USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY-GRI COOPERATION IN VIETNAM

USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH
FOR ASSESSMENT OF
THE STRENGTH OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY-GRI COOPERATION IN VIETNAM
By
Cu Duy Tung
A research study submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Business Administration
Examination committee Professor Himangshu Paul (Chairman)
Dr. Jung-won Lee
Professor Nazrul Islam
Nationality Vietnam
Previous Degree(s) Bachelor of Chemical Engineering
HoChiMinh University of Technology
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Scholarship donor Government of Switzerland
Asian Institute Of Technology
School of Management
Bangkok, Thailand
April 1999
Acknowledgement
I extend my gratitude to all involved, whose contribution brought the research to this
stage. Especially, my research advisor Professor Himangshu Paul, whose inspiration,
guidance, valuable suggestions, constant encouragement and care not only as the research
committee chairperson but also as a program Dean, deserves the author's gratefulness. I
extend my esteem appreciation to the research committee member Dr. Jung-won Lee whose
constructive suggestions and helpful comments enhanced the value of the work. Sincere
thanks also go to the research committee member Professor Nazrul Islam for his invaluable
advice and effort in guiding me at the first steps.
All the respondents and contributors for the work in data collection period in Vietnam
are acknowledged for their prompt responses and interest. Many thanks gift to the friends in
SIM and SAV for their help. All the friends here in AIT deserve thanks for their love and

supports during the study period. The colleagues of the SOM 97 class are never to be
forgotten. I express my love to all of them.
I am grateful and extend my thanks to the Government of Switzerland for its financial
support during the entire study period at the Swiss-AIT-Vietnam programme in Vietnam and
at School of Management of AIT.
Encouragement and support from parents and relatives are keys to the success of this
work. Last but not the least, support, patience and dedication from my lover are secret of the
whole success.
ii
Abstract
The work is a methodological framework for public involvement in the process of
technological assessment. The objective of this study is to apply the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) for assessing the strength of University-Industry-GRI cooperation by
measuring the magnitude of different types of factor flows and the relative importance of the
linkages. The model for assessment is developed on AHP taking care of major actors and
factors with the linkage alternatives of University-Industry-GRI cooperation. In dealing with
such problem, five steps are developed.
The first step is problem conceptualization, consisting of the identification of critical
techno-economic assessment criteria, including flows of technological factors, linkage factors,
and linkage types. The next step is model formulation, including factor, criterion and
alternative definitions to develop a tentative AHP model. The third step mainly concerns data
collection coming from various actors through structured pairwise comparison questionnaire
via individual opinions and group opinions. The next step employs the geometric mean
method to make a consensus from group opinions on the importance ratio of criteria and
alternatives. Processing of the responses is conducted using the AHP based software called
Expert Choice. The last one conducts to model validation and result interpretation.
The approach of involving public and controversy management is new in the area of
assessment on technological cooperation. The results of the study show that the most
preferred linkage is University-Industry cooperation. The study also indicates that government
people is the most different group from others.

iii
Table of Contents
Chapter Title Page
i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
List of Acronyms x
List of Appendix xi
1. Chapter 1
2. 1 Introduction and Problem Description
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem Statement 1
1.3 Objectives of the Study 2
1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study 2
1.5 Organization of Report and Research Design 3
Figure I.1 : Research design 4
3. 2 Chapter 2
4. 3 Literature Review
3.1 General 5
Figure I.2 : The Innovation Triangle [15] 5
3.2 Linkage Types 6
3.3 Facilitators and Inhibitors to Linkages 9
Table 1.1 : Orientation differences between an industrial firm and a university
10
Table 1.2 : Characteristics of GRI unit and Industry unit 12
Table 1.3 : Different Characteristics of University and GRI units 13
3.4 The Analytic Hierarchy Process 13

5. 4 Research Methodology and Framework
4.1 General 16
iv
4.2 AHP Model Formulation 16
4.3 The AHP Model for Overall Linkage 17
Figure I.3 : Hierarchy for overall linkage 18
4.4 The AHP Model for Individual Linkage 18
Figure I.4 : Flows of linkage factors in the Innovation Triangle 19
Table 1.4 : An example of in and out flow of factors in the innovation triangle
linkage 21
Figure I.5 : Hierarchy for individual linkage judgment 22
4.5 Model Application, Processing and Reporting 22
Table 1.5 : Type of Linkages in the Innovation Triangle 23
Figure I.6 : Procedure for Linkage Judgments 24
6. 5 University-Industry-GRI Partnership in Vietnam
5.1 Overview 25
5.2 The Reformation of Research and Development in Vietnam 25
5.3 University-Industry-GRI Partnership Prior to 1988 26
Figure I.7 : The organizational structure of R&D in Vietnam prior to 198828
5.4 University-Industry-GRI Partnership since 1988 28
Figure I.8 : The organizational structure of MoSTE 29
5.5 Existing Difficulties in R&D System of Vietnam 29
Table 1.6 : Budget allocated to MoET in years 31
7. Chapter 6
8. 6 Data Collection and Processing
6.1 General 32
6.2 Data collection method and source 32
Figure I.9 : A partial sample of questionnaire 33
Table 1.7 : Distribution of questionnaire 35
6.3 Data Processing 36

Figure I.10 : Data collection and processing steps 37
9. Chapter 7
10. 7 Analysis of Results
7.1 General 38
7.2 The Overall Linkage: University-Industry-GRI 38
Table 1.8 : Individual judgment and their priority to the linkage 38
v
Figure I.11 : Percentage of response to preference order for different linkages 39
Table 1.9 : Individual importance to factors 39
Figure I.12 : Percent of respondents giving first priority to various factors 40
Table 1.10 : Individually preferred linkages distributed in actor group 40
Table 1.11 : Priorities of factors and alternatives from overall group and various
actors 41
Figure I.13 : Importance to factors by actors and overall group 41
Table 1.12 : Summary of overall group judgments on overall linkage 42
Figure I.14 : Overall group synthesis of linkage alternatives with respect to goal
and factor 42
Figure I.15 : Hierarchy for Overall Linkage 43
7.3 Linkage between Food Industry and University 44
Table 1.13 : Summary of overall group judgments on University-Industry
linkage 44
Figure I.16 : Magnitude flow of factors from University to Industry 45
Figure I.17 : Magnitude flow of factors from Industry to University 46
Figure I.18 : Overall judgments on University and Industry linkage 46
Figure I.19 : Hierarchy for University and Industry linkage 48
7.4 Linkage between University and GRI 49
Table 1.14 : Summary of overall group judgments on GRI-University linkage 49
Figure I.20 : Hierarchy for GRI and University Linkage 50
Figure I.21 : Magnitude flow of factors from University to GRI 52
Figure I.22 : Magnitude flow of factors from GRI to University 52

Figure I.23 : Overall judgments for University and GRI linkage 52
7.5 Linkage between GRI and Industry 53
Table 1.15 : Summary of overall group judgment on Industry-GRI linkage53
Figure I.24 : Magnitude flow of factors from GRI to Industry 54
Figure I.25 : Magnitude flow of factors from Industry to GRI 55
Figure I.26 : Overall judgments for GRI and Industry linkage 55
Figure I.27 : Hierarchy for GRI and Industry Linkage 57
Chapter 8 58
11. 9 Conclusions and Recommendations
9.1 General 58
9.2 Conclusions 58
9.3 Recommendations 59
9.4 Further Research Direction 60
References 61
Appendix 64
vi
vii
List of Figures
Figure No. Title Page
1.1 Research design 4
2.1 The Innovation Triangle 5
3.1 Hierarchy for overall linkage 18
3.2 Flows of linkage factors in the Innovation Triangle 19
3.3 Hierarchy for individual linkage judgment 22
3.4 Procedure for Linkage Judgments 24
4.1 The organizational structure of R&D in Vietnam prior to1988 28
4.2 The organizational structure of MoSTE 29
5.1 A partial sample of questionnaire 33
5.2 Data collection and processing steps 38
6.1 Percentage of response to preference order for different linkages 40

6.2 Percent of respondents giving first priority to various factors 41
6.3 Importance to factors by actors and overall group 42
6.4 Overall group synthesis of alternatives with respect to goal and factor 43
6.5 Hierarchy for Overall Linkage 44
6.6 Magnitude flow of factors from University to Industry 46
6.7 Magnitude flow of factors from Industry to University 47
6.8 Overall judgments on University and Industry linkage 47
6.9 Hierarchy for University and Industry linkage 49
6.10 Hierarchy for GRI and University Linkage 51
6.11 Magnitude flow of factors from University to GRI 53
6.12 Magnitude flow of factors from GRI to University 53
6.13 Overall judgments for University and GRI linkage 53
6.14 Magnitude flow of factors from GRI to Industry 55
6.15 Magnitude flow of factors from Industry to GRI 56
6.16 Overall judgments for GRI and Industry linkage 56
6.17 Hierarchy for GRI and Industry Linkage 58
viii
List of Tables
Table No. Title Page
2.1 Orientation differences between an industrial firm and a university 11
2.2 Characteristics of GRI unit and Industry unit 12
2.3 Different Characteristics of University and GRI units 13
3.1 An example of in and out flow of factors in the innovation triangle linkage 21
3.2 Type of Linkages in the Innovation Triangle 23
4.1 Budget allocated to MoET in years 31
5.1 Distribution of questionnaire 35
6.1 Individual judgment and their priority to the linkage 40
6.2 Individual importance to factors 40
6.3 Individually preferred linkages distributed in actor group 41
6.4 Priorities of factors and alternatives from overall group and various actors 42

6.5 Summary of overall group judgments on overall linkage 43
6.6 Summary of overall group judgments on University-Industry linkage 45
6.7 Summary of overall group judgments on GRI-University linkage 50
6.8 Summary of overall group judgment on Industry-GRI linkage 54
ix
List of Acronyms
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
AIT Asian Institute of Technology
DoSTE Department of Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
ECPro Expert Choice Professional 9.5
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FIRI Food Industries Research Institute (FIRI)
GRI Government-sponsored Research Institute
IMB Inter-Ministerial Board
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MoET Ministry of Education and Training
MoI Ministry of Industry
MoSTE Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment
MOT Management of Technology
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MS Excel Microsoft Excel 7.0
PHTI Post-harvest Technology Institute (PHTI)
PORI Plant Oil Research Institute (PORI)
R&D Research and development
S&T Science and Technology
SAV Swiss-AIT-Vietnam Programme
SIM School of Industrial Management
SOM School of Management
UAF University of Agriculture and Forestry (UAF)
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UT University of Technology
x
List of Appendix
Appendix Title Pag
e
A Sample of questionnaire used 67
B Summary of judgments
• Individual judgment and their overall group geometric means
• Individual judgment in actor group and geometric mean
• Individual judgment and their geometric means for
University-Industry linkage
• Individual judgment and their geometric means for
GRI-University linkage
• Individual judgment and their geometric means for
Industry-GRI linkage
74
75
76
78
79
C Matrix entry
• Overall linkage
• University-Industry linkage
• GRI-University linkage
• Industry-GRI linkage
81
82
83
84
D Details of individual judgment results

Results of actor group judgment
85
86
xi
Chapter 1
1Introduction and Problem Description
1.1Introduction
A stable framework for cooperation between University-Industry-Government
Research Institute (GRI) is necessary to foster progress in R&D projects. As discussed in [4],
[14], [28] and [40], this objective is frequently hard to accomplish since each group has
different goals. Industry focuses on the cost/profit aspects and quick application of research
outcomes to recover the substantial R&D-related investments. Universities are interested in
enhancing basic research and obtaining patents, funds and support. GRI is stimulated by
government in order to speed up national technology capability and infrastructure. While the
need for effective cooperation between industry, university and GRI in R&D has been
generally reorganized, instances of successful development and implementation of such
cooperative agreement are rare.
Developing countries have realized the importance of science, technology and
research back up for industrial activity as a secret of prosperity and advancement in a
developed country. In fact, in developing countries, very often it is observed that Industry and
R&D units run on parallel tracks, without any point of convergence. There is lack of proper
interface because either the technologies developed by the R&D units are not ready to be
transferred to Industry or Industry is not prepared to assimilate these R&D results due to
technical and economic factors.
To overcome these problems, university units, industry units and GRI units have an
important role, which is directly related to scientific and technological advances. The
university and GRI units supply both capable human resources and technical know how,
while industry unit supplies the means and the opportunity to utilize the results of research
and development for production of socially desired products at affordable prices.
1.2Problem Statement

In Vietnam, the issue of cooperation among firms, universities, GRI institutes and
government administrative organizations has been a focus for policy makers as well as
industrialists and academics in order for them to develop new product and technology
through three provisions:
• Higher growth
• Long-term, synchronous development and
• Low cost
However, this vision has just been developed in recent years and there has not been
yet official assessment on the strength of the University-Industry-GRI cooperation.
Problems for Education and Research units (University)
1
They often emphasize know why rather than know how. Academic programs and training has
less opportunity for on-field study, because there are so many things for students to study in
a short time. Curricula and research programs are either less applicable or unrealistic
because they don’t focus on the markets needs or on a real case of a specific industry.
Problems for Research and Development units (GRI)
Vietnam, for a long time, had had a centrally planned economy. Therefore, most of GRI units
belong to the government. They passively run under central plans from the government. The
concept of commercializing technology from R&D to manufacturing becomes stranger and
stranger for them. Furthermore, almost all GRI units in public sectors have rigid management
style and inadequate resource (capital, manpower, time) allocation and obsolete facilities that
can not well serve for researches of modern technology. As a result, many projects are
quitted or postponed.
Problems for Engineering and Manufacturing (Industry)
Firms in the private and state-owned sectors in Vietnam are mostly medium and small. They
have not enough money for possessing their own in-house R&D. Therefore, they mainly
pursue short-term gain, quick return and avoid risk, whereas R&D investments require a long-
term strategy and a large amount of money. For them, R&D activities are less important than
high profit and cash flow.
1.3Objectives of the Study

The objective of the study is to address the measurement problem on the University-
Industry-GRI cooperation in Vietnam by applying suitable multi-criteria decision making
process. The primary goal of the research is to further understand importance of
interrelationship among university, industry and government research institute. The specific
objectives of the study include the followings:
• To identify various factors (criteria), sub-factors and possible types of existing linkages
among units related to the assessment of University-Industry-GRI cooperation.
• To explore the real situation and the perception of people toward University-Industry-GRI
cooperation in Vietnam.
• To establish priority basis for the assessment of relative importance among individual
linkages and the strength of the overall linkages.
• To identify the enhancement of the practical capability for universities and GRI institutes.
1.4Scope and Limitations of the Study
The model of technological cooperation will be applicable to developing countries,
which are trying to promote research potentials of scientific and technological units and
building University-Industry-GRI research relationships. The core of this study is the
application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to measure research and development
linkages in the Vietnamese Food Processing industry by selecting suitable criteria. This
model is used as a framework for the assessment of strength of University-Industry-GRI
cooperation.
The limitations are as follows:
2
Though there are many factors and criteria that are interrelated in University-Industry-
GRI cooperation, for purposes of simplicity and ease of analysis, and due to obvious
constraints of time, this research study is limited to certain factors that encompass most of the
crucial aspects. It can thus be labeled as a limitation that the analysis could not be carried out
on a more comprehensive basis.
The AHP process requires experts to reweigh their judgments before a final
consensus is reached. Lack of time did not allow this process to happen and hence experts'
view may not be as true to life as desired.

The sample size is rather small. This is because of the limited time and resources
available during the period of research as well as the high inconsistency among experts,
which, due to time constraints was not possible to retake
Vietnamese is still not familiar with a quite new topic as assessment of technology.
The respondents called "expert" in the study is really public persons who are able to
understand the problem and have ideas on the University-Industry-GRI cooperation in the
Food-Processing industry. Thus, it took much time and efforts of the researcher to guide them
to fulfill the task truly and reliably.
1.5Organization of Report and Research Design
The report is organized in seven chapters and an appendix. The main text portion of
the report contains the most relevant matters on the research and details input and output of
analysis and supportive information are given in the appendix part.
The first chapter gives the introduction and the problem description. The next chapter
deals with the literature review related to the problem and tool used in the research. In the
third chapter, detail methodology of the work has been presented. Overview of University-
Industry-GRI cooperation in Vietnam is given in chapter four. Chapter five contains the
discussions regarding the data collection and processing work. Results and discussion have
been presented in chapter six. Last but not the least, chapter seven gives the conclusion,
recommendation and further research direction found from this research study.
The research has been designed in five major steps. The five steps are problem
conceptualization, model formulation, model application, model processing and model
validation. The detail schematic diagram of the research design is present in Figure I.1 (over
page)
3
Figure I.1: Research design
4
Literature
Statement
of
Problem

Objective
Actors
Linkage Factors
Linkage Types
Alternatives
Brainstorming
Decision Hierarchy
(Tentative AHP Model)
Pairwise Comparison
Questionnaire
Finalized AHP Hierarchy
and
Pairwise Comparison
Questionnaire
Pairwise Comparison Ju dgment
Field Ju dgment Validity Checkup
(Field Consistency Checkup)
Matrix Entry
and
Consistency Improvement
Synthesis
of
Individual Judgment
Overall Group judgment
Actors Group Judgment
Implications, Discussion
on
Overall and Individual Linkages
Conclusion
&

Recommendations
Discussion &
Feedback
Pre-testing
Factors, Sub-factors &
Alternatives Definition
Expert Choice - Ver 8
Expert Choice Pro - Ver 9.5
Expert Choice Pro - 9.5MS Excel 7.0
Results, Interpretation and
Validation
Literature and Practice
Expert Choice Pro - 9.5
PROBLEM CONCEPTUALIZATION MODEL FORMULATION
MODEL APPLICATION
MODEL PROCESSINGMODEL VALIDATION
Problem
Conceptualization
Model Formulation
Model Application
Model Processing
Model Validation
Summary of
Research Design
E
D
U
C
A
T

I
O
N

A
N
D
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

U
N
I
T
S
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H

A
N
D
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T

U
N
I
T
S
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING UNITS
GOVERNMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY
D
E
S
I
G

N





P
R
O
D
U
C
T
EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE
P
R
O
B
L
E
M





C
O
N
C

E
P
T
2Chapter 2
3Literature Review
3.1General
When conflict and controversies are involved in any problem, especially such
complicated problem as management of technology, then there is more to do with the
qualitative measurement rather than quantitative measures. The qualitative aspects of the
problem is to be resolved prior to the application of quantitative assessment in the conflicts
and controversy free options and that would be more desirable and can result
effective/efficient solution. Thus, an analytical hierarchy model is well suite for solving the
problem.
In this section, the literature review with the primary goal of preserving relevant
information to the study is organized on two main concerned aspects. Firstly, the work briefly
explores the theory of the University-Industry-GRI linkages in the Innovation Triangle (Figure
I.2) including linkage type in terms of formal as well as informal. Then, a few points toward
facilitators and inhibitors to linkages are described. Secondly, a methodological consideration
on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is introduced.
Figure I.2: The Innovation Triangle [15]
5
3.2Linkage Types
Status of the linkage can be categorized according to the degree involvement of
institution or individual involvement in the linkage. Linkages are also classified into Formal
and Informal types.
Formal Cooperation
Formal linkage refers to institutional built linkage. Activities are carried out based on
“contract or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)". Formal collaborations are characterized
by lengthy negotiations, long approval chains and extensive legal details. Adjunct
professorships for industrial personnel, cooperative educational programs, direct industrial

sponsorship of research, pooling of patents, sharing of intellectual properties and jointly
conducted research projects are common forms with many variations. The provision of start-
up or incubator facilities for new firms by a university is also a common form of collaboration.
The university incubator may provide laboratories, office space, personnel or technologies, in
return for fees, opportunities for faculty involvement or patent rights. Incubator programs are
often partially funded by government grants or contracts, thus providing an academe-industry-
government partnership [14].
Informal Cooperation
Informal linkage refers to personal or individual and collective built linkage. Activities
are carried out without contract or MOU or other legal aspects with institutions. Informal
linkages are mostly based on mutual trust and personal approach. The most common
indication of informal linkage is that budget or funding linkage is managed only by one side.
Informal collaborations are ad hoc, discretionary arrangements involving minimal
preparations and few administrative clearances. The typical academic-industry example is a
student project, where the faculty member simply telephones an acquaintance in a local firm
and requests an interesting term project for a student. Informal meetings of faculty and
industrial representatives to exchange information, obtain mutual advice, and discuss
problems of mutual interest are also typical examples. Forums for idea exchange, ad hoc
interest groups formed to discuss some topical issue, and industrial advisory boards are
further example [14].
Analogous relationships often form between individual employees in a government
agency and a firm or a university, e.g. a task force developing a proposal for a new
regulation, university-industry-government institute employees working together to collect
information on a phenomenon of joint interest or so on.
The relations of the Innovation Triangle are most frequently found in the form of:
(i) Joint Research
The activity to which University unit, GRI unit and Industry unit participate or contribute
manpower, funds and equipment. This varies from project to project. Joint research is
sometimes also combined with contract research. It can be initiated by GRI unit, University
unit or sometimes by Industry unit. Nowadays, with the creation of new institutions such as

technology parks, joint research may also play an essential role.
6
(ii) Sponsored Research
R&D activities that are funded by industry or other funding body such as government,
AAECP, ESCAP, UNESCO, UNDP so on.
(iii) Research Contract or Research Collaboration
The GRI unit or academic unit enters a contract with industry for the performance of
research or a specific project. In another alternative, a company buys some of time of the
academia scientist and his/her team to help conduct the applied research in either the
academia or R&D of the industrial laboratory. This is a purely temporary relation confined to a
specific project. The initiative generally comes from industry, whereas the administrative side
of contract research generally falls to GRI unit or University unit or other units established for
this purpose.
(iv) Auxiliary Works / Provision of Services
Consultant services
Usually faculty members or senior researchers are hired to consult during the time
they are allowed to work outside. This linkage relatively inexpensive, rapid and
selective means of transferring information and often serves as gatekeepers to wider
scientific community.
Technical assistance
The technical and scientific laboratory personnel with unique expertise are needed by
industry in assisting their certain activity in projects or researches.
Testing
Industry asked GRI unit or academia labs to do testing a certain material or a system
for them.
Staff transfers and Direct individual contact
Temporary transfer of staff from GRI unit, industry to university and vice versa is
aimed to solve problems or to improve the capability of its staff. This type of
cooperation enables scientific staffs to work out of office without losing their rights in
their previous work as an employee. Academia and industry with similar interests

usually exchange scientists for a specified time (this can be a part of contractual
relationship).
Sharing facilities
This type of linkage takes place if both units do not have complete R&D facilities and
usually exist in informal form. It also happens when there is loan or grant for a certain
project that involves two units.
Equipment gift
Industry as a donor gives equipment for R&D activities
(v) Training Activities
Practical training
7
It is an opportunity for students to spend part of their studies in Industry, where they
are exposed to the working methods and requirements of jobs at industry or other
institutions while applying the knowledge they are acquiring, thus gaining experience
that will be valuable in their future careers.
Further training
To improve capability of staff in a particular filed. The application of new technologies
requires know-how which the industrial staffs who got their degrees long ago, do not
generally have.
Seminar & Conference / Workshop
From this kind of linkage both units can discover shared interests. It can be conducted
by GRI unit, University unit or Industry unit and, generally with the purpose of
disseminating information on new or emerging technologies with possible applications
to industry.
Scholarship/Fellowship
Industry gives fund for undergraduate and postgraduate students. For some cases,
enterprises select graduates according to their needs for giving scholarship.
(vi) Information Dissemination
Through laboratory result report publications and other printed documentation.
(vii) Patent / Copyright

(viii) Science, Research Park, Techno-Park or Incubators
The Science Park is conceived as a mechanism by which academic researchers
might commercialize their outputs, or where might locate in order t access academic
expertise and result. The Science Park could be promoted, funded and developed in a
number ways which involve the installation on a given site area, normally close to a university
collaborates with a member of high-tech firms that receive official assistance in the early
stages [32]. The core of the science park concept lies in the idea that scientific knowledge
leads in some linear progression to technological innovation. It is often seen as one means of
facilitating the transfer of academic research outputs to industry. Furthermore, science parks
represent an infrastructural mechanism to bridge the gap between academy and industry.
According to UK Science Park Association, “the science park is a property based initiative
which:
• has formal operational links with a university or other higher educational or
research institutions;
• is designed to encourage the formation and growth of knowledge based business
and other organizations normally resident on site; and
• has a management function which is actively engaged in the transfer technology
and business skills to the organizations on site [32].
In many developed countries, many companies seek space near campuses for benefit
of the research environment. Some are small high-tech firms that have resulted from
academia “spin-off”. Academia frequently encourages such ventures in their start-up or
incubating efforts by providing service, advice and often inexpensive space. Forms of the
linkage here mostly contract research and technical service.
8
3.3Facilitators and Inhibitors to Linkages
3.3.1 University and Industry Linkage
The motives behind the cooperation of University and Industry are many and varied.
As mentioned in some articles [12,14,43], the success of the cooperation much depends on
the benefits each party has and the obstacles both parties have to overcome.
Facilitator

Industry unit gains by having
• A supply of better qualified graduates having more relevant training because industry’s
needs have been identified.
• Access to knowledge which, when applied, can enable appropriate technologies to be
introduced.
• Access to the academia’s physical facilities and the expertise of its staff.
• Access to the research, consulting and data collection of the university
• Access to graduate recruitment.
• An improved public image in the society in which it operates, which means that more
talented students will be attracted to the industrial sector.
University unit gains by having
• The stimulus of relating theory to practice, important for staff development.
• Assistance from industry curriculum development to ensure that curricula shall be relevant
to local conditions.
• Strengthening staff development by giving faculty members opportunities to gain practical
experience.
• Access to industry for both fundamental research and applied research.
• Opportunities for industrial training and graduate placement.
• Additional income from contract research, consultant, royalties and patents.
• An improved image with government and society generally
Individual academics gain by having
• Opportunities for consulting
• Means of keeping in tough with practice and thus making their teaching more effective.
• Opening for research
• Facility for personal development leading to improved promotion prospects
• Increased income and job satisfaction.
Society gains by having
• An improved return on investment in higher education.
• A more effective educational contribution to economic development.
• Better utilization of human and physical resources

9
• Fewer of the social and political stresses that accompany unemployment of academia
graduates.
Inhibitor
The inherent differences that exist between an industrial organization and academia
are usually a barrier preventing these two parties from working together [12, 14, 43].
These conflicts seem to occur along four dimensions: control, standard, authority and loyalty.
A similar analogy can be drawn for the differences that exist at large between the scientific or
academic world and the world of organizations and management as shown in Table 1.1.
While the first world is usually occupied with accumulation of knowledge, research, the
building of theory, sustaining scientific standards, and of course teaching, the second is
usually more interested in short-term results like profits, sales, efficiency, satisfying the
customer etc.
Academia has problems in terms of
• Finance, staffing and rapidly growing number of students.
• The faculty has little practical experience and may hold anti-business attitude.
• Academic regulation and rigid convention may discourage staff from working with
industry.
• The difficulty of striking the right balance between teaching and research on the one hand
and consultant on the other.
Industry has problems in terms of
• May be preoccupied with its own immediate problem – difficult economic conditions,
currency restrictions, government regulations, which may make it neglect its long-term
objectives for management development, research and training.
• The attitude of businessmen, who may or may not have had an academia education, may
be anti-academic. They may have a feeling that such studies are “too theoretical”.
• Management, particularly in small industries, is often rudimentary.
Table 1.1: Orientation differences between an industrial firm and a university
Difference Industrial firm University
Attitudes and values Business attitude

Economic considerations
Satisfying the customer
Product driven
Added Value
Scientific attitude
Professional considerations
Do good research
Know-how, know-why
New knowledge
Objectives Organizational
effectiveness
Short-term results
Financial benefit
Applied research
Excellence in research
Excellence in teaching
Long-term results
New financial means for
additional research
Basic research
10
Outputs Cost-effective products and
services
New application
Research results, theories
New discoveries
Standard and rules Organizational rationality
Organizational rules
Secrecy
Protection, patents

Commercial approach
Professional ethics
Scientific norms
Publication
Free, public goods
Academic freedom
Recognition and rewards For contribution to company
goals
For scientific achievements
Academic degree
Knowledge and learning Application of knowledge
Learning only if needed
Contribution to knowledge
Continuous learning
3.3.2 Industry unit and GRI unit Linkage
Facilitator
The motives behind the formation of Industry and GRI are many and varied through
project by project. The proper linkage between GRI unit and Industry unit can give much
benefit to both units [28, 29, 44, 45].
GRI unit gains by having
• Reduce cost for certain research or enhance resources through cost sharing.
• Potentially reduce technology transfer cost
• Focuses on market needs leading to more transferable technologies
• Disseminates information quickly to industry
• Overcome “not invented here” syndrome.
Industry unit gains by having
• Gain access to enhance resources through sharing of equipment, funds and expertise.
• Easy to get special R&D information through seminar, conferences, open meeting,
forums.
• As an economical way to acquire the necessary know-how.

Inhibitor
The difference in goals and practices between GRI unit and Industry unit caused
difficulties in forming strong linkage. The differences between GRI unit and Industry unit are
summarized in Table 1.2 as below:
11
Table 1.2: Characteristics of GRI unit and Industry unit
Characteristics GRI unit Industry unit
Time horizon Long term Short term
Financial structure Expense center Profit center
Product Information/conceptual Goods/service
Approach Scientific Factual/Quantitative
Orientation Novelty/Industry need Market attractiveness/Profit
potential
Sources: [39]
Other weaknesses that are considered as inhibiting factors are as follows:
GRI unit point of view
• Inadequate mechanisms for promotion due to lack of credibility and acceptability
• Demonstration and dissemination of research result
• Absence of resources for techno-economic and market feasibility studies to establish
commercial viability.
• Lack of understanding about the capabilities and potential of GRI unit to impact on the
realistic needs of the production system (e.g. non-availability of a total package of
service).
Industry unit point of view
• Lack confidence in the ability of GRI unit to provide meaningful solutions to its problems in
a reasonable time and at a realistic cost.
• Lack confidence in the knowledge and experience of GRI unit in solving industrial
problems, their competence in specialized industrial technology, and appreciation of
cost/benefit industrial motivation.
• Industry believes that it should not pay for the services provided by GRI unit, which is

largely subsidized by government funds derived from industrial taxes.
• Industry is usually wary of the GRI unit and government relationship which could result in
disclosure of potential patent possibilities, technical secrets, or management information
to government agencies or competitors.
• Industry does not often evidence a genuine interest in the research results of an institute
until these has been carried through a pilot or demonstration plant phase, and
productions, economic and marketing feasibility have been resolved.
3.3.3 GRI unit and University unit Linkage
Facilitator
Both of them are benefited from proper linkage, for example:
• To maintain a balance between attention to research and development and to build the
capable human resources.
• To bridge communication gap and assist the growth and development of research having
direct relevance to the academic program.
12
Inhibitor
Over the past decade, the interaction between industry and universities or
independent research centers has become of increasing importance. Based on an iterative
process of technology-driven and market-pull oriented approaches. An independent research
institute has a set of goals, which are quite different from those of university [39] as shown in
Table 1.3. Furthermore, such objectives can only be reached successfully through delicately
balanced compromises between apparently conflicting forces with respect to:
Table 1.3: Different Characteristics of University and GRI units
Characteristics University unit GRI unit
Goal Scientific-oriented Delivering
research results of high quality
within selected technological
fields (excellence in research),
Actively assisting in
postgraduate education

(excellence in education)
Economic-oriented
Industry-oriented research and
development (R&D),
Know-how transfer to industry,
Creating a favorable climate for
new industrial initiatives.
Time horizon Longer-term research
programs
Shorter-term research programs
Funding Fundamental-oriented
research
Industry-oriented research
Scientific infrastructure Minimal need Optimal use
Rick assessment Scientific research centre Independent research centre
Confidentiality Publication needs Property rights
Motivational climate Academic rewards Research rewards
Interaction & feedback
needs
Fundamental research Applied research.
In many developing countries, GRI unit really depends on the government, because
the biggest funding research also comes from government. Thus, research activity is limited
to the existing budget. This also applies to the university. The difficulties include not only in
terms of funding research, but also in terms of out-dated physical facilities, and rigid
management styles in both units.
3.4The Analytic Hierarchy Process
The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a general theory of measurement to solve a specific
problem in consistency planning, developed by Thomas L. Saaty in 1971-1975 while at the
Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa) [49]. It is used to derive ratio
scales from both discrete and continuous paired comparisons. These comparisons may be

taken from actual measurements or from a fundamental scale which reflects the relative
strength of preferences and feelings. When applied in decision making it assists one to
describe the general decision operation by decomposing a complex problem into a multi-level
hierarchic structure of objectives, criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives. People then express
their preferences by making judgments on a variety of paired comparisons of both the criteria
and the alternatives.
13
People make two kinds of decision: those in which they definitely know the criteria they
intend to apply and the importance of these criteria apart from any alternatives they may be
considering. Related to this are situations where they have ranked their alternatives by
assuming that the ones they are aware of all are there.
Another type of decision is one in which people are unsure of the importance of their
criteria. In this case to sharpen their knowledge of the criteria a wide selection of alternatives
must be examined. In the second situation, when looking at alternatives to decide the criteria
in the first pace is more difficult and more common in the face of complexity where new
criteria and re-arrangement of old criteria occur constantly [48].
Three principles guide one in problem solving the AHP [49,50]: decomposition,
comparative judgments and synthesis of priorities.
The decomposition principle is applied by structuring a simple problem with the
elements in a level being independent from those in succeeding levels, working downward
from the focus in the top level, to criteria bearing on the focus in the second level, followed by
sub-criteria in third level, and so on, from the more general (and sometimes uncertain) to the
more particular and concrete. Saaty [50] makes a distinction between two types of
dependence that he calls functional and structural. The former is the familiar contextual
dependence of elements on other elements in performing their function, whereas the later is
the dependence of the priority of elements on the priority and number of other elements.
The principle of comparative judgments is applied to construct pair-wise comparisons
of the relative importance of elements in some given level with respect to a shared criterion or
property in the level above, giving rise to the kind of matrix encountered above and its
corresponding principal eigen-vector.

The third principle is that of synthesizing the priorities. In the AHP priorities are
synthesized from the second level down by multiplying local priority of their corresponding
criterion in the level above and adding, for each element in a level according to the criteria it
affects.
An important aspect of the AHP is the idea of consistency [49]. If one has a scale for a
property possessed by some objects and measures that property in them, and then their
relative weights with respect to that property are fixed. In this case, there is no judgment
inconsistency. Although if one has a physical scale and applies it to objects in pairs and then
derives the relative standing of the objects on the scale from the pair-wise comparison matrix,
it is likely that inaccuracies will have occurred in the act of applying the physical scale and
again there would be inconsistency. When comparing with respect to a property for which
there is no established scale or measure, we are trying to derive a scale through comparing
the objects' two at a time. Since the objects may be involved in more than one comparison
and we have no standard scale, but are assigning relative values as a matter of judgment,
inconsistencies may well occur. The calculation procedures for weights and for the
inconsistency index leads to an eigen-value formulation [50].
However, the AHP has proven to be a very effective decision aid. The two
advantages, which the AHP has over the other multi-criteria methods, are the ease of use
and the ability to handle inconsistencies in judgments. The AHP does not force an individual
14