Policy principles for the creation and success of university spin-off companies

PDF(1 KB)

Science Research Management ›› 2014, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (11) : 171-177.

Pang Wen^1,2, Ding Yunlong²

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Developingappropriate incentive policies on the basis of the present academic achievements is an important way to promote the development of university spin-off companies. By constructing three layers of conceptual model and reviewing the results of foreign research, this paper finds out that the country's intellectual property system, commercial policy and university's entrepreneurship policy, resources and culture can promote spin-offs creation, while the university incubator's support and the mode of spin-offs' operation and management are vital to the success of enterprises. Based on these findings, we put forward some policy principles for promoting the university spin-off companies' creation and success and expect they may provide reference for our S&T entrepreneurship and policy development.

Key words

university spin-off company / creation / success / policy principle / review

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Pang Wen, Ding Yunlong. Policy principles for the creation and success of university spin-off companies[J]. Science Research Management. 2014, 35(11): 171-177

References

[1] Bercovitz J, Feldmann M. Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2006, 31(1): 175-188. [2] Mustara P, Clarysse B, Wright M. University spin-off firms in Europe: What have we learnt from ten years of experience[C]. Prime annual conference, Pisa-Italy, 2007: 211-223. [3] Florida R. The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology[J]. Issues in Science and Technology, 1999, 15: 67-73. [4] Van Burg E, Romme AG, Gilsing V A. Creating university spin-offs: A science-based design perspective[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2008, 25(2): 114-128. [5] Denyer D, Tranfield D, Van Aken J E. Developing design propositions through research synthesis[J]. Organization Studies, 2008, 29 (3): 393-413. [6] Bekkers R, Gilsing V, Steen M. Determining factors of the effectiveness of IP-based spin-offs: Comparing the Netherlands and the US[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2006, 31 (5): 545-566. [7] Geenhuizen M V, Soetanto D P. Academic spin-offs at different ages: A case study in search of key obstacles to growth[J]. Technovation, 2009, 29(5): 671-681. [8] Djokovic D, Souitaris V. Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2008, 33(3):225-247. [9] Shane S. University technology transfer to entrepreneurial companies[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2002, 17(6): 537-552. [10] Lockett A, Siegel D, Wright M, et al. The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(7): 981-993. [11] Nelson R N. Observations on the post Bayh-Dole rising of patenting at American universities[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2001, 26(1): 13-19. [12] Niosi J. Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2006, 31(4): 451-457. [13] Rasmussen E.Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada[J]. Technovation, 2008, 28 (4): 506-517. [14] Oakey R P. Technical entrepreneurship in high technology small firms: Some observations on the implications for management[J]. Technovation, 2003, 23(8): 679-688. [15] Wright M, Lockett A, Clarysse B,et al.University spin-out companies and venture capital[J]. Research Policy, 2006, 35(4):482-501. [16] Lockett A, Wright M.Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(7): 1043-1057. [17] Goldfarb B, Henrekson M. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property[J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32 (4): 639-658. [18] Mowery D, Nelson R, Sampat B, et al. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980[J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(1): 99-119. [19] Fini R, Grimaldi R, Santoni S,et al. Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs[J]. Research Policy, 2011, 40(8): 1113-1127. [20] Van Looy B, Ranga M, Callaert J, et al. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?[J]. Research Policy, 2004, 33(3): 425-441. [21] Landry R, Amara N, Rherrad I. Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities[J]. Research Policy, 2006, 35(9): 1599-1615. [22] Powers J. B, McDougall P. University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2005, 20(3): 291-311. [23] O' Shea, Allen T J, Chevalier A et al. Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(7): 994-1009. [24] Müller K. Academic spin-off's transfer speed- analyzing the time from leaving university to venture[J]. Research Policy, 2010, 39(2): 189-199. [25] Clark B. R. Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and concepts[M]. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2004:104-115. [26] Breznitz D. Innovation and the State: Political choice and strategies for growth in Israel, Taiwan, and Ireland[M]. Yale university press, 2007: 115-116. [27] Shane S. Academic entrepreneurship: University spin-offs and wealth creation[M]. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA. 2004: 103-138. [28] Meseri O, Maital S. A survey analysis of university-technology transfer in Israel: Evaluation of projects and determinants of success[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2001, 26(1):115-125. [29] Phan P H, Siegel D S, Wright M. Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research[J].Journal of Business Venturing, 2005, 20(2): 165-182. [30] Rasmussen E, Borch O J. University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities[J]. Research Policy, 2010, 39(5): 602-612. [31] Timmons J A, Spinelli S. New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century[M]. McGraw-Hill Companies, 2006: 356. [32] Steffensen M,Rogers E M, Speakman K. Spin-offs from research centers at a research university[J].Journal of Business Venturing, 2000, 15(2):93-111. [33] Gregorio D, Smith R H, Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?[J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32(2): 209-227. [34] Meyer M.Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms[J]. R&D Management, 2003, 33(2): 107-115. [35] Clarysse B, Moray N. A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2004, 19(1): 55-79. [36] Saxenian A. Brain drain or brain circulation? The silicon valley-Asia connection[M]. Modern Asia Series: Fall. Harvard University Asia Center, 2000: 137-144. [37] Friedman J, Silberman J. University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter?[J] Journal of Technology Transfer, 2003, 28 (1): 17-30. [38] Link A N, Scott J T. Opening the ivory tower's door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U. S. university spin-off companies[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(7): 1106-1112. [39] Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). FY 1998 Licensing Survey Summary[M]. Norwalk, CT, 1998: 46.