Advertisement

A university spin-off launch failure: explanation by the legitimation process

  • Valérie François
  • Pascal Philippart
Article
  • 116 Downloads

Abstract

The search for legitimacy is essential for all emerging companies in order to acquire resources. However, in the case of university spin-off, legitimacy must be sought from multiple stakeholders with different expectations. It also must be dealt with in all of its dimensions. The theoretical framework of legitimacy helped us to understand the reasons why the launch of a university spin-off might fail. A longitudinal and in-depth case study provide insights into previously unknown dynamics of the legitimation process and the impact of the search for legitimacy with different stakeholders on a nascent venture. It shows in particular that the socio-political dimension of legitimacy is central in the case of university spin-offs due to their original link with the university.

Keywords

University spin-off Failure Legitimacy Legitimation process University 

JEL Classification

M13 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the editor for his expert advice and his valuable guidance during the review process. We are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments.

References

  1. Aldrich, H., & Fiol, M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H., & Martinez, M. (2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41–56.Google Scholar
  3. Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen, M. S., Bray, J. W., & Link, A. N. (2017). On the failure of scientific research: An analysis of SBIR projects funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Scientometrics, 112(1), 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barron, D. N. (1998). Pathways to legitimacy among consumer loan providers in New York City, 1914–1934. Organization Studies, 19(2), 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bathelt, H., Kogler, D. F., & Munro, A. K. (2010). A knowledge-based typology of university spin-offs in the context of regional economic development. Technovation, 30(9–10), 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birley, S. (2002). Universities, academics, and spinout companies: Lessons from Imperial. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  10. Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bjørnåli, E. S., & Aspelund, A. (2012). The role of the entrepreneurial team and the board of directors in the internationalization of academic spin-offs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 10(4), 350–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, A. D., & Toyoki, S. (2013). Identity work and legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34(7), 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brundin, E. (2007). Catching it as it happens. In H. Neergaard & J. P. Ulhoi (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship (pp. 279–307). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. Brush, C. G., Manolova, T. S., & Edelman, L. F. (2008). Properties of emerging organizations: An empirical test. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 547–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, A. C. (2003). The past, the present and the future. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Corsi, C., & Prencipe, A. (2015). Measuring the performance of academic spin-offs. Analysis of the optimal methods predicting ventures development. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(4), 174–192.Google Scholar
  19. Davenport, S., Carr, A., & Bibby, D. (2002). Leveraging talent: Spin-off strategy at industrial research. R&D Management, 32(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. del Palacio Aguirre, I., Parellada, F. S., & Campos, H. M. (2006). University spin-off programmes: How can they support the NTBF creation? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(2), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DiMaggio, P., & Powel, W. (1983). The iron gage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational field. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Drori, I., & Honig, B. (2013). A process model of internal and external legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34(3), 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  29. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and «Mode 2» to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fini, R., Fu, K., Mathisen, M. T., & Rasmussen, E. (2015). Institutional determinant of university spin-off quantity and quality: A cross-country study. Academy of Management Proceedings.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.12146.Google Scholar
  32. Gately, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2017). Nascent technology entrepreneurs new venture formation activities. In J. A. Cunningham & C. O’Kane (Eds.), Technology-based nascent entrepreneurship: implications for economic policymaking (pp. 223–256). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gersick, C. J. G. (1994). Pacing strategic change: The case of new venture. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 9–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. (2007). The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1149–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gómez Gras, J. M., Galiana Lapera, D. R., Solves, I. M., Verdú Jover, A. J., & Azuar, J. S. (2008). An empirical approach to the organisational determinants of spin-off creation in European universities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gurdon, M. A., & Samsom, K. J. (2010). A longitudinal study of success and failure among scientist-started ventures. Technovation, 30(3), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1986). Where do organizational forms come from? Sociological Forum, 1(1), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? a resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3/4), 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hlady-Rispal, M., & Joison-lafitte, E. (2015). Qualitative research methods and epistemological frameworks: A review of publications trends in entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(4), 594–614.Google Scholar
  41. Honig, B., & Karlsson, T. (2004). Institutional forces and the written business plan. Journal of Management, 30(1), 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jenkins, A., & McKelvie, A. (2016). What is entrepreneurial failure? Implications for future research. International Small Business Journal, 34(2), 176–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson, C., Dowd, T. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 32(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Karlsson, T., & Wigren, C. (2012). Start-ups among university employees, the influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khelil, N. (2016). The many faces of entrepreneurial failure: Insights from an empirical taxonomy. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(1), 72–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laïfi, A., & Josserand, E. (2016). Legitimation in practice: A new digital publishing business model. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2343–2352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lichtenstein, B. B., Dooley, K. J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2006). Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lin, A. N., & Wright, M. (2015). On the failure of R&D projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(4), 442–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lynskey, M. J. (2008). The entrepreneurial university and spin-out firms in the UK. Industry & Higher Education, 22(2), 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34(7), 1010–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 333–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Philippart, P. (2003). Le transfert de la recherche publique par le chercheur fonctionnaire: le cas de la loi sur l’innovation. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 2(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Philippart, P. (2005). Un exemple de valorisation: la création d’entreprise par un chercheur au statut de fonctionnaire. Approches des spécificités juridiques françaises. Revue Internationale PME, 18(3–4), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Philippart, P. (2012). Au confluent du droit et de la gestion: la légistique pour évaluer l’utilisation de la dimension entrepreneuriale de la loi sur l’Innovation. Management & Avenir, 50, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37(4), 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rasmussen, E. (2011). Understanding academic entrepreneurship: Exploring the emergence of university spin-off ventures using process theories. International Small Business Journal, 29(5), 448–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39(5), 602–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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(6), 1314–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2015). The transformation of network ties to develop entrepreneurial competencies for university spin-offs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(7–8), 430–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reynolds, P. (2000). National Panel Study of US business start-ups: Background and methodology. In J. K. R. Blockhaus (Ed.), Advance in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 4, pp. 153–227). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  67. Rodeiro Pazos, D., Fernandez-Lopez, S., Otero-Gonzales, L., & Rodrigez-Sandias, A. (2012). A resource-based view of university spin-off activity: New evidence from the Spanish case. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 21(3), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Samsom, K. J., & Gurdon, M. A. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13(2), 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship, university spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). A new venture’s cognitive legitimacy: An assessment by customers. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(2), 148–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sijde, P. V. D., & Tilburg, J. V. (2000). Support of university spin-off companies. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spin-out companies: Technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. (2015). The impact of university-based incubation support on the innovation strategy of academic spin-offs. Technovation, 50–51, 25–40.Google Scholar
  75. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Liu, G. (2012). Which iron cage? Endo- and exoisomorphism in corporate venture capital programs. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 477–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Steffensen, M., Rogers, E., & Speakman, K. (2000). Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1), 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  78. Tornikoski, E., & Newbert, S. (2007). Exploring the determinants of organizational emergence: A legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Treibich, T., Konrad, K., & Truffer, B. (2013). A dynamic view on interactions between academic spin-offs and their parent organizations. Technovation, 33(12), 450–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Überbacher, F. (2014). Legitimation of new ventures: A review and research programme: Legitimation of new ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 667–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ucbasaran, D., Shepherd, D. A., Lockett, A., & Lyon, S. J. (2013). Life after business failure: The process and consequences of business failure for entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 39(1), 163–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, E. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Van De Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.Google Scholar
  84. Villanueva, J., Van de Ven, A. H., & Sapienza, H. J. (2012). Resource mobilization in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vinig, T., & Van Rijsbergen, P. (2010). Determinants of university technology transfer—A comparative study of US, European and Australian universities. In A. Malach-Pines & M. F. Özbilgin (Eds.), Handbook of research on high technology entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  86. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Walsh, G. S., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Business failure and entrepreneurship: Emergence, evolution and future research. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 163–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Woolley, J. L. (2011). Studying the emergence of new organizations: Entrepreneurship research design. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 1(1), 54–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zahra, S. A., & Nielsen, A. P. (2002). Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 377–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.Google Scholar
  91. Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LEM (UMR-CNRS 9221)Université de LilleVilleneuve d’AscqFrance
  2. 2.LEM (UMR-CNRS 9221)Université de LilleLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations