Policy principles for the creation and success of corporate and academic spin-offs

Technovation

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 12-23

  Gilsing, Victor A ^a   van Burg, Elco ^b   Romme, A Georges L ^b  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Corporate spin offs; Policy principles; Regions; Technology entrepreneurship; Technology regimes; University spin offs

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC SPIN-OFFS; DESIGN SCIENCE; POLICY DESIGN; POLICY PRINCIPLES; SPIN OFF; TECHNOLOGY ENTREPRENEURSHIP; UNIVERSITY SPIN-OFFS;

TECHNOLOGY;

SPIN DYNAMICS;

EID: 71549165106     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2009.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Aldrich H.E., and Fiol C.M. Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review 19 4 (1994) 645-670
2. Anton J.J., and Yao D.A. Start-ups, spin-offs, and internal projects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 11 2 (1995) 362-378
3. Asheim B.T., and Coenen L. Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy 34 8 (2005) 1173-1190
4. Asheim B.T., and Gertler M.S. The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., and Nelson R.R. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (2005), Oxford University Press, Oxford 291-317
5. Audretsch D.B., and Stephan P.E. Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. The American Economic Review 86 3 (1996) 641-652
6. Bekkers R., Gilsing V., and van der Steen M. Determining factors of the effectiveness of IP-based spin-offs: comparing the Netherlands and the US. Journal of Technology Transfer 31 5 (2006) 545-566
7. Bergek A., and Norrman C. Incubator best practice: a framework. Technovation 28 1-2 (2008) 20-28
8. Bower D.J. Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm. R&D Management 33 2 (2003) 97-106
9. Breschi S., and Malerba F. Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpetarian dynamics and spatial boundaries. In: Edquist C. (Ed). Systems of Innovation, Technologies, Institutions and Organizations (1997), Pinter, London
10. Chesbrough H. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology (2003), Harvard Business School Press, Harvard (MA)
11. Chesbrough, H., Tucci, C.L., 2005. Corporate venture capital in the context of corporate innovation. EPFL Working Paper Lausanne.
12. Christensen C. The Innovator's Dilemma (1997), Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge (MA)
13. Christensen C.M., and Bower J. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17 3 (1996) 197-218
14. Clarysse B., Wright M., Lockett A., Van de Velde E., and Vohora A. Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing 20 2 (2005) 183-216
15. Cohen W.M., and Levinthal D.A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 1 (1990) 128-152
16. Coriat B., and Weinstein O. National institutional frameworks, institutional complementarities and sectoral systems of innovation. In: Malerba F. (Ed). Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe (2004), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
17. Debackere K. Managing academic R&D as a business at K.U. Leuven: context, structure and process. R&D Management 30 4 (2000) 323-328
18. Debackere K., and Veugelers R. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy 34 3 (2005) 321-342
19. Denyer D., Tranfield D., and Van Aken J.E. Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies 29 3 (2008) 393-413
20. Di Gregorio D., and Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?. Research Policy 32 2 (2003) 209-227
21. Djokovic D., and Souitaris V. Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research. Journal of Technology Transfer 33 3 (2008) 225-247
22. Dosi G., Freeman C., Nelson R.R., Silverberg G., and Soete L. Technical Change and Economic Theory (1988), Pinter, London
23. Dushnitsky G., and Lenox M.J. When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures?. Strategic Management Journal 26 10 (2005) 947-965
24. Etzkowitz H., and Klofsten M. The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management 35 3 (2005) 243-255
25. Friedman J., and Silberman J. University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter?. Journal of Technology Transfer 28 1 (2003) 17-30
26. Gans J.S., and Stern S. The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy 32 2 (2003) 333-350
27. Gilsing V., and Nooteboom B. Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: the case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy 35 1 (2006) 1-23
28. Grimaldi R., and Grandi A. Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment of incubating models. Technovation 25 2 (2005) 111-121
29. Groenewegen J., and van der Steen M. The evolution of national innovation systems. Journal of Economic Issues 40 2 (2006) 277-285
30. Hackett S.M., and Dilts D.M. A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer 29 1 (2004) 55-82
31. Hellman, T., 1996. A theory of corporate investing. Stanford Working Paper.
32. Hindle K., and Yencken J. Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and new technology based firms: an integrated model. Technovation 24 10 (2004) 793-803
33. Hollanders, H., 2006. European regional innovation scoreboard. European Trend Chart on Innovation 2006.
34. Johnson W.H.A. Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: the case of Precarn. Technovation 28 8 (2008) 495-505
35. Katila R., and Mang P.Y. Exploiting technological opportunities: the timing of collaborations. Research Policy 32 2 (2003) 317-332
36. Keil T. External Corporate Venturing: Strategic Renewal in Rapidly Changing Industries (2002), Quorum Books, Westport (CT)
37. Kirwan P., van der Sijde P., and Groen A. Assessing the needs of new technology based firms (NTBFs): an investigation among spin-off companies from six European Universities. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 2 2 (2006) 173-187
38. Lecocq, C., Van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., 2008. Developing the support infrastructure of technology transfer offices to accommodate the needs of global spin-off companies (outline of a methodology applied within the GlobalStart project). International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business forthcoming.
39. Levinthal D.A., and March J.G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal 14 (1993) 95-112
40. Lockett A., Siegel D., Wright M., and Ensley M.D. The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: managerial and policy implications. Research Policy 34 7 (2005) 981-993
41. Lockett A., and Wright M. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy 34 7 (2005) 1043-1057
42. Lofsten H., and Lindelof P. R&D networks and product innovation patterns: academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on Science Parks. Technovation 25 9 (2005) 1025-1037
43. Marsili O. The Anatomy and Evolution of Industries, Technological Change and Industrial Dynamics (2001), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
44. Meyer M. Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management 33 2 (2003) 107-115
45. Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., Sampat B.N., and Ziedonis A.A. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act (2004), Stanford Business Books, Stanford
46. Nelson R.N. Observations on the post Bayh-Dole rising of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (2001) 13-19
47. Nooteboom B. Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economics (2000), Oxford University Press, Oxford
48. O'Gorman C. Stimulating high-tech venture creation. R&D Management 33 2 (2003) 177-187
49. O'Shea R., Allen T.J., O'Gorman C., and Roche F. Universities and technology transfer: a review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management 25 2 (2004) 11-29
50. Parhankangas A., and Arenius P. From a corporate venture to an independent company: a base for a taxonomy for corporate spin-off firms. Research Policy 32 3 (2003) 463-481
51. Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13 6 (1984) 343-373
52. Phan P.H., Siegel D.S., and Wright M. Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing 20 2 (2005) 165-182
53. Polt, W., 2001. Benchmarking industry science relations: The role of framework conditions. Final Report Prepared for EC, DG Enterprise.
54. Powers J.B., and McDougall P.P. University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 20 3 (2005) 291-311
55. Rasmussen E. Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: lessons from Canada. Technovation 28 8 (2008) 506-517
56. Rasmussen E., Moen Ø., and Gulbrandsen M. Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation 26 4 (2006) 518-533
57. Roberts E.B., and Malone D.E. Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management 26 1 (1996) 17-48
58. Romme A.G.L. Making a difference: organization as design. Organization Science 14 5 (2003) 558-573
59. Romme A.G.L., and Endenburg G. Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design. Organization Science 17 2 (2006) 287-297
60. Rothaermel F.T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal 22 6/7 (2001) 687
61. Rothaermel F.T., Agung S.D., and Jiang L. University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 16 4 (2007) 691-791
62. Saxenian A. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 (1996), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
63. Shane S. Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Science 47 9 (2001) 1173-1190
64. Shane S. Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 122-137
65. Shane S. Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spin-Offs and Wealth Creation (2004), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA
66. Shane S., and Venkataraman S. Guest editors' introduction to the special issue on technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32 2 (2003) 181-184
67. Siegel R., Siegel E., and MacMillan I.C. Corporate venture capitalists: autonomy, obstacles, and performance. Journal of Business Venturing 3 3 (1988) 233-247
68. Stuart T., and Sorenson O. The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy 32 2 (2003) 229-253
69. Teece D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15 6 (1986) 285-305
70. Tripsas M. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal 18 (1997) 119-142
71. Tübke A. Success Factors of Corporate Spin-Offs (2005), Springer, New York
72. Van Aken J.E. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies 41 2 (2004) 219-246
73. Van Burg E., Romme A.G.L., Gilsing V.A., and Reymen I.M.M.J. Creating university spin-offs: a science-based design perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 2 (2008) 114-128
74. Van Looy B., Ranga M., Callaert J., Debackere K., and Zimmermann E. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?. Research Policy 33 3 (2004) 425-441
75. Vedovello C. Science parks and university-industry interaction: geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation 17 9 (1997) 491-502
76. Vohora A., Wright M., and Lockett A. Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy 33 1 (2004) 147-175
77. Von Hippel E. Successful and failing internal corporate ventures: an empirical analysis. Industrial Marketing Management 6 3 (1977) 163-174
78. Wallin M.W., and Lindholm Dahlstrand A. Sponsored spin-offs, industrial growth and change. Technovation 26 5-6 (2006) 611-620
79. Wright M., Clarysse B., Lockett A., and Knockaert M. Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy 37 8 (2008) 1205-1223
80. Zahra S.A., Van de Velde E., and Larraneta B. Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change 16 4 (2007) 569-608
81. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., and Brewer M.B. Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review 88 1 (1998) 290-306