隨著全球化競爭與知識密集來臨，促使全球經濟模式逐漸由資源密集產業轉型為知識密集型產業。在知識經濟的時代中，產學互動已經成為重要的現象。根據英國公司的研究資料發現，企業與學術機構合作會增加公司實現創新及推出產品至新市場的能力，且廣泛被認為在經濟及技術的成長具有重要影響性。
由於台灣產業97%以上屬中小型企業，其在資金、人力以及研發能力方面皆非常有限，因而財團法人與大學扮演著相當重要的地位。受限於資源限制，知識和技術移轉已經被廣泛地討論，企業開始與其他機構透過合作以擴大其研發能力，並透過交換知識和技術來整合企業與科學。因此，對於組織來說，如何在不同的環境下，選擇商業化之合作模式，成為目前產學合作重要之發展，漸漸受到關注，故建議適當之合作模式顯得更為重要。
從過去文獻中，說明產學合作模式會受許多因素影響，順利將技術轉移出去變成是一個非常複雜的問題，本研究主要探討之組織形式，分別為技術授權合約(Technology license agreement)及建立衍生公司(Spin-off)，並利用深度訪談的方式，探索個案在不同因素下，如何考量雙方合作之模式，找出影響合作模式之決策因素，以解釋模式之選擇，並以此為依據，建立產學雙方合作之決策模式。

Owing to global competition and the knowledge-intensive is coming, which result economic type from resource intensity industry to the knowledge intensity industry. In knowledge economy generation, academic -industry cooperation is the important events. According to the research of Britain companies, which discovery academic -industry cooperation can increase the abilities of innovation and reduce the time of new products promoting to new market. It is said that have the essential influence for the growth of economy and technology.
In addition, ninety-seven percent of Taiwan industry belongs to small or medium-sized enterprises which are short of funds, manpower, and R&D ability. So, the university acts the quite important role. Limiting to the resources, the knowledge and technology transfer have been widely discussed. Enterprises start to work together with other institutions to expand the R&D ability, and integrate the enterprise and science by changing the knowledge. For industry and university, it is the important development to select the modes of technical commercialization. Therefore, it is famous issue to recommend suitable modes of cooperation.
The literature pointed out that the modes of academic -industry cooperation is impacted by many factors. Technology transfer has become complicated problem. This study mainly discusses organizational forms which is respectively technology license agreement and spin-off, employing the interview to understand that both sides how to consider the modes of cooperation under various factors to construct the modes of decision. The research results not only can guide academy to commercialization of practical technology to benefit the people, create the profits, but also steer industry to obtain the way of new technology. Finally, it can create the win-win aspect.

Adler, P. S. & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 17-40.
Agrawal, A. 2006. Engaging the inventor: exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1): 63-79.
Alok, K. C. & Michael, D. S. 2004. Building social capital and learning environment in university–industry relationships. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(1): 19-36.
Anand, B. & Khanna, T. 2000. Do firms learn to create value? the case of alliances. Strategic Managemen Journal, 28: 95–315.
Arora, A. 2001. Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2): 419-451.
Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. & Gambaradella, A. 2001. Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2): 419-451.
Arrow, K. J. 1974. Lited knoeledge and economic analysis. American Economic Review, 64(1): 1-10.
Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R. & Sobrero, M. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2): 333–354.
Barringer, B. R. & Harrison, J. S. 2000. Walking a tightrope: creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3): 367-403.
Bloedon, R. V. & Stokes, D. R. 1994. Making university-industry collaborative research succeed. Research-Technology Management, 37(2): 44-48.
Borys, B. & Jemison, D. B. 1989. Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances-theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Academy of Management Review, 14(2): 234-249.
Bourlakis, C. & Bourlakis, M. 2005. Information technology safeguards, logistics asset specificity and fourth-party logistics network creation in the food retail chain. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(2-3): 88-98.
Bozeman. 2000. Technology transfer and public policy：a review of eesearch and theory. Research policy 29: 627-655
Bray, M. J. & Lee, J. N. 2000. University revenues from technology transfer: licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6): 385-392.
Buchel, B. 2003. Managing partner relations in joint venture. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4): 91-95.
Carayannis, E. G. 1998. The strategic management of technological learning in project/program management: the role of extranets, intranets and intelligent agents in knowledge generation, diffusion, and leveraging. Technovation, 18(11): 697-703.
Carlsson, B. & Fridh, A. C. 2002. Technology transfer in United States universities : a survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1-2): 199-232.
Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Environmental influences upon firm entry into new sub-markets - Evidence from the worldwide hard disk drive industry conditionally. Research Policy, 32(4): 659-678.
Chi, T. & Seth, A. 2009. A dynamic model of the choice of mode for exploiting complementary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3): 365-387.
Chiesa, V. & Piccaluga, A. 2000. Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the general framework and the case of academic spin-off companies. R&D Management, 30: 329-340.
Cohen, M. A. & Huchzermeier, A. (Eds.). 1999. Global supply chain management: a survey of research and applications”, (Eds). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. 1990. Grounded theory research-procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie, 19(6): 418-427.
Creswell, J. W. (Ed.). 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design-choosing anong five traditions. CA: SAGE Publications.
Das, T. K. & Rahman, N. 2010. Determinants of partner opportunism in strategic alliances: a conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1): 55-74.
Davis, L. 2008. Licensing strategies of the new "intellectual property vendors". California Management Review, 50(2): 6-+.
Debackere, K. & Veugelers, R. 2005. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3): 321-342.
Denzin, N. K. 1978. The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods New York McGraw-Hill
Di Gregorio, D. & Shane, S. 2003. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2): 209-227.
Etzkowitz, H. 1997. Introduction to special issue on science policy dimensions of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 24(1).
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. & Terra, B. R. C. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2): 313-330.
Federica, C. & Massimo, G. 2006. Risk management in supply chain: a real option approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology, 17(6): 700-720.
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.
Field, J. (Ed.). 2003. Social Capital: Routledge.
Filson, D. & Morales, R. 2006. Equity links and information acquisition in biotechnology alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 59(1): 1-28.
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R. & Sobrero, M. 2009. Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: an assessment of Italian founders’ incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34: 380-402.
Forrest, J. E. 1990. Strategic alliance and the small technology-based firm. Journal of Small Business Management: 37-45.
Forrest, J. E. 1992. Strategic strategic alliance between large and small research intensive organizations: experiences in the biotechnology industry. R&D Management, 22(1): 41-53.
Franklin, S., Wright, M. & Lockett, A. 2001. Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 6(1-2): 127-141.
Friedman, J. & Jonathan, S. 2003. University technology transfer: do Incentives, management, and location matter? . Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1): 17-30.
Fukuyama, F. (Ed.). 1996. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity: Free Press.
Fusfeld, D. R. 1982. The methodology of economics, or how economists explain-blaug,M. History of Political Economy, 14(2): 284-286.
Gans, J., Hsu, D. & Stern, S. 2002. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND Journal of Economics, 33(4): 571-586.
Glaser, B. (Ed.). 1992. Basics of grounded theory analysis. CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (Eds.). 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (Ed.). 1978. Theroetical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (Ed.). 2001. The grounded perspective: conceptualization contrasted with description. CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. & Holton, J. 2007. Remodeling grounded theory reprinted from FQS-forum qualitative sozialforschung. Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung: 47-68.
Goldfarb, B. & Henrekson, M. 2003. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4): 639-658.
Gong, Y. P., Shenkar, O., Luoi, Y. D. & Nyaw, M. K. 2007. Do multiple parents help or hinder international joint venture performance? the mediating roles of contract completeness and partner cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10): 1021-1034.
Grandi, A. & Grimaldi, R. 2005. Academic organizational characteristics and the generation of successful. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6): 821-845.
Granovetter, M. 1992. Economic intitutions as social constructions-a framework for analysis Acta Sociologica, 35(1): 3-11.
Gulati, R. 1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 85-112.
Hagedoorn, J. 2002. Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4): 477-492.
Harrigan, K. R. (Ed.). 1988. Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries: Lexington Books.
Jacob, M., Hellstrom, T., Adler, N. & Norrgren, F. 2000. From sponsorship to partnership in academy-industry relations. R & D Management, 30(3): 255-262.
Jeremy, C. 1990. The determinants of aggregate internatonal licensing behavior: evidence from five countries. Management International Review, 30(3): 231-251.
Kaufmann, A. & Todtling, F. 2001. Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30(5): 791-804.
Kim, Y. J. 2004. An analysis of the incentives to licensing in U.S. information technology. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2): 31-36.
Kim, Y. J. & Vonortas, N. 2006. Determinants of technology licensing: the case of licensors. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(4): 27–32.
Kogut, B. 1991. Joint ventures and the option to expand and acouire Management Science, 37(1): 19-33.
Kogut, B. & Zander, U. 2003. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6): 516-529.
Kogut, B. & Kulatilaka, N. 2004. Real options pricing and organizations: the contingent risks of extended theoretical domains. Academy of Management Review, 29(1): 102-110.
Krychowski, C. & Que´lin, B. V. 2010. Real Options and Strategic Investment Decisions:Can They Be of Use to Scholars? The Academy of Management 24(2): 65-78.
Lewicki, R. J. & Bunker, B. B. (Eds.). 1996. Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Lockett, A., G. , Murray & M. Wright. 2002. Do U.K. venture capitalists still have a bias against investment in new technology firms? Research Policy, 31: 1009–1030.
Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T. & Phan, P. H. 2009. Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4): 625-649.
Mathews, R. D. 2006. Strategic alliances, equity stakes, and entry deterrence. Journal of Financial Economics, 80(1): 35-79.
McCallin, A. M. 2003. Designing a grounded theory study: some practicalities. Nursing in Critical Care, 8(5): 203-208.
McDonald, D. W. & Leahey, H. S. 1985. Licensing has a role in technology strategic planning. Research Management, 28: 35-40.
Miller, W. L. & Crabtree, B. F. (Eds.). 1992. Primary care research: a multimethod typology and qualitative road map. Newbury Park CA.
Moray, N. & Clarysse, B. 2005. Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34(7): 1010-1027.
Myers, S. C. 1977. Determinants of corporate borrowing Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2): 147-175.
Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-266.
Nicolaou, N. & Birley, S. 2003a. Social networks in organizational emergence: the university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49(12): 1702-1725.
Nicolaou, N. & Birley, S. 2003b. Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3): 333-359.
Niosi, J. & Bas, T. G. 2001. The competencies of regions: Canada’s clusters in biotechnology. Small Business Economics, 17(1-2): 31-42.
O'Shea, R. P., Chugh, H. & Allen, T. J. 2008. Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6): 653-666.
O’Shea, R., Allen, T., O’Gorman, C. & Roche, F. 2004. Universities and technology transfer: a review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2): 11-29.
Olk, P. & Elvira, M. 2001. Friends and strategic agents - the role of friendship and discretion in negotiating strategic alliances. Group & Organization Management, 26(2): 124-164.
Oxley, J. E. 2009. Appropriability hazards and grovernance in strategic alliances: a transaction cost approach Economic Instituions of Strategy, Vol. 26: 165-191.
Pandit, M. R. 1996. The creation of theory: a recent application of the grounded theory method, Vol. 2: The Qualitative Report.
Patton, M. Q. (Ed.). 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. CA: Stage.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (Eds.). 2003. The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. N.Y.: Harper and Row.
Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B. & Nlemvo, F. 2003. Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4): 355-369.
Pisano, G. P. 1989. Using equity participation to support exchange- evidence the biotechnology industry Journal of Law Economics & Organization, 5(1): 109-126.
Roberts, E. & Wainer, H. 1971. Some characteristics of technical entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 18(3): 100-109.
Roberts, E. 1991. Entrepreneurs in high technology, lessons from MIT and beyond: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, E. B. & Malone, D. E. 1996. Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R & D Management, 26(1): 17-48.
Robinson, D. T. & Stuart, T. E. 2007. Financial contracting in biotech strategic alliances. Journal of Law & Economics, 50(3): 559-595.
Ruth, S. K. 1996. Successful business alliance. classroom strategies. The Methodology of Business Education 34: 10-23.
Sambharya, R. B. & Banerji, K. 2006. The effect of keiretsu affiliation and resource dependencies on supplier firm performance in the Japanese automobile industry. Management International Review, 46(1): 7-37.
Sampson, R. C. 2004. Organizational choice in R&D alliances: knowledge-based and transaction cost perspectives. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25(6-7): 421-436.
Shane, S. 2001. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2): 205-220.
Shane, S. 2004. Academic entrepreneurship: university spin-off and wealth creation. Northampton,MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E. & Link, A. N. 2004. Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2): 115-142.
Starr, J. A. & Macmillan, I. C. 1990. Resource cooptation via social contracting- acquistition strategies for new ventures Strategic Management Journal, 11: 79-92.
Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (Eds.). 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques CA.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques: 2nd Edition. CA: SAGE.
Tanaka, Y. 2008. Perpendicular recording technology: from research to commercialization. Proceedings of the Ieee, 96(11): 1754-1760.
Thomas, A., Yvonna , S. & Egon , G. 2007. Judging interpretations: but is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation(114): 11-25.
Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W. & Thursby, M. 2009. US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy, 38(1): 14-25.
Thursby, J. G. & Thursby, M. C. 2004. Are faculty critical? their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2): 162-178.
Valentin, E. M. 2000. University-industry cooperation: a framework of benefits and obstacles. Industry and Higher Education 3: 165-172
Vassolo, R. S., Anand, J. & Folta, T. B. 2004. Non‐additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: a real options‐based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11): 1045-1061.
Vohora, A., Lockett, A. & Wright, M. 2003. Critical junctures in the growth of university high-tech spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33: 147-175.
Von Hippel, E. 1988. The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wade, M. & Hulland, J. 2004. Review: The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. Mis Quarterly, 28(1): 107-142.
Wallmark, J. T. 1997. Inventions and patents at universities: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Technovation, 17(3): 127-139.
Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications, Free Press. New York.
Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comp arative economic-organization-the analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2): 269-296.
Wood, M. S. 2009a. Does one size fit all? the multiple organizationalfForms leading to successful academic entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4): 929-947.
Wood, M. S. 2009b. Does one size fit all? the multiple organizational fForms leading to successful academic entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4): 929-947.
Wright, M., Vohora, A. & Lockett, A. 2004. The formation of high-tech university spinouts: the role of empirical investigation in Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4): 287-310.
Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B. & Binks, M. 2006. University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4): 481-501.
Wu, W. P. 2010. Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2): 203-224.
Yuan, L. K. & Zhang, Z. Y. 2006. Impacts of social capital on the formation of R&D alliance. China Soft Science, 8: 89-95.
Zhao, F. 2004. Academic entrepreneurship: case study of Australian universities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation, 5(2): 91-97.