• No results found

CHAPTER 5 – IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.6 Conclusions

The low number of commercialisation of research outputs by PRIs in Malaysia has prompted a need to conduct a study that investigates reasons why this problem occurs. According to the previous research, there are various reasons for the little commercialisation efforts being made to commercialise research outputs. Among reasons stated are the research conducted are often of low quality research, no commercialisation unit exist in the institutions that can assist in the process of commercialisation and researcher compensation given to the researchers for

148 commercialising their research outputs are not attractive. Since there are many contrasting views on which factor seems to contribute more towards the success of research commercialisation thus this study is conducted.

This study has found that the most important key findings of this study are the listing of all key success factors that are believed to determine the success of commercialisation of research by PRIs in Malaysia. The key success factors can

provide  guidance  to  both  PRIs  and  individual  researchers  on  the  dos  and  don’ts  in  

commercialising their research outputs. Four important key success factors that need to be taken into account if the Malaysian government as well as PRIs to commercialise their research outputs successfully. In addition, two additional factors which were not found significant but which the researchers believed should be ideal factors to be included to ensure commercialisation success need to also be considered.

5.7 Chapter summary

This chapter provides the summary of major findings of this study and conclusions of this study. This chapter begins by highlighting the major findings of this study. It is then followed by discussions of the implication of the findings found in this study. The major findings of this study were gathered during the exploratory and descriptive research of this study. Besides that, this study also experienced some problems during the conduct of this study. This is presented in the limitations of the

149 study. In order to tackle this study in the future, the future research direction was also highlighted and outlined in this chapter. This chapter concludes with a conclusion given on all discussions that were presented in the previous chapter as well as in this chapter. The conclusion for this study outlined all important aspects of this study.

150

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aalerud, K. 2004. From research university to business enterprise? The significance of

intellectual property protection strategies when science becomes commerce. University of Oslo.

Aghion, P., David, P. A., & Foray, D. 2009. Science, technology and innovation for economic growth: Linking policy researchand practice in 'STIG systems'.

Research Policy, 38: 681-693.

Agrawal, A. K. 2001. University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and

unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4):

285-302.

Ali, A. 2003. Engaging economic development through the commercialisation of

research: The Malaysian experience.

Allen Consulting Group. 2004. Building effective systems for the commercialisation of university research: Business Council of Australia & Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, Australia.

Aschhoff, B., & Sofka, W. 2009. Innovation on demand--Can public procurement drive

market success of innovations? Research Policy, 38(8): 1235-1247.

Aslesen, H. W. 2005. Commercialisation of knowledge: The case of Norwegian Marine

Biotechnology. Paper presented at the The 5th Triple Helix Conference, Turin-

151 Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. 2006. Measuring success in relation

to federal investments in university research: An AUCC discussion paper: 1-16.

AUCC. 2001. Commercialiation of university research. In www.aucc.ca (Ed.).

Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. 2004. University spillovers: Does the

kind of science matter? Industry and Innovation, 11(3): 193-205.

Australian Centre For Innovation. 2002. Best practice processes for university research commercialisation: 1-60. Australia.

Australian Information Industry Association. 2002. Commercialisation of publicly funded research roadmap: 1-35. Australia.

Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E. J., & Crawford, N. 2003. Determinants of

innovation in small food firms. European Journal of Innovation Management,

6(1): 8-17.

Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. 2005. The determinants of faculty patenting

behaviour: Demographics or opportunities. Paper presented at the NBER

conference "Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual engines of growth?" Santa Fe, NM.

Baaken, T., & Piewa, C. (Eds.). 2007. Key success factors for research institutions in

research commercialization and industry lingkages: Outcomes of a German/Australian cooperative project. Netherlands, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

152 Beise, M., & Stahl, H. 1999. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany.

Research Policy, 28: 397-422.

Benneworth, P. 2001. Academic Entrepreneurship and Long-term business relationships:

Understanding 'commercialization' Activities. Enterprise and Innovation

Management Studies, 2(3): 225-237.

Benneworth, P. S., & Dawley, S. J. 2006. Managing the university third strand innovation process? Developing innovation support services in regionally engaged

universities. Knowledge, Technology, Policy, 18(3).

Bernama. 2004. Government proposes incentives for commercialisation of R&D,

Bernama.Com: Malaysian National News Agency.

Bernama. 2006. Goverment eyes enhanced commercialisation of R&D projects,

Bernama.Com: Malaysian National News Agency.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. 2007. Business research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. 2006. Marketing research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Calvert, J., & Martin, B. R. 2001. Changing conceptions Of basic research?, Workshop

on Policy Relevance and Measurement of Basic Research Oslo 29-30 October 2001.

153 Carr, M. (undated). Literature review on technology transfer from public research

organisations, Genome Atlantic GEEELs project.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on

learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152.

Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. 2002. Links and impacts: The influence of

public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1): 1-23.

Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. 1996. A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge

versus opportunism. Organzation Science, 7(5): 477-501.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. 2000. Business research methods (7th ed.): McGraw-

Hill Irwin.

Cowan, R. 2005. Universities and the knowledge economy. Paper presented at the

Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy, National Academics, Washington, DC.

Cronford, A. 2006. Finding the balance in innovation and commercialization Cuyvers, R.

2002. Commercialisation of research results and its key actors. Paper presented

at the USE-it.

Darroch, J. 2005. Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 9(3): 101-115.

Del Campo, A. A., Sparks, A., Hill, R. C., & Keller, R. T. 1999. The transfer and commercialization of university-developed medical imaging technology:

154

Opportunities and problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,

46(3): 289-298.

Department of Education Science and Training. 2004a. National survey of research commercialisation for years 2001 and 2002: 1-75: Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia.

Department of Education Science and Training. 2004b. Review of closer collaboration between universities and major publicly funded research agencies.

Dickson, K. E., & Hadjimanolis, A. 1998. Innovation and networking amongst small

manufacturing firms in Cyprus. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behaviour & Research, 4(1): 5-17.

Dorf, R. C., & Worthington, K. K. F. 1990. Technology Transfer from universities and

research laboratories. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 37: 251-266.

Drejer, A. 2002. Situations for innovation management: Towards a contingency model.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(1): 4-17.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and "Mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government

relations. Research Policy, 29: 109-123.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. 1998. Capitalizaing knowledge: New

intersections of industry and Academia: State University of New York, Albany. European Commission, & Eurostat. 2000. Statistics on innovation in Europe: Data 1996-

155 Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. 2009. Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a

new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2): 218-233.

Fontana, R., Guena, A., & Matt, M. 2006. Factors affecting university-industry R&D

collaboration: The importance of screening and signalling. Research Policy,

35(2006): 309-323.

Galia, F., & Legros, D. 2004. Complementarities between obstacles to innovation:

evidence from France. Research Policy, 33(8): 1185-1199.

Gibson, L. J. 1988. Economic Development: The University And Commercialization.

Economic Development Review, 6(2): 7.

Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. 2003. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the

comercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(2003):

639-658.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. 1997. Some research perspectives on

entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business

management: a ten-year literature review. International Small Business Journal:

56-77.

Grigg, T. 1994. Adopting an entrepreneurial approach in universities. Journal of

Engineering and Technology Management, 11: 273-298.

Hair, J. F., Babin, B., Money, A. H., & Samouel, P. 2003. Essentials of business

156 Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. 2003. University technology transfer offices and second

order spinouts: Maximising the potential of university spinouts.

Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988.

Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(119-127).

Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. 2000. Incentives for academic entrepreneurship and economic performance: Sweden and the United States: Center for Business and Policy Studies (SNS) in Stockholm.

Hindle, K., & Yencken, J. 2004. Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and

new technology based firms: An integrated model. Technovation, 24: 793-803.

Howard, J. H. 2003. Commercialisation forum and fair Ideas: Discussion document: Australian Centre For Innovation, University of Sydney.

Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. 2003. Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology.

Research Policy, 32(9): 1555-1568.

Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university

licensing. American Economic Review, 91: 240–259.

Johne, A. 1999. Successful market innovation. European Journal of Innovation

Management, 2(1): 6-11.

Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundations of behavioral research: CBS College Publishing.

Klofsten, M., & Jones, E. H. 2000. Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: the

157

Kuratko, D. F. 2009. Introduction to entrepreneurship: South-Western, Cengage

Learning.

Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. 2003. Incentives and invention in universities. NBER

Working Paper No. 9727, May 2003.

Lambert, R. 2003. Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final report. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. 2004. Searching high and low: What types of firms use

universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33: 1201-1215.

Lowe, J. 1993. Commercialization of University Research: A Policy Perspective.

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 5(1): 27.

Lundvall, B. A. 1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation

and interactive learning. London: Frances Pinter.

Lundvall, B.-A. 2006. Innovation systems between policy and research. Paper presented

at the Innovation Pressure Comference, Tampere.

Malhotra, N. K., & Peterson, M. 2006. Basic marketing research: A decision-making

approach (2nd ed.).

Mole, K., & Worrall, L. 2001. Innovation, business performance and regional

competitiveness in the west Midlands Business Survey. European Business

Review, 13(6): 353-364.

MOSTI. 2008. MOSTI facts and figure 2008: Malaysian Science and Techonology

Information Centre (MASTIC), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia.

158

Mustan, N. 2006. Increasing R&D commercialization rate: The Malaysian approach.

Paper presented at the World Association of Industrial and Technological Research Organizations (WAITRO) Biennial Congress, Canada.

Nor, A. M. 1996. Commercialization of inventions and transfer of technology in ASEAN countries: Example of Malaysia: MTDC.

Nordfors, D. 2004. Commercialization of academic research results: VINNOVA. OECD. 1997. National innovation systems.

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145.

Poyago-Theotoky, J., Beath, J., & Siegel, D. S. 2002. Universities and fundamental research: reflections on the growth of university-industry partnerships.

Rasli, A. M. 2005. Commercialisation of UTM research findings: Problems and

challenges.

Rasmussen, E., Moen, O., & Gulbrandsen, M. 2006. Initiatives to promote

commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26: 518-533.

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. 2007. University entrepreneurship: A

taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change: 1-101.

Rothwell, R. 1982. The commercialisation of university research. Phys. Technology, 13:

159

Rothwell, R. 1992. Successful industrial innovation: Critical factors for the 1990s. R&D

Management, 22(30): 221-239.

Salmenkaita, J.-P., & Salo, A. 2002. Rationales for government intervention in the

commercialization of new technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic

Management, 14(2): 183.

Sekaran, U. 2003. Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th ed.):

John Wiley & Sons.

Shane, S. 2004. Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-dole

Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing,

19: 537-552.

Sime, J. M. 2004. The commercialisation of intellectual property from public sector

research establishments: A discussion paper, Based on a report to the AIC at the

conclusion of a series of master classes conducted around Australia during 2003.

Singhe, K., Playford, S., Percy, R., & Quader, A. 2005. Survey of patenting and commercialisation activities of Australian universities: Innovation Division, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources.

Statistics Canada. 1999. Survey of Intellectual Property Commercialization in the Higher Education Sector, 1998.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using Multivariate statistics (3rd ed.):

160

Tharenou, P., Donahue, R., & Cooper, B. 2007. Management research method:

Cambridge University Press.

Wood, F. Q. 1992. The commercialisation of university research in Australia: Issues and

problems. Comparative Education, 28(3): 293-313.

Yencken, J. 2005. Incentives to academic commercialization activity and mixed signals

about identity in researchers' perceptions of utility. Paper presented at the Fifth

High Technology Small Firms Conference, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Yencken, J., & Ralston, L. 2005. Evaluation of incentives for commercialisation of research in Australian universities: 1-111: Department of Education, Science and Training, Australian Government.

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization,

(As of October 2007)

INSTITUTION CATEGORY AND CODE

PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING (CODE 01) Institution

Code Institution Name

01 UiTM (Universiti Teknologi MARA)

02 UKM (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia)

03 UM (Universiti Malaya)

04 UPM (Universiti Putra Malaysia)

05 USM (Universiti Sains Malaysia)

06 UTM (Universiti Teknologi Malaysia)

07 UUM (Universiti Utara Malaysia)

08 UIAM (Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia)

09 UNIMAS (Universiti Malaysia Sarawak)

10 UMS (Universiti Malaysia Sabah)

11 UPSI (Universiti Perguruan Sultan Idris)

12 UMT (Universiti Malaysia Terengganu)

13 UTHM (Universiti Tun Hussein Malaysia)

14 UTeM (Universiti Teknikal Malaysia)

15 UniMAP (Universiti Malaysia Perlis)

16 UMP (Universiti Malaysia Pahang)

17 USIM (Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia)

18 UDM ( Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia)

19 UPNM (Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia)

(As of October 2007)

INSTITUTION CATEGORY AND CODE PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTION (CODE 0 3)

Institution

Code Institution Name

01 NUCLEAR MALAYSIA (Malaysian Nuclear Agency)

02 SIRIM Berhad

03 MACRES (Malaysian Centre for Remote Sensing)

04 MIMOS Berhad

05 TPM (Technology Park Malaysia Corporation Sdn. Bhd.)

06 IPP (Institut Penyelidikan Perikanan)

07 VRI (Veterinary Research Institute)

08 MARDI (Malaysian Agricultural Research & Development)

09 NAHRIM (National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia)

10 FRIM (Forest Research Institute of Malaysia)

11 MPOB (Malaysian Palm Oil Board)

12 LGM (Lembaga Getah Malaysia)

13 LKM (Lembaga Koko Malaysia)

14 NIH (National Institute of Health)

15 STRIDE (Science & Technology Research Institute for Defence)

16 PBM (Perbadanan Bioteknologi Melaka)

17 SBC (Sarawak Biodiversity Centre)

1 Semi-Structured Interview Schedule

Thank you for participating in this interview. In a few minutes I will be asking you questions which relate to the commercialisation of research projects in your institution. Please stop me at any time if you are unsure of what the question is referring to. Remember that at any time during the interview, you can choose to no longer participate. Also you can choose not to answer any particular question because of privacy or confidentiality consideration.

Before we get started can I please ask you to fill in the consent form (if this has not been already done).

SECTION A: RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

A.1) What are the key areas of research in your institution? (Please tick appropriate boxes) a. Engineering sciences

b. Information, computer and communication technologies

c. Applied sciences and technologies

d. Economics, business and management

e. Agricultural sciences f. Others (please specify)

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

A.2) Please specify the total amount of research funds received from the government for research purposes. (I will respect your decision if you do not want to provide an answer to this question)

2 A.3) Please specify the amount of research funds allocated to various research fields in your institution. (I will respect your decision if you do not want to provide an answer to this question)

Field of research Amount allocated (RM)/year

Please state the reason for the amount allocated Engineering sciences

Information, computer and communication technologies Applied sciences and

technologies

Economics, business and management

Agricultural sciences Others (Please specify)

A.4) The number of research outputs being produced every year ________________ Research outputs per year.

3 It will be helpful to this research project if you can provide the following information about these outputs. (Optional)

(Please attach information about additional research outputs if space provided is insufficient)

4 A.5) Please indicate the strength of your agreement or disagreement on which of these factors

determine what research is undertaken in your institution.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

a. All research should be determined by

market/industry

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b. All research should be determined by

inventor/researcher

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

c. All research should be determined by both market/industry and researcher/inventor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

d. All research should be determined by the

government

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e. All research should be determined by the

institution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f. Others ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

5 INCUBATOR

B.1.a) Does your institution have any unit/department/office that manages the commercialisation activities in your institution? (Please tick the most appropriate response)

a. No.(Please proceed to question B.2.a)

b. Yes (Please state the name of the unit/department/office)

________________________________________________________________

B.1.b) Is the main function of this unit/department/office do manage activities related to the commercialisation of research?

a. Yes

b. No. (Please specify)

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ B.1.c) How many staff are employed in this unit/department/office to manage the

commercialisation of research? _____________________ People.

B.2.a) Does your institution own and operate a research park or business incubator? a. No (Please proceed to Section C)

b. Yes (please state the name)

6 related to the commercialisation of research.

a. Yes

b. No. (Please specify)

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ B.2.c) How many staff are employed in this unit/department/office to manage the

commercialisation of research? ____________________ People.

7 C.1) Specify the total number of research outputs that have been commercialised in your

institution?

_____________________research outputs.

It will be helpful to this research project if you can provide the following information about these outputs.

(Please attach information about additional research outputs if space provided is insufficient)

Project Title Time taken to

commercialise the research project.

Date completed

8 the commercialisation activities in your institution.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

a. Research commercialisation staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b. Research expenditure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

c. Invention disclosures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

d. Patents applications filed and patents issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e. Start-up companies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

f. Collaborations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

g. Licensing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

h. Consultancy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

i. Publications 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

j. Others (please specify)

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ C.3) What are the stages involved in the commercialisation process? (Multiple responses are

acceptable)

a. Research disclosure

b. Idea assessment (whether to allow publication or to protect the intellectual property)

c. Licensing to established companies or creating new spin-out companies.

d. Other stages involved (please specify)

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

9 D.1) What is/are the method/s of commercialisation currently applied in your institution?

(Multiple responses are acceptable) a. Licensing b. Spin-outs c. Collaborations d. Joint venture e. Consultancy f. Publications

g. Others (Please specify)

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ D.2) Please indicate the strength of agreement or disagreement on factors that influence the

choice of methods used in the commercialisation of research outputs.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

a. The intellectual property issue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b. The level of involvement of an inventor or researcher

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

c. Remuneration to an inventor or researcher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

d. The policy of commercialisation developed by the institution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e. The inventor/researcher preference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

f. The institution preference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ D.3) Please indicate the strength of agreement or disagreement on the problems related to the

choice of methods in the commercialisation of research.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

a. The policy of commercialisation developed by the institution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b. The involvement of the inventor/researcher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

c. The commercialisation incentive received by the inventor/researcher

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

d. The commercialisation incentive received by the institution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e. Others (Please specify)

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

11 commercialisation of research outputs? (Please specify the reason)

_________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________