utterback, J. M. (1994), Innovation and Industrial Evolution Mastering- 170 -the Dynamics of Innovation, Boston: Harvard Business School Press..
97.Utterback, J.M.,(1994)“Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change“, Harvard University Press, Boston.
98.Valentin, E. M. M. (2000). University-industry cooperation: A framework of benefits and obstacles. Industry & Higher Education,(3), pp.165-172.
99.Valentin, E. M. M., & Sanchez, J. J. N. (2002), University industry partnerships, 1990-2000. Industry & Higher Education, (6), pp.55-61.
100.Walker,O.C.Jr.& Ruekert,R.W(1987).,Marketing’s Role in The Implementation of Business Strategies:A Critical Review and Conceptual Framework., Journal of Marketing,51,pp.25.
101.Watkins, K. E.& V. J. Marsick. (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization:Lessons in the Arts and Science of Systematic Change.Sanfrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishes.
102.Wheelwright,S.C.(1978), Reflecting Corporate Strategy in Manufacturing Decision., Business Harisons,Feb,pp.57-66.
103.Wiig,K.M.(1997), Knowledge Management:Where Did It Come From and Where Will It Go?,Expert System with Applications,13(1),pp.1-14.
2.江义平,《以产学合作模式发展技术人力资源之研究─台湾省职业学校产学合作实施现况分析》,技术学刊,2000,15(1),p.139-148。
3.许文秀、张保隆,《中小企业创新模式之探讨─产学合作计划案例分析》,科学管理学刊,2000,第5卷第1期。
4.陈忠仁、蔡淑茹《知识创造来源、知识管理能力及知识属性对创新绩效影响之研究-组织学习理论观点》,中山管理评论,2005,第13卷第2期。
5.陈向明,《质的研究方法与社会科学研究》,北京:教育科学出版社,2000,p.12。
6.张芬芬译(Miles/Huberman着),《质性研究资料分析》,台北:双叶书廊,2005,p.15。
7.张吉成,《美国产学合作的省思》,技职校院产学合作运作机制及配套措施论文集专刊,台北:国立台湾科技大学产学合作中心,2003,p.105-113。
8.张国保,《产学合作加值计划》,技职简讯,2006。
9.谷家恒,《推动“最后一哩”就业学程创造产学双赢契机》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2004,第80期,p.58-61。
10.李仁芳,《产学研合作创新与国家竞争力》,国科会科资中心,1998。
11.李晋求,《知识管理活动中信息科技与知识分享活动如何提升组织动态能力之研究》,国立暨南国际大学国际企业研究所未出版论文,2001。
12.李元墩、林育理、陈启光,《银行业主管领导型态与部属人格特质、组织承诺其及生产力关系模式之研究》,人力资源管理学报,2001,第1卷第2期,p.1-23。
13.吴思华,《知识流通对产业创新的影响》,第七届产业管理研讨会,1998。
14.吴清山、林天佑,《产学合作》,教育资料与研究,2004,p.59-115。
15.吴丰祥,《产学合作创新的机会与挑战》,第七届产业管理研讨会论文集,1998,p.215-299。
16.吴凯琳译(Christensen, M.C., The innovator’s dilemma: when newtechnologies causegreat firms to fail),《创新的两难》,台北:商周出版,2000年6月。
17.柯雅琪译(明兹伯格等着),《组织学习》,台北:天下远见股份有限公司,2002。
18.尚荣安译(Yin RK.着),《个案研究》,台北:弘智文化事业有限公司,2001。
19.林文宝,《技术知识整合、知识能量与组织学习对核心竞争力及创新绩效关联性之研究》,国立成功大学企业管理研究所博士论文,2001。
20.林义屏,《市场导向、组织学习、组织创新、组织绩效间关系研究-以科学园区信息电子产业为例》,国立中山大学企业管理学系研究所博士论文,2001。
21.林东清,《知识管理》,台北:智胜文化事业,2003。
22.林清和,《产学合作之特色》,技职双月刊,2004,第23期,p.32-35。
23.林莉莉,《知识经济产业灵魂─R&D:以电子产业科技研发之绩效评估为例》,台湾经济研究月刊,2001,第24卷第1期,p.73-77。
24.林豪杰,《CEO权力支配性、高阶人力资源管理系统、高阶经营团队社会凝合、竞争行为与组织绩效之关系》,国立中山大学人力资源管理研究所博士论文,2005。
25.祝康伟,《职场人际关系学》Career职业情报杂志,2006,328期。
26.洪德生,《台湾的产学合作关系现况》台北:亚东关系协会科技交流委员会、中华经济研究院“台日产学合作研讨会”会议论文集,2005,p.1A-1-1A-22。
27.洪荣昭,《知识创新与学习型组织》,台北:五南图书公司,2001。
28.孟继洛,《美国产学合作在技专校院的借镜》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2003,第78期,p.20-25。
29.翁明祥、崔上麟,《产品创新性、研发团队自主性与产品创新绩效关系之研究-南韩计算机产业资源依赖观点为例》,辅仁大学国际企业管理研讨会论文集1996。
30.徐作圣,《全球化科技政策与企业经营》,台北:华泰文化事业公司,1999。
31.徐作圣,邱奕嘉译(Allan, and Afuah, Innovation Management, Oxford University Press, 1998),《创新管理》,台北:华泰书局,2000。
32.徐明珠《产学合作激发市场的竞争力》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2004,第82期,p.27-30。
33.庄世杰,《深度汇谈促进团队学习与团队决策效能之研究》,人力资源学报,2004夏季号,第4卷第2期。
34.陈川正,《非营利组织的“认同”管理──以基督教的“细胞小组模式”等教会为例》,国立政治大学企业管理研究所博士论文,1999。
35.陈鸿庆,《产学合作的具体作法》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2001,61期,p.57-61。
36.康自立,《大学与产业界的合作》,台北:汉文出版,1997,p.47-63。
37.许文秀、张保隆,《中小企业创新模式之探讨─产学合作计划案例分析》,科技管理学刊,2000,第5卷第1期,p.167-187。
38.黄英忠、蔡正飞、陈锦辉、黄毓华、葉叔祯,《高等管理教育产学合作模式探讨:资源依赖观点》,长荣学报,2002,第6卷第2期,p.15-31。
39.黄俊英,《市场导向、组织学习、组织创新与绩效关系之研究》,台北:行政院国家科学委员会,2001。
40.黄家齐、黄荷婷,《团队成员目标导向对于自我与集体效能及创新之影响—一个多层次研究》,台北:东吴大学科际整合管理国际研讨会,2004,p.991-1012。
41.黄识铭、余泰魁、吴桂森,《关系连结与未来关系互动之研究—关系质量中介效果》,管理与系统,2006。
42.汤尧、成群豪,《高等教育经营》,台北:高等教育,2004。
43.彭台光、高月慈、林钲棽，《管理研究中的共同方法变异：问题本质、影响、测试和补救》,管理学报,2006,第23卷第1期。
44.曾铭深,《OECD国家推动产学合作之作法》,经济情势暨评论,1999,第5卷第3期,p.80-98。
45.台湾经济部中小企业处,《中小企业白皮书》,2008年。
46.台湾经济部技术处,《产业技术白皮书》,2008年。
47.郑伶如《技术竞争力、创新资本与绩效关联性之研究—以台湾信息电子业为例》,台北大学企业管理系博论文,2003。
48.邓成连,《设计管理-产品设计之组织、沟通与运作》,台北:晓园出版社,1999,p.12。
49.蔡明达,《市场信息处理程序与组织记忆对营销创新影响之研究》,国立政治大学企业管理学系未出版博士论文,2000。
50.萧锡锜,《我国工业教育建教合作教育之探讨》,教育资料集刊,1997,第19辑,p.161-177。
51.萧龙生,《产学合作人才培育的角色及定位》,技术及职业教育双月刊,2000,第60期,p.12-13。
52.萧富峰、李田树译(Peter F. Drucker着),《创新与创业精神》,台北:脸谱出版社,2005。
53.赖香菊、苏芳霈,《策略信息系统应用分析》,中山管理评論,1999,第7卷第2期,p.383-412。
54.赖杉桂,《我国育成产业的现况与挑战》,创业创新育成,2005,第22期。
55.谢龙发、张根荣,《创新观点之企业竞争策略与竞争力的相关研究》,管理与信息学报,2004,第9期,p.89-112。
56.戴晓霞,《协助中小企业改善经营体质强化竞争力》,全国经济发展会议,2000,取自http://news.cepd.gov.tw/EcoDev/Default.htm。
57.苏显扬、靖心慈,《美、日政府协助业界(含中小企业)开发产业技术之相关制度研究》,台北:中华经济研究院,2000。
58.苏显扬,《日本产学合作概况》,经济前瞻双月刊,2003年。
59.严玉华,《网络观点之医疗产业合作动机、合作策略类型、统治机制与经营绩效之研究》,长荣管理学院经营管理研究所硕士论文,2000。
1.ABIresearch, (2003),“RFID-Emerging Application Driving R&D Investmentand End-User Demand"
2.Adler, P. S. & Kwon Seok-Woo (2002),”Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept”, Academy of Management Review, 27, pp.17-40.
3.AIM Inc., (2000),”Draft Paper on the Characteristics of RFID Systems",Frequency Forum White Paper,2000/07, V 1.0.
4.Arias, D.,(2003).“Service operations strategy, flexibility and performance in engineering consulting firms,”International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Vol.12, No.1, pp.1401–1421.
5.Argyris, C. and Schon, D.(1978), Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective , New York: Addision-Wesley.
6.Atlan, Taylar (1987); Bring Together Industry and University Engineering Schools, In Getting More Out for R & D and Technology, The Conference Board, Research Report No. 904.
7.Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 35 (2).pp.93-103.
8.Baer, M. and M. Frese, (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative andpsychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 24(1): 45-68.
9.Batemen, Thomas S (2002),”Management, competing in the new Era“, 5th edition.
10.Barber, Albert, (1985); University-Industry Research Cooperation, Journal of Society of Research Administrator, pp.19-29.
11.Bart Clarysse, Mike Wright, Andy Lockett, Els Van de Velde, Ajay Vohora,(2005),“Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20(2), March, 2005, pp: 183-216.
12.Bhaven N. Sampat, David C. Mowery, Arvids A. Ziedonis, (2003),“Changes in unverisity patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: areexamination " ,International Journal of Industrial Organization,Vol.20,pp.1371-1390.
13.Bloedon ,R. V. and Stokes , D. R. ( 1994 )。”Making University Industry Collaborative Research Succeed. Research”,Technology Management, 37(2),pp.44-49.
14.Burt, R. S. (1992), Structural holes: The social structure of competition, Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
15.Burt, R. S. (1997),“The Contingent Value of Social Capital”,Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp.339-365.
16.Byrd, T. A. and Davidson, N. W, (2003).”Examining possible antecedents of IT impact on the supply chain and its effect on firm performance,”Information & Management, Vol.41, pp.243-255.
17.Chuang, S. H.,(2004).“A resourced-based perspective on knowledge management capability and competitive advantage: an empirical investigation,”Expert Systems with Application, Vol.27, No.1, pp.459-465.
18.Clarysse, Bart; Wright, Mike; Lockett, Andy; Van de Velde, Els; Vohora, Ajay,(2005),“Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.20(2), 2005/03, pp. 183-216.
19.Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990).‘Absorptive Capacity: a New Perspective on Learning and Innovatin’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol35, No1, pp. 128-152.
20.Coleman, J. S.(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, pp.94: 95-120.
21.Cooper, R. G.,(1985),‘Industrial firms’s new product strategies,’Journal ofBusiness Research,Vol.13, pp.107-121.
22.Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). Winning businesses in productdevelopment: The critical success factors. Research Technology Management,39(4): pp.18.
23.Cordero, R. (1990),“The Measurement of Innovation performance in thefirm”, and overview, Research Police, 19(2), pp.180-195.
24.Craighead, C.W. and LaForge, R.L., (2003).“Taxonomy of information technology adoption patterns in manufacturing firms,”Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol.41, pp.2431–2449.
25.Damanpour, F..(1991),“rganization Innovation”, A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Management Journal, 34(3),pp.555-590.
26.Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Baston Massachusetts.
27.David B. Audretsch, Eric E. Lehmann and Susanne Warning, (2005)”University spillovers and new firm location", Research Policy, Vol. 34, pp 1113–1122.
28.Dietzenbacher,E.(2000),Spillovers of Innovation Effects.,Journal of Policy Modeling,22(1),pp.27-42.
29.Dodgeson, M.(1993),“Organizationa l Learning: A Review of Some Literature,”Organization Studies, Vol.14, No.3, pp.375-394.
30.Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
31.Duncan, R. and Weiss, A.(1979),“Organizational Learning: Implications for Organizational Design”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.1, pp.75-123.
32.Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985),”Organizational Learning”,Academy of Management Review, 10(4),pp. 803-813.
33.Freeman, C.,(1987)“Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan (Surveys and analyses the process of innovation in Japan, including the role of Government)”, France Printer, London.
34.Friedman & Silberman ( 2003 )”University technology transfer : Do incentive.Managemant,and Location Matter ?”Journal of Technology transfer,28,pp.17-30.
35.Garvin, David A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. July/August: pp.78-91.
36.Gary Lundquist(2003),A Rich Vision of Technology Transfer Technology Value Management,Journal of Technology Transfer,28,pp265-284.
37.Gattiker, E. and Larwood, L. (1990), Technological Innovation and Human Resource, New York: McGraw-Hill.
38.Geisler, E. and A. Rubenstein, (1989)“University-Industry Relations: A Review of 82.
39.Gideon D. Markman, Phillip H. Phan, David B. Balkin and Peter T. Gianiodis, (2005),“Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 20, pp.241-263.
40.Granieri, Massimiliano.(2003)Beyond Traditional Technology Transfer of Faculty-Generation Inventions:Building A Bridge Toward R & D.Les Nouvelles,December.pp167-175.
41.Grant,R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environment:Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7:pp.375-387.
42.Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 17, Winter Special Issue, pp.109-122.
43.Greg Brue (2002). Six Sigma for Managers McGraw-Hill. pp. 29-93.
44.Gulati, R. (1995).‘Dose Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliance’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 85-112.
45.Hall B.H., (2001) University-Industry research partnerships and intellectualproperty, NSF-CISTP Workshop, pp.1-7.
46.Hamel, G. (1991),”Competition for Competence and Inter-partner Learning Within International Strategic Alliances”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp.83-104.
47.Harman, G. (2001). University-Industry research partnerships in Australia: Extent,benefits and risks. Higher Education Research & Development,20(3),PP. 245-264.
48.Harman, G., & Sherwell, V. (2002). Risks in university-industry research links and the implications for university management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(1), pp.37-51.
49.Huber, G. P. (1991),“Organizational Learning: the Contributing Processes and the Literatures”, Organization Science, 2(1), pp.88-115.
50.Hult, G. Tomas M. & O. C. Ferrell(1997),”Global Organizational Learning Capacity in Purchasing: Construct and Measurement,”Journal of Business Research, Vol.40,pp.97-111.
51.J.Lee&H.N.Win(2004), Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore, Technovation, 24(5), pp.433~442.
52.Joseph Friedman and Silberman Jonathan(2003),University Technology Transfer:Do incentive,Management,and Location Matter?, Journal of Technology transfer,vol.28 ,Number1.pp.17-30.
53.Jung, S., Imm, K.Y., (2002),“The patent activities of Korea and Taiwan: a comparative case of patent statistics " , World Patent Information, Vol.24,pp.303-311.
54.Kanagavel P.,(2003) ,“Intellectual Property Rights: A Comprehensive Overview ", 2003/08 ,pp.663-686.
55.Kogut, B. (1998), O”Joint Venture: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp.319-331.
56.Leana, C. R. & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital & employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24: pp.538-556.
57.Lesser, E. L. (2000).‘Leveraging Social Capital in Organizations’, In Lesser E. L. (ed.),Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, pp.3-16.
58.Leonard-Barton, D.(1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press.Levitt, T. 1965. Exploit the Product Life Cycle. Journal of Harvard Business Review,Nov.-Dec:pp.81-94.
59.Lundvall, B. (1999), National Systems of Innovation.In: Dosi, D.Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. (eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Printer, London, pp.349-369.
60.Lyon, D. W. and W. J. Ferrier (2002). Enhancing performance with product-market innovation: The influence of the top management team. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(4): pp.452-469.
61.March J. G. & J. P. Olsen (1975). The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning Under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3: pp.147-171.
62.McGill, M., Slocum, C. and Lei, D. (1992),“Management Practices in Learning Organizations”, Organizational Dynamics , 20(2), pp.5-17.
63.Meyers, P. W.(1990),“Non-linear Learning in Technological Firms,”Research Policy,Vol.19, pp.97-115.
64.Miller,J.G., Meyer,A.D. & Nakane,J.(1992), Benchmarking Global Manufacturing Understanding International Suppliers,Customers,and Competitors., Irwin.
65.Morgan, G. and Ramirez, R.(1983),“Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Change,”Human Relations, Vol.37, No.1, pp.1-28.
66.Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998),“Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage”, Academy of Management Review, 23,pp. 242-266.
67.Nelson R.R.(1993)National Innovation Systems,Oxford,New York.
68.Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J. and Gould, J. M.,(1995).“Understanding Organizations as Learning systems,”Sloan Management Review, Vol.36, No.6, pp.73-86.
69.Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, 5(1), pp.14-37.
70.Nonaka, I. & Takuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating company, Oxford University Press, New York. pp.70-85,
71.Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. (2000).‘SECI, Ba and Leadership: aUnified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation’, Long Range Planning, 33, pp. 5-34.
72.OECD (1997). Technology Incubators Background Report. Paris.
73.Osterloh,M. & Frey,B.S. (2000),“Motivation, knowledge trans for and organizational forms”, Organization Science, 11(5),pp.538-550.
74.Pashby T. Barnes, I., Gibbons A., (2002) Effective University-Industry interaction:a multi-case evaluation of collaborative R & D projects, European Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 3, pp.272-285.
75.Patrick Vock ( 2003 ) University technology transfer in Switzerland-Organization,LegalFramework,PolicyandPerfprmance, The Center for Science and Technology Studies.pp.1-19.
76.Peter, & Fusfeld, H. (1982); University industry research relationships. NationalScience Foundation, USA.
77.Pisano, G. (1994),“Knowledge, Integration, and the Locus of Learning:an Empirical Analysis of Process Development”, Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.85-100.
78.Putnam, R. D.(1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13:pp.35-42.
79.Rindfleisch, A. & Moorman, C. (2001),“The Acquisition and Utilization of Information in New Product Alliances: A Strengh-of-Ties Perspective”,Journal of Marketing, 65(April), pp.1-18.
80.Rivett, D.,(1992) Project Management, in: Lydiate, L (ed.), Professional Practice in Design Consultancy, The Design Council, London, pp.15-20.
81.Rochford, Linda (1991),“Generating and Screening New Product Ideas”, Industrial Marketing Management, 20(4), pp.287-297.
82.Rosenbloom, Richard S. and Cusumano, Michael A. (1987),”Technological Pinoeering and Competitive Advantage: the Birth of the VCR Industry”, California Management Review, 29(4), pp.51-77.
83.Ruth,S.K(1996)“Successful business alliance, classroom strategies”The Methodology of business education, 34, pp.10-23.
84.Schroeder,R.G.,Benson,P.G.,Saraph,J.V(1989)., An Instrument for Measuring The Critical Factors of Quality Management., Decision Science,20,pp.810-829.
85.Senge, Peter M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline-the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York :Publishing Doubleday.
86.Shrivastava, Paul(1983),“A Typology of Organizational Learning Systems,”The Journal of Management Studies, Vol.20, Iss.1, pp.7 -28.
87.Siegel, D. S. ; Waldman, D. A. ; Atwater, L. E. ; Link, A. N.(2003)Commercial Knowledge Transfers from Universities to Firms:Improving t he Effectiveness of University–industry Collaboration,Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1),pp.111-133.
88.Siegel, D. S. ; Waldman, D. A. ; Atwater, L. E. ; Link, A. N(2004), Toward a Model of the Effective Transfer of Scientific Knowledge from Academicians to Practitioners : Qualitative Evidence from the Commercialization of University Technologies, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1/2), pp.115-42
89.Sinkula, James M. (1994). Market Infromation Processing and Organizational Learning. Journal of Marketing, January: pp.33-45.
90.Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W., & Noordewier. T. G.., (1997), A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking Values, Knowledge, and Behavior, Academy of Marketing Science, Fall, 25(4):pp.305-318.
91.Smilor, R.and Matthews, J.(2004)University Venturing: Technology Transfer and ommercialisation in Higher Education. Int. J. Technology Transfer and Commercialisation. pp. 111-128.
92.Souder, W. E. (1988),“Management Relations Between R & D and Marketing in New Product Development Project“, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5, pp.6-19.
93.Srihari, K. & Sammakia, B. G. (2002)“Industry-University Partnership in Graduate Research and Education,“in Proc. of 2002 Electronic Components and TechnologyConf., pp.768-771.
94.Teece DJ, Pisano G, and Shuen A.(1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18: pp.509-533.
95.Tushman, M. & Nadler, D.(1986). Organizing for innovation. CaliforniaManagement Review, 28(3): pp.74-92.
96.Utterback, J. M. (1994), Innovation and Industrial Evolution Mastering- 170 -the Dynamics of Innovation, Boston: Harvard Business School Press..
97.Utterback, J.M.,(1994)“Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change“, Harvard University Press, Boston.
98.Valentin, E. M. M. (2000). University-industry cooperation: A framework of benefits and obstacles. Industry & Higher Education,(3), pp.165-172.
99.Valentin, E. M. M., & Sanchez, J. J. N. (2002), University industry partnerships, 1990-2000. Industry & Higher Education, (6), pp.55-61.
100.Walker,O.C.Jr.& Ruekert,R.W(1987).,Marketing’s Role in The Implementation of Business Strategies:A Critical Review and Conceptual Framework., Journal of Marketing,51,pp.25.
101.Watkins, K. E.& V. J. Marsick. (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization:Lessons in the Arts and Science of Systematic Change.Sanfrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishes.
102.Wheelwright,S.C.(1978), Reflecting Corporate Strategy in Manufacturing Decision., Business Harisons,Feb,pp.57-66.
103.Wiig,K.M.(1997), Knowledge Management:Where Did It Come From and Where Will It Go?,Expert System with Applications,13(1),pp.1-14.