Academic Spin Offs Mechanism In a Society Based On Knowledge

Academic spin-offs mechanism in a society based on knowledge

Nicolae BIBU1, Lavinia-Maria CERNESCU2,

West University of Timisoara, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Timisoara, Romania

[anonimizat]

[anonimizat]

Abstract:

Academic spin-offs bring researchers together, foster experience sharing a creative atmosphere with the purpose of creating new products in order to commercialize them.

In order to understand the spin-off concept, the main focus of this article is to provide a better understanding of the spin-off mechanism and also how can it be facilitated in a regional context.

The objective of this article is to review the academic spin-off literature, to synthesize this research, and identify the factors influencing the academic spin-offs, stages of development, obstacles.

The main questions to be explored are: what is an academic spin-off, what are the factors influencing the academic spin-off in the context of a society in a continuous change?

How can academic spin-offs achieve and sustain competitive advantage in the field of economical growth?

Present paper tries to answer in an original manner aforesaid mandatory questions.

There are common debates on the academic spin-off mechanism following two directions: the spin-off creation and spin-off development.

Keywords: research, academic entrepreneurship, academic spin-offs, economical growth.

JEL classification: M13, O30, O31,O 32.

INTRODUCTION

From Schumpeter (1954) and Solow (1994) we find that innovative firms are considered the driver of the economic growth. Policy makers and the society are very interested and opened to support and increase the performances of the innovative firms.

In an economy based on a rapid change, the foundation of innovative firms is the way to commercialize research results.

Along the history the interest in entrepreneurship and small firms had an impact on the academic world. The study of entrepreneurship and small businesses has become one of the most popular fields of research in management studies (Landstrom, 2005).

Elpida said that entrepreneurship is the process that leads to the emergence and development of new ventures based on the exploitation of new or existing knowledge. (Elpida, 2010)

Growth of young companies is the result of a strategic choice made by entrepreneur (how to create and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage, how to manage growth, how to overcome barriers for growth) in a turbulent environment. (Bibu, N., Sala D. 2010).

Academic institutions have been associated with economical growth. A very important issue to be debated is how can universities generate economic returns from government research support?

The option to create wealth from the commercialization of research by valorisation of the inventions, in what has historically been a non-commercial environment, raised new entrepreneurial challenges.

The biggest challenge of the innovative firm is the ability of the new venture during the early stages of growth to become an established firm in a market, capable of earning sustainable profits.

If the entrepreneurs achieve to overcome this transition from one phase of growth to the next, then the success of the company is guaranteed.

Wright et al. (2004a) argue that the study of entrepreneurship is important to spin-off research.

Firms are collections of resources and capabilities, and which convert this resources into products or services for which revenue can be obtained. Capabilities are based on developing, carrying, and exchanging information through the firm's human capital.

Academic institutions and public research agencies

Have long been associated with the growth of high

Technology companies and industries.

Teece et al. (1997) underlined the fact that dynamic capabilities are in fact the way in which the firm using innovative processes sustain competitive advantage. The dynamic capabilities are defined as the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments. A key step in building a conceptual framework related to dynamic capabilities is to identify the foundations upon which distinctive and difficult-to-replicate advantages can be built, maintained, and enhanced. Amit defined capabilities as the firm's capacity to deploy resources, usually in combination, using organizational processes, to affect a desired result (Amit 1993). A useful way to vector in on the strategic elements of the business enterprise is first to identify what is not strategic.

Capabilities are often developed in functional areas (e.g., brand management in marketing) or by combining physical, human, and technological elements.

SPIN-OFF DEFINITION. RESEARCH TOPIC AND APPROACH

This paper seeks to establish a framework for understanding previous literature and discusses the typology of spin-offs.

In the literature spin-offs, also found under ‘university spin-outs’ or ‘research related start-up ventures’, are acknowledged as the key drivers of economic change and growth (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2006). University spin-offs constitute one of several mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is translated into economic growth (Audretsch et al., 2005).

According to Pirnay et al.(2003) academic spin-offs are defined as a particular set of spin-offs created for the purpose of commercially exploiting a new technology or research results developed within a university.

Analyzing the literature we identified the need to distinguish between the creation and the development of different types of spin-offs in the design and implementation of spin-off strategies.

Originated in a non-commercial environment, academic spin-offs are collections of resources and capabilities created by students, graduates or academic staff, which transforms the academic idea into a market-ready product or process innovation.

Likewise, a number of studies of university spin-offs are connected to the study of technology-based firms (Autio, 1997; Carayannis et al., 1998; Fontes, 2004; Roberts, 1991 a). For instance Mustar (1997) found that two of five high-tech enterprises in France were set up by university researchers, while Dahlstrand (1997) found that one-sixth of Swedish high-tech spin-offs originated from universities.

A study by Heirman and Clarysse (2004) estimated that nearly four percent of high-tech and medium-tech companies in the Flanders region of Belgium were research-based start-ups. It also seems clear that university spin-offs have played an important role in creating techno poles such as Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Cambridge UK (Saxenian, 1994; Wickstead, 1985).

Especially as a result of the success stories from Califomia's Silicon Valley and Boston's Route 128 (Fogarty and Sinha, 1999; Saxenian, 1994), universities are seen as engines of regional economic growth (Candell and Jaffe, 1999). It is estimated that MIT spin-offs contributed $10 billion annually and 300 000 jobs to the Massachusctts cconomy (Bank of Boston, 1989), Chalmers spin-offs contributes $100 million to the local economy each year (McQueen and Wallmark, 1991), and many of the 450 high-technology companies in Cambridge are local university spin-offs (Wickstead, 1985).

There are many examples of highly successful companies that started as spinoffs from universities (Shane, 2004). The university spin-off phenomenon is not new (Etzkowitz, 2002) and research related to this type of firms is often found under the label of technology-based new firms (or new technology-based firms).

According to Shane (2004a), spin-off companies are 108 times more likely than the average new firm to go public and also to create more jobs than the average new business in the United States.

Table 1.The academic spin-offs

Source: Own processing

Academic spin-offs are focusing on a technology transfer system that converts into application in society.

In the figure above there is described the process of an academic spin-off, from Rasmussen’ perspective.

Figure 1. The entrepreneurial process of university spin-off creation

Source: adapted after Rasmussen, 2006

In 1997, Autio develops a model which classifies technology-based firms into science-based firms and engineering-based firms. Also he discusses the roles and impacts of technology-based firms (NTBFs) in a small open economy by providing details on the changing population of NTBFs in Finland between 1986 and 1993.

Radosevich (1995) classifies spin-offs from the perspective of the entrepreneurial skill in:

Inventor entrepreneur, which involve laboratory employees who are commercializing the inventions;

Surrogate entrepreneur, which involve entrepreneurs who are not the inventors.

Nicolaou and Birley (2003a) underlines 3 types of spin-offs:

orthodox spin-off both the academic inventor(s) and the technology are spinning out from the academic institution;

hybrid spin-off involves the technology spinning out, while the academic(s) retains their university position;

technology spin-offs: technology spins out, while the academic(s) maintains no off operative connection with the newly established firm.

Scholten et al. (2001) classifies spin-offs from the perspective of the extent to which the venture has to establish external relationships as being:

exploitative spin-off, which is addressing an established environment accustomed to the technology;

explorative spin-off, which addressing a new environment that is not familiar with the new technologies, products or services.

Upstill and Symington (2002) classifies spin-offs from the perspective of the method of technology transfer adopted:

direct spin-offs: companies involving a research organization and former staff of the parent organization;

indirect spin-offs: companies established by former staff of the parent organization to exploit its tacit knowledge;

technology transfer companies: companies based primarily on the intellectual property from the parent organization.

Pirnay et al. (2003) classifies spin-offs from the perspective of type of knowledge involved in:

Type I- involving codified knowledge and researchers;

Type II- involving tacit knowledge and researchers;

Type III- involving codified knowledge and students;

Type IV- involving tacit knowledge and students.

Bathel (2010) classifies spin-offs from origin of the founders in:

sponsored spin-offs are the result of particular university research projects, and apply specific knowledge inputs in the development of their initial core technology;

unsponsored spin-offs, which find their foundation in decentralized idea development outside of the university setting, almost entirely rely on generic broad knowledge bases for the development of innovative products and services, which have enabled the firm-formation process.

Gilsing said that a corporate spin-off appears in sectors with immature technologies such as software, microelectronics, biotechnology, and multimedia (Gilsing et al., 2010).

A corporate spin-off is a type of corporate transaction forming a new company or entity, that become independent businesses with assets, employees, intellectual property, technology, or existing products that are taken from the parent company. Shareholders of the parent company receive equivalent shares in the new company in order to compensate for the loss of equity in the original stocks. However, shareholders may then buy and sell stocks from either company independently; this potentially makes investment in the companies more attractive, as potential share purchasers can invest narrowly in the portion of the business they think will have the most growth

In a "corporate spin-off," a parent company distributes shares of a subsidiary to the parent company's shareholders so that the subsidiary becomes a separate, independent company. The shares are usually distributed on a pro rata basis. State law and the rules of the stock exchanges determine whether a company must seek shareholder approval for a spin-off.

We find corporate spin-offs under three types: incumbent-backed, opportunity and necessity spin-offs. One of the key advantages of a corporate spin-off is that it can be structured as a tax-free distribution under Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

Mustar et al. (2006: 290) conclude in their review that there is ‘‘an important gap in our comprehensive under- standing of the diversity of RRSOs’’ (research-based spin-offs).

STAGES OF THE ACADEMIC SPIN-OFF DEVELOPMENT

Ndonzuau (et al. 2002:282) identifies 4 stages in the forming of an academic spin-off. The first stage generates and assesses ideas with regard to possible commercialisation; the second stage considers these ideas and translates the most promising of them into final entrepreneurial concepts; the third stage realises the best concepts by launching new spin-off firms; and the fourth stage consolidates and strengthens the economic value created by these new firms”.

Figure 2. The global process of valorisation by spin-off

Source: (Elpida, 2010, pg 53)

Clarysse and Moray(2004) defines 4 stages of the academic spin-off: idea phase, pre start-up phase, start-up phase, post start-up phase.

Vohora et al. (2004) talks about how academic spin-offs go through a number of distinct phases in the development of resources and dynamic capabilities. He identifies 5 stages: (1) research phase; (2) opportunity framing phase; (3) pre-organization phase; (4) re-orientation stage; and finally (5) sustainable returns phase.

Universities lack commercial management and market. Only when academic spin-offs overcome certain critical junctures like: opportunity recognition; entrepreneurial commitment, venture credibility; and venture sustainability is when the firm can become an established firm with sustainable returns.

The ability to make the connection between specific knowledge and a commercial opportunity requires a set of skills, aptitudes, insights, and circumstances that are neither uniformly nor widely distributed. The cognitive conditions, incentives, and mental processing strongly influence the search for and exploitation of an opportunity, and they also influence the success of the exploitation process (Venkataraman, 1997).

(4) Re-orientation phase

(3) Pre-organization phase

(2)Opportunity framing phase

(1) Research phase

Fig 2. Factors initiating critical junctures

Source: adapted after Vohora 2004

Obstacles are directly related to resources and capabilities in gaining them over time.

Geenhuizen (2009) identified different types of obstacles, seen as ‘‘problematic situations in gaining resources’’: market-related, financial and management obstacles. He described that market-related obstacles occur most often, with financial and management obstacles in the second and third place, respectively.

Most spin-offs were relatively small, i.e. 80% of the survivors after 6 years employ less than 10 persons (Mustar et al., 2007).

Fig.3. The nature of obstacles

Source: adapted after Geenhuizen (2009)

In the context of economical growth at a regional level academic spin-off firms are seen as: vehicle for technology transfer and technology commercialization, income for universities (renting the laboratories), a job creation, strengthening the relationships with the local business community and, particularly in depressed areas, a way to contribute to restructuring regional economies (Charles 2003).

The Core Entrepreneurial Action, developed by Bathelt et al. defines transformation of knowledge into the creation of economic value and follows 4 stages (Bathelt et al. 2010):

The first stage involves mechanisms and criteria used for selecting the ideas of products and services. In terms of risks, because the idea comes from a result of basic scientific/technological research, need to be selected.

In order for process to be a structured one, there is the need for abilities and the skills to identify and evaluate the most promising ideas above all mutual trust and efficient internal exchange of information (Ndonzuau et al., 2002).

The second stage, which is the stage where a firm is designed, implies creating the business concept of the idea. Elpida (2010) suggests 3 business models:

Technology/Scientific research, which involves the ability to assess the extent to which research results are stable and sufficiently developed to lead to industrial exploitation by identifying their possible applications, assessing their technical feasibility, consistent and economical production and, in some circumstances, suggesting further research and development.

Market research, which involves the commercial potential to verify the extent to which there might be a potential market.

Protection potential, which involves the potential of any concept to be protected.

The third stage deals with finding the financial resources to sustain the business concept.

The fourth stage involves strengthening an entrepreneurial culture necessary for fertilising the ideas and concepts.

THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ACADEMIC SPIN-OFFS

In Roberst and Malone opinion the academic spin-off is a mechanism developed by the government in order to generate economic impact from their R&D by transferring technology from the R&D function to a commercial organization (Roberst and Malone, 1996).

Four principal groups are involved in the spin-off process: the technology originator, the entrepreneur, the R&D organization itself, and the venture investor.

Rasmussen (2006) talks about the differences between academic entrepreneurship and industrial entrepreneurship.The difference in culture and work practice between university and industry is substantial (Anderson, 200 l).

It is important to mention that scientists are motivated by the quest for knowledge, the decisions of what to explore are not so much connected to financial rewards, but prestige.

The above table illustrates the differences between the 2 contexts: academic and industrial.

Table 2. Academic context vs. industrial context

Source: adapted after (Rasmussen 2006)

Likewise, research on university spin-off creation focuses on factors that explain university spin-offs but fails to consider the role of TTOs and universities. [Mirabent et.al, 2015].

Academic spin-offs receive from the university resources like: access to research facilities, accommodation and knowledge on management, patenting, manufacturing and practical issues.

In other words the university provide the spin offs with basic research and human capital creation.

This is why the positive relationship between university and spin-offs are the key for a successful business.

By maintaining strong relationships with university contacts, academic spin-offs strengthen legitimacy, improve image in front of external organizations, and increase the chance of getting research funding [Soetanto&Geenhuizen, 2015].

University spin-off ventures are sometimes narrowly defined as firms that exploit intellectual property or patented inventions generated from university research [Di Gregorio and Shane 2003].

Understanding how universities can promote the establishment and growth of spin-offs requires detailed knowledge about how these firms develop and the type of conditions and support that facilitate their success.

Academic spin-offs have a historical relationship with university such as their professors previously or former colleagues, which can could to a recommendation and intermediation to potential industrial partners or investors.

From Shane point of view (2014) the technology licensing officers play an important role in the creation of university spinoffs.

There are different factors that affect the spin-off foundation such as: the effect of the nature of the technology developed (Shane 2001; Pressman 2002; Shane 2004), the industry in which the technology would be exploited (Shane 2002, 2001b), the university in which the invention was created (Di Gregorio and Shane 2003; Shane 2004; Zhang 2009; Astebro et al. 2012), and career experience (Levin and Stephan 1991; Roberts 1991; Shane and Khurana 2003; research skills (Zucker et al. 1998).

Prior research indicates that faculty members with ties to investors or business, or industry experience, are more likely to engage in spinoff activity. Landry et al. (2006) show that the likelihood of launching a university spinoff increases if a researcher has consulting experience

Spin-offs, companies with strong future perspective are facing obstacles in obtaining financial resources [Shane, 2004; Siegel et al., 2003].From Wright et al. (2006) point of view, spin-offs are very risky because of their inability to obtain funding in order to continue with their innovation activity.

The firms are different taking into consideration the following terms: the type of resources, the business model and the institutional relationship/background.

The knowledge infrastructure is of the greatest significance because industrial production is based on knowledge: industrial technology is knowledge related to material transformation, which is the center of the national innovation system. (Van Geenhuizen et al., 2005).

The spin-offs biggest obstacle consists is the fact that evolve from an initial idea in a non-commercial environment to becoming established as a competitive firm.

Clarysse et al. (2005) highlight the problems of conflicts between stakeholder objectives with regard to the type of ventures they wish to create and the resources they seek to commit.

In order to understand the mechanism of these firms it is important to understand the nature of these firms.

From Steffensen et al. (2000) an important factor in the success of the spin-offs is the degree of support received.

From Krabel and Mueller (2009) perspective the creation of a spin off depends on the patenting activity of the scientist, entrepreneurial experience, the personal opinions about the benefits of commercializing research and close personal ties to industry.

Some of the distinctive criteria that help distinguish university spin-offs from a broader category of technology start-ups include: the origin of the firm’s core technology, the current or former affiliation of the founding member(s) with a particular parent organization, and the sources of funding used to start up the firm, all of which are in some form linked to a university (Bathelt, 2010).

In terms of university involvement, we differentiate between three types of ventures (see, also, Mustar et al., 2006): (i) spin-offs from university research that are based on intellectual property developed at the university, (ii) spin-offs which result from university–industry joint ventures, (iii) start-ups resulting from decentralized individual or collective ideas developed at the university, unrelated to the university’s research projects (Bathelt, 2010).

Shane (2014) shows the fact that university inventions sometimes are exploited through the formation of spinoff companies and other times not.

When it comes to licensing of the university inventions, made by the faculty, staff and students to an established business or to an entrepreneur founding a spinoff company, technology licensing officers play an every important role (Thursby et al. 2001).

From the behavior aspect people tend to favor cases that look like the standard example and disfavor cases that look dissimilar.

Shane (2014) shows that in technology licensing officers vision the best inventor for opening a spin off needs to have the main characteristic of an entrepreneur: male, immigrant, with industry experience, and easy to work with.

MEASURES TO SUPPORT THE ECONOMICAL GROWTH OF ACADEMIC SPIN-OFFS

Also we find all the elements that are involved in the creation of an academic spin-off in Elpida’ s opinion (2010) under the name The Spin–off Chain. The supportive structures in the beginning of the academic spin-off development are: market needs, human capital, appropriate government policies and appropriate legislation.

Market Needs is a critical factor for sustainable success of the spin-off is to connect the new concept with adequate market needs. The relationships between the university, entrepreneurs and the clients are crucial for the new venture in order to identify opportunities and limitations.

Human capital plays crucial role in the context of spin-off development. Skills and experiences of the entrepreneurial inventors are indispensible for a successful commercialization of the invention.

Policy makers. Implementing an effective government strategy for innovation is particularly important as key trends – the spread of global value chains, the increasing importance and mainstreaming of knowledgebased capital (KBC), and rapid technological progress, including the rise of the digital economy – are 3 leading to the emergence of a “next production revolution” (OECD, 2015a).

The contribution of university to economic development and growth has made policy makers interested in the role of universities as potential vehicles for innovation and employment.

There where created a lot of organizations like incubators, technology transfer offices, commercialization units and entrepreneurship centres.

Especially, in the initial phase of the creation of university spin-off companies, a range of public interventions are being required starting from incubators.

It is necessary a policy for that is encouraging the commercialisation of the public research. In this way entrepreneurship would be fostered.

Policy makers are encouraging research-based universities to increase the rate of spin-off formation.

Getting the policy mix right can help governments in shaping and strengthening the contribution that innovation makes to economic performance and social welfare.

The introduction of the Bayh-Dole Act in the US is one of the most influential and well-known policy changes to stimulate commercialization of university research. This Act transferred the ownership of intellectual property (lP) to the universities, and contemporary policy changes stressed the expectations that the universities could contribute more directly to industrial development (Stevens,

2004).

The OECD Strategy sets out 5 priorities for policy makers that together provide the basis for a comprehensive and action-oriented approach to innovation, much of which can also be applied in the context of fiscally constrained economies. These priorities are: 1. Strengthen investment in innovation and foster business dynamism 2. Invest in and shape an efficient system of knowledge creation and diffusion 3. Seize the benefits of the digital economy 4. Foster talent and skills and optimise their use 5. Improve the governance and implementation of policies for innovation.

Legislation: At local, regional, national or even global level legislation can influence the spin-off creation. The environment can foster entrepreneurship through the tax and regulatory environment for new businesses, insolvency law reforms and promoting efficient financial markets in all member states.

Nature of capital. Having the idea or invention is not enough, finance becomes critical for a spin-off company. As external source financing we find venture capital and business angels financing.

The gap in the provision of spin-off finance is just after the seed capital stage creating what is known as the "death valley" (Gompers and Lerner 1999). Grant aid from public authorities is often available for proof of concept and related research activities, it is much more difficult to finance the next stage when commercial development starts but the company has not yet begun to generate sufficient revenue for its costs.

Business Angels are an important potential source of capital funding at this stage filling the gap. The early stage funding gap can be addressed in different ways. For example, by provision of government grants and public incentives for creating regional venture capital funds (Reitan, 1997).

Bridging Institutions. In this category it enters: technological parks, incubators, innovation centers, develop and encourage the process of diffusion and transfer of knowledge and technology.

In general, their economic, organizational and administrative missions are assigned by policy making bodies and their role is to span the gap between the different stakeholders involved in different levels, at the complex process of the university spin-off (Mustar et al., 2006). Successful spin-offs need to be integrated into networks allowing interaction between a wide variety of actors (e.g. enterprises, public agencies, technological programs, customers and finance companies).

Incubators play a very important role for the academic spin-offs because of the following reasons: cheap and flexible accommodation, including shared services and access to pre-seed capital, programs for improving the entrepreneurial capabilities of founders/managers.

The incubator acts as mediator or a direct supplier of resources without substantial costs.

In terms of efficiency, academic spin-off firms tend to remain relatively small and fail to grow, as is witnessed in the European Union (EU) with most spin-offs not larger than 10 employees after 6 years of existence.

In order to become more profitable and more well-known the academic spin-offs has to be included in a business incubator. In this way likelihood of failure is reduced and the business incubator in provides an ideal environment to create, exploit, and share knowledge.

Conclusions

Science-based innovations are the key elements for international competitiveness, wealth and economic growth. The more inventors are linked with the private sector the more their interest in creation of spinoffs raises. Science based entrepreneurship is vital in a modern economy.

Universities stimulate economies by spurring product development, by creating new industries, and by contributing to employment and wealth creation.

The most important key elements in creation of an academic spin-offs are: entrepreneurs, resources and opportunity.

Nowadays entrepreneurship plays a very important role in the universities to shift their focus from teaching and research to entrepreneurship, necessary to transfer knowledge and drive local economies. In order to increase the economical rate, universities have to prepare the graduates, the future managers, to develop the right competences in order to create spin-offs and start-ups.

The lack of entrepreneurial skills are considered to be a barrier in promoting the academic entrepreneurship and dilutes any positive effects of spin-off investments and programs.

Universities with closer ties to industry tend to generate greater numbers of spin-offs and exhibit more entrepreneurial activity.

References

Audretseh, D., Keilbaeh, M. and Lehmann, E. (2005) “The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship and technological diffusion”. [n: G.D. Libeeap Ed., University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: process, design, and intellectual property, pp. 69-91. Vol. 16. Elsevier, Oxford.

Bathelt A., Kogler D., Munro A. (2010) “A knowledge-based typology of university spin-offs in the context of regional economic development”, Technovation 30 (2010) 519–532

Berbegal-Mirabent, J.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.E; Sánchez García, J. L (2015) “Can a magic recipe foster university spin-off creation?”, Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 2272–2278

Bibu, N., Sala D., (2010) “ Aspects of fast growth in Romanian companies. The case of a successful company in Timis county”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 124 ( 2014 ) 263 – 271

Blank, S.; Dorf, B. (2012) “The Startup Owner's Manual”, K&S Ranch (publishers), ISBN 978-0984999309

Bruneel, J., Van de Velde, Claryse B., (2013) “Impact of the Type of Corporate Spin-Off on Growth, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, Volume 37, Issue 4, pages 943–959, 

Clarysse, B. and Moray, N. (2004) “ A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off”. Journal of Business Venturing 19(1): 55-79.

Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., van de Velde, E., Vohora, A.(2005) “Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions”. Journal of Business Venturing 20 (2), 183–216.

Di Gregorio, D.; Shane, S. (2003) “Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?”. Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.

Elpida, S. , Galanakis ,K., Bakouros,I. , Platias, S., The Spin-off Chain, J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2010, Volume 5, Issue 3, ISSN: 0718-2724,

Gilsing , V., Burg, E., Romme, G. (2010) “ Policy principles for the creation and success of corporate and academic spin-offs”, Technovation 30 (2010) 12–23

Grimaldi, R.; Grandi, A. (2005) “Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models”, Technovation, 25(2), 111–121

Heirman, A. and Claryssc, B.( 2004) “How and Why do Research-Based Start-Ups Differ at Founding? A Resouree-Based Configurational Perspective”. The Journal of Technology Transfer 29(3 – 4): 247-268

Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). “What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists”. Research Policy, 38, 947–956.

Manolea,G. (2005) “The technological transfer– Solution of valorization of the scientific research results”, Agir Buletin no.3

Murray, F., & Graham, L. (2007) “Buying science and selling science: Gender differences in the market for commercial science”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 657–689

Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M.G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Moray, N. (2006) “Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research- based spin-offs: a multi-dimensional taxonomy”. Research Policy 35 (2), 289–308.

Nicolaou, N. and Birley, S.( 2003a) “ Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts”. Journal of Busincss Vcnturing 18(3): 333-359.

Ndonzuau, F.N., Pirnay, F. and Surlemont B., (2002) “A stage model of academic spin-off creation” Technovation. 22(5), 281-289.

Pirnay, F.; Surlemont, B.; Nlemvo,F. (2003) “Toward a typology of university spin-offs”. Small Bus.Econ.21(4),355–369.

Pinaki N.D, and Pandey, C. S.(2014) University Spinoffs: What, Why, and How?, Technology Innovation Management Review

Rasmussen, E. (2008) “Spin-off venture creation in a university context. An entrepreneurial process view”. Bodø: Bodø Graduate School of Business.

Rasmussen, E.; Wright, M. (2015) “How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective”, J. Technol Transf (2015) 40:782–799 DOI 10.1007/s10961-014-9386-3

Rasmussen, E. (2006) ”Facilitating University Spin-Off Ventures – An Entrepreneurship Process Perspective”, Bodø: Bodø Graduate School of Business

Roberts, E.B., Malone, D.E (1996) “Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from R & D Management “, 17–48.

O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., Allen, T. (2008) “Determinants and consequences of university spin-off activity: a conceptual framework”. J Technol Transfer (2008) 33:653–666

Shane, S.; Stuart, T.(2002) “Organizational endowments and the performance of university spin-offs”.Manage.Sci.48(1),154–170.

Shane, S. (2004) “Academic entrepreneurship: University spin-off and wealth creation”. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Shane, S.( 2004)” Academic entrepreneurship -University spinoffs and wealth creation, 353 pp. New horizons in entrepreneurship, edited by S. Venkataraman. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Cheltenham.

Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, DA.; Atwater, L.E.; Link, A.N.,(2003) “Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university– industry collaboration”. J. High Technol. Manage.Res.14(1),111–133.

Scholten, V., Omta, O., Elfring, T. ( 2001) “The significance of parenthood: the social capital of the parent organization and the entrepreneurial outcome”. Rent XV Conference, Finland, November 22–23, 2001.

Soetanto,D.; Geenhuizen M.,” Getting the right balance: University networks’ influence on spin-offs” attraction of funding for innovation. Technovation 36-37(2015)26–38

Spender, J.C., & Strong, B. (2010). “Employees hold the key to innovation”. The Wall Street Journal

Stevens, A.J. (2004) “The enactment of Bayh-Dole”. Journal of Technology Transfer 29: 93-99. Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, lC.(1990) “A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management”. Strategic Management Journal Il: 17-27.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. (1997) “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”. Strategic Management Journal 18, 509–537.

Treibich, T., Konrad, K., Truffer, B. (2013), “A dynamic view on interactions between academic spin-offs and their parent organizations”, Technovation 33 (2013)450–462

Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001) “Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities”. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72

Upstill, G., Symington, D.( 2002) “ Technology transfer and the creation of companies: the CSIRO experience”. R&D Management 32 (3), 233–239.

Van Geenhuizen, M., Gibson, D., Heitor, M.V. Eds (2005)” Regional Development and Conditions for Innovation in the Network Society”. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette

Van Geenhuizen, M., Soetanto, D. (2009) “ Academic spin-offs at different ages: A case study in search of key obstacles to growth “,Technovation 29 (2009) 671–681

Venkataraman, S., (1997) “The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s perspective”. In: Katz, J.A. (Ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, vol. 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, CA, pp. 119–138.

Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004) “Critical junctures in the growth in university high-tech spinout companies”. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.

Wan Hussain W. M.H, Rahman,M.N, Zainol, A, Yaakub, N. (2014) ”Mechanism and Government Initiatives Promoting Innovation and Commercialization of University Invention “, Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 22 (S): 131 – 148 (2014)

Wright,M.; Lockett,A.; Clarysse, B.; Binks, M. (2006) “University spin-out companies and venture capital”. Res. Policy 35(4),481–501.

Wright,M.; Birley,S.; Mosey,S (2004)”Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer”. J.Technol. Trans.29 (3),235–246.

Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., Lockett, A.(2007) “Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe Edward Elga”, Cheltenham.

Wright, M., Birley, S. and Mosey, S. (2004a) “ Entrepreneurship and University Technology Transfer”. The Journal of Technology Transfer 29(3/4): 235-246

Zahra, Shaker A. "Governance, Ownership, and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Impact of Industry Technological Opportunities", Academy of Management Journal 39 (6): 1713–1735. doi:10.2307/257076

OECD ( 2015b), OECD Innovation Strategy 2015 An Agenda for Policy Action, pg. 2 https://www.oecd.org/innovation/OECD-Innovation-Strategy-2015-CMIN2015-7.pdf

OECD (2015a), Enabling the Next Production Revolution, OECD Publishing, Paris

https://www.sec.gov/answers/spinoffs.htm

https://www.usine.uni-bonn.de/topic-and-objectives

.