【作者】 刘炜；

【导师】 朱桂龙；

【作者基本信息】 华南理工大学 ， 企业管理， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 产学研合作对于企业技术创新的贡献已经被欧美日等国企业的大量成功经验所证实。通过产学研合作分担企业研发成本、分散创新风险、促进企业合作伙伴间的资源共享及能力互补，对于提升我国企业的自主创新能力和企业竞争力具有十分重要的意义。但在当前我国企业技术能力普遍偏弱的现实情境下，获取成熟的技术已经成为了企业、高校、科研机构这三者合作的重要动机，即不再通过创新收益，而是用引进替代创新来代替。此外，目前产学研合作缺乏持久的保障机制和学习机制，其对企业技术能力提升的作用也十分有限。如何充分发挥产学研合作对企业技术创新的重要作用，在扩展企业创新资源的基础上提升企业技术能力，是当前我国产学研合作中需首先解决的关键问题。本文运用案例与实证相结合的研究方法，基于企业技术能力演化的视角，结合广东省“三部两院一省”产学研合作框架的实践，研究探讨了企业产学研合作模式的选择及其与企业内部研发之间的复杂性关系，揭示了产学研合作对企业技术创新的作用机理。本文的研究结论与创新点主要体现在：（1）企业技术能力演化与产学研合作模式选择的匹配关系研究。本文首先对影响企业创新模式选择的因素进行了分析，包括产学研合作技术属性（技术生命周期、复杂性程度和隐形程度等）、企业特征（研发投入、技术储备、产学研合作经验及企业规模等）、以及环境特征（行业竞争程度、技术保护制度、政府支持政策等），构建了Probit模型进行实证检验，结果表明，选择产学研合作的企业与未选择产学研合作的企业在技术创新、吸收能力及合办机构数等方面存在显著性的差异，即企业技术创新能力是影响企业创新模式选择的关键因素。其次，运用密切值法模型，研究分析了不同技术能力演化阶段与产学研合作模式选择间的匹配关系。处在技术获取能力阶段的企业，匹配效果最佳的产学研合作模式为技术转让、委托开发；处于技术吸收能力阶段的企业，匹配效果最佳的产学研合作模式为合作开发、共建实体，委托开发其次；处于技术创新能力阶段的企业，匹配效果最佳的产学研合作模式为合作开发、共建实体。（2）不同技术能力演化阶段下的产学研合作与企业内部研发的互动关系检验。研究开发能力构成了企业技术能力的核心，产学研合作创新与企业技术能力的关系，其本质是产学研合作与企业内部发之间的互动关系。本文通过对嘉宝莉集团的典型案例研究和实证检验发现，产学研合作与企业内部研发的互动关系可体现为替代、互补再到替代的三阶段关系上。其中，在企业技术能力的薄弱期，产学研合作和企业内部研发间的互动关系表现为替代关系，即主要依靠技术引进或内部研发。其主要原因为：企业缺乏前期技术积累，技术水平和知识水平与高校科研院所有很大的差距，它也无法满足进行产学研合作所需的学习能力和吸收能力；在企业技术能力的成长期，互补关系常被认为是企业进行产学研合作和其内部研发间的互动关系的表现。此时，企业受技术能力与创新资源的多重束缚，进行产学研合作的需求更加强烈；企业技术水平和知识水平与高校科研院所的差距逐步缩小并且各有所长，企业有敏锐的市场嗅觉和产业化能力，而高校科研院所有强大的基础研究能力和大量研发设备和人才，较易形成互补互利的关系；在企业技术能力发展的成熟期，长期的、基础性的、前沿性的技术往往是其进行产学研合作的重点内容，而企业需要利用其专长在上述技术的基础上进行创新活动，根据企业资源状况从而采取合作创新与自主创新相结合的方式，最终完成企业的自主创新能力的构筑。（3）企业研发投入密度在产学研合作与企业内部研发的互动中的门槛效应。本文通过构建门槛模型，通过实证检验发现：研发投入密度的高低影响着企业内部研发与产学研合作之间的替代或互补效应。当研发投入密度呈现低值时，两者的关系将呈现出替代效应；当研发投入密度呈现高值时，两者的关系则呈现出显著的互补效应。其次，不同类型的行业研发投入的特征不同，导致研发投入密度对不同行业的研发模式选择影响也不同。随着研发投入的加大，对于技术密集型企业而言，其产学研和内部研发依次呈现替代，互补，替代的关系。资本密集型企业资本密集型行业随着研发投入的增大，互补性越来越强。劳动密集型行业中，企业研发投入密度小，产学研和内部研发呈现替代效应。（4）产学研合作对企业技术能力的影响体现在以下四个方面：企业研发投入、企业技术创新行为过程、企业技术创新绩效以及企业技术创新经济效益。本文通过运用倾向得分匹配方法（PSM），对产学研合作对企业技术能力提升的影响效应进行了实证检验。实证结果发现，目前，产学研合作对企业研发费用、新产品销售收入比重和利润率的提升具有积极作用；而对于出口创汇率和每百人授予专利数则有消极作用。产学研合作对企业技术能力的作用并没有得以全面的发挥。更多还原

【Abstract】 Contributionof University-Industry Collaboration for enterprise technology innovationhas beenconfirmedbya large number ofsuccessful experiencesinEurope and the United States.Through sharing of corporate R&D costs, decentralizing innovation risk, promoting resourcesharing and capacity complementary between business partners, University-IndustryCollaboration has great significance for enhancing the Capacity for independent innovationand enterprise competitiveness of Chinese enterprises. But in the real-life situations of currentgenerally weak technological capabilities of Chinese enterprises, the majority motivation ofenterprises Collaborating with universities and research institutes tend to get more maturetechnology, which is to introduce alternatives innovation rather than benefit throughinnovation. Lack of lasting protection mechanisms and learning mechanism, the role ofuniversity-industry collaboration to enhance the technological capabilities of enterprises isvery limited. How to play a greater role of the university-industry collaboration to enterprisetechnology innovation, and enhance the technological capabilities of enterprises on the basisof the extended enterprise innovation resources, are the key issues need to first solve in thecooperative. The Paper uses case study combined with empirical research methods, based onthe innovation capability evolution perspective, combined with the practice of GuangdongProvince “Three Ministries-two Academies-one Province” cooperative framework, the studyinvestigated the complexity of the relationship between the Cooperative Mode selection andthe internal research and development of enterprises, and revealed the action mechanism ofuniversity-industry collaboration to enterprise technology innovation. The main Conclusionsand Creative Point s of this Paper are the following aspects.(1) Matching relations research of Enterprise Technological Capability Evolution andCooperative Mode Selection. This paper first analyzed the factors that affected innovationmode selection, including the cooperative technical attributes (technology life cycle, degree ofcomplexity and stealth extent etc.), firm characteristics (R&D investment, technical reserves,Cooperative experience and firm size etc.), as well as environmental characteristics (thedegree of competition in the industry, technology protection system, government supportpolicies etc.), and built the Probit model empirical test. The results showed that significantsexual differences had been found between the enterprises which selected university-industrycollaboration and the enterprises which not selected in the aspects of technological innovation,absorption capacity and the number of co-organizer, which meant that technologicalinnovation capability of enterprises is the key factor which affected innovation mode selection of enterprises. Secondly, using the model of osculating value method, the study analyzed thematching relationship between the different technical capabilities evolution stage andcooperative mode selection. For the enterprises in the stage of technology acquisition capacity,the best matching cooperative modes are technology transfer and commissioned development;For the enterprise in the stage of technology absorptive capacity, the best matchingcooperative modes are cooperative development and building entities, commissioneddevelopment followed; For the enterprises in the stage of technological innovation capabilityof enterprises, the best matching cooperative mode are cooperative development and buildingentities.(2) Under different technical capabilities evolutionary stages, the interactive relationshiptest of university-industry collaboration and the enterprise Internal R&D. The core ofenterprise technology capabilities is the research and development capabilities, so the natureof relationship between cooperation innovation and technological capability, is the interactiverelationship between the Cooperative and internal R&D. In this paper, through a typical casestudy and empirical test of Carpoly Group the interaction relationship between Cooperativeand internal R&D can be embodied as three stages: alternative, complementary and thenalternative. In the weakness stage of the technological capabilities of enterprises, theinteraction between cooperation research and internal R&D performance as alternativerelationship, enterprises mainly rely on technology introduction or internal R&D. The mainreason was: because the enterprises lack the pre-technology accumulation, the technical andknowledge gap between enterprises and university was large, and the companies didn’t haveenough ability to learn and absorptive capacity for research cooperation. Inthe formativestages of the enterprises technological capabilities, the interaction between researchcooperation and internal R&D performance as complementary relationship.In this case, theenterprise multiple bound by the technical capabilities and innovative resources, Cooperativedemands were more strong; the technical level and knowledge gap between enterprise andUniversity or Scientific Research institutes were gradually narrow, and have their ownstrengths: enterprises keen market sense of smell and industrial capacity, and University orScientific Research centers have strong basic research capability and a large number ofresearch and development equipment and personnel, which were easier to form acomplementary and mutually beneficial relationship. In the technological capability maturitystage, university-industry collaboration focused on long-term, fundamental, cutting-edgetechnology. Enterprises play business expertise in the innovation activities, develop newproducts based on these technologies, the interactive relationship between cooperation and internal R&D performance as an alternative relationship, the companies take thecombination of the cooperation innovation and independent innovation to build the capabilityof independent innovation according to their actual situation.(3) Threshold effects of corporate R&D investment density in interaction ofCooperative and internal R&D. In this paper, by constructing a threshold model of empiricaltest: in the low investment density of R&D, internal R&D and cooperation reflects thealternative relationship, internal R&D and research cooperation in the density of high R&Dinvestment reflects the complementary resistance. Secondly, different R&D investmentdensity affected at different industry R&D mode choice changed in different characteristicsof industry. With the increase of R&D investment, relation between cooperation research andinternal research in Technology-intensive enterprises in turn presented the alternative,complementary, alternative relationships. In capital-intensive industry with increasingenterprise R&D investment relation between cooperation research and internal researchpresented complementary. In labor-intensive industries, corporate R&D investment Densitywas small, cooperation research and internal R&D presents the substitution effect.(4) Cooperation research affecting on technological capabilities of enterprises is reflectedin the following four areas: corporate R&D investment, enterprise innovation process,enterprise technology innovation performance, and enterprise technical innovation andeconomic efficiency. Through the use of propensity score matching method (PSM), anempirical test of the effects of Cooperative enterprise technology capabilities was conducted.The empirical results show that the university-industry collaboration has a positive effect oncorporate R&D expenses, new product sales revenue and profit margins improved; ratherhave a negative effect on every hundred granted patent number and the export rate of foreignexchange. The role of university-industry collaboration on technological capabilities ofenterprises was not play completely.更多还原