Abstract

Purpose- In terms of promoting public technology commercialization, 10 years have passed since the university technology holding company was launched. University technology holding companies are supporting the growth of excellent technology and human resources through technology commercialization by revitalizing the technology possessed by universities and in connection with startups. However, since university technology holding companies experience many difficulties in the process of commercializing public technologies, policy alternatives from various perspectives must be prepared. This study aims to study the growth strategies of university technology holding companies to promote public technology commercialization by examining the current status and problems of university technology holding companies. Research design, data, and methodology– In this study, the current status of university technology holding companies was analyzed based on the actual condition survey data published by the Association of University Technology Holding Companies. As there is a lack of research on university technology holding companies, a policy alternative was suggested by examining problems based on literature research. In addition, government announcement materials were used to develop policy alternatives such as laws and regulations related to university technology holding companies and operational status. Results- University technology holding companies occupy a very important position in public technology commercialization. The growth of technology holding companies over the past decade has contributed to public technology commercialization in many aspects, but the performance of domestic technology commercialization is insufficient compared to investment in R&D, so the role of public technology holding companies needs to be strengthened. Therefore, in this study, alternatives were proposed to strengthen the competitiveness of technology holding companies and to provide policy support. Through the reinforcement of the technology holding subsidiary's self-sustainability, the plan to foster excellent talent, and the marketing expansion model of the support program, it is highly necessary to commercialize the performance-generating public technology based on the technology holding company. Conclusions- The purpose of this study is to create a growth engine for technology holding companies by discovering policy alternatives for university technology holding companies that have not been studied so far. Although alternatives to revitalize the existing technology commercialization have been suggested, research on the role and status of detailed technology holding companies has been lacking, and the discovery of technology holding companies' operating systems and future growth models is very insufficient compared to overseas cases. Therefore, in this study, various policy alternatives and support efforts are needed so that university technology holding companies can be self-sustaining and act as a growth engine for public technology commercialization.