بازبینی برنامه درسی رشته‌های مهندسی برای توسعه فناوری

نویسندگان

1 استاد دانشکده مهندسی مکانیک و عضو قطب علمی سامانه‌ها و سازه‌های هوشمند دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر

2 عضو هیأت علمی مرکز تحقیقات مهندسی صنایع و بهره‌وری دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر

چکیده

ایجاد ارتباط میان بخش‌های دانشگاهی و صنعتی از مهم‌ترین موضوعات سیاست‌گذاری نوآوری در چارچوب نظام ملی نوآوری در کشورهای مختلف توسعه‌یافته و در حال توسعه است و نقش دانشگاه‌ها در مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی کشورها در حال تغییر است. هدف اصلی دانشگاه‌های نسل اول بر آموزش مستقیم بنا شده است، دانشگاه‌های نسل دوم (در حال حاضر) برمبنای آموزش مبتنی بر پژوهش و آموزش برای انجام پژوهش تغییر یافته‌اند. در نسل سوم دانشگاه‌ها، هم‌زمان با آموزش نیروی انسانی برای تولید علم و توسعه فناوری در حل مسائل و مشکلات رایج، تولید کار و ثروت‌آفرینی نیز در اهداف و برنامه‌هایشان قرار خواهد گرفت. در نسل چهارم دانشگاه‌ها اضافه بر وظایف نسل سوم باید به سمت تربیت خلاق و نوآور و خلاقیت و نوآوری حرکت کنند. برنامه‌های آموزش مهندسی در اوایل قرن بیستم میلادی بیشتر تجربه‌ها و مهارت‌های عملی را به دانشجویان عرضه می‌کردند، ولی با پیشرفت‌های علمی و گسترش دانش فنی و ابداع روش‌های تحلیلی و محاسباتی و با به‌کارگیری ابزار‌های دقیق و سریع محاسباتی، آموزش مهندسی به سمت علوم مهندسی گرایش پیدا کرد. از دهه 1990 تغییراتی در آموزش مهندسی در دنیا در مسیر بهینه‌سازی فرایند‌ها و کاهش هزینه‌های تولید رخ داده است. با پیشرفت علم و فناوری و جهانی شدن آموزش مهندسی، ضرورت بازنگری مستمر در اهداف، ساختارها و روش‌های نوین نظام آموزش مهندسی متناسب با نیازهای کشور در همراهی با تحولات جهانی بیش از پیش احساس می‌شود. این مقاله در ابتدا به بررسی تعاریف، وضعیت و جایگاه جهانی ایران در فناوری پرداخته و سپس دروس مورد نیاز برای تربیت نیروی انسانی در توسعه فناوری در کشور بررسی و با مطالعه و بازبینی برنامه‌های درسی دوره‌های کارشناسی و کارشناسی ارشد در پنج رشته مهندسی منتخب و مؤثرتر به عنوان مطالعه موردی و نمونه، شامل مهندسی مکانیک، مهندسی برق، مهندسی صنایع، مهندسی شیمی و مهندسی پلیمر، برای توانمندسازی دانشجویان مهندسی کمبود‌های موجود بررسی می‌شود. در مرحله بعد، رشته‌های کارشناسی و کارشناسی ارشد و بین‌رشته‌ای با ارتباط بیشتر با فناوری مطالعه می‌شوند. سپس راه‌های تقویت ارتباط مؤثرتر صنعت با دانشگاه برای آموزش مفیدتر و مؤثرتر فناوری در رشته‌های مهندسی بررسی و در پایان نیز به افزایش توانایی اعضای هیأت علمی در توسعه فناوری پرداخته می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Engineering Programs Revision for Technology Development

نویسندگان [English]

  • Firoz Bakhtiarinejad 1
  • Nahid sheykhan 2
1 Professor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Member of Scientific Center of Smart Structures and Systems of Amirkabir University of Technology
2 Member of faculty of Amirkabir University of Technology Industrial and Industrial Engineering Research Center
چکیده [English]

Creating linkages between academic and industrial sectors is one of the most important concerns in innovative policy-making within the framework of national innovation system in different developed and developing countries and the role of universities in management and planning of the countries is changing.The first generation universities’ main objective was established based on direct instruction. The objective of second generation universities (currently) is changed to research-based education and training for performing research. In the third generation universities, along with training of human resources to create science and develop technology in order to resolve common issues and problems, entrepreneurship and wealth creation will be also included in their aims and plans. In addition to the duties of the third generation universities, the fourth generation universities should move toward creative and innovative education and creativity and innovation. In the early twentieth century, engineering education programs mostly had provided students with practical skills and experiences. But with advances in science and development in technical knowledge and creation of analytical and computational methods and the employment of fast and accurate computational tools, engineering education has tend toward engineering sciences. Since the 1990s, some changes on the path of optimizing the processes and reducing production costs have been occurred. Since the advancement of science and technology and globalization of engineering education, correspond with international developments, the continuous revision of objectives, structures and modern methods of engineering education system tailored to the needs of the country, more and more has become a matter of necessity. First, the paper discusses the definitions and status and global standing of Iran in the area of technology. Subsequently, it reviews the required courses in order to train human resources for technology development in the country. Afterward, by studying and reviewing the undergraduate and postgraduate programs curricula in five selected and more effective engineering majors including Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Polymer Engineering as a case study and sample and to empower engineering students, the current shortcomings will be discussed.The next part studies the undergraduate, graduate and interdisciplinary majors which are more related to the area of technology. Afterward, the paper discusses the more effective options to amplify the linkages between university and industrial sectors in order to enrich the technology training in the engineering majors. At last, boosting the ability of faculty members in the development of technology will be discussed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Engineering Education
  • Technology
  • Innovation
  • Undergraduate Courses
  • Postgraduate Courses
  • Training Courses
[1] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1393). تحلیل نیروهای عامل بر دانشگاه کارآفرین و انتقال سازمان دانشگاهی (رویکرد میان‌رشته‌ای). نشریه علمی ترویجی رشد فناوری، سال دهم، شماره 41.

[2] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد؛ انتظاری، یعقوب؛ اخوان، امیرناصر. (1393). شرکت‌های مبتنی بر دستاوردهای دانشگاه (Academic Spin-off): مفاهیم، تعاریف و ویژگی‌ها. دومین کنفرانس بین‌المللی تجاری‌سازی سازمان، دانشگاه تهران.

[3] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1394). «دانشگاه کارآفرین و بیم‌ و امیدها در اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان». پذیرفته شده برای انتشار در فصلنامه علمی-ترویجی صنعت و دانشگاه.

[4] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1394). تجاری‌سازی دستاوردهای تحقیقات دانشگاهی (دیدگاه تاریخی). کنفرانس بین‌المللی جهت‌گیری‌های نوین در مدیریت اقتصاد و حسابداری.

[5] Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, 29(4-5), 627-655.

[6] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1394). موانع انتقال سازمان دانشگاهی: مفاهیم و نوع‌شناسی. کنفرانس بین‌المللی مدیریت، اقتصاد و مهندسی صنایع.

[7] Heirman A, Clarysse B (2004) "How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective", Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 29, 247 – 268

[8] Landry, R., Amara, N., Rherrad, I. (2006) “Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities”. Research Policy 35 (2006) pp. 1599–1615.

[9] Druilhe, C. and E. Garnsey (2004). "Do Academic Spin-Outs Differ and Does it Matter?" The Journal of Technology Transfer 29(3): 269-285.

[10] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1392). نقش اعتبار سازمانی دانشگاه و اثر هاله‌ای بر تجاری‌سازی دستاوردهای تحقیقاتی. فصلنامه رهیافت 23، 55: 78-63.

[11] Brush, C. G.; Greene, P. G.; Hart, M. M. (2001). “From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15(1):64-78.

[12] Shane, S., Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science 48 (1), 154–170.

[13] Karia, N., Wong, C. Y. dan Asaari, M. H. A. H. (2012). Typology of Resources and Capabilities for Firms' Performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 65, 711 – 716

[14] Shepherd, D. A., and Wiklund, J. (2005). Entrepreneurial small businesses. A Resource-Based perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 12-42, 43-76.

[15] FAHY, J. (2000). “The Resource-based view of the Firm: Some Stumbling-blocks on the Road to Understanding Sustainable Competitive Advantage”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(2/3/4), pp. 94-104.

[16] Iturriaga, F., Cruz, N. (2008) 'Antecedents of Corporate Spin-Offs in Spain: A Resource- Based Approach', Research Policy, 37 (6-7): 1047–1056.

[17] Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.l.H. (1993) "Strategic assets and organizational rent." Strategic Management journal, Vol. 14, pp. 33-46.

[18] Daft, R. (1983). Organization theory and design. New York: West.

[19] Itami. H. (1987). Mobilizing Invisible Assets, Harvard University Press. Boston. MA.

[20] Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[21] Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

[22] Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., and Walsh, J. P. (2002). ‘Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D’, Management Science, 48(1): 1–23.

[23] Rappert, B., Webster, A., and Charles, D. (1999). ‘Making Sense of Diversity and Reluctance: Academic–Industrial Relations and Intellectual Property’, Research Policy, 28(8): 873–90.

[24] David, P. A. Mowery, D., and Steinmueller, E. E. (1992). ‘Analysing the Economic Payoffs from Basic Research’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2: 73–90.

[25] Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P.Y., Chen, M.-H., 2009. The determinants of academic research commercial performance: towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38 (6), 936–946.

[26] Nealy, M. S. (2004). The Budget Plan of Canada page 133. [Online] Available: http://www.scottmcnealy.com

[27] Rosa, J and Rose, A. (2007) Report on Interviews on the Commercialisation of Innovation, Minister of Industry, Statistics Canada.

[28] Gu, W.; Whewell, L. (1999). “University Research and the Commercialization of Intellectual Property in Canada”. Economic Analysis and Statistics.

[29] Commons, J.R. (1931). “Institutional Economics”, American Economic Review, vol. 21: 648-657.

[30] Acemoglu, Daron and Simon Johnson and James Robinson.(2004). “Institutions as The Fundamental Cause Of Long-run Growth”, Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10481

[31] Golub, E. (2003). “Generating spin-offs from university based research: The potential of technology transfer (PhD thesis). Columbia University.

[32] Ponomariov, B. and P.C. Boardman (2008), “The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 33(3), pp. 301-313.

[33] Rasmussen, Einar; Moen, Øystein; Gulbrandsen, Magnus. (2006). “Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge”, Technovation, 26, pp. 518–533.

[34] Zucker, L.G.; Darby, M.R.; Brewer, M.B. (1998). “Intellectual human capital and the birth of US Biotechnology enterprises”, The American Economic Review, 88 (1), pp. 290-306.

[35] Etzkowitz, H. (1989). “Entrepreneurial science in the academy – a case of the transformation of norms”, Social Problems 36 (1), pp. 14-29.

[36] Kassatly, Sa. (1995). “An introduction to protecting and licensing technology”, Journal of technology transfer, 20(2), pp. 18-21.

[37] Lijun, Wang; Huitao, Li. (2013). “Study on Regional Difference of Three Type Patent's Economic Contribution”, 2013 6th International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, pp. 97-100.

[38] MONTOBBIO, Fabio; Francesco, LISSONI. (2014). “The ownership of academic patents and their impact. Evidence from five European countries", Revue économique, 66(1), pp. 95-123.

[39] AbdRazak, Norfadzilah; Wan Rashid, Wan Edura; Ma’amor, Hairunnisa; Asnawi, Nini Hartini; Nor Lela Ahmad, and Nur’Ain Achim. (2013). “Leveraging Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Human Resource Management”, International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 168-172.

[40] Grandi, A., Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, pp. 821-845.

[41] Nicolau, N., Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (3), pp. 333-359.

[42] Stuart, T.E.; Ding, W.W. (2006). “When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences”, American Journal of Sociology, 112 (1), pp. 97-144.

[43] O'Shea, R. P., T.J. Allen, A. Chevalier and F. Roche (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities”, Research Policy, Vol. 34(7), pp. 994-1009.

[44] Di Gregorio, D. and S. Shane (2003), “Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?”, Research Policy, Vol. 32(2), pp. 209-227.

[45] Lockett, A, & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies,. Research Policy, 34, 1043-1057.

[46] Lockett, A, Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities, spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20,185-200.

[47] Chugh, H. (2004). New academic venture development: Exploring the influence of the technology transferofjice on university spinouts (Working Paper). Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London.

[48] Mian, S. A (1996). Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25, 325-335.

[49] Jensen, R, & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91, 240- 259.

[50] Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111-133.

[51] Vinig, G. T., & Van Rijsbergen, P. J. (2010). Determinants of university technology transfer-a comparative study of US, European and Australian Universities. In A Malach-Pines (Ed.), Handbook of research on high technology entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar.

[52] Caldera, A, & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 39, 1160-1173.

[53] Pelletier, S. G. & McNamara, W. (1985). “TO Market?” Educational Horizons 63(2): 54-60.

[54] Landrum, R. Eric, Turrisi, Rob., Clayton Harless. 1998. “University Image: The Benefits of Assessment and Modeling.” Journal of marketing for Higher Education, 9(1): 53-68.

[55] Henderson, R, A. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Rev. Econom. Statist. 65 119-127.

[56] Stergiou KI, Tsikliras AC. (2014). Global university reputation and rankings: insights from culturomics. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 13: 193-202.

[57] Sine, W., Shane, S., Di Gregorio, D. (2003), The Halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions, Management Science, 49: 478-496.

[58] Brooks, Rachelle L. 2005. “Measuring University Quality.” The Review of Higher Education, 29(1): 1-21.

[59] Stuen, Eric; Lee, Jeongsik. (2012). “University Reputation and the Disclosure of Academic Discoveries: evidence from nano-scale science and technology”, available at: cahnrs-cms.wsu.edu.

[60] رازقندی، ناهید؛ درانی، کمال. (1388). شناسایی عوامل فردی و محیطی مؤثر بر موفقیت کارآفرینان برتر استان تهران جهت ارائه الگوی آموزشی. توسعه کارآفرینی، 2، 6؛ 55-39.

[61] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1394). مطالعه عوامل مؤثر بر کارآفرینی دانشگاهیان، دومین کنفرانس بین‌المللی حسابداری و مدیریت.

[62] Powers, J., & McDougall, P. (2005). “University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.

[63] Bercovitz, J.; Feldman, M. (2008). “Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level”, Organization Science, 19 (1), pp. 69-89.

[64] Feldman, M., Desrochers, P. (2004). “Truth for its own sake: academic culture and technology transfer at Johns Hopkins University”. Minerva, 42, pp. 105-126.

[65] Shane, S. (2000). “Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities”. Organization Science, 11 (4), pp. 448-469.

[66] Baron, A. Robert. (2004). “The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship's basic “why” questions”, Journal of Business Venturing, 19, pp. 221-239.

[67] Cohen, W. M. and D. A. Levinthal (1990). "Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation." Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), pp. 128-152.

[68] Ardichvili, Alexander; Cardozo, Richard; Ray, Sourav. (2003). “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, pp. 105-123.

[69] Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S. (2000). “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”, Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 217–226.

[70] Cooper, A.; Woo, C.; Dunkelberg, W. (1988). “Entrepreneurs’ perceived chances for success”, Journal of Business Venturing, 3, pp. 317-332.

[71] D’Este P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A. (2010). “Academic Entrepreneurship: What are the Factors Shaping the Capacity of Academic Researchers to Identify and Exploit Entrepreneurial Opportunities?”, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies, Working Paper No. 10-05.

[72] Lee, C., K. Lee, and J.M. Pennings, 2001, ‘Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and Performance: A Study of Technology-Based Ventures,’ Strategic Management Journal 22, 615–640.

[73] Stinchcombe, A.L., 1965, ‘Social Structure and Organizations,’ in J.G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago: Rand-McNally&Co, pp. 142–194.

[74] Schoonhoven, C.B., K.M. Eisenhardt, and K. Lyman, 1990, ‘Speeding Products to Market: Waiting Time to First Product Introduction in New Firms,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 177–207.

[75] Declercq, G. V. (1981). A third look at the two cultures: The new economic responsibility of the university. Intemationaljoumal of Institutional Management in Higher Education,S, 117-122.

[76] Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40, 553-564.

[77] Vohora, A, Wright, M., & Lockett, A (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147-175.

[78] Alemany, M. L. (2004). Impacto de las inversiones de capital riesgo en Espana: un amilisis empirico regional (PhD thesis). Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

[79] Grass, j., Galiana, D., Mira, I., Verdu, A, & Sancho, j. (2008). An empirical approach to the organizational determinants of spin-off creationin European universities. International Entrepreneurial Management journal, 4, 187-198.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1393). تحلیل نیروهای عامل بر دانشگاه کارآفرین و انتقال سازمان دانشگاهی (رویکرد میان‌رشته‌ای). نشریه علمی ترویجی رشد فناوری، سال دهم، شماره 41.

[2] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد؛ انتظاری، یعقوب؛ اخوان، امیرناصر. (1393). شرکت‌های مبتنی بر دستاوردهای دانشگاه (Academic Spin-off): مفاهیم، تعاریف و ویژگی‌ها. دومین کنفرانس بین‌المللی تجاری‌سازی سازمان، دانشگاه تهران.

[3] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1394). «دانشگاه کارآفرین و بیم‌ و امیدها در اقتصاد دانش‌بنیان». پذیرفته شده برای انتشار در فصلنامه علمی-ترویجی صنعت و دانشگاه.

[4] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1394). تجاری‌سازی دستاوردهای تحقیقات دانشگاهی (دیدگاه تاریخی). کنفرانس بین‌المللی جهت‌گیری‌های نوین در مدیریت اقتصاد و حسابداری.

[5] Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, 29(4-5), 627-655.

[6] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1394). موانع انتقال سازمان دانشگاهی: مفاهیم و نوع‌شناسی. کنفرانس بین‌المللی مدیریت، اقتصاد و مهندسی صنایع.

[7] Heirman A, Clarysse B (2004) "How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective", Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 29, 247 – 268

[8] Landry, R., Amara, N., Rherrad, I. (2006) “Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities”. Research Policy 35 (2006) pp. 1599–1615.

[9] Druilhe, C. and E. Garnsey (2004). "Do Academic Spin-Outs Differ and Does it Matter?" The Journal of Technology Transfer 29(3): 269-285.

[10] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1392). نقش اعتبار سازمانی دانشگاه و اثر هاله‌ای بر تجاری‌سازی دستاوردهای تحقیقاتی. فصلنامه رهیافت 23، 55: 78-63.

[11] Brush, C. G.; Greene, P. G.; Hart, M. M. (2001). “From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15(1):64-78.

[12] Shane, S., Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science 48 (1), 154–170.

[13] Karia, N., Wong, C. Y. dan Asaari, M. H. A. H. (2012). Typology of Resources and Capabilities for Firms' Performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 65, 711 – 716

[14] Shepherd, D. A., and Wiklund, J. (2005). Entrepreneurial small businesses. A Resource-Based perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 12-42, 43-76.

[15] FAHY, J. (2000). “The Resource-based view of the Firm: Some Stumbling-blocks on the Road to Understanding Sustainable Competitive Advantage”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(2/3/4), pp. 94-104.

[16] Iturriaga, F., Cruz, N. (2008) 'Antecedents of Corporate Spin-Offs in Spain: A Resource- Based Approach', Research Policy, 37 (6-7): 1047–1056.

[17] Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.l.H. (1993) "Strategic assets and organizational rent." Strategic Management journal, Vol. 14, pp. 33-46.

[18] Daft, R. (1983). Organization theory and design. New York: West.

[19] Itami. H. (1987). Mobilizing Invisible Assets, Harvard University Press. Boston. MA.

[20] Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[21] Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

[22] Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., and Walsh, J. P. (2002). ‘Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D’, Management Science, 48(1): 1–23.

[23] Rappert, B., Webster, A., and Charles, D. (1999). ‘Making Sense of Diversity and Reluctance: Academic–Industrial Relations and Intellectual Property’, Research Policy, 28(8): 873–90.

[24] David, P. A. Mowery, D., and Steinmueller, E. E. (1992). ‘Analysing the Economic Payoffs from Basic Research’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2: 73–90.

[25] Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P.Y., Chen, M.-H., 2009. The determinants of academic research commercial performance: towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38 (6), 936–946.

[26] Nealy, M. S. (2004). The Budget Plan of Canada page 133. [Online] Available: http://www.scottmcnealy.com

[27] Rosa, J and Rose, A. (2007) Report on Interviews on the Commercialisation of Innovation, Minister of Industry, Statistics Canada.

[28] Gu, W.; Whewell, L. (1999). “University Research and the Commercialization of Intellectual Property in Canada”. Economic Analysis and Statistics.

[29] Commons, J.R. (1931). “Institutional Economics”, American Economic Review, vol. 21: 648-657.

[30] Acemoglu, Daron and Simon Johnson and James Robinson.(2004). “Institutions as The Fundamental Cause Of Long-run Growth”, Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10481

[31] Golub, E. (2003). “Generating spin-offs from university based research: The potential of technology transfer (PhD thesis). Columbia University.

[32] Ponomariov, B. and P.C. Boardman (2008), “The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 33(3), pp. 301-313.

[33] Rasmussen, Einar; Moen, Øystein; Gulbrandsen, Magnus. (2006). “Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge”, Technovation, 26, pp. 518–533.

[34] Zucker, L.G.; Darby, M.R.; Brewer, M.B. (1998). “Intellectual human capital and the birth of US Biotechnology enterprises”, The American Economic Review, 88 (1), pp. 290-306.

[35] Etzkowitz, H. (1989). “Entrepreneurial science in the academy – a case of the transformation of norms”, Social Problems 36 (1), pp. 14-29.

[36] Kassatly, Sa. (1995). “An introduction to protecting and licensing technology”, Journal of technology transfer, 20(2), pp. 18-21.

[37] Lijun, Wang; Huitao, Li. (2013). “Study on Regional Difference of Three Type Patent's Economic Contribution”, 2013 6th International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, pp. 97-100.

[38] MONTOBBIO, Fabio; Francesco, LISSONI. (2014). “The ownership of academic patents and their impact. Evidence from five European countries", Revue économique, 66(1), pp. 95-123.

[39] AbdRazak, Norfadzilah; Wan Rashid, Wan Edura; Ma’amor, Hairunnisa; Asnawi, Nini Hartini; Nor Lela Ahmad, and Nur’Ain Achim. (2013). “Leveraging Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Human Resource Management”, International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 168-172.

[40] Grandi, A., Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, pp. 821-845.

[41] Nicolau, N., Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (3), pp. 333-359.

[42] Stuart, T.E.; Ding, W.W. (2006). “When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences”, American Journal of Sociology, 112 (1), pp. 97-144.

[43] O'Shea, R. P., T.J. Allen, A. Chevalier and F. Roche (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities”, Research Policy, Vol. 34(7), pp. 994-1009.

[44] Di Gregorio, D. and S. Shane (2003), “Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?”, Research Policy, Vol. 32(2), pp. 209-227.

[45] Lockett, A, & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies,. Research Policy, 34, 1043-1057.

[46] Lockett, A, Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities, spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20,185-200.

[47] Chugh, H. (2004). New academic venture development: Exploring the influence of the technology transferofjice on university spinouts (Working Paper). Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London.

[48] Mian, S. A (1996). Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25, 325-335.

[49] Jensen, R, & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91, 240- 259.

[50] Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111-133.

[51] Vinig, G. T., & Van Rijsbergen, P. J. (2010). Determinants of university technology transfer-a comparative study of US, European and Australian Universities. In A Malach-Pines (Ed.), Handbook of research on high technology entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar.

[52] Caldera, A, & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 39, 1160-1173.

[53] Pelletier, S. G. & McNamara, W. (1985). “TO Market?” Educational Horizons 63(2): 54-60.

[54] Landrum, R. Eric, Turrisi, Rob., Clayton Harless. 1998. “University Image: The Benefits of Assessment and Modeling.” Journal of marketing for Higher Education, 9(1): 53-68.

[55] Henderson, R, A. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Rev. Econom. Statist. 65 119-127.

[56] Stergiou KI, Tsikliras AC. (2014). Global university reputation and rankings: insights from culturomics. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 13: 193-202.

[57] Sine, W., Shane, S., Di Gregorio, D. (2003), The Halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions, Management Science, 49: 478-496.

[58] Brooks, Rachelle L. 2005. “Measuring University Quality.” The Review of Higher Education, 29(1): 1-21.

[59] Stuen, Eric; Lee, Jeongsik. (2012). “University Reputation and the Disclosure of Academic Discoveries: evidence from nano-scale science and technology”, available at: cahnrs-cms.wsu.edu.

[60] رازقندی، ناهید؛ درانی، کمال. (1388). شناسایی عوامل فردی و محیطی مؤثر بر موفقیت کارآفرینان برتر استان تهران جهت ارائه الگوی آموزشی. توسعه کارآفرینی، 2، 6؛ 55-39.

[61] پژوهش‌جهرمی، امین؛ پورکریمی، جواد. (1394). مطالعه عوامل مؤثر بر کارآفرینی دانشگاهیان، دومین کنفرانس بین‌المللی حسابداری و مدیریت.

[62] Powers, J., & McDougall, P. (2005). “University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.

[63] Bercovitz, J.; Feldman, M. (2008). “Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level”, Organization Science, 19 (1), pp. 69-89.

[64] Feldman, M., Desrochers, P. (2004). “Truth for its own sake: academic culture and technology transfer at Johns Hopkins University”. Minerva, 42, pp. 105-126.

[65] Shane, S. (2000). “Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities”. Organization Science, 11 (4), pp. 448-469.

[66] Baron, A. Robert. (2004). “The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship's basic “why” questions”, Journal of Business Venturing, 19, pp. 221-239.

[67] Cohen, W. M. and D. A. Levinthal (1990). "Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation." Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), pp. 128-152.

[68] Ardichvili, Alexander; Cardozo, Richard; Ray, Sourav. (2003). “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, pp. 105-123.

[69] Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S. (2000). “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”, Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 217–226.

[70] Cooper, A.; Woo, C.; Dunkelberg, W. (1988). “Entrepreneurs’ perceived chances for success”, Journal of Business Venturing, 3, pp. 317-332.

[71] D’Este P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A. (2010). “Academic Entrepreneurship: What are the Factors Shaping the Capacity of Academic Researchers to Identify and Exploit Entrepreneurial Opportunities?”, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies, Working Paper No. 10-05.

[72] Lee, C., K. Lee, and J.M. Pennings, 2001, ‘Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and Performance: A Study of Technology-Based Ventures,’ Strategic Management Journal 22, 615–640.

[73] Stinchcombe, A.L., 1965, ‘Social Structure and Organizations,’ in J.G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago: Rand-McNally&Co, pp. 142–194.

[74] Schoonhoven, C.B., K.M. Eisenhardt, and K. Lyman, 1990, ‘Speeding Products to Market: Waiting Time to First Product Introduction in New Firms,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 177–207.

[75] Declercq, G. V. (1981). A third look at the two cultures: The new economic responsibility of the university. Intemationaljoumal of Institutional Management in Higher Education,S, 117-122.

[76] Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40, 553-564.

[77] Vohora, A, Wright, M., & Lockett, A (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147-175.

[78] Alemany, M. L. (2004). Impacto de las inversiones de capital riesgo en Espana: un amilisis empirico regional (PhD thesis). Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

[79] Grass, j., Galiana, D., Mira, I., Verdu, A, & Sancho, j. (2008). An empirical approach to the organizational determinants of spin-off creationin European universities. International Entrepreneurial Management journal, 4, 187-198.