• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
In many universities, heads, administrators and faculty seek to increase the propensity to engage in commercialization of research activity through the spinoff of new companies. The highly complex mechanism of spinoff generation is typically considered the result of either the characteristics of individuals, organizational policies and structures, organizational culture, or the external environment. Explanations of spinoff activity have in the main focused on only one of these dimensions at a time. In this paper we integrate these four dimensions of academic entrepreneurship to develop a more systemic understanding of spinoff activity at the university level. Using the case of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a top spinoff generator in the United States, a systemic analysis is presented. We identify the inter-related factors that have contributed to successful academic entrepreneurship in MIT. We argue that MIT's success is based on the science and engineering resource base at MIT; the quality of research faculty; supporting organizational mechanisms and policies such as MIT's Technology Licensing Office; and the culture within MIT faculty that encourages entrepreneurship. However, to understand why MIT has developed these resources and organizational mechanisms, it is necessary to understand the historical context and emergence of MIT, and in particular the historical mission of the university, the role of key individuals and university leaders in supporting this mission, and the impact of past success at commercialization activity. Finally, we suggest that MIT's success needs to be understood in the context of the local regional environment. We argue that university administrators and academics can learn from the case of MIT, but that efforts at transposing or replicating single elements of MIT's model may only have limited success, given the inter-related nature of the drivers of spinoff activity.

Abstract:
The characteristics and behavior of technology transfer activity is an important subject in economic and management studies literature. Such studies merit research because it is suggested that university innovations stimulate economies by spurring innovation, by creating new industries, and by contributing to employment and wealth creation. Universities have come to be highly valued in terms of the potential of their research. University spinoffs tend to be a particularly effective mechanism of technology transfer because it leads to job and wealth creation. The aim of this paper is to offer a framework for the study of academic entrepreneurship that explains different aspects of university technology transfer in a coherent way. We suggest that the literature can be categorised into six separate streams. We seek to synthesise existing research by presenting a framework that captures the determinants and consequences of spinoff activity.

University Spinoffs, Academic Entrepreneurship

Abstract:
The influence of university resources andcapabilities upon university spinoff activity has been under-researched.This study examines the impact of these internal characteristics on spinoffactivity. The eight hypotheses proposed relate to institutional resources;human capital, including highly ranked departments and research staff;financial resources, including R&D funding; and commercial resources suchas technology transfer staffing and a university incubator. The panel data werecompiled from 141 U.S. universities for the time span of 1995 to 2001; thesample was comprised of 987 university observations. The overall findings of the study indicate that different universities havedifferent resources at their disposal and these resources play a significantrole in explaining the variation in university spinoff activity. The size ofauniversity’s faculty and postdoctoral staff is incidental to spinoffproduction, but the presence of star researchers does impact the ability tocreate innovations suitable for commercialization. Increased levels of industryfunding are connected to higher levels of technology transfer, as are resourcesdedicated to technology transfer activities. (AKP)

AUTM Annual Licensing Surveys, TheCenter Research Institute for University Performance, National Research Council, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), Academic funding, Incubators, R&D expenditures, Technology transfer, University spinouts, University-industry relations, Colleges & universities, Faculty, Academic research, Human capital

Abstract:
This paper adopts a resource-based perspective to understand why some universities are more successful than others at generating technology-based spinoff companies. In this respect, we derive eight hypotheses that link attributes of resources and capabilities, institutional, financial, commercial and human capital, to university spinoff outcomes. Using panel data from 1980 to 2001, our econometric estimators reveal evidence of history dependence for successful technology transfer to occur although faculty quality, size and orientation of science and engineering funding and commercial capability were also found to be predictors of university spinoff activity. We conclude by drawing implications for policy makers and university heads.

University entrepreneurship, Technology transfer, University spinoffs, Resource-based view

Abstract:
Universities play an important role in theories of regional economic development. In this respect, the university is viewed as the basic factor in a knowledge-based economy and a center around which new industrial clusters are likely to emerge. Several theories view the university as an institution that generates knowledge, encourages the diffusion of new ideas upon which innovation is based, and creates skilled labor and entrepreneurs. However, none of these theories explain which of the actions taken by universities influence local economies, nor the mechanisms by which they influence them. We argue that technology transfer at the university level can create economic development changes. Furthermore, different universities manage technology transfer and commercialization differently and still achieve similar positive results on the local economy. Our paper explores this contention by examining existing theories and analyzing universities' relationships with government and industry, focusing on biotechnology as the industry in case. We compare two world-renowned US universities, MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Yale in New Haven, Connecticut who have been cited as instrumental to the development of their respective regional biotechnology clusters. Building upon Robert's and Malone spin-off typology (1996), we identify specific activities of universities in support policy orientation for start-up activity and investigate the interaction effects with the external environment for university entrepreneurship. This paper provides the first step towards the construction of a different theoretical conceptualization of the university as an actor in regional development.

Innovation, Biotechnology, Entrepreneurial Universities, Economic Development Policy

Abstract:
Since the publication of Birger Wernerfelt's seminal article on the Resource-Based View of the Firm in 1984, the strategic management field has embraced the notion that firms are fundamentally heterogeneous, in terms of their resources and internal capabilities. This paper assesses the development of the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm from Wernerfelt's own perspective. Given his limited role in the strategic management field over the previous decades, we asked Wernerfelt to revisit his work, and to comment on the critical issues which have subsequently arisen as the RBV has developed into a dominant paradigm in strategic management.

Resource-Based View, Organization Theory, Competitive Strategy, Strategic Management

Abstract:
Drawing from Venkataraman's (2004) virtual innovative cycle framework of regional transformation, this paper analyzes the drivers of the birth and development of technology-based entrepreneurship within the software industry in Dublin, Ireland. The study's basic assumption is that the dynamics of the development process determine the way industry develops in a particular location. The paper argues that understanding the behavior of the emergence of high technology clusters lies in the 'intangible' positive feedback loops that drives cluster competitiveness and growth, and the formation and development of the next generation of entrepreneurial ventures. However, the study also highlights the strong importance of factor endowment elements of entrepreneurship and the role of science-based education in the transformation of a developing region. What has also been remarkable in the birth of this Dublin development cluster is the relative absence of formal top-down enterprise policies and initiatives. Instead, we argue that the driving forces behind Dublin's early upward trajectory in ICT entrepreneurship can be attributed to a number of highly experienced business entrepreneurs who were willing to invest their resources into high risk, but high return projects. This enabled a 'success breeds success' culture to emerge within the region and brought about a culture change shift towards risk taking and failure. Starting in the 1990's the Irish pro-business environment coupled with a number of new policies toward technology based entrepreneurship has enabled the widespread adoption of ICT entrepreneurship in Dublin. The other remarkable local factor was the network effects that derived from the activities of the ICT cluster lobbying group that emerged in the early 90's. These industry efforts have played an important role in the development of policies supportive of ICT investment and the mobilization of local resources.

The implication of this study supports Venkataraman's (2004) view that suggests regional transformation through technology-based entrepreneurship cannot be easily measured by solely by 'tangible' resource input factors such as access to seed capital or telecommunications infrastructure. Instead, it is important that policy makers need to recognize the importance of fostering a 'bottom-up' approach towards technology-based entrepreneurship especially the role of 'intangibles' such as role models, culture towards risk and failure, and leadership in stimulating technology based entrepreneurship in regions.

Regional Transformation, High Technology Entrepreneurship, Clusters, Ireland