Abstract
Abstract. Intellectual capital is an important base for inter-organizational collaborative activities, including the industry-academic collaboration studied here. A preliminary study was conducted with analytic hierarchy process method, trying to know the dimensionalized associations between intellectual capital (i.e., Human, Structural, Customers, Organizational, Process, knowledge, and innovation capitals) and industry-academic collaboration (i.e., academic engagement and commercialization). Analyzing expert opinions, we gained matrices and priority scores, indicating that different forms of intellectual capital have different influences on academic engagement versus commercialization. The results remind scholarly works to look into detailed and differentiated mechanisms that utilize intellectual capital for governing industry-academic collaboration.
Keywords. Intellectual capital, Industry-academic collaboration, Analytic hierarchy process; Taiwan.
JEL. M10; L33; L52.
References
Bassi, L.J. & Van Buren, M.E. (1999). Valuing investment in intellectual capital, International Journal of Technology Management, 18(3), 414-432. doi. 10.1504/IJTM.1999.002779
Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models, Management Decision, 36(2), 63-76. doi. 10.1108/00251749810204142
Brooking, A. (1996). Intellectual Capital. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Dess, G.G., & Picken, J.C. (1999). Creating competitive (dis)advantage: Learning from food lion’s freefall, Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 97-111. doi. 10.5465/AME.1999.2210318
Dzinkowski, R. (2000). The measurement and management of intellectual capital: An introduction, Management Accounting (British), 78(2), 32.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower, Harper Collins, New York.
Guthrie, J. (2001). The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(1), 27-41. doi. 10.1108/14691930110380473
Haig, N., Guzzo, R., Keifer, D., & Doherty, J. (2003). Play to Your Strengths: Managing Your Internal Labor Markets for Lasting Competitive Advantage, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kodama, F., Yusuf, S., & Nabeshima, K. (2008). Introduction to special section on university-industry linkages: The significance of tacit knowledge and the role of intermediaries, Research Policy, 37(8), 1165-1166. doi. 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.013
Nalbantian, H.R., & Szostak, A. (2004). How fleet bank fought employee flight, Harvard Business Review, April issue, p.116.
Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhardt, K. (2000). Managing Knowledge, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Rahal, A., & Rabelo, L. (2006). Assessment framework for the evaluation and prioritization of university inventions for licensing and commercialization. Engineering Management Journal, 18(4), 28-36. doi. 10.1080/10429247.2006.11431711
Roos, J. (1998). Exploring the concept of intellectual capital, Long Range Planning, 31(1), 150-153. doi. 10.1016/S0024-6301(97)87431-6
Saint‐Onge, H. (1996). Tacit knowledge the key to the strategic alignment of intellectual capital, Planning Review, 24(2), 10-16. doi. 10.1108/eb054547
Sullivan, P.H. (2000). Value-Driven Intellectual Capital: How to Convert Intangible Corporate Assets Into Market Value, New York: Wiley.
Sveiby, K.-E. (1997). The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets, Berrett-Koehler, New York.
