Priority Analysis of the Determining Factors of Faculty Startups in Medical Schools

의과대학 교원 창업 결정요인 우선순위 분석

  • Sung Jin Chung (Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital) ;
  • Dae Geun Kim
  • 정성진 (계명대학교 동산병원) ;
  • 김대건 (계명대학교 글로벌창업대학원)
  • Received : 2024.08.14
  • Accepted : 2024.09.25
  • Published : 2024.09.30

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigates the factors influencing medical school faculty's entrepreneurial decisions and prioritizes these factors. Methodology: The study examines the determinants of entrepreneurial decisions among medical school faculty by reviewing prior studies. These determinants were categorized into four perspectives: resource-based, industrial organization, entrepreneur characteristics, and other. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP), the study analyzed the relative priorities of 27 specific indicators. Surveys were conducted with medical school faculty with startup experience, professors with relevant expertise, and organizational leaders involved in entrepreneurship. A total of 33 responses were validated for consistency, and an empirical analysis identified the priority of factors influencing medical school faculty startups. Findings: The findings reveal that 'entrepreneur characteristics' and 'institutional and organizational support' are the highest priority factors for medical school faculty. Key resource-based factors include the 'leave of absence' or 'concurrent employment policy,' availability of 'professional human resources,' and 'organizational support' specializing in startups. An integrated analysis shows that while intellectual resources such as research publications, patents, and physical space are necessary, the highest priority is given to leave policies, professional human resources, and organizational support. Practical Implication: Medical school faculty are recognized as key innovation agents in the bio-health industry. The results provide crucial insights for policymakers and stakeholders at governmental, institutional, and organizational levels. Strengthening self-competence, increasing entrepreneurship opportunities, and establishing professional human resources and organizational support within medical universities or hospitals are critical for facilitating medical school faculty startups.

Keywords

References

  1. Korea Health Industry Development Institute. Policy challenges in order to facilitate the evolution of hospitals: From healthcare providers to research hospitals, and to innovative hospitals. Osong: Korea Health Industry Development Institute; 2021. 
  2. Kim Y. (2018). Research on the current status of bio-ventures and Study on current status of bio-ventures and promotion measures. Technology & Innovation 2018;414:37-39. 
  3. Hong M. Study on the strategic investment of government R&D for fostering biohealth industry. Eumseong: Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning; 2020. 
  4. French M, Miller F. Leveraging the 'living laboratory': On the emergence of the entrepreneurial hospital. Social Science & Medicine 2012;75(4):717-724. 
  5. Presidential Advisory Committee on Healthcare Industry Advancement. Healthcare industry advancement strategy;2006. 
  6. Consoli D, Mina A. An evolutionary perspective on health innovation systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 2009;19:297-319. 
  7. Morlacchi P, Nelson R. How medical practice evolves: Learning to treat failing hearts with an implantable device. Research Policy 2011;40(4):511-525. 
  8. 8. Rey-Rocha J, Lopez-Navarro I. The fourth mission of hospitals and the role of researchers as innovation drivers in the public healthcare sector. Revista espanola de documentacion cientifica 2014;37(1):1. 
  9. Gulbrandsen M, Hopkins M, Thune T, Valentin F. Hospitals and innovation: Introduction to the special section. Research Policy 2016;45(8):1493-1498. 
  10. Sung. C, Kim J. A study on the factors influencing senior entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific J of Small Business 2011;33(3):109-133. 
  11. Lee C, Kim J, Oh H, Yoon H. A study on the influence of personal, educational, and environmental characteristics of youth on entrepreneurial intention and the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education. Proceedings of the Korea Association of Business Education Fall Academic Conference; 2013 MAY: Seoul, Korea. 
  12. Do S. An analysis of the factors affecting startups by university faculty [dissertation]. Seoul: Sungkyunkwan University;2020. 
  13. Song C. Structural relationship of variables affecting the entrepreneurial intention: Focusing on employees [dissertation]. Seou: Soongsil University;2021. 
  14. Yu M. (2017). Recommendation for promotion of biohealth industry. In: The fourth industrial revolution. Seoul: Hansun Foundation; 2017. p. 338-391. 
  15. Regulations on University Faculty Qualification Standards, etc. Presidential Decree No. 29814 (Aug 1, 2019). 
  16. Educational Public Officials Act, Law No. 19341 (Apr 11, 2023). 
  17. Private School Act, Law No. 19066(Jun 14, 2023). 
  18. Jung D. The current and future state of academic medicine in Korea: Education, research and patient care. Korean Medical Education Review 2019;21(2):73-79. 
  19. Yang E, Lee T, Cho M, Current status and performance evaluation systems of faculty in Korean medical schools. Korean Medical Education Review 2019;21(1):41-50. 
  20. Kim D. Faculty development for medical faculty: Importance and strategies. Korean Medical Education Review 2023;25(1):3-16. 
  21. Shane S. Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham(UK): Edward Elgar Publishing; 2004. 
  22. Bozeman B. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy 2000;29(4-5):627-655. 
  23. Heirman A, Clarysse B. How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer 2004;29(3): 247-268. 
  24. Kobus J. Universities and the creation of spinoff companies. Industry and Higher Education 1992;6(3):136-142. 
  25. Cohen W. Taking care of business. ASEE Prism 2000;9(5):18-21. 
  26. Charles D, Conway C. Higher education-business interaction survey. Newcastle upon Tyne(UK): Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies; 2001. 
  27. Pressman L, Guterman S, Abrams S, Geist D, Nelsen L. Pre-production investment and jobs induced by MIT exclusive patent licenses: A preliminary model to measure the economic impact of university licensing. Journal of Association of University Technology Managers 1995;7:28-48. 
  28. Golub E. Generating spin-offs from university-based research: The potential of technology transfer [dissertation]. New York: Columbia University; 2003. 
  29. Goldman M. Building a mecca for high technology. Technology Review 1984;86(3):6-8. 
  30. Wickstead S. The Cambridge phenomenon. Thetford(UK):Thetford Press;1985. 
  31. McQueen D, Wallmark J. University technical innovation: Spin-offs and patents in Goteborg, Sweden. In Gibson B, Smilor R, editor. University spin-off companies. Savage(MD): Rowman and Littlefield Publishers; 1991. p. 103-115. 
  32. Dahlstrand A. Technology-based SMEs in the Goteborg region: Their origins and interaction with universities and large firms. Regional Studies 1999;33(4):379-389. 
  33. Lowe R. Invention, innovation and entrepreneurship: The commercialization of university research by inventor-founded firms [dissertation]. Berkeley: University of California; 2002. 
  34. Kenney M. Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven(CT): Yale Press; 1986.
  35. Etzkowitz H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new universityindustry linkages. Research Policy 1998;27(8):823-833. 
  36. Miner A, Eesley D, Devaughn M, Rura-Polley T. The magic beanstalk vision: Commercializing university inventions and research. In Schoonhoven C, Romanelli E, editor. The Entrepreneurship Dynamic. Palo Alto(CA): Stanford University Press; 2001. 
  37. Cech T, Leonard J. Conflicts of interest-Moving beyond disclosure. Science 2001;291(5506):989. 
  38. Powell W, Owen-Smith J. Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management 1998;17(2):253-277. 
  39. Lee Y. Technology Transfer and the Research University: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy 1996;25(6):843-863. 
  40. Chrisman J, Hynes T, Fraser S. Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing 1995;10(4):267-281. 
  41. Krueger N. The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 1993;18(1):5-21. 
  42. Bird B. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review 1988;13(3):442-453. 
  43. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs( NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1980. 
  44. Shapero A, Sokol L. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. Urbana-Champaign(IL): University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship; 1982. 
  45. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1991;50(2):179-211. 
  46. Penrose E. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford(UK): Blackwell; 1959. 
  47. Wernerfelt B. The resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 1984;5(1):171-180. 
  48. Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 1991;17(1):99-120. 
  49. Amit R, Schoemaker P. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal 1993;14(1):33-46. 
  50. Cho H. A Study on the Performance Factors of Technology Commercialization of Universities in Korea in Terms of the Resources-based View. The Journal of Intellectual Property 2012;7(3):217-245. 
  51. Kim J. An Analysis on the Effects of University Capacity and Resources on the Professor Startups' Performance. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society 2017;20(3):642-663. 
  52. O'Shea R, Allen T, Chevalier A, Roche F. Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy 2005;34(7):994-1009. 
  53. Barney, J. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Upper saddle river(NJ): Prentice Hall; 2002. 
  54. Porter, M. E. Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy 1985;5(3):60-78. 
  55. Kim A. Theory of Industrial Organization. Seoul: Muyeok Gyeongyoungsa; 2008. 
  56. Gupta V, Batra S. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in Indian SMEs: Universal and contingency perspectives. International Small Business Journal 2016;34(5):660-682. 
  57. Park C, Lee J. A structural model of export marketing among Korean small and medium sized firms export bottleneck factors, export competitiveness, and export performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business 1998;20(1):113-136. 
  58. Ko K. Internet marketing strategy and performance in the Korean small export firms. International Commerce and Information Review 2000;4(1):107-128. 
  59. Kim K. Decision-making factors of angel investment in startup [dissertation]. Daegu: Keimyung University; 2023. 
  60. Zachary M, Gianiodis P, Payne G, Markman G. Entry timing: Enduring lessons and future directions. Journal of Management 2015;41(5):1388-1415. 
  61. Blumenthal D, Causino E, Campbell E, Louis K. Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences - an industry survey. The New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334(6):368-373. 
  62. Di Gregorio D, Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy 2003:32(2):209-27. 
  63. Powers J, McDougall P.University start-up formation and technology licensing with firm that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 2005:20(3):291-311. 
  64. Begley T, Boyd D. Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing 1987:2(1):79-93. 
  65. Lee J. Individual characteristics and entrepreneurial intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business. 2000;22(1):121-146. 
  66. Yoon B. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: Individual characteristics and environmental factors. Korean Business Review 2004;17(2):89-110. 
  67. Schein E. Career dynamics: matching individual and organizational needs. Reading(Mass): Addison-Wesley; 1978. 
  68. Miller D. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 1983;29(7):770-791. 
  69. Jung D. An emperical study on factors affecting start-up intention - focused on individual characteristics and career orientation. Journal of Industrial Economics and Business 2016;29(4):1565-1586. 
  70. Byun C, Ha H. The influence of behavior patterns for opportunity discovery on opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial intention: Focusing on the moderating effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of the Korean Entrepreneurship Society 2018;13(2):103-123. 
  71. Dyer J, Gregersen A, Christensen, C. Entrepreneur behaviors, opportunity recognition, and the origins of innovative ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2008;2(4):317-338. 
  72. Maslow A. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 1943;50:370-396. 
  73. Alderfer C. Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press; 1972. 
  74. Saaty, T. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw Hill; 1980. 
  75. Yoon J. Application of AHP and its limitation. Management & Economy 1990;7:75-92. 
  76. Dollinger M. Entrepreneurship: Strategies and resources. Lombard(Il): Marsh Publications; 2008.