The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 273–292 | Cite as

Academic entrepreneurship: Which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spinoffs?

  • Scott Shane
  • Sharon A. M. Dolmans
  • Joseph Jankowski
  • Isabelle M. M. J. Reymen
  • A. Georges L. Romme
Article

Abstract

Technology licensing officers play an important role in the creation of university spinoffs. Anecdotal data suggests that licensing officers make use of the representativeness heuristic when deciding which inventors’ technologies should (not) be commercialized through the founding of new companies. In this context, use of the representativeness heuristic implies that licensing officers favor for spinoff creation the inventions of academics that “fit” the profile of a typical inventor-entrepreneur. To examine this possibility, we conduct a randomized experiment with more than 200 technology licensing officers at U.S. universities and find evidence consistent with the use of the representativeness heuristic.

Keywords

University spinoffs Entrepreneurship Technology licensing offices University inventions Technology commercialization 

JEL Classification

L26 M13 O31 O32 

References

  1. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41, 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azoulay, P., Ding, W. W., & Stuart, T. E. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 599–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success. The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 106–116.Google Scholar
  5. Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ social skills and new venture performance: Mediating mechanisms and cultural generality. Journal of Management, 35, 282–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunker Whittington, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2005). Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.Google Scholar
  11. Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2007). Foreign-born academic scientists and engineers: Producing more and getting less than their US-born peers? Research in Higher Education, 48, 909–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniels, G., & Hofer. C. (1993). Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurial faculty and their innovative research teams. In N. Churchill, S. Birley, W. Bygrave, J. Doutriaux, E. Gatewood, F. Hoy & W. Wetzel (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 598–609). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.Google Scholar
  13. Dechenaux, E., Goldfarb, B., Shane, S., & Thursby, M. (2008). Appropriability and commercialization: Evidence from MIT inventions. Management Science, 54, 893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313, 665–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duchesneau, D. A., & Gartner, W. B. (1990). A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., et al. (2002a). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 65–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., & Douglas, C. (2002b). Social effectiveness in organizations: Construct validity and research directions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1075–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia. Research Policy, 39, 1060–1069. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox, M. F. (2001). WOMEN, SCIENCE, AND ACADEMIA Graduate Education and Careers. Gender & Society, 15, 654–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2003). Exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams. Small Business Economics, 21, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 821–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunt, J. (2009). Which immigrants are most innovative and entrepreneurial? Distinctions by entry visa. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91, 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: The best we can do with the s** t we get to work with’. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1271–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerr, W. R. (2008). The ethnic composition of US inventors. Harvard Business School Entrepreneurial Management Working Paper No. 08-006.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krabel, S., Siegel, D. S., & Slavtchev, V. (2012). The internationalization of science and its influence on academic entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35, 1599–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, S. (2004). Foreign-born scientists in the United States—Do they perform differently than native-born scientists? Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  36. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81, 114–132.Google Scholar
  37. Lin, Z., Pearce, R., & Wang, W. (2008). Imported talents: Demographic characteristics, achievement and job satisfaction of foreign born full time faculty in four-year American colleges. Higher Education, 57, 703–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34, 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1401–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mosey, S., Lockett, A., & Westhead, P. (2006). Creating network bridges for university technology transfer: The medici fellowship programme. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18, 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 909–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Munari, F., & Toschi, L. (2011). Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20, 397–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mustar, P. (1997). How French academics create hi-tech companies: The conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy, 24, 37–44.Google Scholar
  47. Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Social networks in organizational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49, 1702–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Shea, R., Allen, T. J., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2004). Universities and technology transfer: A review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25, 11–29.Google Scholar
  50. O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32, 1695–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pressman, L. (2002). AUTM licensing survey FY 2000. Northbrook, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
  54. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1314–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Riggio, R. E., & Lee, J. (2007). Emotional and interpersonal competencies and leader development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 418–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership: An emotional and social skill approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roberts, E. B., & Malone, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management, 26, 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saxenian, A. L. (2002). Silicon Valley’s new immigrant high-growth entrepreneurs. Economic development quarterly, 16, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shane, S. (2001a). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shane, S. (2001b). Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Science, 47, 1173–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shane, S. (2002). Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48, 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shane, S. (2005). What makes university inventions appropriate for spin-offs? (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  66. Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48, 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shane, S., & Khurana, R. (2003). Bringing individuals back in: The effects of career experience on new firm founding. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies*. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & Gregorio, D. D. (2003). The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science, 49, 478–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1991). Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact. Social Studies of Science, 21, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (2001). Exceptional contributions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population Research and Policy Review, 20, 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stuart, R., & Abetti, P. A. (1987). Start-up ventures: Towards the prediction of initial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48, 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2007). University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23, 620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wadhwa, V., Jasso, G., Rissing, B., et al. (2007). Intellectual property, the immigration backlog, and a reverse brain-drain: America’s new immigrant entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation: Part III.Google Scholar
  83. Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 809–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zhang, J. (2009). Why do some US universities generate more venture-backed academic entrepreneurs than others? Venture Capital, 11, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of US Biotechnology Enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Shane
    • 1
  • Sharon A. M. Dolmans
    • 2
  • Joseph Jankowski
    • 3
  • Isabelle M. M. J. Reymen
    • 2
  • A. Georges L. Romme
    • 2
  1. 1.Weatherhead School of ManagementCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologySchool of Industrial EngineeringEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Office of Technology TransferCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations