Skip to main content

Partnering with universities: a good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms?

Small Business Economics volume 38, pages 197–215 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

The role of universities in supporting economic development has been explored in studies emphasizing the mechanisms of technology transfer and knowledge spillover. However, in addition to these forms of intellectual capital, university scientists bring other resources into research collaboration and contribute to firm partnerships in both direct and indirect ways. This paper develops the concept of resource spillover, which captures the various ways in which firms can benefit from collaborations with university scientists. The study categorizes the resources possessed by university scientists into intellectual capital, social capital, and positional capital, and tests the impact of each on the performance of firms. Using a sample of new nanotechnology-based firms in the USA, the study finds that the benefits to firms from university scientist research collaboration include enhancements to perceived research capacity and technology potential, which in turn may increase chances of securing external funding.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. This does not mean that SBIR awards are equally distributed, since successful companies tend to be located in major US regional technology clusters. However, by US state (in 2006), the distribution of SBIR awards (Gini coefficient of 0.654) is less unequal than for venture capital deals (Gini coefficient of 0.792). In 2006, the top five states garnered 67.3% of US venture capital deals; in the same year, the top five states for SBIR phase 1 awards received 48.2% of all awards. [Sources: analysis of FY 2006 SBIR phase 1 statistics by state (State Science and Technology Institute, http://www.ssti.org/Digest/Tables/120507t.htm) and 2006 US venture capital investment activity data (PriceWaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree Report, http://www.pwcmoneytree.com)].

  2. Sales information for 37 firms is missing. Therefore, the statistics on sales are calculated based on the remaining 193 firms.

References

  • Abramson, H. N., Encarnacao, J., Reid, P. P., & Schmoch, U. (1997). Technology transfer systems in the United States and Germany. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., Rosen, B., & Woodward, W. (1987). The impact of social networks on business foundings and profit: A longitudinal study. In N. Churchill, J. Hornaday, O. J. Krasner, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp.154-168). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan, M. F. (2001). A review of best practices in university technology licensing offices. AUTM Journal, XIII, 57–69.

  • Backes-Gellner, U., & Werner, A. (2007). Entrepreneurial signaling via education: A success factor in innovative start-ups. Small Business Economics, 29, 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. (1994). Social resources generated by group support networks may not be beneficial to Asian immigrant-owned small businesses. Social Forces, 72, 671–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boissevain, J. (1974). Friends of friends. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R., & de Wit, G. (2004). The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance. Small Business Economics, 23(3), 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brüderl, J., & Preisendörfer, P. (1998). Network support and the success of newly founded business. Small Business Economics, 10, 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D. M., & Murray, B. (1999). Tournaments versus sponsored mobility as determinants of job search success. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2000). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Clifton, N., & Oleaga, M. (2005). Social capital, firm embeddedness and regional development. Regional Studies, 39(8), 1065–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., & Wills, D. (1999). Small firms, social capital and the enhancement of business performance through innovation programmes. Small Business Economics, 13(3), 219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corolleur, C., Carrere, M., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Turning scientific and technological human capital into economic capital: the experience of biotech start-ups in France. Research Policy, 33(4), 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1969). Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 34, 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1972). The invisible college. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, M. M., & Tucker, C. (2001). The American research university system as America’s de facto technology policy. Science and Public Policy, 28(1), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, M. R., Liu, Q., & Zucker, L. G. (1999). Stakes and stars: The effect of intellectual human capital on the level and variability of high-tech firms’ market values. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darby, M. R., & Zucker, L. G. (2003). Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of Inventing and firm entry in nanotechnology. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. (1999). Economic progress and the idea of social capital. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 325–424). Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfring, T., & Hulsink, E. (2003). Networks in entrepreneurship: The case of high-technology firms. Small Business Economics, 21, 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, H. A., & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W., & Olk, P. (1990). R&D consortia: A new U.S. organizational form. MIT Sloan Management Review, 31(3), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, quality and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10(4), 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., & Roessner, J. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy, 31(3), 457–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A Critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13, 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francois, P. (2002). Social capital and economic development. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Furukawa, R., & Goto, A. (2006). Core scientists and innovation in Japanese electronics companies. Scientometrics, 68(2), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E. (1995). Industry-university technology cooperation: A theory of inter-organizational relationships. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7(2), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E. (2001). Explaining the generation and performance of intersector technology cooperation: A survey of the literature. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(2), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E., Furino, A., & Kiresuk, T. (1991). Toward a conceptual model of cooperative research: Patterns of development and success in university-industry alliances. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(2), 136–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(6), 577–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1995). Tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial & Corporate Change, 4(2), 401–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B., Lerner, M., & Raban, Y. (2006). Social capital and the linkages of high-tech companies to the military defense system: Is there a signaling mechanism? Small Business Economics, 27, 419–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, D.W., & Jansen, C. (2000). Technology transfer and economic growth. AUTM Journal, XII, 23–46.

  • Kaufmann, A., & Todtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30(5), 791–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P., Aldrich, H. E., & Keister, L. A. (2006). Access (not) denied: The impact of financial, human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the United States. Small Business Economics, 27, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (2003). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, R. G., Bowers, W. P., Barnett, T., & White, M. C. (1998). Research productivity of graduates in management: Effects of academic origin and academic affiliation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 704–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lux Research. (2006). The nanotechnology report (4th ed.). New York: Lux Research Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial-innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskell, P. (2000). Social capital, innovation and competitiveness. In S. Baron, J. Field, & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (pp. 111–123). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. C., Serrato, R., Represas-Cardenas, J. M., & Kundahl, G. (2005). The handbook of nanotechnology: Business, policy, and intellectual property law. New Jersey, Hoboken: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Vanraan, A. F. J. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university-research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., & van Leeuwen, T. (1995). Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information’s journal impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 461–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33(4), 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Venture Capital Association. (2005). National Venture Capital Association supports clarifications to SBIR eligibility requirements. Washington DC: National Venture Capital Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSB. (2004). Science and engineering indicators. Washington DC: National Science Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSB. (2006). Science and engineering indicators. Washington DC: National Science Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1995). Academic research, technical change and government policy. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • PCAST. (2005). The national nanotechnology initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. F., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1991). Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis: An exercise on a university faculty level. Scientometrics, 20, 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R. (2004). Measuring quality: A comparison of U.S. News rankings and NSSE benchmarks. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickne, A. (2006). Connectivity and performance of science-based firms. Small Business Economics, 26, 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, J. L. (2007). The geography of innovation commercialization in the United States during the 1990s. Economic Development Quarterly, 21(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35, 772–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SBA. (2002). Small business innovation research program policy directive. Washington DC: Small Business Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. London, UK: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Change, logic, genius and zeitgeist. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(3), 303–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, J. (2002). Can we trust social capital? Journal of Economic Literature, XL(March), 139–154.

  • Sorenson, O., & Fleming, L. (2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy, 33(10), 1615–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staber, U. (2007). Contextualizing research on social capital in regional clusters. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(3), 505–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 315–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2005). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornatsky, L. G., Waugaman, P. G., & Gray, D. O. (2002). Innovation U.: New university roles in a knowledge economy. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Growth Policies Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, S. J. (2000). The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: The case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. The Rand Journal of Economics, 31(1), 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, OH: Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37(8), 1188–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. G. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. The American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is based upon research supported in part by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University under National Science Foundation Grant No. 0531194. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, Florida International University, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Jue Wang

  2. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Philip Shapira

  3. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0345, USA

    Philip Shapira

Authors
  1. Jue Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jue Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, J., Shapira, P. Partnering with universities: a good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms?. Small Bus Econ 38, 197–215 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9248-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9248-9

Keywords

  • Entrepreneurship
  • Innovation
  • Resource spillover
  • University-industry relationship
  • Nanotechnology

JEL Classifications

  • C12
  • L14
  • L25
  • L26
  • M13
  • O32