The knowledge paradox explored: What is impeding the creation of ICT spin-offs?

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 479-493

  Knockaert, Mirjam ^a   Spithoven, André ^b   Clarysse, Bart ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b Belgian Science Policy   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Knowledge paradox; Mirjam.knockaert@ugent.be; Spin off; Technology transfer

Indexed keywords

FIRM SIZE; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY; POLICY MAKING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EID: 77951921034     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537321003714535     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Amit, R., and C. Zott. 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal 22, no. 6/7: 493-520.
2. Audretsch, D., and P. Stephan. 1996. Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review 86, no. 3: 641-52.
3. Autio, E., and H. Yli-Renko. 1998. New, technology-based firms in small open economies. An analysis based on the Finnish experience. Research Policy 26: 973-87.
4. Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17, no. 1: 99-120.
5. Becker, G. 1975. Human capital. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
6. Birley, S. 2001. Owner-manager attitudes to family and business issues: A 16 country study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26, no. 2: 63-76.
7. Bollinger, L., K. Hope, and J. Utterback. 1983. A review of literature and hypotheses on new technology-based firms. Research Policy 12, no. 1: 1-15.
8. Borch, O., M. Huse, and K. Senneseth. 1999. Resource configurations, competitive strategies, and corporate entrepreneur- ship: an empirical examination of small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24: 49-70.
9. Burt, R. 1992. Structural holes. The structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Clarysse, B., M. Knockaert, and A. Lockett. 2007. Outside board members in high tech start-ups. Small Business Economics 29, no. 3: 243-59.
11. Clarysse, B., M. Wright, A. Lockett, P. Mustar, and M. Knockaert. 2007. Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change 16, no. 4: 609-40.
12. Clarysse, B., M. Wright, A. Lockett, E. Van de Velde, and A. Vohora. 2005. Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing 20, no. 2: 183-216.
13. Christensen, C. 2003. The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
14. Cooper A., F. Gimeno-Gascon, and C. Woo. 1994. Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing 9: 371-95.
15. Cumming, D. 2006. The determinants of venture capital portfolio size: Empirical evidence. Journal of Business 79, no. 3: 1083-126.
16. D'Aunno, T. 2005. Management scholars and public policy: A bridge too far? Academy of Management Journal 48, no. 6: 949-52.
17. Danneels, E. 2004. Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21, no. 4: 246-58.
18. De Coster, R., and C. Butler. 2005. Assessment of proposals for new technology ventures in the UK: Characteristics of university spin-off companies. Technovation 25, no. 5: 535-43.
19. Delapierre, M., B. Madeuf, and A. Savoy. 1989. NTBFs - The French case. Research Policy 26, no. 9: 989-1004.
20. Deshpande, R. 1983. Paradigms lost: On theory and method in research in marketing. Journal of Marketing 46: 101-10.
21. Di Giacomo, M. 2004. Public support to entrepreneurial firms: An assessment of the role of venture capital in the European experience. The Journal of Private Equity 8, no. 1: 22-38.
22. Ensley, M., and K. Hmieleski. 2005. A comparative study ofnew venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start ups. Research Policy 34: 1091-105.
23. European Commission. 2003. Raising EU R&D intensity: Risk capital measures. Brussels and Luxembourg: European Commission.
24. European Venture Capital Association, EVCA. 2006. EVCA Yearbook. Brussels: EVCA.
25. Franklin, S., M. Wright, and A. Lockett. 2001. Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer 26, no. 1-2: 127-41.
26. Gans, J., and S. Stern. 2002. The product market and the market for 'ideas': Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy 32: 333-50.
27. Gompers, P. 1995. Optimal investment, monitoring, and the staging of venture capital. Journal of Finance 50, no. 5: 1461-89.
28. Gompers, P., and J. Lerner. 1999. The venture capital cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Gompers, P. 2001. The venture capital revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, no. 2: 145-68.
30. Heirman, A., and B. Clarysse. 2006. Wat verklaart het groeipad van jonge innovatieve ondernemingen? [what determines the growth path of young companies?] In Durven groeien in Vlaanderen: Een boek voor gevorderden [Dare to Grow in Flanders, advanced reading], 95-117. Roeselare: Roularta Press.
31. Hellmann, T., and M. Puri. 2000. The interaction between product market and financing strategy: The role of venture capital. The Review of Financial Studies 13, no. 4: 959-84. Hellmann, T., and M. Puri. 2002. Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance 57, no. 1: 169-98.
32. Hellmann, T., and M. Puri. 2002. Venture Capital and the Professionalization of Start-up Firms: Empirical Evidence. The Journal Of finance 57, no.1:169-98
33. Keeley, R., and J. Roure. 1989. Determinants of new venture success before 1982 and after a preliminary look at two eras. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 274-87.
34. Knockaert, M., A. Lockett, B. Clarysse, and M. Wright. 2006. Do human capital and fund characteristics drive follow-up behaviour of early stage hightech VCs? International Journal of Technology Management 34, no. 1-2: 7-27.
35. Koski, H., P. Rouvinen, and P. Yla-Anttila. 2002. ICT clusters in Europe. The great central banana and the small Nordic potato. Information Economics & Policy 14, no. 2: 145-67.
36. Lee, C., K. Lee, and J. Pennings. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal 22: 615 40.
37. Lerner, J. 1999. The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business 72, no. 3: 285-318.
38. Lockett, A., G. Murray, and M. Wright. 2002. Do UK venture capitalists still have a bias against investment in new technology firms. Research Policy 31: 1009-30.
39. Lockett, A., D. Siegel, M. Wright, and M. Ensley. 2005. The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: managerial and policy implications. Research Policy34: 981-93.
40. MacMillan, I., L. Zemann, and P. Subbanarashima. 1987. Criteria distinguishing successful from unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of Business Venturing 2: 123-37.
41. Martin, R., P. Sunley, and D. Turner. 2002. Taking risks in regions: The geographical anatomy of Europe's emerging venture capital market. Journal of Economic Geography 2, no. 2: 121-51.
42. Mason, C., and R. Harrison. 2004. Does investing in technology-based firms involve higher risk? An exploratory study of the perforrmance of technology and non-technology investments by business angels. Venture Capital 6, no. 4: 313-32.
43. McCann, J. 1991. Patterns of growth, competitive technology, and financial strategies in young ventures. Journal of Business Venturing 6: 189-208.
44. Moray, N., and B. Clarysse. 2005. Institutional change and resource endowments to science based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy 34, no. 7: 1010-27.
45. Moray, N., and B. Clarysse. 2006. Het potentieel van publieke onderzoekscentra en universiteiten [The potential of public research centres and universities]. In Durven groeien in Vlaanderen: een boek voor gevorderden [Dare to Grow in Flanders, advanced readings], 133-43. Roeselare: Roularta Press.
46. Mosey, S., A. Lockett, and P. Westhead. 2006. Creating network bridges for university technology transfer: The Medici Fellowship Programme. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18: 71-91.
47. Murray, G., and J. Lott. 1995. Have venture capitalists a bias against investment in new technology firms? Research Policy 24: 283-99.
48. Mustar, P., M. Renault, M. Colombo, E. Piva, M. Fontes, A. Lockett, M. Wright, B. Clarysse, and N. Moray. 2006. Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy35: 289-308.
49. Nelson, R. 2001. Observations on the post Bayh-Dole rise in patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 13-19.
50. Oakey, R. 1984. Finance and innovation in British small independent firms. International Journal of Management Science 12: 113-24.
51. Oakey, R. 1995. High technology new firms: Variable barriers to growth. London: Paul Chapman.
52. OECD. 2007. Science, Technology and Industry: Scoreboard 2007. Paris: OECD.
53. Pavitt, K. 2000. Why European Union funding of academic research should be increased: A radical proposal. Science and Public Policy. 27, no. 6: 455-60.
54. Porter, M. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.
55. Roberts, E. 1991. Entrepreneurs in high technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
56. Rothwell, R., and W. Zegveld. 1982. Industrial innovation and small and medium sized firms. London: Francis Pinter.
57. Shane, S., and T. Stuart. 2002. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science 48, no. 1: 154-61.
58. Shepherd, D., and A. Zacharakis. 1998. Conjoint analysis: A new methodological approach for researching the decision policies of venture capitalists. Venture Capital 1, no. 3: 197-217.
59. Song, M., K. Podoynitsyna, H. van der Bij, and J. Halman. 2008. Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25: 7-27.
60. Stuart, T., H. Hoang, and R. Hybels. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 315-49.
61. Teece, D. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy 15, no. 6: 285-305.
62. Teece, D., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen. 1998. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18, no. 7: 509-30.
63. Vohora, A., M. Wright, and A. Lockett. 2004. Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy33: 147-75.
64. Welbourne, T., and A. Andrews. 1996. Predicting the performance of initial public offerings: Should human resource management be in the equation? Academy of Management Journal 39, no. 4: 891-919.
65. Westhead, P., and D. Storey. 1995. Financial constraints on the growth of high technology small firms in the United Kingdom. Applied Financial Economics 7: 197-201.
66. Wright, M., A. Lockett, B. Clarysse, and M. Binks. 2006. University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy 35: 481-501.
67. Wright, M., A. Vohora, and A. Lockett. 2004. The formation of high tech university spinout companies: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. Journal of Technology Transfer 29: 287-310.