Mối quan hệ giữa doanh nghiệp và trường đại học, cao đẳng trên địa bàn tỉnh lâm đồng

I H C QU C GIA TP H CHÍ MINH I H C BÁCH KHOA TH Y THÙY DUNG M I QUAN H GI A DOANH NGHI P IH NG A BÀN T NG Chuyên ngành: QU N TR KINH DOANH Tp H Chí Minh, tháng 02 2014 C HỒN THÀNH T I I H C BÁCH KHOA I H C QU C GIA TP H Cán b CHÍ MINH ng d n khoa h c TS Nguy n Th Thu H ng Cán b ch m nh n xét 1: TS Ph m Qu c Trung Cán b ch m nh n xét 2: TS Tr n Th Kim Loan Lu cb ov t iH TH NG CH M B O V LU I H C BÁCH KHOA, ngày 18 tháng 02 Thành ph n H th Ch t ch: TS Nguy n Thiên Phú n Thanh Hùng Ph n bi n 1: TS Ph m Qu c Trung Ph n bi n 2: TS Tr n Th Kim Loan y viên: TS Nguy n Th Thu H ng CH T CH H NG m: 2014 I H C QU C GIA TP HCM I H C BÁCH KHOA C NG HÒA XÃ H I CH T NAM c l p T H nh phúc Tp H Chí Minh, ngày 24 NHI M V LU H tên h c viên: Th y Thùy Dung Ngày, tháng, : Chuyên ngành: Lâm 05/11/1979 Qu n tr Kinh doanh n): Gi i tính: N ng MSHV: 11800901 2011 TÀI: M I QUAN H GI A DOANH NGHI I H C, CAO A BÀN T NG NHI M V LU - nh hình th c liên k t gi a doanh nghi - nh m ng c a nhân t - nh m ng c a hình th c liên k nghi - Ki ng n hình th c liên k t n k t qu doanh c th c hi n h p tác nh gi thuy t v m i quan h gi a doanh nghi ih ng t vi ng a bàn t nh Lâm ng NGÀY GIAO NHI M V : 12/08/2013 NGÀY HOÀN THÀNH NHI M V : 27/12/2013 H TS NGUY N TH THU H NG VÀ TÊN CÁN B NG D N: n qua CÁN B NG D N (H tên, ch ký) KHOA QL CHUYÊN NGÀNH (H tên, ch ký) i L IC u tiên, xin g i l i c Qu n lý Công nghi n Quý Th y/ Cô giáo Khoa i h c Bách Khoa i h c Qu c gia Tp H Chí n tình gi ng d y, chuy n t i nh ng ki n th c c n thi t b ích cho cơng vi c th c ti n c a c bi t, xin g i l i c c ti n TS Nguy n Th Thu H ng, ng d n, t có nh ng góp ý quan tr ng giúp tơi kh c ph c nh ng sai sót hoàn thành Xin chân thành c ih c lu t nghi p y/ Cô giáo, anh ch ng nghi p t i u ki n thu n l i cho tơi su t q trình h c t p Tôi xin g i l i c thân thi ib n , chia s nh ng kinh nghi m q báu, khuy n khích tơi hồn thành lu Trong trình th c hi n lu chân thành c ng ý ki tránh kh i nh ng sai sót, xin c a th y cô, anh ch b n Tp H Chí Minh, ngày 24 tháng 12 i th c hi n lu Th y Thùy Dung 2013 ii TÓM T T a âm , thơng qua (SEM) , mơ hình iii ABSTRACT There are four factors influencing on the relationship universities and colleges and enterprises located in Lam Dong province Among them, two factors have the positive linear relationship are contextual factors and organization In contrast, the difference factors of activities and the factors of enterprises perception have the negative affections on the relationship The three modes of connection between universities and colleges and enterprises are collected and divided into three main groups: connection on education/ training; supplying services and scientific researches Enterprises have outstanding achievements when they have good relationship with universities and colleges Results from the research will help companies in Lam Dong intending to connect with universities and colleges identify the influencing level of each factor on the relationship so that companies can have suitable solutions and strategies for connections Besides, universities and colleges will have better understanding about enterprises, and have effective intension in retaining the relationship with companies in terms of mutual benefit in the economy nowadays The thesis was conducted by two periods: preliminary study and official study The preliminary study was conducted to adjust scales and to eliminate unconcerned variables Official research was carried out by quantities method with Exploratory Factor Analysis The model of the study and the hypothesis were evaluated by Confirm Factor Analysis and the Structural Equation Modeling The outcomes of the study show that all of the hypothesis were approved the model is absolutely suitable for the data collected according to the study The results will be used for the following studies iv L u c a tơi Trình t th c hi c tuân th tham kh o, trích d cơng b c c a m t lu cs d u t tài li u h p l t c m t nghiên c tài t t nghi p t i t t c t t c ngu n c c th c hi i h c Tp H Chí Minh, ngày 24 tháng 12 i th c hi n Th y Thùy Dung 2013 v Trang i ii Abstract iii iv v viii ix x xi 1.1 Lý hình thành 1.2 tiêu 1.3 1.4 4 6 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 13 13 16 2.3.2.3 18 2.3.2.4 19 2.3.3 2.4 21 22 vi 26 29 29 29 3.2 29 30 31 32 3.3 T 3.3.1 32 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 33 34 34 34 35 3.3.6 3.3.7 3.3.8 35 36 37 37 38 3.6 39 4: 39 39 4.2 Tiêu chu n ki 39 4.2.2 39 4.2.3 40 41 4.3 K t qu ki 4.4 K t qu ki m ng EFA 44 4.4.1 44 4.4.2 46 vii 4.4.3 47 4.5 K t qu ki ng CFA 47 4.5.1 47 4.5.2 49 4.5.3 50 4.6 Ki nh mô hình nghiên c u gi thuy t 53 4.6.1 53 4.6.2 55 4.6.3 59 4.7 So sánh k t qu nghiên c u xu t m t s gi i pháp c th 4.9 Tóm t t 63 68 69 71 5: 71 5.2 Tóm t t k t qu 71 5.3 Ki n ngh 72 5.4 H n ch ng nghiên c u ti p theo 73 74 76 Elisa Giuliani and Valeria Arza (2008), What drives the formation of Industry linkages? An under explored question in a hot policy debate, Science and Technology Policy Research, 170 Etzkowitz, H (1998), The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university industry linkages, Research Policy, 27(8): 823 833 Eva M Mora-Valentin, Angeles Montoro-Sanchez, Luis A Guerras-Matin, (2004), Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations, Research Policy, 33: 17- 40 Fontana, R & Geuna, A Matt, M (2006), Factors affecting university industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling, Research Policy, 35: 309-323 Ford, D (1982), The development of buyer seller relationships in industrial markets, European Journal of Marketing, 339-353 Fransman, M (2008), Disaggregating firms in analysing the costs and benefits of the universtiyindustry relationships: Based on an analytical and empirical study from Scotland, Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 17(1/2): 123-136 Gopalakrishnan, S and Santoro M.D (2004), Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The Role of Key Organizational Factors, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1): 57 69 Grimpe, C & Fier, H (2010), Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany, Journal of Technology Transfer, 35: 637-650 Herrera, L., Munoz-Doyague, M.F & Nieto, M (2010), Mobility of public researchers, scientific knowledge transfer, and the firm's innovation process, Journal of Business Research, 63: 510-518 77 Hicks, D (1995), Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge, Industrial & Corporate Change, 4(2): 401 424 Hoholm, T (2009), The Contrary Forces of Innovation: An Ethnography of Innovation Processes in the Food Industry, Doctoral Thesis, Norwegian School of Management, Nordberg, Norway Hoffman, K., Milady, P., Bessant, J., Perren, L (1998), Small Firms, R&D Technology and innovation in UK: a literature review, Technovation, 18: 39 55 Kim, Y (2009), Choosing between international technology licensing partners: an empirical analysis of U.S biotechnology firms, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26 (1 2): 57 72 Lawrence Dooley, David Kirk (2007), University-industry collaboration, European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(3): 316-332 Lee, Y.S (2000), The Sustainability Of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Emprical Assessment, Journal Of Technology Transfer, 25: 111-133 Malik, Khaleel; Georghiou, Luke & Grieve, Bruce (2011), Developing new technology platforms for new business models: Syngenta's partnership with the university of Manchester, Research Technology Management 54, 1(2011): 24-31 Mason, K., Leek, S (2012), Communication practices in business relationships: creating, relating and adapting communication artifacts through time, Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2): 319 332 Mohnen, P., Hoareau, C (2003), What Types Of Enterprise Forges Close Links With Universities and Government Labs? Evidence From CIS 2, Managerial And Decision Economics, 24 (2-3): 133-145 78 M.S.Alam, R.Jayakumar and D.Balakrishnan (2003), Management of University Industry Science Partnership (UNISPAR) A case Study of the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India, UNESCO Plewna, C & Quester, P (2007), Key Drivers Of University-Industry Relationships: The Role Of Organizational Compatibility and Personal Experience, Journal Of Services Marketing, 21(5): 370-382 Philbin, S (2008), Process Model For University-Industry Research Collaboration, European Journal Of Innovation Management, 11(4): 488521 Ratinho, T and Henriques, E (2010), The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal, Technovation, 30: 278-290 Razvan, Z and Dainora, Z (2009), Challenges and Opportunities Faced By Entrepreneurial University, Some Lessons From Romania And Lithuania, Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, 4(1): 874-876 Rosly Othman & Ahmad Fairuz Oma (2012), University and Industry Collaboration: Towards A Successful and Sustainable Partnership, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31: 575-579 Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., Gassler, H (2001), Interactive relations between university and firms: empirical evidence for Austria, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 255 268 Segarra-Blasco, A and Arauzo-Carod, J.M (2008), Sources of Innovation and Industry university Interaction: Evidence from Spanish Firms, Research Policy, 37(8): 1283 1295 Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E & 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: 111 124 79 Souder, W.E (1993), Getting Together: a State-of-the Art Review of the Challenges and Rewards of Consortia, International Journal of Technology Management, 8(6): 784-801 Vaidyanathan, G (2008), Technology parks in a developing country: the case of India, Journal of Technology Transfer, 33: 285-299 Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W & Biscotti, B (2008), Close enough but not too far: assessing the effects of university industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism Research Policy, 37: 1854 1864 Wei Hong, Yu-Sung Su (2013), The effect of institutional proximity in nonlocal university industry collaborations: An analysis based on Chinese patent data Research Policy, 42(2): 454-464 Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M (2008), Mid-range linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries, Research Policy, 37(8): 1205 1223 80 81 82 Min Max Mean HC1 HC2 HC3 Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Std Error Statistic Std Error 3.42 -.046 143 -.816 284 3.32 -.063 143 -.668 284 3.23 -.193 143 -.767 284 HC4 3.43 -.203 143 -.722 284 TC1 2.86 160 143 -.699 284 TC2 2.80 140 143 -.431 284 TC3 3.21 -.114 143 -.338 284 TC4 2.66 222 143 -.522 284 HD1 3.59 -.212 143 -.641 284 HD2 3.66 -.014 143 -.730 284 HD3 3.57 -.036 143 -.744 284 HD4 4.05 -.555 143 -.193 284 NT1 3.73 -.263 143 -.223 284 NT2 3.74 027 143 -.713 284 NT3 3.64 -.049 143 -.267 284 NT4 3.65 049 143 -.423 284 NT5 3.47 003 143 -.524 284 NT6 3.64 123 143 -.582 284 DT1 3.71 -.258 143 -.298 284 DT2 2.63 256 143 -.182 284 DT3 3.62 -.739 143 1.229 284 DT4 3.66 -.290 143 054 284 DT5 3.66 -.353 143 407 284 DT6 3.62 -.398 143 426 284 DV1 3.07 -.053 143 100 284 DV2 2.71 061 143 -.437 284 DV3 2.94 -.071 143 -.304 284 DV4 3.02 -.048 143 -.259 284 NC1 3.77 -.511 143 -.292 284 NC2 3.56 -.421 143 131 284 NC3 3.34 -.056 143 -.412 284 83 NC4 3.73 -.460 143 006 284 KQ1 3.73 007 143 -.650 284 KQ2 3.65 -.079 143 -.316 284 KQ3 3.65 -.173 143 233 284 KQ4 3.28 -.338 143 -.070 284 KQ5 3.84 -.223 143 -.509 284 KQ6 3.30 113 143 934 284 KQ7 3.55 -.032 143 -.194 284 KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 796 Approx Chi-Square 1258.296 df 120 Sig .000 Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Compon ent Total % of Cumulative Variance % Total % of Cumulative Variance % Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Variance % 4.006 25.039 25.039 4.006 25.039 25.039 2.709 16.934 16.934 2.057 12.856 37.895 2.057 12.856 37.895 2.309 14.433 31.367 1.809 11.308 49.203 1.809 11.308 49.203 2.281 14.259 45.626 1.503 9.395 58.598 1.503 9.395 58.598 2.076 12.972 58.598 821 5.133 63.731 720 4.497 68.228 697 4.358 72.585 618 3.861 76.446 589 3.682 80.129 84 10 564 3.523 83.652 11 528 3.303 86.955 12 502 3.135 90.089 13 462 2.886 92.975 14 412 2.576 95.551 15 377 2.356 97.906 16 335 2.094 100.000 Rotated Component Matrixa Component HC1 125 788 035 181 HC2 080 753 106 270 HC3 -.015 686 120 016 HC4 135 737 000 -.018 TC1 063 206 105 800 TC2 168 078 025 785 TC4 093 067 029 794 HD1 092 008 737 039 HD2 121 063 750 -.005 HD3 144 097 810 -.044 HD4 059 087 641 176 NT1 710 012 138 118 NT2 688 094 181 119 NT3 740 144 014 -.037 NT4 694 051 136 080 NT6 757 043 014 116 85 KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx Chi-Square 855 2136.798 df 78 Sig .000 Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Loadings Compon ent Total % of Cumulative Variance % Total % of Cumulative Variance % Total % of Cumulative Variance % 5.340 41.074 41.074 5.340 41.074 41.074 3.412 26.243 26.243 2.312 17.785 58.859 2.312 17.785 58.859 2.934 22.570 48.813 1.472 11.320 70.180 1.472 11.320 70.180 2.778 21.366 70.180 775 5.959 76.139 560 4.309 80.447 463 3.558 84.005 426 3.280 87.285 387 2.974 90.259 340 2.616 92.875 10 284 2.188 95.063 11 228 1.755 96.818 12 214 1.649 98.468 13 199 1.532 100.000 Rotated Component Matrixa Component DT1 866 066 181 DT3 641 209 312 DT4 860 028 204 DT5 842 063 161 DT6 697 307 214 86 DV1 175 775 155 DV2 062 813 -.019 DV3 030 883 138 DV4 194 837 130 NC1 264 084 733 NC2 263 049 847 NC3 062 166 753 NC4 317 091 808 ML S.E C.R P 0.252 0.072 3.471 *** 0.158 0.069 2.282 0.022 0.316 0.089 3.541 *** 0.179 0.071 2.511 0.012 0.148 0.070 2.125 0.034 0.198 0.087 2.275 0.023 0.337 0.111 3.038 0.002 0.336 0.110 3.045 0.002 0.701 0.151 4.648 *** 0.292 0.082 3.577 *** 0.290 0.081 3.569 *** 0.409 0.101 4.046 *** 0.182 0.056 3.266 0.001 0.130 0.058 2.247 0.025 0.099 0.044 2.246 0.025 HC1 1.206 0.137 8.819 *** HC2 1.212 0.138 8.799 *** HC3 0.958 0.135 7.084 *** HC4 1.000 TC1 1.145 0.132 8.675 *** 87 TC2 1.000 TC4 1.013 0.118 8.586 *** HD1 1.382 0.203 6.802 *** HD2 1.424 0.198 7.204 *** HD3 1.747 0.235 7.445 *** HD4 1.000 NT1 1.021 0.114 8.951 *** NT2 0.941 0.107 8.807 *** NT3 0.960 0.106 9.028 *** NT4 0.850 0.099 8.591 *** NT6 1.000 DT1 1.000 DT3 0.740 0.065 11.332 *** DT4 1.009 0.058 17.259 *** DT5 0.925 0.059 15.656 *** DT6 0.833 0.065 12.833 *** DV1 1.000 DV2 1.072 0.099 10.843 *** DV3 1.218 0.093 13.037 *** DV4 1.196 0.094 12.721 *** NC1 0.888 0.066 13.444 *** NC2 0.789 0.058 13.63 *** NC3 0.571 0.069 8.295 *** NC4 1.000 KQ1 1.000 KQ2 1.011 0.103 9.858 *** KQ3 0.951 0.09 10.621 *** KQ4 0.851 0.116 7.326 *** KQ5 0.757 0.081 9.313 *** KQ6 0.916 0.092 9.943 *** KQ7 1.145 0.102 11.182 *** 88 ML 0.239 0.157 0.237 0.170 0.147 0.150 0.213 0.221 0.351 0.242 0.251 0.269 0.223 0.153 0.154 HC1 0.755 HC2 0.749 HC3 0.53 HC4 0.609 TC1 0.746 TC2 0.705 TC4 0.668 HD1 0.604 HD2 0.682 HD3 0.778 HD4 0.511 NT1 0.648 NT2 0.635 NT3 0.656 NT4 0.615 89 NT6 0.685 DT1 0.859 DT3 0.621 DT4 0.846 DT5 0.788 DT6 0.683 DV1 0.705 DV2 0.694 DV3 0.867 DV4 0.831 NC1 0.744 NC2 0.755 NC3 0.497 NC4 0.907 KQ1 0.674 KQ2 0.672 KQ3 0.736 KQ4 0.482 KQ5 0.506 KQ6 0.679 KQ7 0.790 90 Ngày sinh: 1997 05/11/1979 2001 , chuyên ngành: Q TRÌNH CƠNG TÁC 2004 ... Chuyên ngành: Lâm 05/11/1979 Qu n tr Kinh doanh n): Gi i tính: N ng MSHV: 11800901 2011 TÀI: M I QUAN H GI A DOANH NGHI I H C, CAO A BÀN T NG NHI M V LU - nh hình th c liên k t gi a doanh nghi -... T ng quan v quan h h ng doanh nghi p tam giác liên (Etzkowitz c ng s , 1998; Senker, 1995) doanh Theo k Trung tâm Ngh (ii) (iv) n, (iii) - nhà (2007 vào : K t qu c t m i quan h h p tác doanh. .. (2010), doanh nghi p quan tâm n vi c s d ng ngu n nhân l c ch nh nh m t o ng r , th ng cao, r v quy t cho doanh nghi p Hi n nay, doanh nghi p v n d a lao ng khai thác r a vào công ngh Doanh nghi