1. 1
THE ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION TOWARDS
COMMERCIALIZATION OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PRODUCTS
Nur Syahira Bt Abd Latif
Faculty of Business Management
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
syahira_nsal@yahoo.com
Azizan Bin Abdullah
Faculty of Business Management,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
Nawawi Md Jan
Faculty of Business Management,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
This paper is to study about the relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation towards
commercialization of university research products. Research design that be used in this paper is quantitative
study. The 389 questionnaires will be distributed to the researcher of Public Higher Education Institution in
all over Malaysia. This paper also is synthesizing the literature findings and offers some arguments from
previous study to generate testable hypothesis to guide future research. Besides that, since this paper
intended to focus on conceptual paper, thus the limitation that are not going to be discussed on the
empirical discussion. The conceptual contribution of this paper goes one step further by suggesting the
factors that may influence to increase the number of commercialization of university products to all Public
Higher Education Institution all over Malaysia.
KEYWORDS
Entrepreneurial Orientation, Commercialization, University research product
1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of university research products commercialization is a stern matter.
Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in Malaysia receiving high expectation from various
sector especially Malaysian Government to commercialize their research product.
University products commercialization is the prominence as it contributes to Malaysia
economic growth. As submitted by Pries & Guild (2004), United States and Canada able
to generate more than $1 billion annually from the commercialization or university
research between years 1980 to 2002 with more than 2,000 new products based on
innovation. This illustrate commercialization is one of the key factors that contribute to
economic growth of any particular nation.
As commercialization of university research products play significant role as economic
growth agent, Malaysian Government had launch many initiatives to promote research

2. 2
and development (R&D) activities in Institute of Higher Education in Malaysia.
Substantial amount of budget had been allocated in funding R&D activities. As the
research was funded by public fund in return Malaysia Government expecting good from
their investment (Kormin, Othman & Ahmed, 2011).
It was reported that under the 9th Malaysia Plan (2006-2010), the Malaysian government
invested a total of RM3.101 billion in the form of R&D grants. Meanwhile, under the
10th Malaysia Plan (2011-2015), the government allocated RM741 million for R&D
among the universities for the first two years of the five years plan.
Increase amount in the spending of research grants demonstrate that Malaysia
government consider university research and development as the serious matter and it
was one of the critical agenda in the 10th Malaysia Plan. Thus university researcher in
Malaysia should take this challenge and grab the opportunity by translating their superior
research and development results into useful and marketable products or research.
Table 1: 10th
Malaysian Plan Ministry of Higher Education R&D Scheme
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
After the huge spending by the Malaysia government in promoting commercialization of
university research product, it is submitted that the government obligate high expectation
to the university researcher to take this prospect to commercialize their research product.
However, the commercialization activities in Public Higher Education Institutions (PHEI)
in Malaysia were below satisfactory level (Kormin, Othman & Ahmed, 2011).
According to the report (table 2) publish by Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) until
August 2008; performance of commercialization of university research product was
under satisfaction despite the government had allocated budget to fund Research &
Development activity. The report stressed that, the 16 PHEI in Malaysia had only
managed to commercialize 58 products out of the 313 identified with commercial
potential. It was imminent that there is an urgent necessity to address the circumstances
and drive the universities to better performance level (Aziz, Harris & Norhashim, 2011).
NO SCHEME
ALLOCATION OF
PROJECT COST (RM)
TOTAL
YEAR
2011
YEAR
2012
1. Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) 81 mill 219 mill 300 million
2.
i. Exploratory Research Grant Scheme (ERGS)
ii- Long-Term Grant Scheme (LRGS)
iii- Prototype Research Grant Scheme (PRGS)
81 mill 219 mill 300 million
3. Research Incentive 11 mill 30 mill 41 million
4. MOHE Special Project 27 mill 73 mill 100 million
TOTAL 200 mill 541 mill 741 mill

3. 3
Table 2: Public Higher Educations Institutions research commercialization until August
2008
Thus the researcher intends to take initiative to address the factors that may influence
commercialization of university research product to a better performance.
According to Hamon 2009 that is cited in the Renganathan, Yasin, Perumal, Tahir &
Chelvarayan (2012) one of the major obstacle to commercialize R&D is the lack of
entrepreneurial skills. Besides that according to Kasim (2011) to translate the knowledge
output of the university into business innovation, activities such as implementing and
nurturing enterprising culture into the system and policy of HEI seems the factors which
can help.
To answer the gap in this research, the researcher will investigate the relationship
between Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) towards commercialization of university
research products. This is because previously it was reported the EO may help to enhance
organization performance and have positive relationship with organizational performance
(Lumpkin & Dess (1996), Narver & Slater (1994), Anderson (2009), Wiklund &
Shepherd (2003). The researcher believes that those variables influence and enhance the
commercialization activity in the university in Malaysia.
UNIVERSITIES
PATENT
TRADE
MARK
TOTAL
COMMERCIALI
ZED
PRODUCTS
TOTALR&D
WITH
POTENTIAL
FOR
COMMERCIALI
ZED
PRODUCTS
TOTALNO.
OFIP
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) 9 28 6 110 153
Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) 12 27 16 15 70
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) 3 20 0 33 56
Universiti Malaya (UM) 0 11 3 31 45
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) 11 4 15 9 39
Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) 5 22 8 0 35
Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) 0 0 1 29 30
Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) 0 0 0 26 26
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) 0 0 0 21 21
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
(UTHM)
0 0 3 16 19
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) 0 8 0 4 12
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia
(UIAM)
0 2 2 4 8
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) 0 0 0 8 8
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT) 0 0 2 4 6
Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP) 0 0 2 3 5
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTEM) 0 0 0 0 0
Total 40 122 58 313 533

4. 4
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Entrepreneurial Orientation
EO is the concepts that show the process and endeavors of organization involve in
entrepreneurial behaviors and activities. Several advantages will benefit the organization
if implemented EO in their company, for instance the organization will be more inspire
and motivated to innovate, to take the calculated risk, and be more proactive then other
competitors to grab the opportunities and to overcome the problem in the marketplace
(Kaya & Agca, 2009).
Meanwhile according to Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin & Frese (2004), EO has received
large conceptual and empirical attention. Demonstrating as one of the few areas in
entrepreneurship research, more than 100 studies of EO have been conducted which is led
to extensive acceptance of the conceptual meaning and relevance of the concept. Besides
that, the increasing research on EO in business administration literature due to the fact
that it has been accepted so far by many managers and scholars as a critical success factor
for organizational survival and success.
Historically, EO has been conceptualized as comprising with three dimensions which
argued by Miller (1983) that dimension of EO are innovativeness, risk taking and pro-
activeness. Innovativeness is the predisposition to engage in creativity and experimentation
through the introduction of new products/services as well as technological leadership via
R&D in new processes. According to Lumpkin & Dess (1996), Shcumpeter (1934, 1942)
was among the first to emphasize the role of innovation in the entrepreneurial process.
Shcumpeter outlined an economic process of “creation destruction” by which wealth was
created when existing market structure were disrupted by the introduction of new goods
or services that shifted resources away from existing firms and caused new firms to grow.
Innovativeness became an important factor used to characterized entrepreneurship and
reflects a firm’s tendency to engage in and support new ideas, novelty, experimentation,
and creative processes that may result in new products, services, or technological
processes.
Risk taking involves taking bold actions by venturing into the unknown, borrowing heavily,
and/or committing significant resources to ventures in uncertain environments (Miller, 1983).
Since Cantillon (1743), who first developed the term entrepreneur and defined this as a
person who bears risk or profit or loss, risk taking has been viewed as a fundamental
element of entrepreneurship (Antoncic & Hisrch, 2003). Risk taking is a quality that is
frequently used to describe entrepreneurship and the degree to which managers are
willing to make large and risky resource commitment, which have a reasonable chance of
costly failure (Swierczek & Ha, 2003).
Proactiveness is an opportunity-seeking, forward-looking perspective characterized by the
introduction of new products and services ahead of the competition and acting in anticipation
of future demand. Pro-activeness described by Lumpkin & Dess (1996) as “taking initiates
and pursuing new opportunities related to future demand and by participating in emerging
market”. It also refers to the extent to which a firm is a leader or a follower and is

5. 5
associated with aggressive posturing relative to competitors (Fairoz, Hirobumi, Tanaka,
2010).
However, on 1996 Lumpkin and Dess was approach the new dimensions of EO. They
identified that competitive aggressiveness and autonomy is must be include as the
additional dimensions of EO. They are claim that pro activeness reflects a firm’s reaction
to opportunities in the market place whereas competitive aggressiveness refers to firm’s
response to competitor’s challenges. Unfortunately, some researchers are arguing that
competitive aggressiveness and pro-activeness is similar in term of definitions. Even
though Lumpkin & Dess (1996) suggested this two further dimension but they still
stressed that innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness are the key features of EO
(Swierczek & Ha, 2003).
Meanwhile for this research, the researcher will adopt an approach based on Miller’s
original conceptualization because the three dimensions (innovativeness, risk taking and
proactiveness) were the main traits of EO.
3.2 Commercialization of university research product
In term of definition of commercialization in this current literature, there is no consensus
about the meaning of research commercialization. This argument supported by Zhao
(2004), he define commercialization as the process of developing new ideas and/or
research output into commercial products or services and putting them on the market. It
covers intellectual property transfer and development and also provision of consulting
services that rely primarily on technological innovation.
Developing country like Malaysia is still behind in terms of research capabilities. In fact,
Malaysia has just entered the commercialization game very recently. The evidence in
Ministry if Higher Education’s focus in term if driving R&D activities among the
universities had developed from establishment of a research culture (2006-2008), to
driving quality research (2008-2010) and most recently to promote research excellence
through producing innovation and its commercialization (2011-2012) (Aziz, Harris &
Norhashim, 2011).
3.3 EO towards commercialization of university research products
The importance of EO towards business performance has been widely acknowledged in
the literature. According to Zahra (2008) if the new entry wants result in high
performance the firm must have a strong EO. It is supported by the Wiklund & Shepherd
(2003) stated that EO likely has positive performance implications for the firm. An EO
can assist companies in such a process. Innovative companies, creating and introducing
new products and technologies, can generate extraordinary economic performance and
have even been described as the engines of economic growth. EO also has been linked to
key organizational outcomes such as innovativeness, strategic flexibility and improved

6. 6
firm performance (Wiklund, 1999). Table 3 illustrated the previous regarding of EO
towards performance and most of the results show that EO has positive relationship
towards business performance. Unfortunately, even though the strong consensus among
the previous researcher regarding the relationship between EO towards business
performance but there is no study tested the relationship between EO towards
performance of commercialization university research products. Thus in this study the
researcher intends to test the relationship between EO towards commercialization of
university research products.
Table 3: The relationship between EO towards performance
Author Construct Country Industry Findings: Nature of Relationship
Wiklund, J. &
Shepherd, D. (2003)
1. Innovativeness
2. Pro-activeness
3. Risk taking
Sweden SMEs EO has positive relationship with
performance
Naldi, L., Nordqvist,
M., Sjoberg, K. &
Wiklund, J. (2007)
1. Innovativeness
2. Pro-activeness
3. Risk-taking
Sweden Family and non-
family firms-SMEs
Risk taking is negatively related towards
performance
Coutlhard, M. (2007) 1. Innovation
2. Pro-activeness
3. Competitive
Aggressiveness
4. Risk-taking
5. Autonomy
Australia Wine industry,
Automotive
industry,
franchising industry
and music
recording industry
All five EO dimension has positive
impact on performance
Zahra, S. A. (2008) 1. Pro-activeness
2. Risk-taking
3. Innovation
United States High technologies
industry
The interaction effect significant in High
technologies industry
Aktan, B. & Bulut, C.
(2008)
1. Innovativeness
2. Risk-taking
3. Pro-activeness
4. Competitive
Aggressiveness
Turkey Firms EO positively correlated with financial
performance
Andersen, J. (2009) 1. Innovativeness
2. Pro-activeness
3. Competitive
Aggressiveness
Sweden Manufacturing
Companies
Positive EO-performance relationship
Fauzul Mafasiy Fairoz,
Hirobumi, T. & Tanaka,
Y. (2010)
1. Pro-activeness
2. Innovativeness
3. Risk-taking
Sri Lanka SMEs EO positively related with performance
Swierczek, F.W., Thanh
Ha, T. (2010)
1. Risk Taking
2. Pro-activity
3. Innovativeness
Thailand and
Vietnam
SMEs Positive relationship with performance
Affendy, Asmat, Abdul
Talib &Abdul Rahim
(2011)
4. Innovativeness
5. Pro-activeness
Malaysia SMEs Positive Relationship with performance

7. 7
4. PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The diagram above shows the proposed conceptual framework that the researcher will
use in this study. From this conceptual framework the researcher will develop research
hypothesis for this study. Based on Wiklund & Shepherd (2003) and Frank, Kessler &
Fink (2010) describe that there is a positive relationship between Entrepreneurial
Orientation and business performance; the higher the EO, the higher the firm’s
performance will be.
Conceptually, there is a strong consensus among the researchers about the fact that the
final result of entrepreneurial activities is the improvement performance (Kaya & Agca,
2009). The researchers contend that high level EO activities bring forth performance
(Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003).
Therefore, in this study the researcher will test the hypothesis between EO and
commercialization of university research product. The research hypotheses are:
H1: There is positive relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and
commercialization of university research products.
H1a: There is a positive relationship between innovation and commercialization
of university research products.
H1b: There is a positive relationship between risk-taking and commercialization
of university research products.
H1c: There is a positive relationship between pro-activeness and
commercialization of university research products.
ENTREPRENEURIAL
ORIENTATION
1. Innovation
2. Risk-Taking
3. Pro-Activeness
Commercialization of
University Research
Products

8. 8
5. METHODOLOGY
5.1 Data Collection
The data collection for this research will be done through quantitative nature which is
based on questionnaire. This cross sectional studies perhaps will able to collect the data
in one time or possibly over a period of months. Directory of each faculty from
university’s website will be the main sources for researcher reaches the respondents.
From the directory the researcher will obtain the e-mail and telephone number of each
respondent and the questionnaire will be distributed through personally administered
questionnaire. The advantages using this technique in collecting data are the researcher
can establish rapport and motivate the respondent to answers the questionnaires. Besides
that any doubts that respondents face can be solve immediately by the researchers.
Sekaran (2006) also stated that almost 100% response rate is ensured when using this
technique.
5.2 Sampling Frame
This research focus on Malaysia PHEI in the field of Science and Technology (S&T)
only, the population of this study is the S&T researcher of Malaysia PHEI that are
include professor, associate professor, senior lecturer and also lecturer. According
Kormin, Othman & Ahmed (2011) total of university researchers in the field of S&T for
the 20 PHEI in Malaysia is 8698. Therefore, for the sample size, the researcher use the
guidelines proposed by the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) that are cited in Sekaran (2007, p
294). This table greatly simplified size decision by providing a table to ensure a good
decision model. Therefore, for the N of 8, 698, the suitable sample size is the 368
respondents.
5.3 Sampling Technique
In this research, sampling technique that the researcher will use is the simple random
sampling. In this technique, each member of the population has an equal chance of being
selected as subject. The entire process of sampling is done in a single step with each
subject selected independently of the other member of the population. In this study, the
respondent chosen blindly as long as they met our criteria; researcher from S&T field in
PHEI to avoid sampling bias.
5.4 Data Analysis
All primary data will be process and analyze using Statistical Package for Social Science
SPSS (SPSS) version 20. The results will be in the form of Descriptive statistic,
Reliability Testing, Pearson Correlation Analysis and Multiple Regression Analysis.
Frequency distribution is use to gathered the frequencies from all the respondent personal
data or classification variables such as age, gender, level of income, position, level of
education and so on. Meanwhile reliability testing is being used because to obtain
consistency and stability of each variable hang together as a set or positively correlated to
one another. Pearson Correlation Analysis will measure the relationship between

9. 9
variables through degree of association while Multiple Regression Analysis will be used
because to the hypothesis in this research.
6. CONCLUSION
This study hopes will enhance the performance of commercialization of university
research products in Malaysia HEI. Perhaps this study also will help to achieve the 10th
Malaysia Plan by providing the input on how to strengthen research development and
innovation in Malaysia towards year 2020 as inspired by Malaysia Prime Minister as
researcher in university play vital role to enable the success of this vision.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to thank the staff and lecturer of Universiti Teknologi MARA,
Malaysia in providing constants support towards the accomplishment of this research and
also to the anonymous reviewers for their feedback and suggestion for this article
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. (2009). A critical Examination of the EO-Performance Relationship.
Journal on Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (8), 660 – 667.
Antoncic, B. & Hisrich, R. (2003). Clarifying the Intrapreneurship Concept. Journal on
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (8), 660-667.
Aziz, K. A., Harris, H & Norhashim, M. (2011). University Research, Development &
Commercialization Management: A Malaysian Best Practice Case Study. World Review
of Business Research, 1 (2), 179, 179 – 196.
Fairoz, F.M., Hirobumi, T. & Tanaka, Y. (2010). Entrepreneurial Orientation and
Business Performance of Small and Medium Scale Enterprise of Hambantota District of
Sri Lanka. Journal of Asian Social Science, 6 (3), 34-56.
Frank, H., Kessler, A. & Fink, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business
Performance – A Replican Study. Social Business Research, 175-198.
Kasim, R. S. (2011). Malaysia higher Education Institutions: Shaping an Entrepreneurial
Agenda. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 1 (2), 163-170.
Kaya, H. (2009) & Agca, V. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance of
Turkish Manufacturing FDI Firms: An Empirical Study. Journal of Iktisat Isletme Vs
Finance, 25 (75), 115-133

10. 10
Kormin, K., Othman, A. & Ahmed, I. (2011). The Role of Market Orientation
Knowledge and Researcher’s Behavior in Recognition of Commercialization
Opportunity. International Conference on Business and Economic Research, 850- 871.
Kusumawardhani, A., McCarthy, G. & Perera, N. (2009). Framework of Entrepreneurial
Orientation and Networking: A Study of SMEs Performance in a Developing Country.
Sydney Business School Papers.
Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation
Constructs and Linking it to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 135–
172.
Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in three types of firms.
Management Science, 29 (7), 770-791.
Narver, J. C & Slater, S. F. (1994). Market Orientation, Customer Value, and Superior
Performance. Business Horizon, 22 – 28.
.
Rauch, A., Wkilund, J., Lumpkin, G.T. & Frese, M. (2004). Entrepreneurial Orientation
and Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestion for the
Future. Journal on Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, 48, 24-58.
Renganathan, T., Yasin, M. F, Perumal, P. Tahir, M. N. & Chelvarayan, A. (2012).
University – SME Cluster: A research on Commercialization Perspective among IPTA &
IPTS in Malaysia. Working Paper.
Sekaran, U. (2007). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 4th
Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Singapore.
Swierczek, F.W. & Ha, T. T. (2003). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Uncertainty Avoidance
and Firm Performance. Journal on Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2 (1), 46-57.
Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-Based Resources. Entrepreneurial
Orientation and the Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses. Journal on
Strategic Management, 24, 137-144.
Zahra, S.A. (2008). Being Entrepreneurial and Market for Company Market Driven:
Implications for Company Performance. Journal of Strategy and Management, 1 (2),
125-142.