4.8 Article

Examining the efficiency of regional university technology transfer in China: A mixed-integer generalized data envelopment analysis framework

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122802

Keywords

Peer evaluation; Integer; Data envelopment analysis; Technology transfer; University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the issues in performance assessment of university technology transfer and proposes a mixed-integer generalized DEA model based on peer evaluation to address the problem. The study uses a sample of 27 provinces in China and finds that the eastern region has the highest level of efficiency in technology transfer, while the western region lags behind.
In university technology transfer performance assessment, some variables, such as labor and contracts, must be treated as integer-valued variables. Usually, the reference points obtained by the conventional data envelopment analysis (DEA) method are unrealistic when one of the input/output measures is an integer value. As a result, several integer DEA models have been proposed over the last decade. However, these models are based only on self-evaluation. In some cases, when a large gap exists between the best- and worst-performing units, the improvement path based on self-evaluation can be inappropriate. To overcome this issue, we propose a mixedinteger generalized DEA model based on peer evaluation to evaluate the efficiency level of regional university technology transfer in China. A sample of 27 provinces in China from 2008 to 2015 is used in the study. The results reveal that the eastern region, on average, obtained the highest level of efficiency among the three regions in China, whereas the western region presented a poor efficiency level. This is consistent with the current stage of development. Several recommendations are suggested for promoting technology transfer in the western region.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available