From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society

This article examines how and why the role of the university in society has evolved over time. The paper argues that the forces shaping economic growth and performance have also influenced the corresponding role for the university. As the economy has evolved from being driven by physical capital to knowledge, and then again to being driven by entrepreneurship, the role of the university has also evolved over time. While the entrepreneurial university was a response to generate technology transfer and knowledge-based startups, the role of the university in the entrepreneurial society has broadened to focus on enhancing entrepreneurship capital and facilitating behavior to prosper in an entrepreneurial society.     

Corporate Incubators: Industrial R&D and What Universities can Learn from them

The explosive growth of incubation has seen a concurrent and significant increase in research on and knowledge of the incubation phenomenon. However, instead of comprehensively differentiating between non-profit and for-profit incubators, research has described a whole array of partly overlapping archetypes, thus missing out on important aspects. This article first offers two arguments validating a framework of what non-profit university incubators can learn from for-profit corporate incubators before presenting the framework itself. While corporate incubators are for-profit organizations with which to enhance a corporation’s technology development, university incubators try to leverage technological insights from the university in a similar manner. In accordance with their respective missions, organizational structures, incubator processes and resource flows, it is possible to transfer lessons learned from two corporate incubator archetypes—the fast-profit incubator and leveraging incubator—to the world of university incubator. Our empirical findings are based on in-depth case studies of 25 companies through 52 semi-structured interviews with managers of corporate incubators of large technology-intensive corporations in Europe and the U.S., two EU incubator benchmarking surveys and five interviews with the heads of technology transfer offices of two top technology universities.     

Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison

An entrepreneurial university is a natural incubator that tries to provide a supportive environment in which the university community can explore, evaluate and exploit ideas that could be transformed into social and economic entrepreneurial initiatives. Entrepreneurial universities are involved in partnerships, networks and other relationships to generate an umbrella for interaction, collaboration and co-operation. Rapid developments in science, the multidisciplinary nature of frontier research, legislative changes such as the Bayh–Dole Act and demands from business and society have shaped knowledge-based entrepreneurship within universities. Despite sharing similar historical backgrounds, economic conditions and cultural and social structures, entrepreneurial universities in most countries remain distinct from one another by their institutional arrangements, traditions and characteristics unique to each organization. Interestingly, no comparative research has been conducted to understand the similarities and differences of the conditioning factors and the outcomes/outputs of entrepreneurial universities in different regions that share similar social, economic and political conditions. This paper addresses this research deficit, adopting institutional economics and resource-based view. We compare entrepreneurial universities in two European regions (Spain and Ireland) using an in-depth qualitative approach based on multiple case studies (two Spanish universities and two Irish universities) between 2006 and 2010. The findings provide organizational practices and approaches relevant to the transformation process of other regional universities seeking to become entrepreneurial.     

Student and graduate entrepreneurship: ambidextrous universities create more nascent entrepreneurs

Despite its importance, student and graduate entrepreneurship at universities has received limited scholarly attention. The literature on university entrepreneurship has mainly focused on university scientists who have founded their own firms or spin-offs that were created based on intellectual property that is owned by universities. This paper focuses on technology new ventures that are created by university students and new graduates and aims to investigate the linkages among university-level organizational competencies, the entrepreneurial competencies of nascent entrepreneurs and the number of start-ups that have been created by students and new graduates. Our argument is that universities are heterogeneous in their resources and competencies, and these organizational competencies are influential on students in the development of entrepreneurial competencies and hence in the creation of start-ups. Differences among universities have led to information asymmetries and variances in entrepreneurial competencies among students and graduates. This study uses two data sources at the university level from Turkey. The first is the Technoenterprise Funding Support Program, and the second is the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index. Our research covers 40 universities over 3 years from 2012 to 2014, and we apply a panel data methodology. Our research suggests that (1) ambidextrous universities that provide a good context for the exploration and exploitation of new knowledge support their students in the development of entrepreneurial competencies and in starting their own technology new ventures, (2) the traditional role of universities (research and teaching) is important for the creation of entrepreneurial universities and finally, (3) university entrepreneurship is path-dependent.     

Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do Incentive Systems Matter?

There has been a paucity of research to date that has explored whether incentive systems—in the form of monetary payments to inventors, their department or institution, or to university technology transfer office (UTTO) personnel—affect entrepreneurial activities at U.S. universities. To shed light on whether financial incentives to scientists, their departments, and UTTO personnel effect entrepreneurial activity, we used both qualitative data (structured interviews with 128 UTTO directors) and quantitative data from surveys and databases available on the web. Our results show surprisingly and opposite to our theoretical predictions that incentives to scientists and to their departments are negatively related to entrepreneurial activity. In addition and consistent with theory-based predictions, pay to UTTO personnel is positively related to entrepreneurial activity. We conclude with a discussion that offers some implications to research, practice, and theory in the field of technology transfer.     

Academic Capitalism and University Incentives for Faculty Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial behavior by professors—including decisions about collaboration with industry, patenting and spinning off companies—can affect the productivity of top universities’ technology transfer efforts. Interviews with 98 professors at 12 southeastern universities showed that the most significant influence on these aspects of entrepreneurial behavior is the beliefs of professors about the proper role of universities in the dissemination of knowledge. Some institutional policies, notably revenue splits with inventors, can affect aspects of this behavior. These findings suggest that both university incentive policies and ethical concerns about academic capitalism, by limiting the productivity of technology transfer efforts, have an effect on regional economic development.     

Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator

Business incubators strive to develop robust business and social networks to bring value to their resident companies in the form of intellectual and material resources. Yet, information about what motivates resident companies to participate in networking activities and the obstacles they face in trying to build effective networks is limited. This study employs a communication perspective to examine the process of incubation in an award-winning university business incubator. Using a combination of network analysis and in-depth interviews, the case study reveals the nature of communication in the internal network of 18 resident companies and the incubator administrators. Despite being on the cutting edge of innovations in technology use, study findings reveal face-to-face interaction in the incubator is predominant. The physical proximity of resident companies at the incubator influences who they talk to the most, suggesting incubator site design is important in creating an entrepreneurial environment. The case study also indicates resident company motivations for networking include a strong desire for social support to help manage stress, security of membership in an in-group, and increased access to material or information resources. The primary obstacles residents face to participating in networking and building relationships with each other include extreme time limitations during the early start-up phase, lack of ongoing information about other residents, and lack of trust related to keeping information about innovations and funding sources secure. Implications of these findings and recommendations for incubator managers for building successful and sustainable communication networks conclude the article.     

The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study

The Proof of Concept phase in university technology transfer is considered to be critical for the success of both licensing and the creation of spin-off companies. In the United States, Proof of Concept Centers are emerging as successful structures to address the challenges of this phase. In this paper, we present a framework to assess the role for such a structure in a university ecosystem. The framework is built from previous references that we use to explicitly link the features of Proof of Concept Centers with the challenges of the Proof of Concept phase, and establish their specific contributions to the overall technology commercialization efforts of a university. We illustrate the application of this framework in a case study of the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, and develop a characterization that is representative of the role that a Proof of Concept Center can play in comparable university ecosystems that feature conventional technology commercialization structures, and struggle with the challenges of the Proof of Concept phase. Our study suggests that there is in fact a possible role for a Proof of Concept Center in the regional ecosystem of the University of Coimbra, with a potentially very relevant impact in the technology commercialization process, through networking outside academia and research environments, funding of Proof of Concept activities, and technology entrepreneurship education for the development of entrepreneurial skills for researchers.     

A Real Options-Driven Theory of Business Incubation

This article employs real options-theoretic reasoning to develop a theory of business incubation. This theory seeks to predict and explain how business incubators and the process of business incubation increase the likelihood that new ventures will survive the early stages of development. It conceptualizes the incubator as an entrepreneurial firm that sources and macro-manages the innovation process within emerging organizations, infusing these organizations with resources at various developmental stage-gates while containing the cost of their potential failure. The incubator is the unit of analysis while incubation outcomes—measured in terms of incubatee growth and financial performance at the time of incubator exit—provide indicators of success. Our model of the incubation process and specification of the range of possible incubation outcomes offer implications for managerial practice and policy-making vis-à-vis incubator management and good entrepreneurial failure.     

Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: evidence from European entrepreneurial universities

The interesting relationship between entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness has been a major focus of academics, university managers, and policy makers during the past decades—in particular the role of institutions in the establishment of political, social, and economic rules-. For example, since the enactment of the US Bayh–Dole Act more than 30 years ago, many American cities and regions are increasingly viewing universities as potential engines of economic growth. In these new socioeconomic scenarios, the role of entrepreneurial universities is not only generates/transfers knowledge but also contributes/provides leadership for the creation of entrepreneurial thinking, actions, and institutions. Previous studies have shown the university’s role in economic development, but no empirical study has analyzed the entrepreneurial activity generated by university students per university at the country/regional level of analysis. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of the university’s entrepreneurial activity on regional competitiveness. Adopting the institutional economics and the endogenous growth approaches, a proposed conceptual framework was developed and tested with structural equation modeling using data from 102 universities located in 56 NUTS II of 12 European countries. Our results evidenced that informal factors (e.g., attitudes, role models) have a higher influence on university entrepreneurial activity than formal factors (e.g., support measures, education and training). Our results also evidenced a higher contribution of universities on regional competitiveness, in particular, when we used social measures (talent human capital) instead economic measures (GDP per capita).     

Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin

In recent years there has been an increasing focus on universities’entrepreneurial orientation and their ability to exploit and transfer scientific knowledge to the commercial sector. Spin-off firms are recognised as an important opportunity for universities. This paper aims to examine the university spin-off firm context, with particular attention to the relationship with science parks-incubators and their importance as brand names. Evidence is taken from Turin case-study. Turin has a consolidated university framework: the University and the Polytechnic are examples of success all around Europe. A particular characteristic of Turin is given by the presence of two science and technology parks and two incubators.     

University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?

University technology transfer activities are increasingly important as a source of regional economic development and revenue for the university. We use regression analysis, a two-stage model and the most recent data to examine the determinants of technology transfer. Our analysis strongly support four factors, not previously examined in the literature, enhancing university technology transfer: greater rewards for faculty involvement in technology transfer, location of the university in a region with a concentration of high technology firms, a clear university mission in support of technology transfer and the experience of the university's technology transfer office.     

Technology business incubation mechanisms and sustainable regional development

This article introduces various aspects of technology business incubators (TBIs), emphasizing their increasing role in the spatial context where they are used as platforms and drivers of regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. It outlines the key themes of the emerging role of TBIs in sustainable regional development: TBI biodiversity of ecosystems; accelerating startups in the entrepreneurial university; TBI mechanisms challenged by green technology to sustain regional development; and TBIs’ connecting role between entrepreneurship education, experiential knowledge, and regional development. It proposes an agenda for future research on the role of TBIs as bridging mechanisms and drivers of entrepreneurship and regional development.     

Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs

Academic entrepreneurship, the establishment of new companies based on technologies derived from university research, is a well-recognized driver of regional and national economic development. For more than a decade, scholars have conceptualized individual university faculty as the primary agents of academic entrepreneurship. Recent research suggests that graduate students also play a critical role in the establishment and early development of university spinoff companies, but the nature of their involvement through the entrepreneurial process is not yet fully understood. Employing a case study approach, this paper investigates the role of graduate students in early-stage university spinoff companies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We find that graduate students play role similar to that of individual faculty entrepreneurs in university spinoffs, both in terms of making the initial establishment decision and in reconfiguring the organization for marketable technology development. We also find that student entrepreneurs face unique challenges involving conflicts with faculty advisors and other students.     

Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized,research-oriented university

This paper seeks to contribute to the growing literature on the entrepreneurial university by mapping knowledge exchange relationships of entrepreneurial faculty in a comprehensive manner and also capturing faculty attitudes towards measures taken by the university administration to promote entrepreneurship. We report on an exploratory study of Sussex University, a medium-sized, research-oriented university, which launched technology transfer activities in the mid-1990s. Our results show that, in spite of a comparatively late start, a considerable number of researchers engage in knowledge exchange processes with industry and other non-academic partners. We present evidence that suggests faculty in the social sciences and humanities as well as natural sciences and engineering maintain links to industrial partners, including multinational corporations. Furthermore, our observations indicate that schools differ in the way their faculty engage in university–industry collaborations. Further differences can be observed with respect to faculty attitudes towards technology transfer and awareness of the university’s respective codes of practice.

University knowledge and firm innovation: evidence from European countries

In recent decades, firms have intensified the exploration of external sources of knowledge to enhance their innovation capabilities. This paper presents an empirical analysis of the factors that affect the importance of academic knowledge for firms’ innovation activities. An integrated approach that simultaneously considers country- and firm-level factors is adopted. Regarding the former factors, the analysis shows that the entrepreneurial orientation of university and the quality of academic research increase the importance of knowledge transfers from universities to firms. This suggests that the environmental and institutional context contributes to cross-national disparities in university-industry interactions and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. In regard to the latter factors, the results indicate that firms oriented toward open search strategies and radical innovations are more likely to draw knowledge from universities. Furthermore, firms belonging to high technology sectors and firms with high absorptive capacity place greater value on the various links with universities. With respect to firm size, the estimates show an inverted U-shaped relation with the importance of universities as a source of knowledge.     

Entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer

Scholars in technology transfer come from a variety of different backgrounds and employ different theoretical and methodological assumptions. Such multidisciplinary approach has fertilized the evolution of a florid technology transfer literature, with insights from entrepreneurship, economics, and management. This paper brings the perspective of entrepreneurial finance into the realm of technology transfer, and identifies emerging topics that can complement our understanding of some aspects of technology transfer, especially with regard to supply-side public policies. This article introduces the rationale for the special issue dedicated to entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer. We summarize the main topics and themes covered by a selection of papers presented at the annual conference of the Technology Transfer Society in 2013, and suggest areas for future research.     

How do universities shape founding teams? Social proximity and informal mechanisms of knowledge transfer in student entrepreneurship

This paper investigates informal mechanisms of knowledge transfer (KT) from a local university to entrepreneurial teams comprising students and recent graduates. While the extant literature on university-industry KT largely focuses on formal mechanisms aimed at stimulating entrepreneurial initiatives in high-tech (HT) sectors, it overlooks the effect of university-industry KT on nascent entrepreneurship in low-medium tech (LMT) sectors. To fill this gap in the literature, we carry out a mixed-method analysis that exploits a dataset of 154 new business ideas (and 535 team members) presented at a business plan competition in Rimini from 2010 to 2017. Our findings highlight a robust relationship between educational field and the R&D intensity of entrepreneurial projects: students take advantage of the knowledge acquired at university to develop entrepreneurial projects with higher technological content than those planned by non-graduates. Furthermore, the empirical evidence shows that the local university nurtures the formation of ties among students and recent graduates enrolled in the same courses and fosters their efforts to launch new ventures. Finally, the qualitative analysis identifies relevant and non-traditional mechanisms of KT that are being exploited by nascent entrepreneurs to develop their business ideas in the LMT and HT sectors.

     

The university is the classroom: teaching and learning technology commercialization at a technological university

In 2013, the University of Strathclyde became the first Scottish university to receive the prestigious THES UK Entrepreneurial University of the Year award. In this article, I describe how successful technology commercialization education in this leading UK-based technological university is deeply dependent on the state of the university’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Two case studies illustrate the relatively minor “supporting” role that conventional teaching plays in the practice of technology commercialization, and the major role that a comprehensive university entrepreneurial ecosystem can play. Lessons drawn from teaching and learning technology commercialization at the University of Strathclyde are discussed. These include “teaching by stealth” through the ecosystem, basing students’ class assignments on their own technology, and the use of local role models in class. I conclude by summarizing today’s challenges and opportunities facing Strathclyde’s entrepreneurial ecosystem.     

Who Develops a University Invention? The Impact of Tacit Knowledge and Licensing Policies

In this paper, I propose a theoretical model to illustrate how the inventor know-how affects whether the inventor starts a firm to develop her idea or licenses an invention to an established firm for development. Inventor start-ups are characterized as development organizations that serve a temporary role in the invention–innovation process, developing an invention until they can sell the developed invention to an established firm that owns requisite complementary assets for commercialization. This model is then used to analyze the role and impact of a university technology transfer office (TTO) on this process to understand how TTO’s may both positively and negatively impact the transaction. The model posits a general theory of inventor–entrepreneur behavior in university and corporate research labs based on two factors: the importance of know-how and the distribution of inventors’ personal costs to transfer that know-how.