Factors influencing university spin-off performance
Thesis BSc ECB
Bachelor Business Administration Marnix Lock
10892206
Supervisor: Willem Dorresteijn 26/06/2018
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Marnix Lock, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
University spin-offs are an interesting topic within the field of academic entrepreneurship. They are one of the most promising ways of transferring academic knowledge to the market and they are of great importance for local economic growth and technological improvement. The goal of this research is to find out what factors contribute to the performance of Dutch university spin-offs. This research was done by conducting semi-structured interviews with scientific founders and CEOs from different technological university spin offs. The results indicate that five categories of success factors influence university spin-off success, namely: university characteristics, technological characteristics, environmental characteristics and USO characteristics.
Index
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Literature review ... 7
2.1 Academic entrepreneurship ... 7
2.2 Tacit versus explicit knowledge ... 9
2.3 University spin-off... 11
2.4 Success factors ... 12
2.4.1 Conceptual model ... 14
2.4.2 University characteristics... 14
2.4.2.1 Technology Transfer Offices ... 15
2.4.2.2 Ties between the university and the USO ... 16
2.4.3 Founder characteristics ... 16 2.4.4 Environmental characteristics ... 18 2.4.5 Technological characteristics ... 19 3. Research design ... 20 3.1 Research method ... 20 3.2 Sample ... 21 3.3 Data collection ... 22 3.5 Data-analyses ... 22
3.6 Strengths and limitations ... 22
3.6.1 Reliability and internal validity ... 23
3.6.2 Generalizability ... 23
4. Results ... 24
Figure 2: Extensive interpretation of the factors that influence USO performance ... 25
4.1 University characteristics ... 25 4.2 Founder characteristics ... 28 4.3 Environmental characteristics ... 30 4.4 Technological characteristics ... 31 4.5 USO characteristics ... 33 5. Discussion... 34 5.1 Theoretical contribution ... 35 5.1.1 University characteristics... 35 5.1.2 Founder characteristics ... 36 5.1.3 Environmental characteristics ... 37 5.1.4 Technological characteristics ... 38 5.1.5 USO characteristics ... 38
5.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research ... 39
6. Conclusion ... 40
1. Introduction
Universities were created ages ago as social entities with the sole purpose of creating knowledge (Montesinos, Carot, Martinez, & Mora, 2008). A shift in the university’s role started winning ground in the United States around the 1970s, following growing concern about increasing Japanese competition in the manufacturing industry (Coriat & Orsi, 2002). With proven successes of Silicon Valley and Route 128 in mind, policy makers believed that universities could be the response to the Japanese uprising (Coriat & Orsi, 2002). These policy makers introduced various laws and university reforms to promote the transfer of research results to the industry (Grimaldi, Kenney, Siegel, & Wright, 2011).
So, in the last four or five decades, the role of the university has changed a lot. The creation of wealth is now among the core duties of universities (Huyghe & Knockaert, 2016). Besides teaching and conducting research, universities have started following a third mission of undertaking entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of transferring knowledge to the market (Trencher, Yarime, McCormick, Doll, & Kraines, 2013). The identification, creation and commercialization of intellectual property has become an institutional objective of the university (Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt, & Terra, 2000). Several studies claim that the creation and application of new knowledge by universities is the essential factor accounting for economic growth and technological development (Agrawal, 2001; Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000).
When transferring knowledge to the market, universities can follow a few ways to do so. They can, for example, license a patent to a firm (Agrawal, 2001) and let them bring the innovation to the market. Universities can also start a university-business collaboration to bring an invention to the market (Van Geenhuizen, 2010). However, one of the most
a so called university spin-off (USO) (Chiesa & Piccaluga, 2000). Universities across the world are increasingly emphasizing the creation of these new companies as a way of
commercializing knowledge (Siegel, Wright, & Lockett, 2007). Although USO’s may only be one type of academic entrepreneurship, their potential makes them an interesting topic for research.
As mentioned earlier, in the USA, the spin-off phenomenon proved very successful with the development of the ‘Silicon Valley’ and ‘Route 128’. These leading centers of innovation were established around respected universities like Stanford and MIT (Ndonzuau, Pirnay, & Surlemont, 2002; Saxenian, 1994). In the UK the Oxford university is by far the most entrepreneurial university (Smith & Ho, 2006). In Europe, the literature concentrates around Germany, known for its technological delights (Bigliardi, Galati, & Verbano, 2013). The research on USO’s is for the biggest part concentrated on the USA, where it originated, but there is still little attention on Europe (Bigliardi et al., 2013). The purpose of this article is therefore in the first place to fill this gap in the literature about European USO’s. Doing this we can also advance the understanding of USO’s outside the high-tech cluster of the USA.
When contrasting USO’s with other technological start-ups, USO’s seem to generate more ingenious products and services (Blair & Hitchens, 1998), more USO’s seem to go public (Shane & Stuart, 2002), and USO’s seem to create more job opportunities (Cohen, 2000). In general, we can state that USO’s perform better than regular start-ups. However, in the European Union, most USO’s fall behind and comprise of less than 10 employees (Van Geenhuizen & Soetanto, 2009). How can this be the case? To get an answer, this paper will focus on the research question: what factors determine USO performance?
This paper is organized as follows: in the next chapter the extensive literature on this subject will be discussed and a conceptual model will be presented. In the following chapter, research design, it is explained how the research question will be answered. After that the
results of the study will be discussed. In the discussion, the results are interpreted and the limitations of the study are discussed. Finally, in the conclusion, the research question will be answered on the basis of the main results of this study.
2. Literature review
Before continuing, it is convenient to get a basic understanding of the concepts used in this paper. In the next paragraphs explanations of the terms academic entrepreneurship, tacit versus explicit knowledge, university spin-off and success factors will be given. The term
success factors will then be further divided over different categories.
2.1 Academic entrepreneurship
The commercialization of university knowledge has been the topic of many studies. Some authors refer to the notion of commercializing university knowledge as university
entrepreneurship (Rothaermel, Agung, & Jiang, 2007), others call it academic
entrepreneurship (Grimaldi et al., 2011; Powers & McDougall, 2005). For the purpose of this article the term academic entrepreneurship will be used, since the objective is
commercializing innovations developed by academic scientists (Grimaldi et al., 2011). The term is defined as ‘the attempts to increase individual or institutional profit, influence, or prestige through the development and marketing of research ideas or research-based products’ (Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, & Stoto, 1989). These attempts they talk about, are outside the normally accepted duties of academic, which are teaching and conducting research
(Montesinos et al., 2008).
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, American businessmen and policy-makers became more and more disturbed by the apparent decline of America’s comparative advantage in its high technology industries (Coriat & Orsi, 2002). Because findings in these high technology
industries were insufficiently protected by existing patent systems, it was easy for competitors to copy the research findings. In this era, (mostly Japanese) firms would easily take advantage of American discoveries and inventions, at low cost, and convert them into products that then competed with the products they had initially copied (Coriat & Orsi, 2002). Successes of leading centers of innovation like Silicon Valley and Route 128 fueled policy-makers’ belief that universities could revive the comparative advantage of American companies (Coriat & Orsi, 2002). In order to achieve this, reforms had to be implemented. One of the most
prominent reforms following this period is the Bayh-Dole Act, which granted universities the right to license inventions that resulted from federally funded research (Agrawal, 2001; Grimaldi et al., 2011). The Bayh-Dole Act decreased the uncertainty associated with the commercialization of federally funded research and enhanced the incentives for academia and firms to commercialize university-based technologies (Baldini, 2009; Grimaldi et al., 2011).
European and Asian universities began to look at the American system with a strong sense that everything that was going on there was something to pursue (Baldini, 2009), so they started adopting similar legislation (Grimaldi et al., 2011). In the UK, since 1985, each institution has been able to set their own rules on ownership of IP (Smith & Ho, 2006) and starting from the Fifth Framework Program (Zobel, 1999) the EU has been paying special attention to the dissemination and transfer of research results to innovation, and to training and mobility of researchers between universities and companies (Baldini, 2009). With some exceptions, in France it was only in 1999 that USOs became possible after the passing of Allegre’s law, the role of European universities quickly changed to follow the American example (Smith & Ho, 2006). Where universities were once created as social entities with the sole purpose of creating knowledge (Montesinos et al., 2008), there was clearly a shift going on. Traditionally, the main mission of universities was to teach and conduct research, but
commercialization of knowledge has now been accepted as the third central university task (Rasmussen, Moen, & Gulbrandsen, 2006).
Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000) state that any activity outside the normally accepted duties of academics, which are teaching and conducting research, could be called
entrepreneurial. Following this statement, a lot of different types of academic
entrepreneurship can be distinguished. Academics can take on large externally financed research projects. Academics can pursue contracted research, in which they undertake specific research projects with the university system for external organizations. Academics can do consulting activities or give ad-hoc advice, in which they sell personal scientific or technological expertise to solve specific problems. They can patent or license rights to a product or underlying technology to the industry or they can set up a new firm to exploit the results of academic research. Academics can start teaching to external organizations or provide testing and calibration facilities to external organizations (Grimaldi et al., 2011; Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000). Another mechanism by which academics can transfer research results to the market place is collaborative research, which can result in joint publication with the industry (Grimaldi et al., 2011).
This paper will focus on new firms set up to exploit the results of academic research; they are called USOs. A description of the term will follow, but first it is beneficial to get an understanding of the different types of knowledge that can be brought to the market and to pinpoint which one is marketed by the USO, the next paragraph will do just that.
2.2 Tacit versus explicit knowledge
In knowledge created by universities, there is an important distinction to be made between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge (Wright, Clarysse, Lockett, & Knockaert, 2008).
Tacit knowledge is unarticulated knowledge that is tied to the senses, physical experiences or implicit rules of thumb. Concrete examples of tacit knowledge are knowledge of wine tasting, crafting a violin, or interpreting a complex seismic printout of an oil reservoir
(Nonaka & Von Krogh, 2009). This type of knowledge for a large part determines the skillful performance of universities, academics are not always entirely aware of their skills and find it challenging to express a full report of those details. Because tacit knowledge cannot be codified and is difficult to disseminate, tacit knowledge itself cannot be transferred to the market place (Wright et al., 2008). Even though tacit knowledge cannot be articulated, the benefit over its counterpart explicit knowledge is that only those who have been involved in the development of the technology possess the necessary know-how to replicate the
technology and make use of it (Clarysse, Wright & Van de Velde, 2011). This makes the technology less easy to copy and gives the academics that developed the technology the possibility to transform it into commercial products (Clarysse et al., 2011).
Knowledge that can be articulated, formulated in sentences or captured in drawings and writing is called explicit knowledge (Wright et al., 2008). The knowledge of a solution to a differential equation is explicit knowledge, it can be formulated in a sentence or articulated in words (Nonaka & Von Krogh, 2009). Explicit knowledge could benefit from being marketed by universities. This form of knowledge can be protected by universities through various sorts of IP policies (Wright et al., 2008).
When the literature talks about commercializing knowledge or transferring knowledge to the market, explicit knowledge is meant (Wright et al., 2008). The formation of an USO is a way to bring explicit knowledge to the market, the next paragraph will provide a detailed description of the USO.
2.3 University spin-off
In the literature on academic entrepreneurship the terms university spin-off (Rasmussen & Borch, 2010), university spin-out (Leitch & Harrison, 2005; Lockett, Wright, & Franklin, 2003) and university startup (Miner, Gong, Ciuchta, Sadler, & Surdyk, 2012; Swamidass, 2013) are used interchangeably. These different terms are used to describe the same thing: business ventures that transfer a core technology from the parent (the university) to the market (Walter, Auer, & Ritter, 2006). For the purpose of this paper the term university spin-off will be used and in the remainder of the paper it will be abbreviated to USO. The focus of this paper will be on research-based USOs, these are founded by at least one scientist from a public research center and focus on the direct transformation of scientific findings into marketable processes or products (Helm & Mauroner, 2007).
As described in 2.1 academics can follow different ways to transfer knowledge to the market. Traditionally, explicit knowledge was codified in the form of patents, these patents were then licensed to established companies. Alternatively, the knowledge transfer from the university to the market place might take place through USOs. Although starting a new company is only one of a number of ways for transferring explicit knowledge to the market place, this instrument fostering local economic growth has been growing in importance (Pazos, López, González, & Sandiás, 2012).
According to Swamidass (2013), history has shown that many academic inventions will remain on the shelf forever if they are not licensed to a new USO. This shows the importance of USOs in commercializing university knowledge. It also underlines the importance of USOs when it comes to dealing with public funds. If an academic invention is not licensed to an USO, the money invested in the research leading up to it will be lost (Swamidass, 2013).
This study will focus on one type of USO, namely the technology USO. Technology USOs are, obviously, USOs active in the tech sector. But what is the tech sector? According
to Glasson, Chadwick and Lawton Smith (2006) there is some agreement on the general characteristics displayed by high-tech-based or technology-based firms, but a wide range of definitions exists. A sector identifies as being “high-tech” when either the R&D intensity is above the all-industry average (preferably by at least 20%) and it has an an
above-all-industry-average percentage of qualified scientists and engineers (Butchart, 1987; Glasson et al., 2006). Technology USOs are thus USOs with a R&D intensity and a percentage of
qualified personnel that is above the all-industry average. To be specific, this paper focuses on research-based technology USOs, when the paper talks about USOs it is beneficial to keep this in mind.
2.4 Success factors
According to Leidecker and Bruno (1984) success factors are the characteristics, conditions, or variables that when properly managed can have a significant impact on the success of a firm. These success factors can be broadly divided into two categories: the resource-based view and the social capital theory (Scholten, 2006)
The resource-based view emphasizes the importance of key resources controlled by the firm in determining firm performance (Pazos et al., 2012; Powers & McDougall, 2005). This theory describes a company as being a bundle of resources. From a resource-based point of view, organizations contrast with one another on the basis of the resources and capabilities owned by the organization at a specific time (Pazos et al., 2012). Some unique resources identified in the literature on academic entrepreneurship include expert knowledge and scientific capabilities, access to personnel, information and support structures (Powers & McDougall, 2005). When managed well, these resources can distinguish the organization from its competitors. According to the resource-based view, identifying and developing a firm’s key resources is very important. Key resources deliver added value and can guarantee a
sustainable competitive advantage (Scholten, 2006). Resource-based research in the academic entrepreneurship field has mainly focused on the number of USOs formed (Pazos et al., 2012; Powers & McDougall, 2005) and not so much on USO performance.
The social capital theory explains firm performance on the basis of the existence of valuable relations with external resource holders (Walter et al., 2006). Where human capital refers to the experiences and capabilities of individuals in the firm, and physical capital is incorporated in the assets used for production, social capital points out the relations among actors, individuals, groups or organizations (Scholten, 2006). Social capital is not part of human capital because it is not placed in one actor, but in the relationship between actors, it is the shared capital between these different actors (Coleman, 2000). Maintaining an inter-organizational network of relationships is being more and more viewed as the key for
organizations to sustain competitive advantage. According to the social capital theory, sources of innovation are found in the interaction with actors outside the firm. This interaction can be with direct competitors, universities or business partners, for example. The relations with external parties are an important source for identifying business opportunities, for gaining access to capital, expertise and guidance (Scholten, 2006).
Social capital theory research in the academic entrepreneurship field has studied USO performance. An example is the study by Walter et al. (2006) about the impact that network capabilities have on USO performance.
Because the purpose of this study is to identify all factors that determine USO performance, it is necessary to study the effects that both the resource-based view and social capital theory have on USO performance. The model created by Bigliardi et al. (2013) combines the two philosophies and will therefore be used to study the different factors influencing USO performance.
2.4.1 Conceptual model
As said in the previous paragraph, the model created by Bigliardi et al. (2013) will form the basis of this paper because it combines factors from both the resource-based view and social capital theory to predict USO performance. According to the proposed model, the individual factors that predict USO performance can be grouped into four mutually exclusive,
collectively exhaustive, categories. These categories being: university characteristics, founder
characteristics, environmental characteristics and technological characteristics. The
categories will be explained below.
Figure 1: research framework derived from the study by Bigliardi et al. (2013)
2.4.2 University characteristics
The category university characteristics refers to the characteristics and the level of involvement of the university in starting and running the USO (Bigliardi et al., 2013).
According to Huyghe and Knockaert (2016) universities have the power to influence spin-off creation and success, by creating an environment that promotes academic entrepreneurship. Pazos et al. (2012) add that university heads should aggravate their actions to facilitate academic entrepreneurship. A way in which the university facilitates academic
entrepreneurship is through Technology Transfer Offices. Another way in which the
university facilitates academic entrepreneurship is by means of ties to the USO. Both will be described below.
2.4.2.1 Technology Transfer Offices
The Bayh-Dole Act in America (Agrawal, 2001; Grimaldi et al., 2011) and similar legislation in Europe and Asia (Grimaldi et al., 2011), made it necessary for students and staff members to disclose new inventions with commercial potential to their institution’s Technology Transfer Office (TTO) (Friedman & Silberman, 2003). Almost all universities have TTOs, which are responsible for patenting inventions (Chang, Yang, & Chen, 2009). Once patented, the university owns the intellectual property rights and is able to license the technology to another entity, say an USO (Friedman & Silberman, 2003). The TTO’s mission is to promote relations between the university and the industry (Pazos et al., 2012) and make academics aware of the commercial value of scientific research (de Mots, 2011).
Research on the effect that TTOs have on USO performance found that the competence of the staff in TTOs is very important (Smilor & Matthews, 2004; Lockett, Siegel, Wright, & Ensley, 2005; Venturini, Verbano, & Matsumoto, 2013). Experience in the field makes that TTO personnel are often the best placed individuals for detecting
commercialization opportunities in university inventions (Pazos et al., 2012). The personnel at TTOs tend to have good knowledge about the technology underlying an invention and its marketability (Lockett et al., 2003), they also tend to have experience about company formation and when an USO has been formed, TTO staff can also help academics develop needed business skills (Pazos et al., 2012).
2.4.2.2 Ties between the university and the USO
The ties between the university and its USO can be divided into two categories; ties through tangible support and ties through intangible support (O’shea, Allen, Chevalier, & Roche, 2005).
Tangible support refers to touchable assets, such as finance, licensees, patents, and equipment (Scholten, 2006). The most obvious way in which the university is tied to its USO is by means of financial ties. The literature claims that the provision of tangible support benefits USO performance (Lockett, Siegel, Wright, & Ensley, 2005; Scholten, 2006; Smilor & Matthews, 2004).
Intangible support refers to the guidance and advice the university gives its USO (Scholten, 2006). The university can unburden the USO of administrative and legal tasks and help it focusing on its core activities, the university can help the USO in negotiations about setting up business contracts or obtaining subsidies (Scholten, 2006). Intangible factors that benefit USO performance are the transparency and clarity of communication between
university and USO (Smilor & Matthews, 2004), the easiness of recruiting personnel from the university (Helm & Mauroner, 2007) and the access of USOs to high qualified competencies (Vohara, Wright, & Lockett, 2004). According to O’shea et al. (2005) access to persons with expert knowledge and talent is a critical human capital resource for the development of innovative technologies.
2.4.3 Founder characteristics
The category founder characteristics refers to the personal characteristics of the individual who founded the USO (Bigliardi et al., 2013). Because USOs are considered to be a good method for commercializing knowledge, the personal characteristics of the founder are an
important issue in entrepreneurial research (Helm & Mauroner, 2007). The literature names several individual characteristics that can determine USO performance (Bigliardi et al., 2013).
According to Clarysse et al. (2011) the founder’s entrepreneurial spirit can benefit USO performance. Ahmad and Seymour (2008) state that entrepreneurship is about
identifying and exploiting opportunities that create value. From this it follows that founders with an entrepreneurial spirit are those people that seek to generate value, by identifying and acting on opportunities (Ahmad & Seymour, 2008). According to Rasmussen, Mosey and Wright (2011), entrepreneurial competencies within firms can have positive effects on
commercialization success. Universities and support actors are needed to assist in this process (Rasmussen et al., 2011).
The personality and motives of USO founders are comparable to those of regular technological entrepreneurs. Both USO founders and technological entrepreneurs have a high need for independence (Helm & Mauroner, 2007). Helm and Mauroner (2007) add that the impact of individual traits on USO performance has not been studied adequately.
The personal knowledge of the scientific founder can also benefit USO performance (Clarysse et al., 2011; Helm & Mauroner, 2007; Pazos et al., 2012). According to Clarysse et al. (2011) technological knowledge present at USOs permits more efficient utilization of related knowledge and enables USOs to better understand and evaluate the nature and commercial potential of technological advances. Pazos et al (2012) found that prominent academics tend to have a greater propensity to create USOs to capture value from intellectual capital. Helm and Mauroner (2007) found that the specific human capital of the former scientist benefits USO performance.
The founder’s career orientation also is stated to influence USO performance (Beibst & Lautenslager, 2004; Egeln, Gottschalk, Rammer, & Spielkamp, 2003; Helm & Mauroner, 2007). Founders of successful USOs can be driven by the idea of better career opportunities
than within the university (Helm & Mauroner, 2007). Academics might be dissatisfied about their salary or temporary employment contracts build up the tendency to start an USO (Hindle & Yencken, 2004). The motive of better career opportunities for starting an USO is only of relevance for scientists when the concrete option arises to choose between self-employment or a further academic career (Egeln, Gottschalk, Rammer, & Spielkamp, 2003). It has not yet been studied how successful USOs that are founded under the threat of unemployment become, but it can be assumed they do not show outstanding performance (Helm & Mauroner, 2007).
Personal motivation is also an important factor influencing USO performance (Egeln et al., 2003). This factor has a bit overlap with the preceding factor, career orientation, in that the personal motivation underlying the founding of an USO, can be in part explained by the scientific founder’s drive to better career opportunities (Egeln et al., 2003; Helm & Mauroner, 2007). Market demand, the identification of concrete customers and the assumed commercial potential of research findings can cause academics to be personally motivated to start an USO (Egeln et al., 2003).
2.4.4 Environmental characteristics
The category environmental characteristics refers to the characteristics of the industrial sector the USO belongs to and its geographical location (Helm & Mauroner, 2007; O’Shea et al., 2013).
While USOs on the hand work closely with the university, at the same time they are embedded in a larger environmental context (Rothaermel et al., 2007).
Feedback from the external environment continuously influences the way the university participates in entrepreneurial activities (Rothaermel et al., 2007). According to Mansfield (1995), the extent to which the direct environment contributes to USO innovations is
dependent on the proportion of industry members that are located close by. The proximity of high-tech firms to the USO is very important (Mansfield, 1995).
The majority of academics prefer to locate their USO close to the university (Helm & Mauroner, 2007). Being close to the university gives USOs the advantage of good
infrastructure, the easiness of attracting foreign financing, nearness of academic research and better knowledge transfer (Audretsch, Lehmann, & Warning, 2005). The choice of location can also be based on factors like the nearness of business, partners and the local demand for the USO’s products (Helm & Mauroner, 2007).
Determining how much a spin-off is dependent on its environment can also be assessed by grasping its financial dependence on external parties. According to Lockett, Siegel, Wright and Ensley (2005) and O’Shea et al. (2005) this also influences performance. Pazos et al. (2012) add that ties between the industry and the university can stimulate USO activity.
2.4.5 Technological characteristics
The category technological characteristics refers to the technology underlying the product that is marketed by the USO (Bigliardi et al., 2013). The formation of USOs is more likely when the researched technology is innovative and the academics that have worked on the technology have high excellence (Pazos et al., 2012).
Some characteristics included in this group are the degree of innovativeness of the product (Helm & Mauroner, 2007), the ability to patent the product or in general protect the underlying technology (Heirman & Clarysse, 2004). The amount of work that is put into the technology is also of influence on USO performance (Helm & Maurorer, 2007). According to Clarysse et al. (2011), the technological knowledge base is a very important predictor of the growth opportunity of an USO.
3. Research design
The goal of this study is finding out what factors contribute to a successful USO. The next paragraphs will give insight in the used research method, the sample, the means of data collection and how the data will be analyzed.
3.1 Research method
To test the proposed factors that predict USO performance the opinions of executives and scientific founders working at USO’s need to be collected. The research question was answered with the use of a qualitative study. The data was collected by conducting four in-depth interviews with academics who themselves started, or are currently leading, USO’s. Per USO, one interview is conducted. The results of these interviews will give insight in how USOs can turn successful.
This paper has an abductive approach, in that it combines aspects of both inductive and deductive approaches. In inductive studies, theory is developed based on the collected data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). Deductive research tests the existing literature on the basis of collected data (Saunders et al., 2012). The questions asked during the interviews were based on existing literature on factors influencing USO performance, this makes the study partially deductive. However, this data was then inductively encoded. This combination makes the study abductive in nature.
The questions asked at the interviews were pre-determined, with the opportunity of adding (follow-up) questions, this makes the interviews semi-structured. The advantage of this method is that it leaves space for the interviewee to elaborate on his answers and for the interviewer it gives the opportunity to continue asking if the answer is not immediately clear.
3.2 Sample
In total, there are four USO’s participating in this study, these USO’s stem from research conducted at the University of Amsterdam (from now on: UVA) or at University X (one respondent wanted to remain anonymous). Three of the four interviewed USO’s are located in Amsterdam. The USOs are: Oefenweb.nl BV, Photanol BV, Confocal.nl BV and Company X. All four companies are technology based, meaning the product they’re selling is based on technology (Geum, Lee, Kang, & Park, 2011). At Oefenweb.nl BV the scientific founder Han van der Maas was interviewed, at Photanol BV CEO Véronique de Bruijn was interviewed, at Confocal.nl BV CEO Peter Drent was interviewed and the CEO of Company X was
interviewed.
The interviewed persons were chosen because they are the closest to the business’ core. These four persons were approached to participate voluntarily in the study. Oefenweb.nl BV is active in the market for educational software, Photanol BV is a medical device
manufacturer, Confocal.nl BV is active in the chemical industry. Company X is also active in the tech sector, but in order to guarantee the anonymity of the respondent, the sector is not further specified.
This composition of interviewees was chosen to be able to examine the subject from multiple sectors. The participants had the opportunity to prepare for the interview, they were informed in advance by e-mail of the core and content of the research. If unclear, concepts were explained during the interview, this to ensure that interviewer and interviewee talk about the same thing. The only people present during each interview will be the interviewer and the interviewee.
3.3 Data collection
The companies participating in this study were gathered by means of purposive sampling, to create variation in the sample (Anderson, 2010). The correct contact details of respondents were found on the internet and the respondents were reached via e-mail. In three instances this resulted in a face to face appointment where the respondents were interviewed on location. In one instance this resulted in an interview taken by telephone, this respondent had a very busy schedule and could make a little time in between meetings for the interview.
During the interviews an open and listening interview strategy was adopted, to stimulate respondents to share their experiences about the factors that influence USO performance (Hermanowicz, 2002).
With the participant’s approval, the interviews were recorded and social cues obtained during the interview were written down. Afterwards, the interviews were typed out and the obtained social clues were added as memo’s to the transcript. When this was finished, the voice recordings of the interviews were deleted.
3.5 Data-analyses
When the interviews were clearly typed out, they were analyzed by means of open coding and by adding memos, to create a clear picture of the data. During the process of open coding a list was kept of all the codes that came along. This list was often evaluated and adjusted if necessary. After the open coding process, the interviews were coded by means of axial coding. With the use of selective coding a new model was eventually created (Boeije, 2009).
3.6 Strengths and limitations
The strengths and limitations of this study will be discussed by describing its reliability, internal validity and generalizability.
3.6.1 Reliability and internal validity
Reliability refers to the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study (Golafshani, 2003). Internal validity refers to the degree to which a researcher is justified in concluding that an observed relationship is causal (Johnson, 1997).
To guarantee the reliability and internal validity of the results, only the interviewer and interviewee were present in the room where the interview takes place. When surrounded by colleagues, the participant might not give clear and honest answers. Also it is important to do the interview in a quiet place, this ensures that the sound fragment is easy to hear and it makes typing it out a lot easier. At the start of the interview the possibility to anonymize information discussed during the interview is given. This question will be repeated after the interview, because the participants can then make this decision based on actual information discussed during the interview. The reliability and internal validity will increase because the participants can give honest and open answers. The internal validity will also increase by asking the same questions at different interviews. The interviews will be conducted at various USOs, when the study produces the same results for different USOs the external validity will likely be high.
3.6.2 Generalizability
The sample used in this study only contains Dutch USOs, therefore the results of the study will generalize well to other Dutch USOs. The generalizability to USOs of universities abroad will however be low.
4. Results
In this chapter, the results of the research and analysis will be presented. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with scientific founders and executives of USOs. The interviews serve to provide a better understanding of the factors that influence the performance of USOs. All four planned interviews took place and were on average 35 minutes, with three being a bit longer and one a lot shorter. In the literature review the factors that supposedly influence USO performance were defined. This theory, together with the data obtained through the four interviewed has resulted in a new model that will be presented below. The model could serve Dutch USOs and public research universities because it defines factors that are responsible for USO performance. In the model, relations between different variables are indicated by the use of arrows: black implies a neutral relationship and blue a positive relationship. The result section will follow the different factors indicated in the model, these will be handled separately, following the categories of factors prescribed by Bigliardi et al. (2013). The interviews resulted in the necessity of adding one extra variable; USO characteristics. So, the results section will start with university characteristics, following with the founder
characteristics, then the environmental characteristics, technological characteristics and at
last the USO characteristics. The interviewees were asked different questions to analyze in what way the proposed categories determine USO performance. The questions are structured in such a way that it first examines in what way a certain category influences USO
Figure 2: Extensive interpretation of the factors that influence USO performance
4.1 University characteristics
The characteristics of the university and its level of involvement influence the performance of USO’s (Bigliardi et al., 2013). From the interviews it became clear that the tangible support provided by the university is very important for USOs, this is in line with research about this matter. Lockett et al. (2005), Scholten (2006) and Smilor and Matthews (2004) already proved that financial support is crucial for USO performance. All four the USO’s were dependent on the university for initial financial funding and in all four cases the university is still shareholder (Lockett et al., 2005).
“Without the funding we would not have succeeded. At the start I had to actually hire two / three people and that took two and a half years before it really started to run with income. So
we would have never been able to afford that without the start subsidy from the UvA.” – Han
van der Maas, scientific founder Oefenweb.nl
It is however important to note that the interviewees are a bit hesitate when it comes to the financial role the university plays and the decisions the university makes in this role.
“I do not know if you are going to talk about this, but what we have experienced is that we as a startup obviously have a great need for cash, but at the same time we also need other things that cost money. For example rent costs money. If you look at the university, that has such a large complex, there are plenty of empty rooms and spaces or whatever, but you just have to pay rent again, you know. That is a bit of a weird story, we ourselves were thinking, this is a cost, every month of around 600/700 euros, that we have to pay for with money that we loan from the same university. If you have that space, you would just really help us by offering it
for free. For a university that does not matter at all.” - person X, CEO at Company X
“Look they work with expensive law firms, expensive notaries, expensive everything. Everything goes through the big offices. While actually for such a small spin-off, I think, you
just have to dare and you also have to choose your partners in that area I think. So a newly started lawyer is just fine. Those lawyers from those big offices are simply not affordable. I was shocked by that, how the UvA holding company finds it standard to hire these specific
types. Well, guys, is all that necessary? This is all going too fast.” – Han van der Maas,
Another important way in which the university contributes to USO performance is by offering intangible support (Scholten, 2006). In accordance with the literature, the access to
knowledge (O’shea et al. 2005) proved important. For USOs, access to persons with expert knowledge and talent is critical for the development of innovative technologies meant to be brought to the market place (O’shea et al. 2005). The closeness to the university that a lot of USOs have is an advantage.
“Now we have worked for a while close, also physically, in collaboration with the university and that is an advantage, so we want to keep that as well. This is not about facilities, it really
is about the proximity of people with fundamental research and the knowledge that is developed.” – Véronique de Bruijn- CEO Photanol BV
Analysis of the interviews also revealed that being linked to the university and in that way being able to name the university as parent gives USOs an advantage over competition and stimulates performance.
“Uhm, yes, what we notice now is, we are now encountering one other startup, which ... yes, actually just copied us. We then have the advantage, once again, that we have that TU Delft background, which gives us a very reliable, thorough first impression.” – person X, CEO at
Company X
The respondents also indicated in the interviews that the university’s network contributes to USO performance. According to Walter et al. (2006) the firm’s ability to leverage its network can stimulate its performance. This can in part be explained because USOs with access to a
useful network may possess better preconditions to develop and launch new products or services successfully (Walter et al., 2006).
“The contacts, the companies, the institutions that come to that, where events are organized, where we can have a chat again. That has helped us a lot to get new customers.” – Véronique
de Bruijn, CEO Photanol BV
In summary, the following factors proved to influence USO performance: tangible factors,
intangible factors, the university’s name and its network.
4.2 Founder characteristics
According to the literature there are several individual characteristics that can determine USO performance. Helm and Mauroner (2007) named the need for independence of the individual for example. The following factors were the most prominent in the interviews: the
individual’s personal motivation, his/her experience, personal knowledge and creativity. Egeln et al. (2003) found the personal motivation of the founder to be an important
contributor to USO performance. USOs need time to turn profitable and a motivated leader can in this case be useful.
“You know, if you do this because you think I will become a millionaire within two months, then that is fine, but you will not succeed. In any case nine out of ten start-ups go, they do not
agree, they are no longer there within two years. There are a lot of bumps and
disappointments and difficulties, if you are not motivated and do not believe in the idea, in the company and in success, yes, then it will be nothing. You really have to be very motivated, for
those valleys that are just there, and you hear that from all the startups, to get out of that and to continue to trust. It is very important.” - person X, CEO at Company X
The respondents also thought their work experience had contributed to the USO’s performance. Past experience in administrative functions gave Han van der Maas (Oefenweb.nl BV) the confidence he could lead his own USO:
“But I am a good director, I have many administrative tasks at the UvA. I lead different institutions, so I am someone who can organize.” – Han van der Maas, scientific founder
Oefenweb.nl BV
Another factor that influences USO performance is the personal knowledge of the individual working at the USO (Clarysse et al., 2011; Helm & Mauroner, 2007; Pazos et al., 2012). A clear understanding of the technological knowledge to be marketed enables USO to better estimate commercial potential.
“Yes, my scientific knowledge, the plan, the idea, was of course mine. And that was crucial for the company.” – Han van der Maas, scientific founder Oefenweb.nl BV
“I notice, especially when I mention the name and function of my partner in certain conversations, who is still a professor, that gives a certain kind of status, making it easier for
Another factor identified as a facilitator of USO performance is the creativity of the individual working at the USO. This factor has not yet been identified by the literature as a performance factor, so further research could be beneficial.
“Being creative is important, it is one thing to understand the technology, but another to transfer it to the market.” – person X, CEO at Company X
In summary, the following factors proved to influence USO performance: personal
motivation, his/her experience, personal knowledge and creativity.
4.3 Environmental characteristics
Environmental characteristics studied include the characteristics of the industrial sector the USO belongs to and its geographical location (Helm & Mauroner, 2007; O’Shea et al., 2013).
According to the respondents the geographical location of the USO does not matter that much, this is in contrast with claims of Helm and Mauroner (2007).
“I'm sorry, I love Amsterdam, I like living here and all those things, but if this is a success then it is just that because of what that technology it brings and not because it comes from
Amsterdam.” – Véronique de Bruijn, CEO Photanol BV
The direct environment surrounding the USO on the other hand, is of crucial
importance. This is line with the study by Phan and Siegel (2006), who found that the direct environment surrounding the USO influences its success. The extent to which the direct environment contributes to USO innovations and the way it influences its performance is dependent on the industry members that are located close by (Mansfield, 1995).
“The Green Village is nearby, that is an institution from the university, where are all kinds of innovations in the field of green are taking place. There are showcases, companies can
develop there and we also made use of them.” – person X, CEO at Company X
Another factor influencing USO performance is the local market demand for the product. If the local market demand is high, USO performance is likely to benefit (Helm & Mauroner, 2007).
“At one point the research was finished and we actually wanted to stop it. I had never experienced that ... that those schools said; yes, but we want to continue. And other schools
wanted it too, our product.” – Han van der Maas, CEO Oefenweb.nl BV
In summary, the following factors proved to influence USO performance: the connectedness
to the market and local market demand.
4.4 Technological characteristics
The technological knowledge base is a very important predictor of the growth opportunity of an USO (Clarysse et al., 2011).
The respondents were unambiguous in their opinion that the innovativeness of the marketed product contributed to its success. This is in line with research about the
innovativeness of the core technology underlying the product (Heirman & Clarysse, 2004; Helm & Mauroner, 2007).
“Innovation is the condition for success. This is a breakthrough story. Big impact, breakthrough, makes things completely unnecessary in all kinds of areas. It cannot be
produced linearly from existing things.” – Véronique de Bruijn, CEO Photanol BV
“If we had not had that sensor technology, we would not have been able to do those first projects. And with that the following projects. So that innovation was really key.” – person X,
CEO at Company X
The literature on technological characteristics also identified the ability to patent the product or its underlying technology as factors benefiting USO performance (Heirman & Clarysse, 2004). Analysis of the interviews leads to contrasting insights. Respondents agreed that the benefit of patenting the underlying technology is overestimated and the maintaining of it can be expensive.
“I think the value of a patent is overestimated anyway, because if a big company would say we will do this too, then they will, even if we had a patent.” – Peter Drent, CEO Confocal.nl
BV
“Software is very difficult to patent. Moreover, you have to apply for patents in all the countries in which you are active, maintaining a patent costs a lot of money per year. Nobody
really does that.” – Han van der Maas, scientific founder Oefenweb.nl BV
Products or technologies that are not patented are at risk of being copied by competitors. In order to maintain a competitive advantage over these competitors, it is necessary to
differentiate in some other way. The USOs in this sample try to differentiate in their products to stay ahead of competition.
We have also said a long time ago, we will not win this battle on hardware. There are other parties active in the same market and that is all going so fast. So no, software must be the distinguishing factor for us. We simply try to better integrate the data than our competitors and translate it into useful information for the customer through algorithms. – person X, CEO
at Company X
In summary, the following factor proved to influence USO performance: degree of
innovativeness.
4.5 USO characteristics
The analysis of the interviews resulted in the adding of an extra category of success factors, namely USO characteristics. This category of factors is outside the model of Bigliardi et al. (2013). The adding of this category is necessary to accommodate the factor personnel. The literature only focuses on the influence personnel inhabiting the TTOs have on USO performance (Smilor & Matthews, 2004; Lockett et al., 2005; Venturini et al., 2013). The experience (Pazos et al., 2012) and technological knowledge (Lockett et al., 2003) the TTO personnel possesses benefits USO performance and is part of the category university
characteristics. However, the interviews indicated that the personnel working at the USO also greatly influences USO performance.
“It is important to have people who really enjoy their work and are engaged in a good way with few conflicts. People have the same goal, that helps too.” – Han van der Maas, CEO
Oefenweb.nl BV
Even though the respondents agree on the importance of a good team to guarantee USO performance, they indicate that new employees often do not have the necessary qualities.
“No, they do not actually have the right qualities. I often look at biological knowledge, you have to know something about biology. You have to be able to speak, what I call, academically. So you should not be afraid to talk to a professor. You have to have that in you,
commercially there is usually something present in many people, but we have to help to expand that.” – Peter Drent, CEO Confocal.nl BV
5. Discussion
This paper has sought to identify the factors that influence the performance of USOs. This research was necessary because the literature has paid little attention to European USOs and their success factors. To examine the factors that are important in predicting USO
performance, a conceptual model created by Bigliardi et al. (2013) was used. With the use of interviews it was qualitatively investigated which factors are the most important in the categories prescribed by Bigliardi et al. (2013).
The study showed that the Bigliardi et al. (2013) model is very useful for classifying different success factors in categories, but it is not all-encompassing. To ensure that all factors that emerged from the research could be divided into the right category, it was necessary to create an extra category: USO characteristics.
This chapter will start with the paper’s theoretical contribution to the academic entrepreneurship literature. After this, the limitations off the paper and directions for future research on USOs will be discussed.
5.1 Theoretical contribution
The literature’s attention to the subject of academic entrepreneurship and the valorization of university knowledge started in the US around the 1960s and 1970s. Research in this field focuses on many different perspectives. Some papers have tried to find out how different policies influenced the commercialization of knowledge, others have examined how the university as an institution contributes to the transfer of knowledge to the market. This paper has focused on the role that USOs play in the commercialization of knowledge and it
specifically gives insight in the factors that influence the USOs performance in bringing university knowledge to the market. It contributes to the existing literature in two ways. A more all-encompassing model to study USO performance has been created and the gap in the literature about European USOs is now better filled, specifically, the knowledge about Dutch USOs is increased.
5.1.1 University characteristics
The category university characteristics proved to influence USO performance in a few different ways.
First off, the tangible role the university plays seemed very important. USOs are usually founded as a result of extensive research by academics, academics themselves are not really experienced in the business world. It is possible, therefore, that academics would not have been able to attract the necessary financing to get their business off the ground. It may therefore be the case that financing of the university benefits USO performance.
Secondly, the intangible role of the university proved to be beneficial for USO performance. The results of the interviews support the idea that access to academic
knowledge is critical for the development of innovative technologies (O’shea et al., 2005). It is possible that the nearness of academic knowledge and persons with talent stimulates the transfer of knowledge. It can be assumed that when persons with technological knowledge are near, technological innovations can be implemented much faster and more easily.
Thirdly, an interesting finding proved to be the benefit that the link to the university’s name gives an USO. However, this result has not previously been described. The respondents claim that the university’s name gives them an advantage over competitors that are not linked to an university. It could be the case that the university’s name gives customers a sense of trust in the company.
Fourthly, and last, the research indicated that the university’s network can benefit USO performance. This is consistent with data obtained by Walter et al. (2006). The interaction with actors outside the firm can be a source of innovation. For the companies interviewed in this research it seemed that the network of the university proved important for attracting new customers and business partners.
5.1.2 Founder characteristics
The category founder characteristics proved to influence USO performance in a few different ways.
First off, motivation proved to be an important predictor of USO performance. These results support the idea of Egeln et al. (2003) that the personal motivation of the founder is an important factor in the USO’s performance. It can be suggested that USOs need time to become profitable. If the scientific founder, or the executive running the USO, is not personally motivated, the company will not get through the first few harsh years.
Secondly, an interesting finding proved to be the role that experience has on USO performance. This result has not been previously described so further research could benefit to understand what is truly behind the relation between experience and USO performance. An assumption could be that experience in a business setting, for example, leads individuals to better estimate the true potential of academic inventions meant for transfer to the market place.
Thirdly, in line with previous studies about the subject (Clarysse et al., 2011; Helm & Mauroner, 2007; Pazos et al., 2012), personal knowledge proved to benefit USO performance. This is of course crucial, without the personal technological knowledge of the scientific founder, innovations could not have been made. Without an initial innovation to bring into the market, the founding of an USO would never see the light.
Fourthly, and last, creativity proved of influence on USO performance. Even though this is not in line with previous research, it can be suggested that creativity plays an important role in the way products are marketed.
5.1.3 Environmental characteristics
The category environmental characteristics proved to influence USO performance in two ways; through the connectedness of the USO to the market and through local market demand.
Firstly, the way in which the connectedness of the USO to the market influences its performance is in line with previous research by Mansfield (1995). The author already indicated that the proportion of industry members located close by influences firm
performance (Mansfield, 1995). It could be suggested that the closeness of industry members creates a climate in which it is easy for the USO to attract business partners or identify business opportunities.
Secondly, the factor local market demand proved to be of influence on USO performance. Local market demand was already named in the literature as a factor that influences USO’s choice of location (Helm & Mauroner, 2007).
5.1.4 Technological characteristics
The category technological characteristics proved to influence USO performance through the degree of innovativeness of the product, or the technology underlying the product.
The degree of innovativeness of the product or technology an USO puts into the market place proved to benefit USO success, such as previous research by Helm and Mauroner (2007) had indicated. It is possible that the innovativeness of the product or technology underlying it benefits performance because it gives the USO an competitive advantage. When customers can choose between two products of different providers, they would probably prefer the more innovative product. Another possible explanation for the relation between the innovativeness of the product and USO performance could be that the innovativeness of the technology lead to the formation of the USO in the first place (Pazos et al., 2012).
This study has been unable to demonstrate the importance of the ability to patent or in general protect the underlying technology of the product that is brought to the market.
According to Heirman and Clarysse (2011) this should also be a factor that benefits USO performance.
5.1.5 USO characteristics
The category USO characteristics was added to the model of Bigliardi et al. (2013) that initially only featured: university characteristics, founder characteristics, environmental
add an extra category of factors to explain fully, all the factors that could benefit USO performance. The USO’s characteristics proved to benefit USO performance through the factor personnel. It is plausible that a good team ensures that an innovation is brought well into the market and that it also benefits commercially.
5.2 Limitations and recommendations for future research
First, the collected data are from one single respondent per USO, when trying to analyze information about the whole USO. It can be assumed that the CEOs that were interviewed lack information about the technological insights of the product that the USO is trying to bring into the market. The other way around, it can be assumed that scientific founders lack information about the business side of the business. The pre-determined questions asked at the interviews were designed in a way that limits concerns about single-informant data, but the issues of key informant bias and common method bias can never be completely eliminated (Scholten, 2006).
Second, the sample used in this study is rather small, in total there were four USOs interviewed. These USOs are all active in the Dutch tech-industry. The small sample size limits the possibility to generalize these findings to the population of Dutch tech USOs
Thirdly, the focus of this paper on technology based USOs limits the results in a way that they can hardly be generalized to Dutch USOs active in other industries and USOs outside of the Netherlands. However, the model created in this paper could be used to study other sectors or countries, doing this will surely lead to new insights.
Fourth, a standard problem arising from qualitative studies is interviewer bias, where respondents are unintentionally manipulated by the interviewer. Attempts have been made to restrict this to a minimum, but sometimes respondents wandered too much, making it
Future research could benefit by limiting their research to one of the proposed factors from the model that was created in this paper, to create a clearer picture of the relationships behind the insights gained in the model. Because this paper’s focus was on high-tech USOs in the Netherlands specifically, future research could also benefit by examining how the model holds in a different setting.
6. Conclusion
This paper has identified the factors that influence USO performance in the Netherlands. Based on the analysis of four in depth interviews with USOs, the following categories of factors were identified: university characteristics, founder characteristics, environmental
characteristics, technological characteristics and USO characteristics. The most important
factors of the category university characteristics are: tangible support, intangible support,
university’s name and the university’s network. The most important factors of the category
founder characteristics are: personal motivation, experience, personal knowledge and
creativity. The most important factors of the category environmental characteristics are: connectedness to the market and local market demand. The most important factors of the
category technological characteristics is: degree of innovativeness. Finally, a fifth category was created, namely USO characteristics. Adding this category was necessary to be able to accommodate the factor personnel.
Insights gained in this research can be used by Dutch USOs and other parties involved in the process of knowledge valorization from the university to the market place, like
universities or governmental organizations. By focusing on the factors prescribed in the model, USO performance can be improved.
References
Agrawal, A. (2001). University‐to‐industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302.
Ahmad, N., & Seymour, R. G. (2008). Defining entrepreneurial activity: Definitions supporting frameworks for data collection.
Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American journal of
pharmaceutical education, 74(8), 141.
Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research policy, 34(7), 1113-1122.
Baldini, N. (2009). Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Research Policy, 38(8), 1217-1224.
Beibst, G., & Lautenschlager, A. (2004). Determinants of regional high-tech growth by university-based start-ups.
Bigliardi, B., Galati, F., & Verbano, C. (2013). Evaluating performance of university spin-off companies: Lessons from Italy. Journal of technology management &
innovation, 8(2), 178-188.
Blair, D. M., & Hitchens, D. M. (1998). Campus companies--UK and Ireland. Ashgate Pub Ltd.
Boeije, H. (2009). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage publications.
Chang, Y. C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M. H. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity
perspective. Research Policy, 38(6), 936-946.
Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin‐off companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30(4), 329-340.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van de Velde, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin‐off companies. Journal of Management
Studies, 48(6), 1420-1442.
Cohen, W. (2000). Taking care of business. ASEE Prism, 9(5), 18.
Coleman, J. S. (2000). Social capital in the creation of human capital. In Knowledge and
social capital (pp. 17-41).
Coriat, B., & Orsi, F. (2002). Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: Origins, content and problems. Research policy, 31(8-9), 1491-1507
DeSimone, J. M., & Mitchell, L. (2010). Facilitating the commercialization of university innovation: The Carolina express license agreement.
Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2003). Spinoff-Gründungen aus der öffentlichen Forschung in Deutschland.
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.
Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: do incentives,
management, and location matter?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17-30.
Geum, Y., Lee, S., Kang, D., & Park, Y. (2011). Technology roadmapping for technology- based product–service integration: A case study. Journal of Engineering and
Technology management, 28(3), 128-146.
Glasson, J., Chadwick, A., & Smith, H. L. (2006). Defining, explaining and managing high-tech growth: The case of Oxfordshire. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 503-524.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.
Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 29(3-4), 247-268.
Helm, R., & Mauroner, O. (2007). Success of research-based spin-offs. State-of-the-art and guidelines for further research. Review of Managerial Science, 1(3), 237-270.
Hermanowicz, J. C. (2002). The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative sociology, 25(4), 479-499.
Hindle, K., & Yencken, J. (2004). Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and new technology based firms: an integrated model. Technovation, 24(10), 793-803.
Huyghe, A., & Knockaert, M. (2016). The Relationship Between University Culture and Climate and Research Scientists’ Spin-off Intentions. In University Evolution,
Entrepreneurial Activity and Regional Competitiveness (pp. 3-26). Springer, Cham.
Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282.
Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe– the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299-309.
Leidecker, J. K., & Bruno, A. V. (1984). Identifying and using critical success factors. Long
