# Evaluating the Intertwined Relationships of the Drivers for University Technology Transfer
## 4 Empirical Research and Discussion
### Analysis of Direct and Indirect Impact of Main Aspects on University Technology Transfer
Research on how universities spend technology R&D expenditures and resources on the most critical factors of R&D technology continues to attract attention. This paper demonstrates an integrated multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) technique that is more appropriate for a university technology transfer evaluation model for Taiwan's universities. We employed the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method to clarify the intertwined sub-criteria interrelationships in the complex structural hierarchy of a technology transfer pattern evaluation model. This paper proposes a novel hybrid method to cope with the various interdependence and feedback problems in the technology transfer problem. This proposed hybrid method can provide a better understanding of the interrelationship among the evaluation and selection dimensions and solve a complex interacting technology transfer pattern evaluation model that can enhance decision making quality. On the basis of the present research, we suggested that the largest proportion of resource input be the \"essence of technology\" aspect, which could successfully develop the other aspects positively and facilitate the university technology transfer. With respect to the other key evaluation factors derived from \"essence of technology\", we suggested that universities allocate the major resources to the R&D result with \"industrial applicability\", which would be valuable for industrial use. \"Industrial applicability\" was the key impact factor for solving university technology transfer activities. The other factors would have serial improvements if \"industrial applicability\" were well managed and improved. Both \"technology inventor\" and \"organizational culture\" had the features of driving factors, which could impact the other factors slightly. From the point of view of the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle), we suggest that the proportion of management resources input to \"technology inventor\" and \"organizational culture\" be up to 80%. \"Technology inventor\" is the key factor that should be considered first. Additionally, we suggest that a university allocate most of its technology research resources to \"attitude of inventor\", which has core impact showing the consent or dissent of inventors. The inventors' decision is the key impact factor affecting whether the university will be able to transfer the R&D result or not. With respect to \"organizational culture\", we suggest that \"top manager's attitude and capacity\" be the priority of the technology research resource input. The messages (attitude, capacity, etc.) delivered by top managers will shape or affect the belief and the behavior of professors toward the R&D result transfer. This consequence also matches the research from previous scholars, which shows that professors play important roles in the university technology transfer. The interaction of \"organizational structure and system\" with the other key aspects is low, which makes it an independent factor; therefore, we suggest that this aspect be managed alone. With respect to this aspect, the factor \"connection with industry\" is the most significant one and is the key impact factor for conducting university technology transfer. This agrees with the research from previous scholars; hence, we suggest that the university focus on the technology transfer fault model, which is the gap between academia and industry. Therefore, a bridge must be built between both sides to increase technology transfer success through industry-university collaboration. The university can assist and encourage professors to apply for R&D result patents. By utilizing the unit's expertise, it provides professors with advice, curriculum, and conferences on the R&D patents; therefore, professors will have more knowledge about patents and thus be more willing to apply for one. This will also shorten the patent application process. Professors are the inventors of R&D achievements, so whether R&D results are transferred or applied or not is ultimately their decision.