Alternative growth patterns of university spin-offs: why so many remain small?

Article

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide explanations for alternative growth patterns of university spin-offs using qualitative research methods. By matching the willingness of academic entrepreneurs to the ability of university spin-offs to grow, four basic types of university spin-offs are derived: ambitious, unwilling, saturated and impeded university spin-offs. By combining theoretical considerations from a specific concept of growth phases and empirical regularities from 68 university spin-offs we construct eight different subtypes of university spin-offs. The results show that the majority of university spin-offs either lacks entrepreneurial growth intentions or is impeded by reasons caused by personal characteristics of the academic entrepreneur, the university spin-off or the external environment. Some subtypes like life stylists, entrepreneurial academics and late bloomers face problems or share attitudes that are very specific in the context of university spin-offs. This paper contributes to the literature on university spin-off growth by providing an in-depth analysis of the underlying reasons for the founders’ willingness and ability to grow or not to grow. This study also reflects the heterogeneity of university spin-off growth and considers the evolutionary perspective. Growth is not only understood as a consequence of an economic process but also a personal and social process. In this way, this study augments the existing concepts of growth phases.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship University spin-off Business development Growth intention Academic entrepreneur Growth ability 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avnimelech, G., & Feldman, M. P. (2015). The stickiness of university spin-offs: a study of formal and informal spin-offs and their location from 124 US academic institutions. The International Journal of Technology Management, 68(1–2), 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough?. National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper.Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann, H., Cesinger, B., & Ostertag, F. (2012). Unternehmerische Absichten und Aktivitäten von Studierenden in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. [Entrepreneurial behavior and intentions of students]. Stuttgart: Stiftungslehrstuhl Entrepreneurship der Universität Hohenheim.Google Scholar
  5. Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2009). Analyzing qualitative data: systematic approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
  6. Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2014). Inside the high-tech black box: a critique of technology entrepreneurship policy. Technovation, 34(12), 773–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassar, G. (2007). Money, money, money? A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneur career reasons, growth preferences and achieved growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(1), 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1992). The tradeoff between firm size and diversity in the pursuit of technological progress. Small Business Economics, 4(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  9. Czarnitzki, D., Rammer, C., & Toole, A. (2014). University spin-offs and the “performance premium”. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidsson, P. (1989). Entrepreneurship - and after? A study of growth willingness in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(3), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidsson, P., Achtenhagen, L., & Naldi, L. (2007). What do we know about small firm growth? In S. Parker (Ed.), The life cycle of entrepreneurial ventures (pp. 361–398). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. De Silva, L. R. (2011). The dynamism of entrepreneurial motivation: a case of academic entrepreneurs in a resource constrained environment. Manchester Business School Research Paper, (617).Google Scholar
  13. De Silva, L. R., Uyarra, E., & Oakey, R. (2012). Academic entrepreneurship in a resource-constrained environment: diversification and synergistic effects. In D. B. Audretsch, E. E. Lehmann, A. N. Link, & A. Starnecker (Eds.), Technology transfer in a global economy (pp. 73–97). US: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobbs, M., & Hamilton, R. T. (2007). Small business growth: recent evidence and new directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 13(5), 296–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douglas, E. J. (2013). Reconstructing entrepreneurial intentions to identify predisposition for growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 633–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2002). Spinoff-Gründungen aus der öffentlichen Forschung in Deutschland: Kurzfassung; Gutachten für das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung [Spin-offs from public research in Germany: summary; report for the Federal Ministry for Education and Research]. ZEW Dokumentationen.Google Scholar
  19. Epure, M., Prior, D., & Serarols, C. (2016). Assessing technology-based spin-offs from university support units. Regional Studies, 50(3), 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erdös, K., & Varga, A. (2012). The academic entrepreneur: myth or reality for increased regional growth in Europe? In K. Erdös & A. Varga (Eds.), Creative knowledge cities: myths, visions and realities (pp. 157–181). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix. University-industry-government. Innovation in action. Madison: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernández-Alles, M., Camelo-Ordaz, C., & Frano-Leal, N. (2015). Resources and actors for the evolution of academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 976–1002.Google Scholar
  23. Garnsey, E. (1998). A theory of the early growth of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(3), 523–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garnsey, E., Stam, E., & Heffernan, P. (2006). New firm growth: exploring processes and paths. Industry and Innovation, 13(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. (2012). Drittmittelerträge der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen seit 2003 nach Jahresabschluß (mit Medizin). [Third-party funding at the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen since 2003 after the end of each year (with medicine)]. http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/bereich-finanzen-drittmittel-jahresabschluss/24657.html. Accessed 12 June 2014.
  26. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. (2013). Zahlen, Daten und Fakten [Numbers, data and facts]. http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/24499.html. Accessed 31 Oct 2013.
  27. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. (2014a). Studierende nach Fakultäten im Wintersemester 2011/2012. Sonderauswertung auf Anfrage [Students at faculties in the winter semester 2011/2012]. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  28. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. (2014b). Wissenschaftliches Personal nach Fakultäten im Wintersemester 2011/2012. Sonderauswertung auf Anfrage. [Scientific staff at the faculties in the winter semester 2011/2012]. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  29. Gibcus, P., & Stam, E. (2012). Firm resources, dynamic capabilities, and the early growth of firms. Scales Research Reports, EIM Business and Policy Research, H201219.Google Scholar
  30. Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(3), 37–46.Google Scholar
  31. Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gundry, L. K., & Welsch, H. P. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: high growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., Raghian, M., & Smith, D. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hayter, C. (2010). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 340–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hayter, C. (2015). Social networks and the success of university spin-offs: toward an agenda for regional growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 29(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hayter, C. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: a knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45(2), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Helm, R., & Mauroner, O. (2007). Success of research-based spin-offs. State-of-the-art and guidelines for further research. Review of Managerial Science, 1(3), 237–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hemer, J., Berteit, H., Walter, G., & Göthner, M. (2006). Erfolgsfaktoren für Unternehmensaus-gründungen aus der Wissenschaft. [Success factors of spin-offs from science]. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-IRB-Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Hemer, J., Dornbusch, F., & Kulicke, M. (2010). Beteiligungen von Hochschulen an Ausgründungen. [Company shares of universities in spin-offs]. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung.Google Scholar
  41. Hermans, J., Vanderstraeten, J., Dejardin, M., Ramdani, D., Stam, E., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012). Ambitious entrepreneurship: antecedents and consequences. Department of Economics Working Papers Series, University of Namur, 1210.Google Scholar
  42. Hesse, N. (2015). Career paths of Academic Entrepreneurs and University spin-off growth. In R. Baptista & J. Leitao (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, Human Capital, and Regional Development (pp. 29–57). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Kluge, S. (2000). Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 1(1).Google Scholar
  44. Knockaert, M., Foo, M. D., Erikson, T., & Cools, E. (2015). Growth intentions among research scientists: a cognitive style perspective. Technovation, 38, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kodithuwakku, S. S., & Rosa, P. (2002). The entrepreneurial process and economic success in a constrained environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 431–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kulicke, M., Schleinkofer, M., Mallig, N., Schönenbrücher, J. & Heiser, C. (2008). Rahmenbedingungen und Potenziale für Ausgründungen aus der Wissenschaft, Aktueller Stand im Kontext von EXIST–Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft [Framework conditions and potentials for spin-offs from the science, current status in the contect of EXIST business start-ups from the science]. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: gold, ribbon or puzzle? Research Policy, 40(2), 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lawton Smith, H. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development: a review of the evidence. Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy, 25(1), 98–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lawton Smith, H., & Ho, K. (2006). Measuring the performance of Oxford university, Oxford Brookes University and the government laboratories’ spin-off companies. Research Policy, 35(10), 1554–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leibniz Universität Hannover. (2012). Zahlenspiegel 2012 der Leibniz Universität Hannover. Statistische Daten der Leibniz Universität Hannover. [Summary fo the numbers of the Leibniz Universität Hannover. Statistical data of the Leibniz Universität Hannover]. In Berichte der Leibniz Universität Hannover, (8).Google Scholar
  51. Leibniz Universität Hannover. (2013). Studierendenstatistik Sommersemester 2013 [Statistics on students summer semester 2013]. http://www.uni-hannover.de/imperia/md/content/strat_controlling/statistiken/allgemein/sommersemester_2013.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2013.
  52. Lejpras, A. (2014). How innovative are spin-offs at later stages of development? Comparing innovativeness of established research spin-offs and otherwise created firms. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lewis, V. L., & Churchill, N. C. (1983). The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30–50.Google Scholar
  54. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).Google Scholar
  55. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research–based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
  57. Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35(2), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nightingale, P., & Coad, A. (2011). Muppets and gazelles: rooting out ideological and methodological biases in entrepreneurship research. FINNOV Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  60. O’Farrell, P. N., & Hitchens, D. (1988). Alternative theories of small-firm growth: a critical review. Environment and Planning A, 20(10), 1365–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Penrose, E. (2009). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Phan, P. H. C., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: lessons learned, managerial and policy implications, and the road forward. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship. doi:10.2139/ssrn.900605.Google Scholar
  63. Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Powell, J. W., & Solga, H. (2011). Why are higher education participation rates in Germany so low? Institutional barriers to higher education expansion. Journal of Education and Work, 24, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rappert, B., Webster, A., & Charles, D. (1999). Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy, 28(8), 873–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(5), 782–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Saxenian, A. (1983). The genesis of Silicon Valley. Built Environment, 9, 7–17.Google Scholar
  68. Schmude, J., Aevermann, T., & Heumann, S. (2011). Vom Studenten zum Unternehmer: Welche Universität bietet die besten Chancen? [The way from student to entrepreneur: Which universities provides the best chances?]. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftsgeographie und Tourismusforschung.Google Scholar
  69. Scholten, V., Ompta, O., Kemp, R., & Elfring, T. (2015). Bridging ties and the role of research and start-up experience on the early growth of Dutch academic spin-offs. Technovation, 45(46), 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schreier, M., Naderer, G., & Balzer, E. (2007). Qualitative Stichprobenkonzepte [qualitative sampling concept]. In G. Naderer & E. Balzer (Eds.), Qualitative Marktforschung in Theorie und praxis (pp. 231–245). Wiesbaden: Gabler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: university spinoffs and wealth creation. In S. Venkataraman (Ed.), New horizons in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  72. Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship: time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595.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., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2015). Getting the right balance: university networks’ influence on spin-offs’ attraction of funding for innovation. Technovation, 36(38), 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stam, E. (2007). Why butterflies don’t leave: locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography, 83(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stam, E. (2010). Entrepreneurship, evolution and geography. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 307–348). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  77. Stam, E., Suddle, K., Hessels, J. A., & van Stel, A. (2007). High growth entrepreneurs, public policies and economic growth. Jena Economic Research Papers, 2007 (019).Google Scholar
  78. Stephan, A. (2014). Are public research spin-offs more innovative? Small Business Economics, 42(2), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sternberg, R. (2010). Neither planned nor by chance: how knowledge-intensive clusters emerge. In D. Fornahl, S. Henn, & M.-P. Menzel (Eds.), Emerging cluster. Theoretical, empirical and political perspectives on the initial stage of cluster evolution (pp. 295–323). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  80. Sternberg, R. (2014). Success factors of university-spin-offs: regional government support programs versus regional environment. Technovation, 34(3), 137–148. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2013.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. van Stel, A., Thurik, R., Stam, E., & Hartog, C. (2010). Ambitious entrepreneurship, high-growth firms and macroeconomic growth. Scales Research Reports, EIM Business and Policy Research, H200911.Google Scholar
  82. 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
  83. Vorderwülbecke, A. (2015). The Contribution of Alumni Spin-off Entrepreneurs to a University’s Entrepreneurial Support Structure. PhD-dissertation. Leibniz Universität Hannover, Faculty of Natural Sciences. https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/download/?tx_tibsearch_search%5Bdocid%5D=TIBKAT%3A834212552&cHash=11d7796c23f6d49993ed835fefbc18dc#download-mark.
  84. Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40, 1128–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wiklund, J. (1998). Small firm growth and performance: entrepreneurship and beyond. Jönköping: Internationella Handelshögskolan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Economic and Cultural GeographyLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations