University Incubation System for Research Commercialisation: The Case of Taiwan and Malaysia

Abstract

This article examines the performance of university research commercialisation in Taiwan and Malaysia and specifically discusses the role of incubation intermediaries. Through case study and patent analysis, this article draws lessons from Taiwan and further discusses the mechanisms in place for the successful commercialisation of university research. Lessons from the case offer insights for Malaysia on how university incubation intermediaries can be reorganised to promote better commercialisation outcomes. The Taiwanese experience illustrates that in the right institutional settings—and particularly with the presence of innovative science and technology parks—university incubators tend to promote favourable commercialisation outcomes. More importantly, the ability of university incubators to source for external knowledge and risk capital support positions them to be more effective as intermediaries. Other key success factors include establishing an adequate intellectual property management system and having adequate human resources equipped with intellectual property knowledge. This article further deliberates policy implications.

Measuring Technological Collaboration on Blockchain Based on Patents: A Social Network Analysis Approach

“…The regions where blockchain enterprises gathered in China and the United States were places of population agglomeration, with a large number of high-tech talents and a good university incubation system. The combination of human capital and material capital, coupled with a high-quality university incubation intermediary (Ng et al, 2019), is positively promoting the geographical agglomeration of blockchain enterprises in these regions.…”

New venture entrepreneurship and context in East Asia: a systematic literature review

“…Recent studies also show that the business models, strategies and performance of Chinese new ventures continue to be strongly influenced by the socio-economic development of the regions or cities in which they are located (Xiao & North, 2017;Zhou et al, 2020). A study on technology incubators in Taiwan argues that government-supported incubator programs need to be more demand-oriented and should be run by private management teams (Ng et al, 2019). Furthermore, early surveys of Taiwanese and Korean start-ups suggest that the services provided by science parks and incubators are not decisive success factors for the establishment and growth of new venture businesses (Li & Chen, 2009;Sung et al, 2003).…”

Situated learning in a business incubator: Encouraging students to become real entrepreneurs

“…Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez (2016) examined the relationship between knowledge exchange and innovation among firms based on Madrid Science Park (linked to the Autonomous University of Madrid). Those firms centrally located within their knowledge networks also had higher levels of innovation (Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez, 2016; Ng et al, 2019). In their study, McAdam et al (2016) established that effective UBIs were embedded in regional ecosystems bringing together industrial partners, R&D laboratories, banks and investors such as business angels (Carayannis and Rakhmatullin, 2014; Etzkowitz, 1998, 2003).…”

“…Allen and McCluskey (1990) identified four distinct types of incubator: for-profit property development, non-profit development corporation incubators, academic incubators and for-profit seed capital incubators. More recently, Ng et al (2019) argued that, in many cases, incubators had a range of objectives and they identified a new category described as a ‘hybrid incubator’. In a comprehensive review of the literature, Mian et al (2016) claimed that research on business incubation had intensified since the beginning of the 21st century.…”