Abstract

This paper argues that failure to deeply understand various existing organizations of university-industry technology transfer in China impedes the progress of both practice and research on technology transfer between university and industry in that country. In response, it attempts to categorize different types of university technology transfer organizations in China in over a 30-year time span and analyze the relations between these organizations. In so doing, Tsinghua University is taken as an example for analysis, because technology transfer at Tsinghua University can be seen as a microcosm of university-industry technology transfer in China with pioneer practices and successful experience to be followed by other universities in China. The analysis is guided by an analytical framework, constructed by integrating the insights from relevant literature. The framework distinguishes between different forms of university technology transfer organizations by focusing on six dimensions of the organizational characteristics. After identifying eight types of university technology transfer organizations in Tsinghua University with detailed descriptions of their respective organizational characteristics, the paper further groups them into a four-category typology. Besides its contribution in constructing a framework to understand university technology transfer organizations in the Chinese context, the paper also solicits suggestions for Chinese and international stakeholders who may potentially cooperate with Chinese research universities in research, development, and innovation.

Highlights

  • Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in the 1980s, the role of university-industry technology transfers for enhancing national innovation capacity has been commonly acknowledged worldwide (Weckowska 2015; Kalar and Antoncic 2015; Cesaroni and Piccaluga 2015)

  • They first developed a typology of university technology transfer organizations: (1) Unitary Form (U-Form), functionally departmentalized structure with centralized decision-making and coordination responsibilities; (2) Multidivisional structure (M-Form), decomposed into semi-autonomous operating divisions; (3) Holding Company (H-Form), a divisional approach but the decision-making body is weaker than that in the M-form; and (4) The Matrix Structure, operates simultaneously with both a functional and product hierarchy; the decision-makers are at the intersection of two organizations

  • The staff we interviewed who used to deal with the intellectual property lawsuits in the university noted that: In the 11th Science and Technology conference held at Tsinghua University in April 1984, the President of the University proposed several concrete measures to solve the problem of the decentralized scientific research management and scientific resources scattered in different departments

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in the 1980s, the role of university-industry technology transfers for enhancing national innovation capacity has been commonly acknowledged worldwide (Weckowska 2015; Kalar and Antoncic 2015; Cesaroni and Piccaluga 2015). Drawing on and synthesizing organizational theories (Chandler 1962; Drucker 1973; Williamson 1975), Bercovitz et al (2001) argued the university technology transfer organizations’ incentives, information processing, and coordination capability differ according to their structures They first developed a typology of university technology transfer organizations: (1) Unitary Form (U-Form), functionally departmentalized structure with centralized decision-making and coordination responsibilities; (2) Multidivisional structure (M-Form), decomposed into semi-autonomous operating divisions; (3) Holding Company (H-Form), a divisional approach but the decision-making body is weaker than that in the M-form; and (4) The Matrix Structure (the MX-Form), operates simultaneously with both a functional and product hierarchy; the decision-makers are at the intersection of two organizations. Centrality: the level in decision-making: if it has to present their decisions for approval to higher levels, it is centralized, and vice versa

D: Discipline-specialized Discipline
Degree of task specialization
Level of autonomy and centralities
Degree of exclusivity Exclusive
Standardization
Level of autonomy
Degree of disciplinary specialization
Degree of exclusivity
IV: Triple Helix Oriented Science parks
Conclusions
Availability of data and materials Not applicable
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call