研究能量及人才是知識經濟最重要的資源，大學必須推動創新，以重新塑造知識供給者的角色以及建立競爭優勢，大學作為研究重鎮，應將其研發成果予以商品化或技術移轉，以發揮大學作為知識創造之角色。近年來各國政府均想辦法使大學研發能對經濟影響產生貢獻，而以技術為基礎的衍生企業，就成為學校研究發展單位進行技術移轉有利的方式，可見大學衍生企業的重要性。
本研究將綜整大學推動衍生企業之先進國家學者專家研究，並試圖提出大學推動衍生企業之可行性評估指標。首先針對國內外相關文獻整理分析，其次採專家深度訪談法、專家審題問卷、模糊德懷術問卷及層級分析法問卷等方法蒐集並整合相關領域專家學者意見，發展出適合我國大學推動衍生企業之可行性評估指標架構及權重，共計5項構面10項次構面及37項評估指標，本研究結論說明如下：
一、可行性評估指標架構具適切性及一致性。
二、可行性評估指標架構構面以「商品/技術價值」最為重要。
三、「商品/技術價值」構面以「商業價值」及「技術的產業值大，能吸引創投資金投入產生衍生企業」權重較高。
四、「參與組織成員」構面以「能力特質」及「參與成員具有人際溝通、資源協調、策略規劃、關係建立、市場知識獲取、行銷管理等創新特質之能力」權重較高。
五、「財務風險評估構面」以「財務評估」及「有能力取得風險投資公司、公共資金、商業夥伴、創業天使或私人資金之投資」權重較高。
六、「大學資源支持」構面以「顯性資源」及「大學具有運作良好的技轉辦公室、育成中心或科學園區等商業化基礎建設，及創業輔導團隊」權重較高。
七、「網絡環境互動」構面以「網絡環境」及「產業環境及脈絡能接受創新」權重較高。
八、「法規評估」對大學推動衍生企業是重要的但非大學應考量事項。
九、可行性評估指標架構可提供大學在規劃推動時自我評估之用。

The most important resource of knowledge economy is research energy and talent, therefore, universities must promote innovation to reshape the role of knowledge provider and establish a competitive advantage and, it should be the commercialization of research results and technology transfer to play a role of knowledge creation. In recent years, governments have to find ways to make the university research can contribute to the economic impact. As technology-based, the spin-off companies become advantageous way for university technology transfer units, visible USOs important.
This study will consolidate advanced country scholars research of USOs and tried to present the feasibility evaluation index of USOs. Sorting out the USOs preliminary evaluation index architecture, followed by mining depth interview, experts moderation questionnaire, fuzzy delphi method and analytic hierarchy process to collect and integrate the relevant experts scholarly opinion, offered suitable for universities to promote spin-off companies feasibility evaluation index in Taiwan, total of 5 facets 10 sub-facets and 37 evaluation indicators. The conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. The feasibility assessment index architecture is appropriate and consistent.
2. Commodity / technical value is the most important facet of the feasibility assessment indicator structure.
3. About Facet "Commodity / technical value", we have the weight of "Business value" and "Technology industry value, which attracts venture capital investment to generate derivative enterprise" higher.
4. About Facet "Participation in members", we have the weight of "Competency trait" and "Participant members have interpersonal communication, resource coordination, strategic planning, relationship building, market knowledge acquisition, marketing management and other innovative traits" higher.
5. About Facet "Financial risk assessment", we have the weight of "Financial assessment" and "The ability to obtain venture capital firms, public funds, business partners, entrepreneurial angels or private funds" higher.
6. About Facet " University support resources", we have the weight of "Resource resources" and "University with well-established technical transfer infrastructure, education center, scientific center or scientific park and other business infrastructure and entrepreneurial guidance team" higher.
7. About Facet "Network environment interaction" , we have the weight of "Network environment" and "Industrial environment and context" higher.
8. "Regulations" are important for universities to promote derivatives, but non-university should consider matters.
9. The feasibility assessment indicator framework provides a self-assessment of the university when planning is driven.

參考文獻
中文部分
大專校院申請創業團隊進駐辦理公司設立登記審查基準（2015年10月21日）。
于承平（2015）。我國高等技術及職業教育品質保證指標之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
土地稅減免規則（99年5月7日）。
工商時報（2015年11月23日）。大學教師在校園開店做生意，樹德科大59號咖啡文創館受矚目。取自https://www.stu.edu.tw/focus_news_single.php?id=1716
王文科（1993）。教育心理學。臺北市：五南。
王文科（2002）。教育研究法（第七版）。臺北市：五南。
王文科、王智弘（2014）。教育研究法。臺北市：五南。
王偉霖（2007）。我國學術機構技術移轉機制實施成效與法律制度之檢討。科技法學評論，4(2)。59-96。
公立各級學校專任教師兼職處理原則（2016年3月24日）。
生技新藥產業發展條例（2007年7月4日）。
行政院（2014）。行政院會通過「技術及職業教育法」草案（2014年7月10日）。取自http://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content2.aspx?n=F8BAEBE9491FC830&s=5588C5497E04BBD3
私立學校賸餘款投資及流用辦法（2009年2月4日）。
吳政達（1999）。國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
吳政達（2008）。教育政策分析―概念、方法與應用（第二版）。臺北市：高等教育。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2012）。SPSS與統計應用分析。臺北市：五南。
吳芝儀、李奉儒（譯）（1995）。質的評鑑與研究（譯自 MQ Patton 1990年著Qualitative evaluation and research methods）。臺北市：桂冠。
邱皓政（2000）。量化研究與統計分析。臺北市：五南。
邱皓政（2005）。量化研究與統計分析-SPS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。臺北市：五南。
林君頻（2006）。中國大陸的產學合作之研究-以北京大學、北京清華大學、上海交通大學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
林宜玄、張嘉育（2014）。調查政府推動產學合作政策之有效性。臺北市：國家發展委員會。
林騰蛟（2005）。中國大陸大學產學合作政策之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，臺北市。
倪周華（2007）。淺談大學校院產學合作成效、困境與因應之道。台灣經濟研究月刊，30(2)，45-55。
科學技術基本法（2011年12月14日）。
政府科學技術研究發展成果歸屬及運用辦法（2012年6月11日）。
陳曼玲（2016）。楊泮池：105大限是倒果為因－照顧學生比學校生存更重要。評鑑雙月刊，61，1-3。
陳勁甫、徐強、許桂溶（2009）。層級分析法成對比較基礎標度系統之研究。管理與系統，16(2)，201-218。
郭生玉（2005）。心理與教育研究法（十九版）。臺北市：精華。
郭年雄（2006）。智慧財產權評價發展趨勢。國家菁英季刊，2(2)，41-62。
郭陽騫（2003）。中國大陸產學合作概況-以大學科技園區及大學對區域產業發展影響為例。技術及職業教育雙月刊，78，13-19。
翁興利（1995）。公共政策與知識應用。臺北市：商鼎。
胡幼慧（1998）。質性研究。臺北市：巨流。
教育部（2006）。臺灣技職校院2005中國大陸高校產學合作考察報告（未出版之出國報告）。教育部，臺北市。
教育部審核私立學校申請設立與教學實習實驗研究推廣相關附屬機構或辦理相關事業作業要點（2011年1月18日)。
教育部（2014年3月6日）。美國政府補助公立高等教育經費25年來逐年下降。教育部電子報。取自http://epaper.edu.tw/
教育部統計處（2014年4月30日）。教育統計簡訊。
教育部（2015年3月27日）。高等教育創新轉型方案。取自http://heitoplus.edu.tw/upload/download1fs1160401580342156.pdf
教育部（2016）。高教創新轉型論壇－大學推動衍生企業說明。取自http://heitoplus.edu.tw/upload/download2fs1604085025162643.pdf
教育部電子報（2017年5月31日）。高等教育深耕計畫-發展大學多元特色，培育新世代優質人才。http://epaper.edu.tw/news.aspx?news_sn=53744
個人或公司適用產業創新條例延緩繳稅及緩課所得稅辦法（105年9月6日）。
都市計畫公共設施用地多目標使用辦法（101年9月27日）。
都市計畫公共設施用地多目標使用辦法（101年9月27日）。
都市計畫法（104年12月30日）。
房屋稅條例（103年6月4日）。
從事研究人員兼職與技術作價投資事業管理辦法（2016年4月21日）。
張彥輝、耿筠（2010）。我國高等教育機構研發成果運用之比較－採成本與收益觀點。商管科技季刊，11(2), 189-208。
張益誠（2001）。應用因子分析方法為臺灣地區建構永續發展趨勢評估指標系統（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。
張基成，蔡政緯（2012）。以網路模糊德懷術與模糊層級分析法發展數位化學習歷程檔案之知識管理行為量表。教育資料與圖書館學，50(1)，103-133。doi: 10.6120/JoEMLS.2012.501/0471.RS.CM
張紹勳（2012）。模糊多準則評估法及統計。臺北市：五南。
張媛甯（2006）。新世紀產學合作教育理念－由後現代主義的觀點。學校行政，46，145-158。
馮正民、李穗玲（2000）。由決策習慣探討AHP之評估方法。中華管理學報，1，21-26。
湯堯（2007）。大學推動產學合作技術能力指標系統的建構與應用。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告。
葉晉嘉、翁興利、吳濟華（2007）。德菲法與模糊德菲法之比較研究。調查研究－方法與應用，21，31-58。
遠東科技大學網站公告訊息（2017年2月6日）。取自https://www.feu.edu.tw/adms/rd/RDC/index.asp
鄧振源（2005）。計畫評估：方法與應用。臺北市：國立臺灣海洋大學。
鄧振源、曾國雄（1989）。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用(上)。中國統計學報，27(6)，1-15。
楊國賜、胡茹萍（主編）（2015）。大學衍生企業。臺北市：高等教育出版社。
楊智傑（2009）。反省美國拜度法的理論與經驗。科技法學評論，6（1），207-240。
鄭春雷、張前德（2010）。高校校辦產業存在的主要問題及其對策。南京醫科大學學報，10(3)，226-228。
賴文祥、蔡千姿（2006）。我國當前產學合作政策發展與規劃－美、日、英。陸之經驗分析研究。「2006工研院創新與科技管理研討會」。臺中市：逢甲大學。
劉常勇（1999年12月25日）。對於知識管理的基本認識。取自http://www. chineseme. com/know/sstart. htm.
劉素娟、鍾任琴、林英杰、齊雁茹（2016）。大學產學合作模式探討。朝陽學報，21，57-71。
劉耀中、耿筠（2012）。技專校院產學合作資源投入，產出與運用模式之建構。教育政策論壇，15(1)，25-57。doi：10.3966156082982012021501002
聯合晚報（2014年1月7日）。大學師生自行創業又捐股。取自https://www.bic.ntust.edu.tw/327/讚!台科大師生創業又捐股
簡禎富、彭金堂、許嘉裕（2013）。產學合作模式之研究－以科學工業園區固本精進產學合作計畫為例。管理與系統，20(1)，27-54。

英文部分
Adler, M. & Ziglio. E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi Method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Allen, D. N., & Norling, F. (1991). Exploring perceived threats in faculty commercialization of research. University spin-off companies: economic development, faculty entrepreneurs, and technology transfer. Rowman & Littlefield, Savage, 85-102.
Autio, E., & Laamanen, T. (1995). Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer: review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7-8), 643-664.
Bellavista, J., & Sanz, L. (2009). Science and technology parks: habitats of innovation: introduction to special section. Science & Public Policy (SPP), 36(7),499-510.
Bellini, J. M., Kirkegaard, J. R., Brady, G. A., & Altman, A. H. (1999). U.S. Patent No. 5,974,395. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Benghozi, P. J., Bureau, S., & Massit-Folléa, F. (2009). The Internet of Things, What Challenges for Europe. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Benneworth, P. (2004). In what sense ‘regional development?’: Entrepreneurship, underdevelopment and strong tradition in the periphery. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(6), 439-458.
Benneworth, P., & Charles, D. (2005). University spin-off policies and economic development in less successful regions: learning from two decades of policy practice. European Planning Studies, 13(4), 537-557. doi: 10.1080=09654310500107175.

Berggren, E., & Dahlstrand, A. L. (2009).Creating an entrepreneurial region: Two waves of academic spin-offs from Halmstad University, European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1171-1189. doi: 10.1080/09654310902981037.
Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009).University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29, 142-153. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.008.
Borrás, S. (2003). The innovation policy of the European Union: from government to governance. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Botelho, A. J. J., & Almeida, M. (2010). Overcoming institutional shortcomings for academic spin-off policies in Brazil. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 9(3), 175-193. doi: 10.1386/tmsd.9.3.175_1.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research policy,29(4),627-655. doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1
Brett, A. M., Gibson, D. V., & Smilor, R. W. (1991). University spin-off companies. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Brown, T. (1985). Ireland: a social and cultural history, 1922-1985 (Vol. 5253). USA: Fontana Press.
Butchart, R. (1987). A new UK definition of high technology industries. Economic Trends, 400(February), 82-88.
Cai, K. Y. (1996). Introduction to Fuzzy reliability. USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Calabrese, L. H., Duna, G. F., & Lie, J. T. (1997). Vasculitis in the central nervous system. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 40(7), 1189-1201.
Carayannis, E. G., Rogers, E. M., Kurihara, K., & Allbritton, M. M. (1998). High-technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation, 18(1), 1-11.
Cieply, S. (2001). Bridging capital gaps to promote innovation in France. Industry and Innovation, 8(2), 159-178.
Clark, B. K. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford, UK: IAU Press.
Clarysse, B., Heirman, A., & Degroof, J. J. (2000). An institutional and resource based explanation of growth patterns of research based spin-offs in Europe. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2000. US: Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Quince, T., & Van de Velde, E. (2002). Spinning off new ventures: a typology of facilitating services. IWT-STUDIES, 41, 1-32.
Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55-79.
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research policy,31(7), 1103-1122. doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00178-0
Cooper, R. N. (1971). Currency devaluation in developing countries. US:International Finance Section, Princeton University.
Congress, U. S. (2004). Office of Technology Assessment.(1995, April).Teachers and technology: Making the connection.
Coster, R. D., & Butler C. (2003). Assessment of proposals for new technology ventures in the UK: characteristics of university spin-off companies. Technovation, 25, 535-543.
Cuttance, P. (1990). Performance Indicators and the Management of Quality in Education. AUS: Education department of south Australia.
Dahlstrand, Å. L. (1999). Technology-based SMEs in the Go¨ teborg Region: Their Origin and Interaction with Universities and Large Firms. Regional Studies, 33(4), 379-389.
Davenport, T. H., Prusak, L., & Wilson, H. J. (2003). What's the big idea?: Creating and capitalizing on the best management thinking. USA: Harvard Business Press.
Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2003). Spinning-off new ventures from academic institutions in areas with weak entrepreneurial infrastructure: insights on the impact of spin-off processes on the growth-orientation of ventures. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper 4311-03 May 2003.
Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. The Journal of technology transfer, 29(3), 327-352.
Deog Seong Oh (2002). Technology-based regional development policy: case study of Taedok Science Town, Taejon Metropolitan City, Korea. Habitat International, 26, 213-228.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research policy, 32(2), 209-227.
Doganova, L. (2013). Transfer and exploration: Two models of science-industry intermediation. Science and Public Policy, 40, 442-452. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct033.
Dong Won Sohn & Martin Kenney (2006). University clusters, and innovation systems: the case of Seoul, Koera. World development, 35(6), 991-1004.
Doutriaux, J. (1992). Emerging high-tech firms: how durable are their comparative start-up advantages? Journal of Business Venturing, 7(4), 303-322.
Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? The Journal of technology transfer, 29(3), 269-285.
Dubois, D., & Prad, H. (1980). Fuzzy sets and systems: Theory and applications. San Diego: Academic Press
Etzkowitz, H. (1997). The Triple Helix: academy-industry-government relations and the growth of neo-corporatist industrial policy in the US. Managing technological knowledge transfer, EC Social Sciences, COST A3(4), 2-62. Brussels: EC Directorate General Science Research Development.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Introduction to special issue on science policy dimensions of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 2-5.
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(2), 109-123.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research policy, 32(1), 109-121.
Etzkowitz, H (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 67-77.
Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge‐based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243-255.
Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105-121.
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs-location, survival and growth. The journal of technology transfer, 29(1), 5-17.
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: an assessment of Italian founders’ incentives. J Technol Transf, 34, 380-402. doi: 10.1007/s10961-008-9093-z.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. L. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education(5th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Geenhuizena, M., & Soetanto, D. P. (2012). Open innovation among university spin-off firms: What is in it for them, and what can cities do? Innovation The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 191-207. doi: org/10.1080/13511610.2012.660328.
Gilsing, V. A., Burg, E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2010). Policy principles for the creation and success of corporate and academic spin-offs. Technovation, 30, 12-23. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2009.07.004.
Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2004).Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 821-845. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.07.002.
Gu¨beli, M. H., & Doloreux, D. (2005). An empirical study of university spin-off development. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), 269-282. doi: org/10.1108/14601060510610153.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of economics, 36(1), 16-38.
Hameri, A. P. (1996). Technology transfer between basic research and industry. Technovation, 16(2), 5191-5792. doi: org/10.1016/0166-4972(95)00030-5
Hardi, P. (1997). Assessing sustainable development: principles in practice. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Hellstrom, T., Jacob, M., & Wenneberg, S. B. (2003). The'discipline'of post-academic science: reconstructing the paradigmatic foundations of a virtual research institute. Science and public policy, 30(4), 251-260.
Heydebreck, P., Klofsten, M., & Maier, J. (2000). Innovation support for new technology‐based firms: the Swedish Teknopol approach. R&D Management, 30(1), 89-100.
Hindle, K., & Yencken, J. (2004). Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and new technology based firms: an integrated model. Technovation, 24(10), 793-803.
Hohn, H. W., & Schimank, U. (1990). Konflikte und Gleichgewichte im Forschungssystem. Frankfurt: Campus.
Hsu, Y. L., Lee, C. H., & Kreng, V. B. (2010). The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 419-425.
Indicators, E. (1994). OECD core set. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Johnstone, J. N. (1981). Indicators of Education Systems. Paris: Publications Officer, International Institute for Educational Planning.
Jones-Evans, D. (1998). Universities, technology transfer and spin-off activities: Academic entrepreneurship in different European regions. UK: University of Glamorgan Business School.
Klein Woolthuis, R. J. (1999). Sleeping with the enemy. trust, dependence and contracts in the interorganisational relationships(Doctoral dissertation). NI: Delft University of Technology.
Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe - the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299-309.
Knie, A., & Lengwiler, M. (2008). Token endeavors: the significance of academic spin-offs in technology transfer and research policy in Germany. Science and Public Policy, 35(3), 171-182. doi: 10.3152/030234208X302661.
Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009).What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38, 947–956. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.005.
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, 1599–1615.
Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (Eds.). (2001). Research and innovation policies in the new global economy: An international comparative analysis. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lee, C. W., & Walshok, M. L. (2003). Total links matter: The direct and indirect effects of research universities on regional economies. prepared for University of California's Industry–University Cooperative Research Program) http://globalconnect. ucsd. edu/resources. htm.
Lee, Y., & Gaertner, R. (1994). Technology transfer from university to industry. Policy Studies Journal, 22(2), 384-399.
Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2005). The scope of open source licensing. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 21(1), 20-56.
Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and public policy, 25(3), 195-203.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). US science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of industrial organization, 21(9), 1323-1356.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34, 1106-1112.
Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Tan, J., & Liu, Y. (2008). Moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on market orientation‐performance linkage: Evidence from Chinese small firms. Journal of small business management, 46(1), 113-133. doi:10.1111/j.1540-627X.2007.00235.x
Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34 , 1043–1057.
Markman, G. D., Siegel, D., S. & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401-1423. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00803.
McMillan, J. H. (2000). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators, 1. USA: Corwin Press.
McMullan, W., & Melnyk, K. (1988). University innovation centres and academic venture formation. R&D Management, 18(1), 5-12.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management review, 31(1), 132-152.
McQueen, D., & Noack, H. (1988). Health promotion indicators: current status, issues and problems. Health Promotion International, 3(1), 117-125.
Mets, T., Leego, M., Talpsep, T., & Varblane, U. (2007). The role of intellectual property protection in the business strategy of university spin-off biotech companies in a small transition economy. Review of Central and East European Law, 32, 19-40. doi 10.1163/092598807X165550.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. USA: Simon and Schuster.
Monsted, M. (1998). Strategic alliances as an analytical perspective for innovative SMEs. New Technology-Based Firms in the 1990's. London: Paul Chapman.
Mowery, D., & Sampat, B. (2005). The Bayh-Dole act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments? Essays in honor of Edwin Mansfield, 233-245. Heidelberg: SpringerLink.
Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35(2), 67-80. doi: 10.3152/030234208X282862.
Mustar, P., & Wright, Mike. (2009). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. J Technol Transf, 35, 42-65. doi: 10.1007/s10961-009-9113-7.
Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22, 281–289.
Noorderhaben, N. (1995). Strategic decision making. UK: Addison-Wesley.
Nosella, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2009). University - level mechanisms supporting the creation of new companies: an analysis of Italian academic spin-offs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(6), 679-698.
Oakey, R. P. (1995). High-technology new firms. UK: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
OECD (1982).The OECD list of social indicators. Paris: OECD.
OECD (1994). Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1993(Guideline 302A & 303A). Paris: OECD.
OECD-Organisation for Economic Co-operation. (2001). Ageing and Transport: Mobility Needs and Safety Issues. Paris: Organization for Economic.
O'Gorman, C., & Jones-Evans, D. (1999). Creating Successful Academic-Industry Partnership-Lessons from the Republic of Ireland. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on High Technology Small Firms, Manchester Business School, 27-28.
O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. J Technol Transfer, 33, 23–43. doi 10.1007/s10961-006-9010-2.
O’Shea, R. P., & Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C. & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R&D Management, 37, 1.
Ounjian, M. L., & Carne, E. B. (1987). A study of the factors which affect technology transfer in a multilocation multibusiness unit corporation. IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, 34(3), 194-201. doi:10.1109/TEM.1987.6498881
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695-1711.
Parente, R., & Feola, R. (2013). Entrepreneurial intent and entrepreneurial commitment of young researchers. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 12 (2), 155-166. doi: 10.1386/tmsd.12.2.155_1.
Parry, M., & Russell, P. (Eds.). (2000). The planning, development and operation of science parks. London: UKSPA.
Pe´rez, M. P., & Sa´nchez, A. M. (2002). The development of university spin-offs: early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23, 823–831.
Piccaluga, A., & Balderi, C. (2006). Consistenza ed evoluzione delle imprese spin-off della ricerca pubblica in Italia. Milano: In presentato al workshop Finanza & Innovazione.
Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21, 355–369.
Pollock, J., & Scheer, W. (2002). Regional seed investing: MerchantBanc. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 4(4), 343-347.
Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of organizational change and innovation. UK: Oxford University Press.
Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. The Oxford handbook of innovation, 56-85.
Ramos-Vielba, I., & Ferna´ndez-Esquinas, M. (2011). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: exploring the multiple forms of university-industry linkages. High Education, 64, 237-265. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9491-2.
Ramos-Vielba, I., & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2012). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: Exploring the multiple forms of university–industry linkages. Higher Education, 64(2), 237-265.
Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39, 602–612. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.002.
Rasmussen, E. (2011). Understanding academic entrepreneurship: Exploring the emergence of university spin-off ventures using process theories. International Small Business Journal, 29(5), 448–471. doi: 10.1177/0266242610385395.
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00995.x.
Rappert, B., Webster, A., & Charles, D. (1999). Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic–industrial relations and intellectual property. Research policy, 28(8), 873-890.
Reitan, B. (1997). Fostering technical entrepreneurship in research communities: granting scholarships to would-be entrepreneurs. Technovation, 17(6), 287-296.
Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. London: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, E. B., & Malone, D. E. (1995). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. USA: David and Lindsay Morgenthaler Fund for Entrepreneurship Research.
Rogova, E. (2014).The effectiveness of business incubators as the element of the universities’ spin-off strategy in Russia. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 13(3). doi: 10.1386/tmsd.13.3.265_1.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. USA: RWS publications.
Salvador, E., & Rolfo, S. (2011). Are incubators and science parks effective for research spin-offs? Evidence from Italy. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 170-184. doi: 10.3152/016502611X12849792159191.
Samsom, K. J., & Gurdon, M. A. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: a special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13(2), 63-71.
Sauer, H., & Blasius, H. (1987). Politik und Rechnungsprüfung. Verwaltungsrundschau, 33, 141-148.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Inside-out: regional networks and industrial adaptation in Silicon Valley and route 128. Regional networks and industrial adaptation. Journal of Policy Development and Research, 2(2).U.S.: Department of housing and urban development office of policy development and research.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle(Vol. 55). USA: Transaction publishers.
Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management science, 48(1), 154-170.
Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research policy, 32(1), 27-48.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of business venturing, 5(1), 63-76.
Smith, H. L., & Ho, K. (2006). Measuring the performance of Oxford University, Oxford Brookes University and the government laboratories’ spin-off companies. Research Policy, 35, 1554–1568.
Soetanto, D. P., & Geenhuizen, M. V. (2008). Social networks and competitive growth of university spin-off firms: a tale of two contrasting cities. Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, 100(2), 198-209.
Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2007). S&T Parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: the case of Greece. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 525-544.
Spee, A., & Bormans, R. (1992). Performance Indicators in Government-Institutional Relations: The Conceptual Framework. Higher Education Management, 4(2), 139-55
Stankiewicz, R. (1994). Spin-off companies from universities. Science and public policy,21(2), 99-107.
Steffensen, M., Rogers, E. M., & Speakman, K. (2000). Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of business venturing, 15(1), 93-111.
Steinmueller, W. E. (1994). Basic research and industrial innovation. The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, 54-66. UK: Edward Elgar.
Taheri, M., & Geenhuizen, M. (2011). How human capital and social networks may influence the patterns of international learning among academic spin-off firms. Regional Science, 90(2), 287-311. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00363.x.
Tchalakov, I., Mitev, T., & Petrov, V. (2010). The academic spin-offs as an engine of economic transition in eastern europe. A path-dependent approach. Springer Science Business Minerva, 48, 189-217. doi: 10.1007/s11024-010-9149-8.
Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The journal of Technology transfer, 26(1-2), 59-72.
Tijssen, R. J. W. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35 , 1569–1585.
Treasury, H. M. (1998). Innovating for the future. London: DTI.
Udell, G. G. (1990). Are business incubators really creating new jobs by creating new business and new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(2), 108-122.
Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S’Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: an examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, March, 249-270.
Viale, R., & Etzkowitz, H. (2005). Third academic revolution: polyvalent knowledge; the DNA of the triple helix. In Fifth Triple Helix Conference, 18-21.
Viñas, B. C. B., Bessant, J., Pérez, G. H., & González, A. A. (2001). A conceptual model for the development of technological management processes in manufacturing companies in developing countries. Technovation, 21(6), 345-352.
Vohora, A., Wright, M. & Lockett, A. (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147-175. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00107-0.
Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 541- 567.
Weatherston, J. (1995). Academic Entrepreneurs: Is a spin-off Company too risky. Proceedings of the 40th International Council on Small Business, Sydney, 18-21.
Witt, U. (2007). Firms as realizations of entrepreneurial visions. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1125-1140.
Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35, 481–501.
Wright M., Hmieleski, K. M., Siegel, D. S. & Ensley, M. D. (2007). The role of human capital in technological entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, November, 791-806.
Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. (2014). Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal, 32(5), 479-500.
Zaleski, E., & Wienert, H. (1980). Technology transfer between East and West. Paris: OECD.
Zhao, L., & Reisman, A. (1992). Toward meta research on technology transfer. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 39(1), 13-21. doi:10.1109/17.119659
Zimmermann, H. J. (1991). Fuzzy set theory and its applications (2nd ed). USA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Zimmermann, H. J. (1993). Fuzzy sets, decision making, expert systems. USA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Zomer, A. H., Jongbloed, B. W. A., & Enders, J. (2010). Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? Springer Science Business Minerva, 48, 331-353. doi: 10.1007/s11024-010-9154-y.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. (1998) Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or market? Economic Inquiry, January, 65-86.