تحلیل ارتباط دانشگاه و صنعت از دیدگاه بازاریابی رابطه مند با رویکرد معادلات ساختاری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان

2 کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت کارآفرینی، دانشگاه سیستان بلوچستان

چکیده

امروزه در اقتصادهای دانش‌محور، دانشگاه، صنعت و دولت به‌عنوان سه رکن اساسی نظام ملی نوآوری شناخته شده‌اند که هر کدام نقش و وظیفه‌ای خاص بر عهده دارند، دانشگاه و صنعت با هم نقش مهمی در ایجاد و حفظ مزیت‌های رقابتی دارند، ایجاد و برقراری ارتباط بین دانشگاه‌ و نهادهای صنعتی باعث خلق ارزش برای ذینفعان می‌گردد. در این مطالعه با استفاده از نظریه «بازاریابی رابطه‌مند» ارتباط و همکاری میان شرکت‌ها و نهادهای صنعتی مرتبط با دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان به منظور بررسی عوامل ایجاد ارتباط بین دانشگاه و سازمان‌هایی که در برنامه‌های کارآموزی فارغ‌التحصیلان همکاری دارند، مورد بررسی و تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفت، جامعه مورد مطالعه شرکت‌هایی هستند که با دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان همکاری داشته‌اند، در این مجموعه تعداد 175 نفر از مدیران و معاونین و کارکنان بخش‌های مرتبط شناسایی شدند، حجم نمونه با استفاده از فرمول کوکران 120 عضو برآورد شد، داده‌ها توسط پرسشنامه محقق ساخته گردآوری و به کمک تحلیل PLS مورد تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفت. درنهایت مدلی از معادلات ساختاری ایجاد و آزمایش شد و یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که ارتباطات، اساس برقراری روابط است و تأثیر مثبتی بر میزان رضایت از رابطه، اعتماد و تعارضات کارکردی دارد همچنین مشخص گردید که اعتماد و تعهد، سطح همکاری شرکت‌ها با دانشگاه را افزایش می‌دهند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of the Relationship Between University and Industry from the perspective of Marketing Relationships with Structural Equations Approach;

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohim Sheihakitash 1
  • Loghman Mansouri 2
1 Assistant Professor of Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan
2 Master of Entrepreneurship Management, University of Sistan and Baluchestan
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract:
Creating and maintaining a relationship between university and industrial organizations leads to the creation of some values for beneficiaries. In this study, the relationship and cooperation of industrial companies and institutions with University of Sistan and Baluchistan is investigated using "relation-oriented marketing" to investigate the affective factors on establishing a relationship between university and the organizations that work on graduate students' internship. The statistical population includes the companies that have been working with the University of Sistan and Balochistan. In this company, 175 managers and associates and employees of related sections were identified. The sample size was calculated as 120 subjects using Cochran formula. The data were collected via researcher-made questionnaire and analyzed through PLS analysis. Eventually, a model of structural equation was developed and examined. The findings of the study suggest that communications is the basis of establishing a relationship and has a positive effect on the level of satisfaction of the relationship, trust and functional oppositions. Also, it was determined that trust and commitment, the level of cooperation with companies and universities; increase the level of companies' cooperation's with universities.
Introduction
The purpose of doing this study is to deepen the perspective about the factors that constitute the relationship and cooperation between university (here, the University of Sistan and Baluchistan) and organizations that work on graduates' internship programs. Therefore, the following six factors will be investigated in this study: communications, trust, satisfaction, functional oppositions, commitment and cooperation.
Specifically, research goals are as follows: First phase; the analysis of the role of communications as the basis of relationships and its effect on trust, satisfaction and functional oppositions, and in the second phase; the role of those variables in establishing higher commitment and cooperation between an organization and university is investigated.
Case study
This research is performed to investigate and analyze the level of cooperation between industrial companies of Zahedan which is one of the cities of Sistan and Baluchistan and the Academic section of this province.
Materials and methods
In this study, the data are gathered through questionnaires and research population includes all the companies which have been cooperating with the University of Sistan and Baluchistan. The research sample includes all the managers and associates and employees of research section and planning units and sections of these companies and sample size includes 120 subjects. Factor analysis, content validity and Cronbach's alpha were used for measuring the validity and reliability of variables. Overall, the overall reliability was calculated as 0/991 and it was calculated as 0/7 for each dimension. The applied scale in this study is the Lickert scale. In the present study, the divergent validity of the measured model has been assessed through utilizing Fornel and Locker (1981) criterion. The analysis has been done based on a two-staged method. SPSS 17.1 software was used for data analysis and the following six latent variables were considered: trust, satisfaction, commitment, functional oppositions, communications and cooperation which were measured by 23 manifest indicators.
Discussion and Results
A two-staged approach is followed to evaluate the reference to structural model (Hair & et al, 2010) .In the first phase, index repetition approach was used for calculating the latent variable for lower-level constitutes and in the second phase, observed variables are used in higher-level measurement model. A pls algorithm was ran in Smart PLS software for this matter. After that, the score for the latent variable was saved in an Excel file and then it is used as an index for higher-level constitute in the second phase. Using the boot-strap method along with a second measurement calculates the path and measures the t-test for the relationships. Given the regression coefficients, the variables of communications and satisfaction, taken together, explain 59.3 per cent of the changes of trust variable, the variables of communications and functional oppositions, together, explain 48 per cent of the changes of the satisfaction variable and 32.3 per cent in the variable of functional oppositions. The variables of trust and satisfaction together determine 33.6 per cent of the changes of commitment variable. On the other hand, the commitment variable only expressed 13.1 per cent of changes in cooperation variable which is very weak. Eventually, of all the research hypotheses, hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 were confirmed and the hypotheses 7 and 8 were rejected.
Conclusion:
This study can have a considerable effect on investigating the relationships between university and industry and it could be considered as a factor that leads to increased cooperation and commitment between university and industry for implementing programs related to graduate students' internship. The weak interaction of these two institutions is goes back to their contradictory goals and procedures. The results suggested that oppositions are considered as functional when the relationship between these two organizations are improving, and not only is this opposition not harmful, but it's also beneficial. The results emphasize that satisfaction is a preamble to establishing commitment and trust in the relationships between university and industry. The research hypothesis based on the assumption that there is a positive relationship between functional oppositions and increased cooperation level was rejected. The existence of a direct relationship between satisfaction and cooperation was rejected in this study. It also confirms the results of the existence of a positive relationship between commitment and increased cooperation level. In addition to this, the existence of a direct relationship between satisfaction and cooperation has not been confirmed in this study. Satisfaction of the relationship between university and industry might not lead to increased cooperation in the aforementioned relationships.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • the relationships of university-industry
  • relation-oriented marketing
  • national innovation system

مراجع

1- Amin Mozafari, F., & padashie asl, kh,& Shamsi, L, & and Budaghi, A. (2011); An Investigation of the Interdisciplinary Role and Position in the Relationship between University and Industry; Quarterly Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, No. 1 ; Pp. 25-67. (In presian)
2-Dargahi, H., & Mousavi, M. A., & Iraghie Farahani, S., & Shaham, G. (2008); Conflict Management and Related Strategies; Journal of Health; Volume 2, No. 1 & 2; p. 8. (In presian)
3-Hosseingholihzadeh, R. (2012): Essential Requirements for University-Industry Interaction with Knowledge Management Approach; Quarterly Journal of Engineering Engineering, Year 14; No. 54; pp. 1-19. (In presian)
4-Ismaili, M., & Yamani Sorkhabi, M, & Haji-Hasani, H, & Kayamanesh, A. (2011); The Relationship of the Relationship between Technical Engineering Schools of Tehran State Universities and Industry in the Framework of the National System of Innovation; Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education; No. 59 ; Pp. 27-46. (In presian)
5-Jafar Nezhad, A., & Mahdavi, A., & Khaleghi Soroush, F. (2005); Examining Barriers and Providing Strategies for the Development of Interrelationships between Industry and Universities in Iran; Management Knowledge Quarterly; No. 71; pp. 41-62. (In presian)
6-Manteghi, M., & Salimi, M.D. (2003); Presenting successful patterns for research and collaboration of university and industry in technology development; Iranian Journal of Engineering Education Quarterly; ninth year; No. 33; pp. 159-175. (In presian)
7-Mortazavi, S. (2004); University / Industry Relationship: Inevitable necessity; Journal of Clinical Psychology Research and Consulting; Year 5; No. 1.pp95-118 (In presian)
8-Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 18-34.
9-Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
10-Hair, J, Black, W, Babin, B, & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective.2010. NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.
11-Draghici, A, Baban, C. F, Gogan, M. L, & Ivascu, L. V. (2015). A Knowledge Management Approach for the University-industry Collaboration in Open Innovation. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 23-32.
12-Fornell, C, & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
13-Freitas, I. M. B, Geuna, A, & Rossi, F. (2013). Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university–industry interactions. Research Policy, 42(1), 50-62.
14-Giuliani, E, & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of ‘valuable’university–industry linkages: Insights from the wine industry. Research policy, 38(6), 906-921.
15-Perkmann, M, Tartari, V, McKelvey, M, Autio, E, Broström, A, D’Este, & Krabel, S. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy,42(2), 423-442.
16-Soh, P. H, & Subramanian, A. M. (2014). When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), 807-821.
17-Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. the Journal of Marketing, 42-58.
18- Ankrah, S., & Omar, A.-T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.
19- Berbegal-Mirabent, J., García, J. L. S., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E. (2015). University–industry partnerships for the provision of R&D services. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1407-1413.
20-Berry, L. (1983). Relationship Marketing. American Marketing Association. Chicago.–146 p.
21-Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research policy, 39(7), 858-868.
22-CHUNG, S. (2005). Partnership in Korean Regional Innovation Systems. Paper presented at the STEPI International Symposium Science & Technology Policy in Innovation-Driven Economy.
23-D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research policy, 36(9), 1295-1313.
24-Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
25-Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. the Journal of Marketing, 1-19.
26- Hemmert, M., Bstieler, L., & Okamuro, H. (2014). Bridging the cultural divide: Trust formation in university–industry research collaborations in the US, Japan, and South Korea. Technovation, 34(10), 605-616.
27- Hong, W., & Su, Y.-S. (2013). The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university–industry collaborations: An analysis based on Chinese patent data. Research Policy, 42(2), 454-464.
28-Kharazmi, O. A. (2011). Modelling the Role of University-Industry Collaboration in the Iranian National System of Innovation: Generating Transition Policy Scenarios.
29-Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (1996). Stimulation of technology-based small firms—A case study of university-industry cooperation. Technovation, 16(4), 187-213.
30- Kohengkul, S., Wongwanich, S., & Wiratchai, N. (2009). Influences of strategies, knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer on the success of university-school collaboration in research and development. Research in Higher Education Journal, 5, 1.
31-Lee, J., & Win, H. (2004). Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore. Technovation, 24(5), 433-442.
32-Mora-Valentin, E. M., Montoro-Sanchez, A., & Guerras-Martin, L. A. (2004). Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Research policy, 33(1), 17-40.
33-Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The journal of marketing, 20-38.
34-Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Scarpinato, M. (2012). The effects of universities' proximity to industrial districts on university–industry collaboration. China Economic Review, 23(3), 639-650.
35-Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research policy, 40(4), 539-552.
36-Plewa, C., Korff, N., Johnson, C., Macpherson, G., Baaken, T., & Rampersad, G. C. (2013). The evolution of university–industry linkages—A framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(1), 21-44.
37- Salleh, M., & Omar, M. (2013). University-industry collaboration models in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, 654-664.
38-Santoro, M. D., & Betts, S. C. (2002). Making Industry—University Partnerships Work. Research-Technology Management, 45(3), 42-46.
39-Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1999). Building industry–university research centers: some strategic considerations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(3), 225-244.
40-Santoro, M. D., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). The institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities within industry–university collaborative ventures. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3), 299-319.
41-Santoro, M. D., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). Relationship dynamics between university research centers and industrial firms: Their impact on technology transfer activities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 163-171.
42-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. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133
43- Skarmeas, D. (2006). The role of functional conflict in international buyer–seller relationships: Implications for industrial exporters. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(5), 567-575.
44-Spekman, R. E. (1988). Strategic supplier selection: understanding long-term buyer relationships. Business horizons, 31(4), 75-81.
45-Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. the Journal of Marketing, 31-46.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار