Closing the distance between academia and market: Experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 52-74

  Baglieri, Daniela ^a   Lorenzoni, Gianni ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MESSINA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Academic entrepreneurship; Technology transfer; User

Indexed keywords

EID: 84895064461     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-012-9274-7     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Adler, N., Elmquist, M., & Norrgren, F. (2009). The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context. Research Policy, 38(7), 1136-1149.
2. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63-79.
3. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44-60.
4. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1-2, 11-26.
5. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research output. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4), 637-676.
6. Baden-Fuller, C., Winter, S. G. (2007). Replicating organizational knowledge: Principles or templates? Working paper available at SSRN: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1118013.
7. Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32, 255-276.
8. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329-366.
9. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69-89.
10. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania state Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 21-35.
11. Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. (2007). What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy, and effective capture of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 27-47.
12. Bok, D. C. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627-655.
14. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616.
15. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers' interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694-707.
16. Bozeman, B., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Editor's introduction: Building and deploying scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 565-568.
17. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343-378.
18. Cassak, D. (2003). John Simpson: Reluctant Entrepreneur. The Windhover Information Inc, at www. windhover. com.
19. Cattani, G. (2005). Preadaptation, firm heterogeneity, and technological performance: A study on the evolution of fiber optics, 1970-1995. Organization Science, 16(6), 563-580.
20. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U. K. University technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369-384.
21. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
22. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
23. Cooper, R., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2000). New product performance: What distinguishes the star products. Australian Journal of Management, 25(1), 17-45.
24. Corley, E., Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35, 975-993.
25. Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977-990. Special Issue.
26. Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. -C. (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31, 133-151.
27. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
28. Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263-1273.
29. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
30. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117-132.
31. Franke, N., & Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), 157-178.
32. Franke, N., von Hippel, E. (2003). Finding commercially attractive user innovation: An exploration and test of "lead user" theory. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper (Center for eBusiness) No. 183.
33. Galunic, C. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. The Academy Management Journal, 44(6), 1229-1249.
34. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfield and Nicholson.
35. Gong, Y., Baker, T. and Miner, A. S. (2005), 'The dynamics of routines and capabilities in new firms', available at http://www. bus. umich. edu/Academics/Departments/CSIB/CSIB/Miner_03-11-05_Seminar_Paper. pdf.
36. Gruner, K., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product success? Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1-14.
37. Hegde, D., & Mowery, D. C. (2008). Politics and funding in the U. S. public biomedical R&D system. Science, 322, 1797-1798.
38. Helfat, C. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1217-1232.
39. Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38, 922-935.
40. Kane, A. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21(3), 643-660.
41. Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 22-44.
42. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: 'Gold', 'ribbon' or 'puzzle'? Research Policy, 40, 1354-1368.
44. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691-710.
45. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46. Lester, R. K., & Piore, M. J. (2004). Innovation: The missing dimension. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Lüthje, C. (2003). Customers as co-inventors: An Empirical analysis of the antecedents of customer-driven innovations in the field of medical equipment. In Proceedings of the 32nd EMAC Conference, Glasgow.
48. Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. (2005). User-innovators and "local" information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy, 34(6), 951-965.
49. MacGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43, 247-261.
50. Maine, E., & Garnsey, E. (2006). Commercialising generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures. Research Policy, 35(3), 373-393.
51. Mangematin, V., Errabi, K., & Gauthier, C. (2011). Large players in the nanogame: Dedicated nanotech subsidiaries or distributed nanotech capabilities? The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-011-9209-8.
52. Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259-283. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-007-9031-5.
53. Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. The Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304-337.
54. Mody, C. M. (2010). Institutions as stepping-stones: Rick Smalley and the commercialization of nanotubes. Center for Contemporary History and Policy, Chemical Heritage Foundation.
55. Morrison, P. D., Roberts, J. H., & von Hippel, E. (2000). Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market. Management Science, 46(12), 1513-1527.
56. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643-659.
57. Nanomarkets (2009). An opportunity analysis for OLED lighting: 2009 to 2016. Available at http://www. oled-info. com/files/nanomarkets-oled-lighting-report-2009. pdf.
58. Nelson, R., & Romer, P. (1996). Science, economic growth, and public policy. Challenge, 39(2), 9-21.
59. Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. New York, Oxford: Oxford University.
60. Niosi, J., & Reid, S. (2007). Biotechnology and nanotechnology: Science-based enabling technologies as windows of opportunity for LDCs? World Development, 35(3), 426-438.
61. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
62. O'Reilly, P., O'Kane, C., Cunningham, J., Maciocha, A., & Mangematin, V. (2010). Project formation and the motivations and challenges of the principal investigator role in publicly funded research. Technology Transfer Society Annual Conference, Washington DC, USA, November 12-13.
63. Owen-Smith, Jason., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effect of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5-21.
64. Parson, D. B. (2007). Seminal genomic technology. Illumina, Inc. & High Throughput SNP genotyping beadarray technology. A case study, thesis. Available at http://www. genome. duke. edu/centers/cpg/case-histories/seminal-genomic-technologies/bead-array/documents/DBPARSONS%20MS%20THESIS%20-%20ILLUMINA%20FINAL. pdf.
65. Powell, W. W., & Sandholtz, K. (2010). Chance, Necessité, et Naïveté: Ingredients to create a new organizational form. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Hilton Atlanta and Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, available at: http://www. allacademic. com/meta/p411873_index. html.
66. Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18-42.
67. Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous "morphing": Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. The Academy Management Journal, 44(6), 1263-1280.
68. Royston, I. (2006). Address given to the Von Leibig Forum, June 26, UCTV: University of California, San Diego. Available at http://www. uctv. tv/search-details. asp?showID=11752.
69. Seldon, S., Probert, D., & Minshal, T. (2005). Case study: Cambridge Display Technology Ltd. Cambridge: Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge.
70. Shah, S. (2000). Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer products field: Innovations in sporting equipment. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper No. 4105.
71. Shah, S., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 123-140.
72. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448-469.
73. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus New horizons in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
74. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
75. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer,. doi: 10. 1007/s10961-011-9212-0.
76. Siegel, D., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640-660.
77. Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. (2007). Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3, 4), 211-227.
78. Thoma, G. (2009). Striving for a large market: Evidence from a general purpose technology in action. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(2), 107-138.
79. Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
80. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162-178.
81. Urban, G., & von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569-582.
82. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791-805.
83. von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
84. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
85. Weick, K. E. (1989). Loose coupling: Beyond the metaphor. Current Contents, 20(12), 14.
86. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research-Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
87. Zahra, S. A. (2008). The virtuous cycle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 243-257. Special Issue: Opportunities, Organizations, and Entrepreneurship: Theory and Debate.
88. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
89. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216-226.