From boundary line to boundary space: The creation of hybrid organizations as a Triple Helix micro-foundation

Technovation

Volumn 76-77, Issue , 2018, Pages 28-39

  Champenois, Claire ^a   Etzkowitz, Henry ^b  

^a AUDENCIA BUSINESS SCHOOL   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Boundary spanner; Entrepreneurship; Innovation organizer; New venture; Triple Helix; Venture creation

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY SPANNERS; ENTREPRENEURSHIP; NEW VENTURES; TRIPLE HELIXES; VENTURE CREATION;

ENGINEERING;

EID: 85029287202     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Aldrich, H., Herker, D., Boundary spanning roles and organizational structure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2 (1977), 217–230.
2. Avnimelech, G., Schwartz, D., et al. Entrepreneurial high-tech cluster development: Israel's experience with venture capital and technological incubators. Eur. Plan. Stud. 15:9 (2007), 1181–1198.
3. Baglieri, D., Lorenzoni, G., Closing the distance between academia and market: experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes. J. Technol. Transf. 39:1 (2014), 52–74.
4. Barbero, J.L., Casillas, J.C., et al. Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations?. J. Technol. Transf. 39:2 (2014), 151–168.
5. Battard, N., Donnelly, P., et al., 2013. Understanding the emergence of new institutional logics: a boundary story. In: Proceedings of the 29th EGOS Colloquium. Montreal, Canada.
6. Bergek, A., Norrman, C., Incubator best practice: a framework. Technovation 28:1–2 (2008), 20–28.
7. Bourdieu, P., The genesis of the concepts of habitus and field. Sociocriticism 2:2 (1985), 11–24.
8. Carlile, P.R., A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci., 13(4), 2002, 442.
9. Carlile, P.R., Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15:5 (2004), 555–568.
10. Champenois, C., How can a cluster policy enhance entrepreneurship? Evidence from the German ‘BioRegio’ case. Environ. Plan. C: Gov. Policy 30:5 (2012), 796–815.
11. Champenois, C., Entre science et marché: l’”entrepreneur rationalisé”. Naissance et développement de l'industrie allemande des biotechnologies (Ph.D. Thesis in Sociology). 2006, Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, Paris, France, 463.
12. Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., et al. Boundary spanning between industry and university: the role of technology transfer centres. J. Technol. Transf. 37:6 (2012), 943–966.
13. Croce, A., Grilli, L., et al. Venture capital enters academia: an analysis of university-managed funds. J. Technol. Transf. 39:5 (2014), 688–715.
14. Cross, R., Parker, A., The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations. 2004, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
15. Dohse, D., Cluster-based technology policy – the German experience. Ind. Innov. 14:1 (2007), 69–94.
16. DiMaggio, P., Powell, W., The Iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (1983), 147–160.
17. Eisenhardt, K.M., Building theories from case studies research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14:4 (1989), 535–550.
18. Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50:1 (2007), 25–32.
19. Etzkowitz, H., 2002. MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. London, New York.
20. Etzkowitz, H., Innovation in innovation: the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Soc. Sci. Inf. 42:3 (2003), 293–337.
21. Etzkowitz, H., The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. 2008, Routledge, London.
22. Etzkowitz, H., StartX and the ‘paradox of success’: filling the gap in Stanford's entrepreneurial culture. Soc. Sci. Inf. 52:4 (2013), 605–627.
23. Etzkowitz, H., Gulbrandsen, M., et al. Public Venture Capital: Sources of Government Funding for Technology Entrepreneurs. 2001, Panel Publishers, New York.
24. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Res. Policy 29 (2000), 109–123.
25. Fache, J., Atlanpole: les fragilités d'une organisation spatiale et thématique. Norois 200:3 (2006), 25–37.
26. Fernandez-Alles, M., Camelo-Ordaz, C., et al. Key resources and actors for the evolution of academic spin-offs. J. Technol. Transf. 40:6 (2015), 976–1002.
27. Fitjar, R.D., Gjelsvik, M., et al. Organizing product innovation: hierarchy, market or Triple-Helix networks?. Triple Helix, 1, 2014, 3.
28. Fligstein, N., McAdam, D., A Theory of Fields. 2012, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
29. Franco, M., Haase, H., University-industry cooperation: researchers’ motivations and interaction channels. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 36 (2015), 41–51.
30. Friedman, R.A., Podolny, J., Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: labor negotiations and implications for role conflict. Adm. Sci. Q., 37(1), 1992, 28.
31. Guston, D.H., Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 29:1 (1999), 87–111.
32. Guston, D.H., Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values Spec. Issue: Bound. Organ. Environ. Policy Sci. 26:4 (2001), 399–408.
33. Hernes, T., Studying composite boundaries: a framework of analysis. Hum. Relat. 57:1 (2004), 9–29.
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. Kidwell, D.K., Principal investigators as knowledge brokers: a multiple case study of the creative actions of PIs in entrepreneurial science. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80:2 (2013), 212–220.
36. Leendert Aalbers, H., Dolfsma, W., Bridging firm-internal boundaries for innovation: directed communication orientation and brokering roles. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 36 (2015), 97–115.
37. Levina, N., Vaast, E., The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implemetation and use of information systems. MIS Q., 29(2), 2005, 335.
38. Lundqvist, M., The importance of surrogate entrepreneurship for incubated Swedish technology ventures. Technovation 34 (2014), 93–100.
39. Mac, R., 2012. Accelerator StartX receives $800,000 grant from Kauffman Foundation. Article published on 〈 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/08/23/stanford-accelerator-startx-receives-800000-grant-from-kauffman-foundation/#248fa7fa1aed〉 August 23, 2012.
40. Mangematin, V., O'Reilly, P., et al. Principal investigators as boundary spanners, science and market shapers. J. Technol. Transf. 39:1 (2014), 1–10.
41. Mazzucatto, M., The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. 2014, Anthem, London.
42. MESR, 2010. Recherche et Développement, Innovation et Partenariats 2009. Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Direction Générale pour la Recherche et l'Innovation, Paris.
43. Mian, S., Fayolle, A., et al. Building sustainable regional platforms for incubating science and technology businesses. Evidence from US and French science and technology parks. Entrep. Innov. 13:4 (2012), 235–247.
44. Mowery, D.C., Sampat, B.N., Patenting and licensing university inventions: lessons from the history of research corporation. Ind. Corp. Change 10:2 (2001), 317–355.
45. O'Kane, C., Mangematin, V., et al. University technology transfer offices: the search for identity to build legitimacy. Res. Policy 44:2 (2015), 421–437.
46. O'Mahony, S., Bechky, B.A., Boundary organizations: enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Adm. Sci. Q. 53:3 (2008), 422–459.
47. Parker, J., Crona, B., On being all things to all people: boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42:2 (2012), 262–289.
48. Ranga, M., Etzkowitz, H., Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Ind. High. Educ. 27:4 (2013), 237–262.
49. Rothaermel, F.T., Thursby, M., University-incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Res. Policy 34:3 (2005), 305–320.
50. Rubin, T.H., Aas, T.H., et al. Knowledge flow in technological business incubators: evidence from Australia and Israel. Technovation 41 (2015), 11–24.
51. Scillitoe, J.L., Chakrabarti, A.K., The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation 30:3 (2010), 155–167.
52. Shane, S., Dolmans, S.M., et al. Academic entrepreneurship: which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spinoffs?. J. Technol. Transf. 40:2 (2015), 273–292.
53. Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19:3 (1989), 387–420.
54. Svennson, P., Klofsten, M., et al. A knowledge-based strategy for renewing a declining industrial city: the Norrköping way. Eur. Plan. Stud. 20:4 (2012), 505–525.
55. Tushman, M., Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Adm. Sci. Q. 22 (1977), 587–605.
56. Tushman, M.L., Scanlan, T.J., Boundary spanning individuals: their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Acad. Manag. J. 24:2 (1981), 289–305.
57. Villarreal, O., Calvo, N., From the Triple Helix model to the global open innovation model: a case study based on international cooperation for innovation in Dominican Republic. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 35 (2015), 71–92.
58. Weckowska, D.M., Learning in university technology transfer offices: transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation 41–42 (2015), 62–74.
59. Wonglimpiyarat, J., The role of equity financing to support entrepreneurship in Asia – the experience of Singapore and Thailand. Technovation 33:4/5 (2013), 163–171.
60. Yin, R.K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., 2009, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.