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

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.

USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH

FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY-GRI COOPERATION IN VIETNAM

HoChiMinh University of Technology

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Asian Institute Of Technology School of Management Bangkok, Thailand April 1999

I extend my gratitude to all involved, whose contribution brought the research to thisstage Especially, my research advisor Professor Himangshu Paul, whose inspiration,guidance, valuable suggestions, constant encouragement and care not only as the researchcommittee chairperson but also as a program Dean, deserves the author's gratefulness Iextend my esteem appreciation to the research committee member Dr Jung-won Lee whoseconstructive suggestions and helpful comments enhanced the value of the work Sincerethanks also go to the research committee member Professor Nazrul Islam for his invaluableadvice and effort in guiding me at the first steps

All the respondents and contributors for the work in data collection period in Vietnamare acknowledged for their prompt responses and interest Many thanks gift to the friends inSIM and SAV for their help All the friends here in AIT deserve thanks for their love andsupports during the study period The colleagues of the SOM 97 class are never to beforgotten I express my love to all of them

I am grateful and extend my thanks to the Government of Switzerland for its financialsupport 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 thiswork Last but not the least, support, patience and dedication from my lover are secret of thewhole success

The work is a methodological framework for public involvement in the process oftechnological assessment The objective of this study is to apply the Analytic HierarchyProcess (AHP) for assessing the strength of University-Industry-GRI cooperation bymeasuring the magnitude of different types of factor flows and the relative importance of thelinkages The model for assessment is developed on AHP taking care of major actors andfactors with the linkage alternatives of University-Industry-GRI cooperation In dealing withsuch problem, five steps are developed

The first step is problem conceptualization, consisting of the identification of criticaltechno-economic assessment criteria, including flows of technological factors, linkage factors,and linkage types The next step is model formulation, including factor, criterion andalternative definitions to develop a tentative AHP model The third step mainly concerns datacollection coming from various actors through structured pairwise comparison questionnairevia individual opinions and group opinions The next step employs the geometric meanmethod to make a consensus from group opinions on the importance ratio of criteria andalternatives Processing of the responses is conducted using the AHP based software calledExpert Choice The last one conducts to model validation and result interpretation

The approach of involving public and controversy management is new in the area ofassessment on technological cooperation The results of the study show that the mostpreferred linkage is University-Industry cooperation The study also indicates that governmentpeople is the most different group from others

1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study 21.5 Organization of Report and Research Design 3

2.3 Facilitators and Inhibitors to Linkages 9

3.3 The AHP Model for Overall Linkage 173.4 The AHP Model for Individual Linkage 183.5 Model Application, Processing and Reporting 22

4.2 The Reformation of Research and Development in Vietnam 264.3 University-Industry-GRI Partnership Prior to 1988 274.4 University-Industry-GRI Partnership since 1988 294.5 Existing Difficulties in R&D System of Vietnam 30

5 Data Collection and Processing

List of Figures

3.2 Flows of linkage factors in the Innovation Triangle 19

4.1 The organizational structure of R&D in Vietnam prior to1988 28

6.1 Percentage of response to preference order for different linkages 406.2 Percent of respondents giving first priority to various factors 416.3 Importance to factors by actors and overall group 426.4 Overall group synthesis of alternatives with respect to goal and factor 43

6.6 Magnitude flow of factors from University to Industry 466.7 Magnitude flow of factors from Industry to University 476.8 Overall judgments on University and Industry linkage 476.9 Hierarchy for University and Industry linkage 49

6.11 Magnitude flow of factors from University to GRI 536.12 Magnitude flow of factors from GRI to University 536.13 Overall judgments for University and GRI linkage 536.14 Magnitude flow of factors from GRI to Industry 556.15 Magnitude flow of factors from Industry to GRI 566.16 Overall judgments for GRI and Industry linkage 56

List of Tables

2.1 Orientation differences between an industrial firm and a university 112.2 Characteristics of GRI unit and Industry unit 122.3 Different Characteristics of University and GRI units 133.1 An example of in and out flow of factors in the innovation triangle linkage 213.2 Type of Linkages in the Innovation Triangle 23

6.1 Individual judgment and their priority to the linkage 40

6.3 Individually preferred linkages distributed in actor group 416.4 Priorities of factors and alternatives from overall group and various actors 426.5 Summary of overall group judgments on overall linkage 436.6 Summary of overall group judgments on University-Industry linkage 456.7 Summary of overall group judgments on GRI-University linkage 506.8 Summary of overall group judgment on Industry-GRI linkage 54

List of Acronyms

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

AIT Asian Institute of Technology

DoSTE Department of Ministry of Science, Technology and EnvironmentECPro 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

 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

7475767879

D Details of individual judgment results

Results of actor group judgment

8586

Developing countries have realized the importance of science, technology andresearch back up for industrial activity as a secret of prosperity and advancement in adeveloped country In fact, in developing countries, very often it is observed that Industry andR&D units run on parallel tracks, without any point of convergence There is lack of properinterface because either the technologies developed by the R&D units are not ready to betransferred to Industry or Industry is not prepared to assimilate these R&D results due totechnical and economic factors.

To overcome these problems, university units, industry units and GRI units have animportant role, which is directly related to scientific and technological advances Theuniversity 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 researchand development for production of socially desired products at affordable prices

1.2 Problem Statement

In Vietnam, the issue of cooperation among firms, universities, GRI institutes andgovernment administrative organizations has been a focus for policy makers as well asindustrialists and academics in order for them to develop new product and technologythrough three provisions:

They often emphasize know why rather than know how Academic programs and training hasless 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 unrealisticbecause 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 unitsbelong to the government They passively run under central plans from the government Theconcept of commercializing technology from R&D to manufacturing becomes stranger andstranger for them Furthermore, almost all GRI units in public sectors have rigid managementstyle and inadequate resource (capital, manpower, time) allocation and obsolete facilities thatcan not well serve for researches of modern technology As a result, many projects arequitted or postponed

Problems for Engineering and Manufacturing (Industry)

Firms in the private and state-owned sectors in Vietnam are mostly medium and small Theyhave not enough money for possessing their own in-house R&D Therefore, they mainlypursue 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 thanhigh profit and cash flow

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The objective of the study is to address the measurement problem on the Industry-GRI cooperation in Vietnam by applying suitable multi-criteria decision makingprocess The primary goal of the research is to further understand importance ofinterrelationship among university, industry and government research institute The specificobjectives of the study include the followings:

University- To identify various factors (criteria), sub-factors and possible types of existing linkagesamong units related to the assessment of University-Industry-GRI cooperation

 To explore the real situation and the perception of people toward University-Industry-GRIcooperation in Vietnam

 To establish priority basis for the assessment of relative importance among individuallinkages and the strength of the overall linkages

 To identify the enhancement of the practical capability for universities and GRI institutes

1.4 Scope 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 andbuilding University-Industry-GRI research relationships The core of this study is theapplication of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to measure research and developmentlinkages in the Vietnamese Food Processing industry by selecting suitable criteria Thismodel is used as a framework for the assessment of strength of University-Industry-GRIcooperation

The limitations are as follows:

Though there are many factors and criteria that are interrelated in GRI cooperation, for purposes of simplicity and ease of analysis, and due to obvious

University-Industry-constraints of time, this research study is limited to certain factors that encompass most ofthe crucial aspects It can thus be labeled as a limitation that the analysis could not be carriedout on a more comprehensive basis.

The AHP process requires experts to reweigh their judgments before a finalconsensus 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 resourcesavailable 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 tounderstand the problem and have ideas on the University-Industry-GRI cooperation in theFood-Processing industry Thus, it took much time and efforts of the researcher to guide them

to fulfill the task truly and reliably

1.5 Organization of Report and Research Design

The report is organized in seven chapters and an appendix The main text portion ofthe report contains the most relevant matters on the research and details input and output ofanalysis and supportive information are given in the appendix part

The first chapter gives the introduction and the problem description The next chapterdeals with the literature review related to the problem and tool used in the research In thethird 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 thediscussions regarding the data collection and processing work Results and discussion havebeen 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 problemconceptualization, model formulation, model application, model processing and modelvalidation The detail schematic diagram of the research design is present in Figure I.1 (overpage)

Figure I.1: Research design

Brainstorming

Decision Hierarchy(Tentative AHP Model)

Pairwise ComparisonQuestionnaire

Finalized AHP Hierarchy

and Pairwise Comparison Questionnaire

Pairwise Comparison Judgment

Field Judgment Validity Checkup(Field Consistency Checkup)

Matrix Entry

and

Consistency Improvement

Synthesis of Individual Judgment Overall Group judgment Actors Group Judgment

Factors, Sub-factors &

Alternatives Definition

Expert Choice - Ver 8

Expert Choice Pro - Ver 9.5

Expert Choice Pro - 9.5

MS Excel 7.0

Results, Interpretation and

Validation

Literature and Practice

Expert Choice Pro - 9.5

MODEL APPLICATION

MODEL PROCESSING MODEL VALIDATION

EDU ION D RES

CH TS

RESE ARCH AND

DEVE LOPM ENT UNITS

ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING UNITS

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY

DES

PROT

EXTENSION KNOWLEDGE

PRO BLEM

C ONCEPT

2Chapter 2 3Literature Review 3.1 General

When conflict and controversies are involved in any problem, especially suchcomplicated problem as management of technology, then there is more to do with thequalitative measurement rather than quantitative measures The qualitative aspects of theproblem is to be resolved prior to the application of quantitative assessment in the conflictsand controversy free options and that would be more desirable and can resulteffective/efficient solution Thus, an analytical hierarchy model is well suite for solving theproblem

In this section, the literature review with the primary goal of preserving relevantinformation to the study is organized on two main concerned aspects Firstly, the work brieflyexplores the theory of the University-Industry-GRI linkages in the Innovation Triangle (FigureI.2) including linkage type in terms of formal as well as informal Then, a few points towardfacilitators 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]

3.2 Linkage Types

Status of the linkage can be categorized according to the degree involvement ofinstitution or individual involvement in the linkage Linkages are also classified into Formaland 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 Adjunctprofessorships for industrial personnel, cooperative educational programs, direct industrialsponsorship of research, pooling of patents, sharing of intellectual properties and jointlyconducted 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, inreturn for fees, opportunities for faculty involvement or patent rights Incubator programs areoften 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 Activitiesare carried out without contract or MOU or other legal aspects with institutions Informallinkages are mostly based on mutual trust and personal approach The most commonindication of informal linkage is that budget or funding linkage is managed only by one side

Informal collaborations are ad hoc, discretionary arrangements involving minimalpreparations and few administrative clearances The typical academic-industry example is astudent project, where the faculty member simply telephones an acquaintance in a local firmand requests an interesting term project for a student Informal meetings of faculty andindustrial representatives to exchange information, obtain mutual advice, and discussproblems of mutual interest are also typical examples Forums for idea exchange, ad hocinterest groups formed to discuss some topical issue, and industrial advisory boards arefurther example [14]

Analogous relationships often form between individual employees in a governmentagency and a firm or a university, e.g a task force developing a proposal for a newregulation, university-industry-government institute employees working together to collectinformation 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 contributemanpower, funds and equipment This varies from project to project Joint research issometimes also combined with contract research It can be initiated by GRI unit, Universityunit or sometimes by Industry unit Nowadays, with the creation of new institutions such astechnology parks, joint research may also play an essential role

(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 ofresearch or a specific project In another alternative, a company buys some of time of theacademia scientist and his/her team to help conduct the applied research in either theacademia or R&D of the industrial laboratory This is a purely temporary relation confined to aspecific 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 forthis purpose

(iv) Auxiliary Works / Provision of Services

Consultant services

Usually faculty members or senior researchers are hired to consult during the timethey are allowed to work outside This linkage relatively inexpensive, rapid andselective means of transferring information and often serves as gatekeepers to widerscientific community

Staff transfers and Direct individual contact

Temporary transfer of staff from GRI unit, industry to university and vice versa isaimed to solve problems or to improve the capability of its staff This type ofcooperation enables scientific staffs to work out of office without losing their rights intheir previous work as an employee Academia and industry with similar interestsusually exchange scientists for a specified time (this can be a part of contractualrelationship)

Sharing facilities

This type of linkage takes place if both units do not have complete R&D facilities andusually exist in informal form It also happens when there is loan or grant for a certainproject that involves two units

Equipment gift

Industry as a donor gives equipment for R&D activities

(v) Training Activities

Practical training

It is an opportunity for students to spend part of their studies in Industry, where theyare exposed to the working methods and requirements of jobs at industry or otherinstitutions while applying the knowledge they are acquiring, thus gaining experiencethat will be valuable in their future careers.

Further training

To improve capability of staff in a particular filed The application of new technologiesrequires know-how which the industrial staffs who got their degrees long ago, do notgenerally 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 ofdisseminating 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 researchersmight commercialize their outputs, or where might locate in order t access academicexpertise and result The Science Park could be promoted, funded and developed in anumber ways which involve the installation on a given site area, normally close to a universitycollaborates with a member of high-tech firms that receive official assistance in the earlystages [32] The core of the science park concept lies in the idea that scientific knowledgeleads in some linear progression to technological innovation It is often seen as one means offacilitating the transfer of academic research outputs to industry Furthermore, science parksrepresent an infrastructural mechanism to bridge the gap between academy and industry.According to UK Science Park Association, “the science park is a property based initiativewhich:

 has formal operational links with a university or other higher educational orresearch institutions;

 is designed to encourage the formation and growth of knowledge based businessand other organizations normally resident on site; and

 has a management function which is actively engaged in the transfer technologyand 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 fromacademia “spin-off” Academia frequently encourages such ventures in their start-up orincubating efforts by providing service, advice and often inexpensive space Forms of thelinkage here mostly contract research and technical service

3.3 Facilitators 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 onthe 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’sneeds have been identified

 Access to knowledge which, when applied, can enable appropriate technologies to beintroduced

 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 moretalented 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 practicalexperience

 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

 Fewer of the social and political stresses that accompany unemployment of academiagraduates

The inherent differences that exist between an industrial organization and academiaare 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 oracademic 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, thebuilding of theory, sustaining scientific standards, and of course teaching, the second isusually more interested in short-term results like profits, sales, efficiency, satisfying thecustomer 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 withindustry

 The difficulty of striking the right balance between teaching and research on the one handand 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-termobjectives 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

Attitudes and values Business attitude

Economic considerationsSatisfying the customerProduct driven

Added Value

Scientific attitudeProfessional considerations

Do good researchKnow-how, know-whyNew knowledgeObjectives Organizational

effectivenessShort-term resultsFinancial benefitApplied research

Excellence in research Excellence in teachingLong-term resultsNew financial means foradditional research

Basic researchOutputs Cost-effective products and

servicesNew application

Research results, theoriesNew discoveries

Standard and rules Organizational rationality Professional ethics

Organizational rulesSecrecy

Protection, patentsCommercial approach

Scientific normsPublicationFree, public goodsAcademic freedomRecognition and rewards For contribution to company

goals

For scientific achievementsAcademic degree

Knowledge and learning Application of knowledge

Learning only if needed

Contribution to knowledgeContinuous learning

3.3.2 Industry unit and GRI unit Linkage

Facilitator

The motives behind the formation of Industry and GRI are many and varied throughproject by project The proper linkage between GRI unit and Industry unit can give muchbenefit 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 causeddifficulties in forming strong linkage The differences between GRI unit and Industry unit aresummarized in Table 1.2 as below:

Table 1.2: Characteristics of GRI unit and Industry unit

Financial structure Expense center Profit center

Product Information/conceptual Goods/service

Orientation Novelty/Industry need Market attractiveness/Profit

potentialSources: [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 establishcommercial viability

 Lack of understanding about the capabilities and potential of GRI unit to impact on therealistic needs of the production system (e.g non-availability of a total package ofservice)

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 industrialproblems, 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 islargely subsidized by government funds derived from industrial taxes

 Industry is usually wary of the GRI unit and government relationship which could result indisclosure 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 instituteuntil these has been carried through a pilot or demonstration plant phase, andproductions, 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 thecapable human resources

 To bridge communication gap and assist the growth and development of research havingdirect relevance to the academic program

Inhibitor

Over the past decade, the interaction between industry and universities orindependent research centers has become of increasing importance Based on an iterativeprocess 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 inTable 1.3 Furthermore, such objectives can only be reached successfully through delicatelybalanced compromises between apparently conflicting forces with respect to:

Table 1.3: Different Characteristics of University and GRI units

Goal Scientific-oriented Delivering

research results of high qualitywithin 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

Rick assessment Scientific research centre Independent research centreConfidentiality 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, becausethe 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 interms of funding research, but also in terms of out-dated physical facilities, and rigidmanagement styles in both units

3.4 The Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a general theory of measurement to solve a specificproblem in consistency planning, developed by Thomas L Saaty in 1971-1975 while at theWharton School (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa) [49] It is used to derive ratioscales from both discrete and continuous paired comparisons These comparisons may betaken from actual measurements or from a fundamental scale which reflects the relativestrength of preferences and feelings When applied in decision making it assists one todescribe the general decision operation by decomposing a complex problem into a multi-levelhierarchic structure of objectives, criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives People then expresstheir preferences by making judgments on a variety of paired comparisons of both the criteriaand the alternatives

People make two kinds of decision: those in which they definitely know the criteria theyintend to apply and the importance of these criteria apart from any alternatives they may beconsidering Related to this are situations where they have ranked their alternatives byassuming 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 theircriteria In this case to sharpen their knowledge of the criteria a wide selection of alternativesmust 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 newcriteria 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 theelements in a level being independent from those in succeeding levels, working downwardfrom the focus in the top level, to criteria bearing on the focus in the second level, followed bysub-criteria in third level, and so on, from the more general (and sometimes uncertain) to themore particular and concrete Saaty [50] makes a distinction between two types ofdependence that he calls functional and structural The former is the familiar contextualdependence of elements on other elements in performing their function, whereas the later isthe 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 orproperty in the level above, giving rise to the kind of matrix encountered above and itscorresponding principal eigen-vector

The third principle is that of synthesizing the priorities In the AHP priorities aresynthesized from the second level down by multiplying local priority of their correspondingcriterion in the level above and adding, for each element in a level according to the criteria itaffects

An important aspect of the AHP is the idea of consistency [49] If one has a scale for aproperty possessed by some objects and measures that property in them, and then theirrelative weights with respect to that property are fixed In this case, there is no judgmentinconsistency Although if one has a physical scale and applies it to objects in pairs and thenderives 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 andagain there would be inconsistency When comparing with respect to a property for whichthere is no established scale or measure, we are trying to derive a scale through comparingthe objects' two at a time Since the objects may be involved in more than one comparisonand 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 theinconsistency index leads to an eigen-value formulation [50]

However, the AHP has proven to be a very effective decision aid The twoadvantages, which the AHP has over the other multi-criteria methods, are the ease of useand the ability to handle inconsistencies in judgments The AHP does not force an individual

or group to be consistent when making pair-wise comparisons This ability to handleinconsistency is a major contributor to the second advantage – the ease of use [52]

This methodology has been applied to problems as diverse as decision analyst,strategy formulation, forecasting, finance and marketing [28, 50, 51] And over the year, there

are many scientists, researchers, decision analysts and managers pay much attention to thismethodology and it is also introduced in many countries.

4.2 AHP Model Formulation

Formulation of hierarchy model to address any decision or measuring problems ismore to do with art than science It is important to grasp the problem to address first, then tostart drawing the hierarchy model Guidelines for formulation of a hierarchy are available inthe literature and numerous proven ready-made hierarchies are also available Saaty andForman [55] have published a book called The Hierarchon: A Dictionary of Hierarchies, whichcontains four hundred models covering areas ranging from business, government planning,policy and strategy, military applications and sport speculations But the so far knowhierarchies relating to the assessment in management, especially in management oftechnology are limited, there are few hierarchies in technological assessment on firm level,national level and cooperation between university, industry, and GRIs As each model isspecific to the problem to be addressed, its nature and environment of use makes eachmodel unique to some extent Fortunately, existing few hierarchies and value treesaddressing the problem related to assessment of the University-Industry-GRI alreadyappeared on the literature [15], [56], [58] and Saaty's guidelines will certainly help toformulate a new model to address the problem perceived

As per Saaty "A hierarchy is a linear structure in which influence is distributed from top

to bottom" The relative position of elements in a hierarchy depends upon three factorsnamely correctness, controllability and certainty Normally narrower and more concreteproperties are at lower level, less concrete and more general, less controllable, more certainand risky elements are at higher level in a hierarchy Influence is distributed downwards fromthe top with the goal having the greatest influence of importance The AHP model formulationprocess starts both from bottom (the alternatives) and from the top (the objective, goal) or thehierarchy construction process in more specification is top down plus bottom up [57]

In assessing the strength of University-Industry-GRI cooperation, two judgmentsshould be considered The first is the judgment of the individual linkage The purpose for

assessing the individual linkage is to determine the rank of linkage types between the twounits It can be applied for particular product as well as for the whole unit activity The rank oflinkage types enables both units to evaluate the lowest rank and to maintain or increase thehighest rank The second is the overall linkage judgment of University-Industry-GRIcooperation One of the results of the overall linkage evaluation would be very useful forpolicy makers in allocating resources, such as money or manpower in the linkage activity

4.3 The AHP Model for Overall Linkage

4.3.1 The Goal

The primary purpose of the overall problem is to determine the relative importance ofdifferent linkages The goal of the problem for overall linkage judgment is at the top of themodel

4.3.2 The Actors

The second level in the hierarchical model is constituted with the various actorshaving direct or indirect influence in the judgments and having conflicted interests in thecooperation among units The five actors considered in the model are:

of services or so on, which are on the third level

4.3.4 Alternatives

Finally, the last level of the hierarchy for overall linkage judgment is the alternative oflinkages known as University - Industry, Industry - GRI; GRI - University The Figure I.3shows the hierarchical model for determining relative important of different linkages

Assumption

 All actor group play equal role in giving judgment

 The relative importance among actor groups does not depend on the number ofrespondents each group has

Based on these assumptions, the hierarchy applied for group decision making would

be seen as the one for personal decision making after using geometric mean to makeconsensus [66] Thus, to simplify the work, the second level would be omitted in computingprocess without any change in alternative priorities

LINKAGE

GRI-UNIVERSITY

LINKAGEINDUSTRY-GRI

TRAININGACTIVITY

Government Politics Consultant ScientistBusiness

RELATIVE IMPORTANT OFDIFFERENT LINKAGES

GRI: research & development unit (Government research institute)

Industry: engineering & manufacturing unit (Specific industry)

4.4 The AHP Model for Individual Linkage

4.4.1 The Goal

The goal of the single problem is primarily considered to identify the strength of theindividual linkage by determining the relative importance of the linkage types The goal is atthe top of the model

4.4.2 The Actors

Like the AHP model formulated for overall linkage judgment, the second level in thehierarchy model for individual linkage judgment is involved with various actors These alsocome from different sectors (Industry, business, university, government, institute, or so on)

4.4.3 Main Factor and Sub-factors

The relative importance of the individual linkage is determined by magnitude of flowsfrom each unit to the others For example, the flow from University to Industry and vice versa.Therefore, these flows become the main factor in the individual model and are considered asthe third level The next level (e.g sub-factor) of the hierarchy is the linkage factors namelyMagnitude of money (M), Human interactions (H), Organizational interactions (O), Facility

utilization (F), and Information interactions (I) The Table 1.4 provides example of how thesesub-factors flow from certain type of linkage in certain units to another The Figure I.4 showsflows of linkage factors in the Innovation Triangle

Figure I.4: Flows of linkage factors in the Innovation Triangle

Briefly explanation on sub-factors are presented as below:

Magnitude of Money (capital investment, revenue)

Flow of money in the linkage may happen in two ways First, one way flow Anindustry pays for GRI unit or University unit in a certain type of linkage (e.g contractresearch), which is usually in their interest In this case money refers to input for GRIunit or University unit, and money also as an output for Industry unit Second, twoways flow Both units are responsible for funds allocated in the linkage, e.g jointresearch From GRI unit and University unit point of view, the trend of money as input

in the linkage may considered as one of indicator strength of linkage

Facilities Utilization (tools, equipment, machinery, vehicles, structures )

Facilities Refers to the flow of object-embodied form of technology or the physicalfacilities required for the transformation operation, such as instrument, equipment,devices, pilot plant and prototypes [15]

Human Interactions (skill, craftsmanship, expertise, creativity )

GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY Extent of equity participation.

Direct involvement Value of service provided Extent of independence from external service.

Value of technology infrastructure provided

UNIVERSITY UNIT GRI UNITS

INDUSTRY UNIT

Flows of Money, Physical facilities, Brainpower, Information, Frameworks

Flows of ney

Physicailiti rainpow

er, Information, Frworks

Flows of Money,

Physic

al facilities, Bwer, In formation, Frameworks

Refers to the flow of human-embodied form (brainpower) of technology or all theacquired abilities necessary for the transformation operation, such as expertise,proficiencies [15] To a great extend the relationship among these units rely on arelationship of trust, induced by the potential of the partner's unit and its track record

in helping to produce commercially successful products [31] Furthermore, thesuccessful cooperation between Industry unit and GRI unit or University unit is mostdetermined by the capability of people in doing that research cooperation Forassessing the linkage between two units, number of people involved for certain type oflinkage at a certain period, can be classified in terms of skill and time consumed in thelinkage Output in terms of people mostly come from educational relationship such astraining, seminar, staff transfer etc

Information Interactions (know-how & know-why, facts & formula, design parameters,

specifications, manuals, theories, etc.)

Refers to document-embodied form of technology or all the accumulated facts andfigures required for the transformation operation, such as design, specifications,observations, charts, theories or so on [15]

Organization Interactions (methods, techniques, organizational networks, and

management practices)

Refers to institution-embodied form of technology or all necessary arrangementsrequired for transformation operation such as practices, groupings, networks,systematization etc [15]

4.4.4 Alternatives

At the bottom of the model, the alternatives of individual linkage hierarchy are theexisting linkage types This level will determine the rank of linkage type The hierarchydeveloped for individual linkage is illustrated in the Figure I.5 Brief description of linkagetypes playing as alternatives in the individual linkage hierarchy is illustrated in the Table 1.5

Table 1.4: An example of in and out flow of factors in the innovation triangle linkage

GRI-Ind Ind-Uni Uni-GRI

TrainingDegree granting scholarshipConsultant service

Technical assistanceStaff transfer

Patent, copyright

Seminar / workshop I,O I,O O,I O,I O,I O,I

Organization Joint research / Sponsor research

Degree granting scholarshipConsultant service

Technical assistanceStaff transfer

Note: I: Inflow; O: Outflow; Blank: not applicable; Ind: Industry; Uni: University

4.5 Model Application, Processing and Reporting

The factors, sub-factors classification of actors and alternatives for modeldevelopment are finalized by the first round talk with the key-informants who are competent inthe technological assessment Based on the model, sets of pairwise comparisonquestionnaires are prepared Before, presenting the questionnaire to the concernedpersonnel, it was pre-tested (pilot interview), because in the AHP application clarity on theproblem and clarity in the pairwise comparison is very important to get the correct result andjudgments The decision makers have to do the value judgments As the study is based onthe subjective judgment, no numerical values are directly used

The processing of the completed questionnaire is carried out by using the AHP basedlasted software called the Expert Choice (Professional version 9.5 for Windows) Thesoftware is versatile specially conducting the sensitivity analysis Expert Choice is considered

as well regarded software package for the AHP [59]

Finally in depth analysis report is prepared and the sets of recommendations andconclusion are drawn to address the prevailing viewpoints regarding the relative importance

of different linkages and the strength of each linkage in Vietnam The experience and learnedfrom the research and recommendation for further study research is also included in thefollowing chapters of the report

Table 1.5: Type of Linkages in the Innovation Triangle

LINKAGES

Industry and GRI University and Industry University and GRI

4 Auxiliary works / Provision

Figure I.6: Procedure for Linkage Judgments

CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION

Linkage Factors Linkage Types

GOAL, OBJECTIVES

AHP DEVELOPMENTDefinition of

 Factors, Sub-factors

 Actors, Alternatives

Structuring

 Pairwise ComparisonQuestionnaire

DATA COLLECTION

 General Interview

 Observations

 QuestionnaireDistribution

RESULTs

IDENTIFYMissing Links

Chapter 5 5University-Industry-GRI Partnership in Vietnam 5.1 Overview

The framework for University-Industry-GRI cooperation in research and development(R&D) in Vietnam has undergone significant changes in recent years as a result of politicaland economic reformation The role of large government-controlled enterprises andgovernment agencies in supporting R&D has diminishing The dynamically growing smallbusiness sector has not been able to fill the vacuum left by these entities in sponsoring R&D.The unstable business environment and prevailing traditional management practices makedifficult the creation of effective agreements with foreign partners in the field of technologymanagement Thus, the issue of technology cooperation among University-Industry-GRIbecomes an essential need for the economic development of Vietnam

The rapid economic, political reformation and social changes occurring in Vietnam 'sinfrastructure combined with the slow rate of change in the attitudes of people involved inR&D make the creation of an efficient market-based R&D system difficult The budgetrequirements for these changes are enormous and the change of attitudes takes time.Consequently, R&D programs find it increasingly difficult to compete for funds from thecentral budget The system of government subsidies and preferences used to supportgovernment-controlled enterprises has been eliminated The products from Vietnam'sgovernment-controlled sector are often no longer competitive in terms of price, quality,delivery or payment terms The privatization programs and business infrastructuredevelopment including the relaxation of tariffs, duties and other free-trade restrictions wereinitiated by the Open Door policy formed in 1986, when the Communist Party of Vietnamdecided to introduce economic renovation line to the 6th congress held in December 1986.These measure have exposed Vietnam's economy to fiercer competition, if Vietnam wants tointegrated into the global market

Since the joint R&D projects, particularly those with foreign partners, are inherentlylong term, instability in the business environment restricts such opportunities in terms ofnumbers and magnitude As a result, the government enterprises frequently adopt a short-term approach based on a struggle for survival Reduction and elimination of domestic R&Dprograms and purchasing technology from abroad is frequently part of such a strategy Amore appropriate approach would be based on long term view calling for effectivemanagement of domestic R&D projects

Emerging small business in Vietnam are mainly low-tech and are often directed atgenerating quick short term profits in the field of service and distribution For these reasons,many of them are neither interested in nor capable of supporting significant R&D projects.The need to ensure the long-term growth of Vietnam's economy necessitates thedevelopment of new ways of supporting R&D and managing technology Furthermore, a newframework for University-Industry-GRI cooperation needs to be developed

5.2 The Reformation of Research and Development in Vietnam

WHILE attention to reform in Vietnam often focuses on economic and social reform,there have also been reforms in scientific and technological policy (S&T), bringing it from therealm of research into the realm of business Scientific institutes have awakened from being atool monopolized by State agenda to playing an active role in the business of research,development, production, and sales S&T reforms have been introduced in three stages

Stage one, coming in the mid-70s within the framework of the monopoly of S&Tactivities by the State, endeavored to create conditions for the State to pool all its resourcesinto what were then considered key tasks, at central and local levels

Stage Two decentralized State S&T activities The corresponding economicdecentralization of the late 80s led industrial producers to seek out cooperation withengineering research organizations, and with institutes studying management, marketing, andeconomics The cooperation wedded production and science, including social science andengineering research S&T researchers began, in effect, to help shape economic policy, and

to make clear the need for the State to continue on its path of decentralization

The turning point in this stage of reform was a 1991 decision (No 49-HDBT)permitting S&T agencies to sign direct contracts with production enterprises With thedecision, R&D institutes involved in engineering received contracts from enterprises not only

to do research and conduct technology transfer, but also to create products to supplyscientific and technical services

New contracts with various interests meant new funding Money came in from avariety of sources, not only directly from the State but also from Vietnamese cooperatives andfrom foreign countries With the new cash, S&T researchers were able to delve into areaspreviously beyond their means

Gradually, S&T institutes became financially autonomous, no longer relying on Statefunding (and State direction) to proceed Institutes became able to set up their own scientificand technical development funds, welfare funds and prize funds They are entitled to openbank accounts and borrow for their technological renovation activities

The diversification of activities of institutes has led to important changes in theirorganizational structure They are allowed to organize experimental workshops, small sizeproduction establishments, bureaus to sell the institutes' products, and to establish jointventures with economic organizations

In stage three of the reform, taking place over the past eight years, the Staterecognizes the private sector's role in S&T activities; government decisions recognize therights of private businessmen in technology transfer from foreign countries, and the protection

of industrial property rights S&T activities are effectively no longer a State monopoly

5.3 University-Industry-GRI Partnership Prior to 1988

The framework for cooperation between industry, university and the government inR&D prior to 1988 lacked the flexibility needed to manage technology efficiently The role ofthe central government was primarily to provide direction, areas of research and necessaryresources The research priorities were established by the central plan and were based uponthe Communist Party doctrine The industry and university establishments did not have much

choice in pursuing R&D independently They were, in essence, order taker in stead of beingequal partners.

The organizational structure of the R&D support system in Vietnam prior to 1988 ispresented in Figure I.7 (over page) The Council of Ministers categorized research as eitherbasic or applied Basic R&D projects in Vietnam prior to 1988 were mostly conducted underthe management of the Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) Applied research wasnormally controlled by the Ministries of Industry (MoI) and other Industries (Medical, Cultureetc)

Basic research projects were conducted by several departments (Social Sciences,Biological Science, etc.) under MoET On the other hand, basic research was also carried out

by R&D Institutes and Central Laboratories under control of MoI The industry anduniversities representatives participated in governmental basic projects through R&Dcommittees The applied research projects were conducted under the administration of theInter-Ministerial Board (IMB) IMB consisted of representatives from every ministry andMoET IMB coordinated applied research projects sponsored by branch ministries (Ministry ofEnergy, Ministry of Machine Engineering, etc) other ministries (Ministry of Health, Ministry ofCulture, etc) and projects conducted by the university R&D institutes These projects werefunded from the central budget either directly by government or indirectly through otherbranch ministries, industrial associations or large state-owned companies

The R&D entities reporting to the branch ministries, including institutes, centrallaboratories, independent centres and factory centres, focus their efforts on applied researchand implementation The institute conducted projects of interest to the entire industrialbranch Central laboratories provided support to the specific industry Independent centresfocused their attention on a narrow scope of applied problems within a branch Finally, factorycentres conducted work of interest restricted to individual factory

R&D projects were classified as to their relative importance as:

 governmental R&D projects

 crucial R&D projects

 branch projects

 individual R&D projects

Governmental and crucial projects were the most important in terms of their roles inthe national economic development They were part of the five-year plans and were fundeddirectly from the central budget Branch projects were of moderate importance and weresponsored by and controlled at the ministry or industrial association level The scope ofbranch projects was limited to a narrow group of industrial enterprises These projects weremostly directed toward developing technologies based on licensing agreements with foreigncompanies Individual projects were considered of little significance and were sponsored byand controlled at the branch level Projects given the highest ranking in the long-termdevelopment plan (i.e 5-25 years) were also given priority in budget allocation