University-enterprise (U-E) innovation chain fractures hinder the commercialisation of knowledge. However, few contributions in the academic field have uncovered how certain mechanisms repair U-E innovation fractures and commercialise their research results. In order to bridge the research gap in the repair mechanism of U-E innovation chain fractures, a multiple-case study of U-E innovation fractures was conducted by proposing a ‘behaviour-process-outcomes’ repair model. The results are as follows: motivation coordination mechanism is the driving force that converges the goals of different organisations; organisation coordination mechanism is the platform that provides the basic support for the weak links and makes up for the defects of a single organisation; capability development and coordination is the element of U-E cooperation through a combination of basic and applied research capability, technological innovation capability and product commercialisation capability; policy coordination mechanism is the vehicle of U-E innovation chain that strengthens U-E cooperation with various preferential policies. The conclusion shows the ‘coordinated innovation’ repair model for U-E innovation chain fractures provides important insights for practitioners and policymakers involved in developing an innovation chain in U-E cooperation.
AnkrahS., & AL-TabbaaO. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387–408.
2.
BarnesT., PashbyI., & GibbonsA. (2002). Effective university–industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. European Management Journal, 20(3), 272–285.
3.
BohW. F., De-HaanU., & StromR. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9399-6
ChedidM., & TeixeiraL. (2019). The university–industry collaboration. In Khosrow-PourM. (Ed.), Advanced methodologies and technologies in modern education delivery (pp. 701–715). IGI Global.
6.
ChesbroughH. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
7.
EtzkowitzH., & LeydesdorffL. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
8.
García-TeránJ., & SkoglundA. (2019). A processual approach for the quadruple helix model: The case of a regional project in Uppsala. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10, 1272–1296.
9.
GerardG., ShakerZ., & RobleyW. (2002). The effects of business–university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 577–609.
10.
GuerreroM., UrbanoD., & HerreraF. (2019). Innovation practices in emerging economies: Do university partnerships matter?Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 615–646.
11.
HouB., HongJ., & ShiX. (2019). Efficiency of university–industry collaboration and its determinants: Evidence from Chinese leading universities. Industry and Innovation, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1706455
12.
KangW., ZhaoS., SongW., & ZhuangT. (2019). Triple helix in the science and technology innovation centers of china from the perspective of mutual information: A comparative study between Beijing and shanghai. Scientometrics, 118, 921–940.
13.
LaursenK., & SalterA. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.
14.
MarshallJ. J., & VredenburgH. (1992). An empirical study of factors influencing innovation implementation in industrial sales organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(3), 205–215.
15.
MascarenhasC., FerreiraJ. J., & MarquesC. (2018). University–industry cooperation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Science and Public Policy, 1(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy003/4829714
16.
PoppenF., & DeckerR. (2018). The intermediary as an institutional entrepreneur: Institutional change and stability in triple-helix cooperation. Triple Helix, 5(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0063-7
17.
SkuteI., Zalewska-KurekK., HatakI., & de Weerd-NederhofP. (2019). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 916–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9637-1
18.
SzulanskiG. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27–43.
19.
TangM., LiC., BaskaranA., ChengY., & ChandranV. (2019). Reshaping the business incubator model: The case of the value chain model of innovation works in china. Science Technology & Society, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721819873179
20.
VisvanathanS. (1977). From laboratory to industry: A case study of the transfer of technology. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 11(1), 117–136.
21.
WirsichA., KockA., StrumannC., & SchultzC. (2016). Effects of university industry collaboration on technological newness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 708–725.
22.
WongC.-Y., HsiehY.-C., WuC.-Y., & HuM.-C. (2019). Academic entrepreneurship for social innovation in Taiwan: The cases of the ourcitylove platform and the forest appScience Technology & Society, 24(3), 446–464
23.
XieW., & WhiteS. (2011). A strategic framework for determining technological learning performance in Chinese firms. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 3(1), 21–35.
24.
YangZ., LeJ., & WuQ. (2019). On innovation chain: Its connotation, effect and direction to future. Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences), 56(5), 62–70+159.
25.
YangC., & TangM. (2017). Affecting mechanism of team faultlines on team innovation performance. Science of Science and Management of S.&.T, 38(3), 172–180.
26.
YiG. (2019). Cross-border collaboration strategies in academic entrepreneurship of new R&D institutions: Insights from explorative case studies in china. Science Technology & Society, 24(2), 288–315.
27.
YiG., & LiuW. C. (2016). The recovery practice of scientific and technological innovation chain faultlines in university. Higher Education in China, (7), 49–51.
28.
YiG., & UyarraE. (2018). Process mechanisms for academic entrepreneurial ecosystems: Insights from a case study in chinaScience, Technology and Society, 23(1), 85–106.
29.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
30.
Yoshioka-KobayashiT. (2019). Institutional factors for academic entrepreneurship in publicly owned universities in japan: Transition from a conservative anti-industry university collaboration culture to a leading entrepreneurial university. Science, Technology and Society, 24(3), 423–445.
31.
ZhangF., & GallagherK. S. (2016). Innovation and technology transfer through global value chains: Evidence from china’s PV industry. Energy Policy, 94, 191–203.
