dr. yuan-chieh c hang/ 張元杰博士 visiting scholar, tsing hua university, beijing

Dr. Yuan-Chieh Chang 1

The determinants of academic entrepreneurial performance in

Taiwan: the institutional and resource-based perspective

Dr. Yuan-Chieh Chang/ 張元杰博士

Visiting scholar, Tsing Hua University, Beijing Associate Professor, Institute of Technology Management

National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu


Research Outline• Introduction• Research Gap and Objectives• Conceptual background

– Institutional perspective – Resource-based perspective

• Methods• Findings• Discussion & Conclusions


Introduction• Science has emerged as an

alternative engine of economic growth

• Universities as the engine of regional economic development

• Academic researchers have more freedom to exploit research outcome.


The Previous Research

• Focus on a few elite universities • Ignores academic researchers who

might play active role• Tend to focuses on academic spin-offs• Tend to be more qualitative in nature

(Rothaermel et al., 2007)


Research Question• What do strategic factors

contribute better academic entrepreneurial performance?– patenting– licensing and– equity participation?


Institutional Perspective

• Pursue their goals to be congruent with societal values (Scott, 1987)

• IPRs devolution (Mowery & Ziedonis, 2002)• Many governments are operating on much

tighter fiscal policies (Henderson et al., 1998)

• A new regime that merges academic and commercial reward systems (Owen-Smith and Powell, 2001).


S&T Policy Reforms In Taiwan

• Science and Technology Basic Law (1999)

• Subsidy Principle of Management and Promotion of Academia R&D Results (2002)– Assist research institutes to establish

technology transfer or liaison offices; – to subsidize academic patent application and

maintenance fees


Items for Institutional LegitimacyItem Activity/

relationSource

Government IPR office subsidy Patenting/+ Henderson et al., 1998; Mowery & Nelson, 2001

Government subsidy on university-industry cooperative project

Licensing/+ This study

Share licensing income allocated to inventor

Licensing/+ NSC, 2002

Industrial on leave Equity participation/+

This study


• Hypothesis 1: The greater the institutional legitimacy that academic patent inventors perceive, the better their entrepreneurial performance is


Resource-based viewA broad definition of resources (Wernefelt,

1984; 1995)

• Organizational resources – University’s IPR incentive program

• Networking resources – Researcher’s relationships with other

researchers, industrial partners, manufacturers, and venture capitalists

• Personal resources – Researcher’s training, experience,

intelligence, and insights of the researcher


Items for Organizational Resources (1/2)

Items Activity/relation

Source

Patent grant incentive Patenting/+ Druilhe and Garnsey, 2001

Patenting costs subsidy Patenting/+ Di Gregorio and Shane, 2003

IPR evaluation committee

Patenting/+ This study

IPR agent Patenting/+ This study


Items for Organizational Resources (2/2)

Item Activity/relation

Source

Licensing incentive

Licensing/+ Siegel et al., 2003; O’Shea et al., 2007

Entrepreneurial fund

Equity participation/+

Di Gregorio and Shane, 2003; Roberts, 1991

Incubator facility Equity participation/+

Druilhe and Garnsey, 2001


• Hypothesis 2: The greater the organizational resources that academic patent inventors could receive, the better their performance is


Items for Networking ResourcesDescription Activity/

RelationSource

Academic research membership

Patenting /+ Mowery and Oxley, 1998; Murray, 2004

Industrial collaborative research

Licensing/+ Etzkowitz, 2003

Industrial contract research

Licensing /+ Owen-Smith and Powell, 2003

Manufacturer links Equity participation/+

This study

Venture capitalist links Equity participation/+

Davila et al., 2003


• Hypothesis 3: The greater networking resources that the academic patent inventors possess, the better their performance is


Items for Personal ResourcesDescription Activity/

relationSource

IPR training and education

Patenting/+ Siegel and Phan, 2005; Smith and Parr, 2003

Technology transfer experience

Licensing/+ This study

Entrepreneurial pro-activeness


Di Gregorio and Shane, 2003

Entrepreneurial risk-taking



Satisfactory level of current works

Equity participation/-


Level of time availability


Lach & Schankerman, 2004; Murray, 2004


• Hypothesis 4: The greater the personal resources that academic patent inventors possess, the better their performance is (e.g., 4a: patenting: 4b: licensing and 4c:spin-offs).


Patent Grant

License Agreement

Spin-off EquityParticipation

Institutional factors

Resource-based factors

Conceptual framework


recursive regression models • Number of patent grants = α +β1 IPR office subsidy +β2

Patenting incentive +β3 Patent subsidy +β4 IPR evaluation expert +β5 IPR agent+β6 Academic research links +β7 IPR training & education + μ………… (Equation 1)

• Number of licenses = α+β1 ΛPatent grant +β2 Royalty distribution+ β3 U-I cooperative project subsidy + β4 Licensing incentive + β5 Industrial collaborative research +β6 Industrial contract research+ β7 Technology transfer experience + η……….. (Equation 2)

– where ΛPatent grant is the predicted number of patent grants (from Equation 1)

• Number of spin-off equities = α+β1 ΛPatent grant +β2 ΛLicense+ β3 Industrial temporary transfer + β4 Campus entrepreneurial fund

+ β5 Incubator facility + β6 Manufacturer links+ β7 Venture capitalist links +β8 Pro-activeness +β9 Risk-taking+ β10 Work satisfactory + β11 Time availability +ξ ……(Equation 3)

where ΛPatent grant is the predicted number of patent grants (Equation 2) and ΛLicense is the predicted number of licenses (Equation 3). The above recursive models assume that the error terms μ, η andξare all independent.


Research Method • in-depth interview

– Un-structured interview with 8 faculty members

• survey – 474 academic researchers with patent

grants are surveyed. – Nominal and self-reported scale are

measured for the investigating variables– 229 valid questionnaires through a three-

wave postal survey (response rate is 48%)


Dependent Variables• Number of patent grants

– the first step of academia-based research commercialization (Mowery & Ziedonis, 2002)

• Number of licenses– the most common approach to exploiting

academic research result (Powers and McDougall, 2005)

• Equity participation of spin-off – The patent inventors retain their academic

positions and share equity ownership with industrial partners


Independent Variables

• Institutional legitimacy: IPR office subsidy, licensing income distribution, U-I cooperative project subsidy, and industrial temporary transfer

• Organizational resources: patenting incentive, patenting subsidy, IPR evaluation committee, IPR agent, licensing incentive, entrepreneurial fund, and incubator facility

• Networking resources: academic research links, industrial research links, manufacturer links, and venture capitalist links

• Personal resources: IPR training & education, technology transfer experience, entrepreneurial attributes, work satisfaction, and time availability


Reliabilities for VariablesVariables Cronbach’s alpha

Institutional legitimacy

0.87

Organizational resources

0.85

Networking resources 0.84

Personal resources 0.83


Nature of respondentsTypes of academic

scientists (N)Number of

Patent Grant(Mean)

Number of License(Mean)

Equity numberof Spin-off *

(Mean, NT$)

Professor (135) 557(1.38)

178(0.44)

305,000(753.09)

Associate professor (67)

205(1.02)

46(0.23)

8,000(39.80)

Assistant professor (22)

38(0.58)

2(0.03)

0(0)

Instructor (3) 2(0.22)

0(0)

0(0)

Others (2) 5(0.83)

1(0.17)

0(0)

Total (229) 807(1.17)

227(0.33)

313,000(455.60)


Items Patent grantInstitutional legitimacy

IPR office subsidy 0.197**(0.140)


Patenting incentive 0.138*(0.092)

Patenting subsidy 0.048(0.070)

IPR evaluation committee 0.098*(0.092)

IPR agent 0.060(0.151)

Networking resources

Academic research links 0.173**(0.088)

Personal resources

IPR training and education 0.101*(0.152)

LR χ2 49.53**

Log-likelihood -186.73

Pseudo R2 0.528

Findings


Items License numberΛ Patent grant 0.256**(0.719)


License income distribution 0.125+(0.256)

U-I cooperative project subsidy 0.158*(0.266)


Licensing incentive 0.009(0.210)


Industrial collaborative research 0.257**(0.204)

Industrial contract research 0.346***(0.191)

Personal resources

Technology transfer experience 0.410***(0.046)

LR χ2 104.54**


Pseudo R2 0.593

Items Spin-off equity number

Λ Patent grant 0.290*(2.081)

Λ License 0.313**(0.833)


Industrial temporary transfer 0.137(0.432)


Campus entrepreneurial fund 0.388*(0.357)

Incubator facility 0.197+(0.567)


Manufacturer links 0.106(0.472)

Venture capitalist links 0.177(0.693)

Personal resources

Pro-activeness 0.314**(0.593)

Risk taking 0.222*(0.607)

Work satisfactory -0.136(0.855)

Time availability 0.455**(0.533)

LR χ2 54.13**


Pseudo R2 0.452


Item Description Result

Hypo. 1a Institutional & Patenting Supported

Hypo. 1b Institutional & Licensing Supported

Hypo. 1c Institutional & Spin-off Equity Reject

Hypo. 2a Org. resource & Patenting Supported

Hypo. 2b Org. resource & Licensing Reject

Hypo. 2c Org. resource & Spin-off Equity Supported

Hypo. 3a Network res. & Patenting Supported

Hypo. 3b Network res. & Licensing Supported

Hypo. 3c Network res. & Spin-off Equity Reject

Hypo. 4a Personal res. & Patenting Supported

Hypo. 4b Personal res. & Licensing Supported

Hypo. 4c Personal res. & Spin-off Equity Supported


Take-away points for patenting

• IPR infrastructure– Most inventors tend to rely on the assistance of the

IPR offices to file patent application.• Org’al resources:

– The organizational incentive programs might not be necessary foster performance of academic patenting.

• Network resource:– Strong research lab teamwork in terms of information

collecting and brainstorming substantially enlarges the robustness of the research discoveries (Timmons, 1999).

• Prior experiences:– IPR training and education reflects the willingness and

capability of a researcher to realize their research potentials.


• Institutional factors:– The higher share (e.g., 80%) of licensing income

distributed to the academic inventors and U-I cooperative project subsidy fosters academic licensing performance

• Network resources: – Industry-academia research links lead academic

research results to be closer to industrial needs (Jensen et al., 2003; Zucker et al., 1998).

• Personal resources:– The transfer experience decreases transaction costs

and makes exchange mechanisms to transfer university knowledge possible.

Take-away points for licensing


• Institutional factors– Entrepreneurial fund and incubator facility were

suggested as the important impetus in fostering equity participation of academic spin-off (Di Gregorio & Shane, 2003).

• Personal resources– pro-activeness and risk-taking were significant in

fostering equity participation of academic spin-off (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000)

– Time availability for academic researchers was suggested as one of the determinants

Take-away points for spin-offs


Thank you for your attention!Dr. Yuan-Chieh Chang

Email: [email protected]

dr. yuan-chieh c hang/ 張元杰博士 visiting scholar, tsing hua university, beijing

Documents