Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to shed light on how start-ups deal with the complex task of commercializing science. While the linear “spin-out funnel” model (Clarysse, Wright, Lockett, Van de Velde, & Vohora, 2005) views commercialization simply as a bridge between technology and the market, the process of connecting science to industrial or societal needs is more complex and transforms the original science into something else (Pavitt, 2004; Grandin, Wormbs, & Widmalm, 2004) rather than simply transferring it over a bridge. This “something else” is often “downgraded” because the most cutting-edge discoveries are too advanced and clash with established investments and the other technologies already in place (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2007, pp. 6–10). Therefore, most scientific knowledge is used in the business world, after it has already been embedded in a complex socio-technical network through several connections created with surrounding technologies, actors and organizations (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2007, pp. 6–7). Following this approach towards the commercialization of science and the adoption of a network perspective (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995) means “the real challenge in commercializing science is making it fit in the established socio-technical structures of producers and users” (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2007, p. 10).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
As the official project’s brief explains, W.I.N.D.S. involves the analysis of a number of students’ design review sessions in regular university classrooms, in order to point out the relationships occurring between the different forms of designers’ cognitive involvement (conceptual, visual, social, emotional, etc.) in design. http://www.dicea-bc.univpm.it/index.php/deisgnstudies/web-based-intelligent-design-tutoring-system-winds
- 2.
References
Aaboen, L., Dubois, A., & Lind, F. (2011). Start-ups starting up—Firms looking for a network. The IMP Journal, 5(1), 42–58.
Ahmad, A. J., & Ingle, S. (2011). Relationships matter: Case study of a university campus incubator. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(6), 626–644.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. (2002). The key to success in innovation PART II: The art of choosing good spokespersons. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 207–225.
Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 266–276.
Baraldi, E., & Launberg, A., 2013, The commercialisation of science as an embedding process: The case of PET radiotracers at Uppsala University. Paper presented at the 29th IMP Conference, Atlanta.
Bergek, A., & Norrman, C. (2008). Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28, 20–28.
Ciabuschi, F., Perna, A., & Snehota, I. (2012). Assembling resources in the formation of a new business. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 220–229.
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, 183–216.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 553–560.
Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2003). Managing business relationships (1st ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2006). The business marketing course. Managing in complex networks (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2011). Managing business relationships (3rd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gadde, L. E., Hjelmgren, D., & Skarp, F. (2012). Interactive resource development in new business relationships. Journal of Business Research, 65, 210–217.
Gialletti, M. (2015). Report on statistics of Nautes. Company’s internal records.
Grandin, K., Wormbs, N., & Widmalm, S. (Eds.). (2004). The Science-Industry Nexus. History, Policy, Implications, Science History Publications: Sagamore Beach, MA.
Håkansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should company interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 133–139.
Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (Eds.). (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge.
Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2002). The burden of relationships or who’s next? In D. Ford (Ed.), Understanding business markets (pp. 88–94). London: Thompson Learning.
Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Managing technological development. IKEA, the environment and technology. London: Routledge.
Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (Eds.). (2007). Knowledge and innovation in business and industry. The importance of using others. London: Routledge.
IGU. (2015). 2015 Company’s report.
Johnsen, T., & Ford, D. (2007). Customer approaches to product development with suppliers. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3), 300–308.
Jones, O., & Holt, R. (2008). The creation and evolution of new business ventures: An activity theory perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(1), 51–73.
La Rocca, A., Ford, D., & Snehota, I. (2013). Initial relationship development in new business ventures. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 1025–1032.
La Rocca, A., & Perna, A. (2014). New venture acquiring position in an existing network. The IMP Journal, 2(8), 64–73.
Mayan, M. J. (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Pavitt, K. (2004). Changing patterns of usefulness of university research. Opportunities and dangers. In Grandin et al. (Eds.), The science-industry nexus. History, policy, implications (pp. 119–131). Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm, Reprint 1995. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Snehota, I. (2011). New business formation in business networks. The IMP Journal, 5(1), 1–9.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van de Ven, A., Polley, D., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baraldi, E., Perna, A., Fraticelli, F., Gregori, G.L. (2017). 7 The Impact of a Start Up’s Key Business Relationships on the Commercialization of Science: The Case of Nautes. In: Aaboen, L., La Rocca, A., Lind, F., Perna, A., Shih, T. (eds) Starting Up in Business Networks. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52719-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52719-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-52714-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-52719-6
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)