Abstract
Although performance measurement has been a prominent topic especially in an entrepreneurial context, researchers struggle to obtain conclusive results. We link this to the fact that the key role of different performance measurements has been neglected and consequently want to fill this gap by contrasting five different performance measures against each other, being: general performance, long-term perspective, technological application, financial indicators and growth. The new perspective we are offering is taking different performance measures into account at the same time and examining whether one specific measurement seems to favor, correlate or stand in some kind of causal relationship with specific exogenous success factors. By investigating the phenomenon in the case of research-based spin-offs (RBSOs), a type of newly founded ventures that is exemplary for an entrepreneurial context, we are offering insights on best performing spin-offs regarding their starting configuration, support mechanism and product-market combination. Drawing on a database of 177 spin-offs from publicly funded non-university research institutes, an analysis via logistic regression showed that each performance measurement shows different results, but the negative effect of push motivation and the positive influencing factors of a high degree of innovation and profound knowledge in assessing the targeted market are accepted success factors independent from the measurement used.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Max-Planck-Society, Helmholtz Association, Leibniz Association.
Summary statistics for the dependent and independent constructs can be found in Annex 1.
Av. M. E. are the average marginal effects. M.E.@m. are the marginal effects at means. All significance values are indicated. Having used directional hypothesis, the p values can be cut in halves. With regards to heteroscedasticity, we computed standard errors that are robust to heteroscedasticity. Results using robust standard errors confirmed the results given by the standard analyses.
References
Akgün AE, Lynn GS (2002) Antecedents and consequences of team stability on new product development performance. J Eng Tech Manag 19(3–4):263–286
Andersson M, Klepper S (2012) Characteristics and performance of new firms and spinoffs in Sweden. IFN working paper (902), pp 1–55
Autio E (1994) New, technology-based firms as agents of R&D and innovation: an empirical study. Technovation 14(4):259–273
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (2012) Specification, evaluation and interpretation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 40:8–34
Baum JAC, Calabrese T, Silverman BS (2000) Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategy Manag J 21(3):267–294
Bergek A, Norrman C (2008) Incubator best practice: a framework. Technovation 28(1–2):20–28
Bøllingtoft A, Ulhøi JP (2005) The networked business incubator—leveraging entrepreneurial agency?: Special issue on science parks and incubators. J Bus Ventur 20(2):265–290
Brinckmann J (2007) Competence of top management teams and success of new technology-based firms. Springer, Wiesbaden
Brinckmann J, Grichnik D, Kapsa D (2010) Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance in small firms. J Bus Ventur 25(1):24–40
Brüderl J, Preisendörfer P, Ziegler R (1992) Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. Am Sociol Rev 57(2):227–242
Brush CG, Vanderwerf PG (1992) A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance. J Bus Ventur 7:157–170
Burke A, Fraser S, Greene FJ (2010) The multiple effects of business planning on new venture performance. J Manag Stud 47(3):391–415
Bygrave W (2010) The entrepreneurial process. In: Bygrave W, Zacharakis A (eds) The portable MBA in entrepreneurship. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–27
Calantone RJ, Di Benedetto CA, Bhoovaraghavan S (1994) Examining the relationship between degree of innovation and new product success. J Bus Res 30(2):143–148
Carayannis EG, Rogers EM, Kurihara K, Allbritton MM (1998) High-technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation 18(1):1–11
Carbonell P, Rodriguez AI (2006) The impact of market characteristics and innovation speed on perceptions of positional advantage and new product performance. Int J Res Mark 23(1):1–12
Chiesa V, Piccaluga A (2000) Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Manag 30(4):329–339
Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16:64–73
Clarysse B, Degroof J, Heirman A (2003) Growth paths of technology-based companies in life sciences and information technology, Brussels
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. J Bus Ventur 20(2):183–216
Clarysse B, Wright M, van de Velde E (2011) Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. J Manag Stud 48(6):1420–1442
Cochran AB (1981) Small business mortality rates: a review of the literature. J Small Bus Manag 19(4):50–59
Colombo MG, Grilli L (2005) Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: a competence-based view. Res Policy 34(6):795–816
Colombo MG, Grilli L (2010) On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: exploring the role of founders’ human capital and venture. J Bus Ventur 25(6):610–626
Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ (1994) Determinants of timeliness in product development. J Prod Innov Manag 11(5):381–396
Cortina JM (1993) What Is coefficient alpha?: An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78(1):98–104
Dahlqvist J, Davidsson P (2000) Business start-up reasons and firm performance. Front Entrep Res
Dautzenberg K, Reger G (2010) Entrepreneurial team characteristics and success of new technology-based firms in Germany. IJBG 4(1):71–94
Delmar F (1997) Measuring growth: methodological considerations and empirical results. In: Donckels R, Miettinen A (eds) Entrepreneurship and SME research: on its way to the next millennium. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp 199–216
Delmar F, Davidsson P (2000) Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrep Reg Dev 12:1–23
Delmar F, Shane S (2003) Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategy Manag J 24(12):1165–1185
Dess GG, Robinson RB (1984) Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategy Manag J 5(3):265–273
Dewangan V, Godse M (2014) Towards a holistic enterprise innovation performance measurement system. Technovation 34(9):536–545
Doblinger C, Dowling M, Helm R (2016) An institutional perspective of public policy and network effects in the renewable energy industry: enablers or disablers of entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation? Entrep Reg Dev Int J 28(1–2):126–156
Dowling M, Helm R (2006) Product development success through cooperation: a study of entrepreneurial firms. Technovation 26(4):483–488
Druilhe C, Garnsey E (2004) Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? J Technol Transf 29(3–4):269–285
Egeln J, Gottschalk S, Rammer C, Spielkamp A (2002) public research spin-offs in Germany, Mannheim
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res (JMR) 18(1):39–50
Gartner WB (1985) Conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Acad Manag Rev 10(4):696–706
Grimaldi R, Grandi A (2005) Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment of incubating models. Technovation 25(2):111–121
Gübeli MH, Doloreux D (2005) An empirical study of university spin-off development. Eur J Innov Manag 8(3):269–282
Gurău C, Lasch F, Dana L (2015) Sources of entrepreneurial value creation: a business model approach. Int J Entrep Small Bus 25(2):192–207
Hackett SM, Dilts DM (2004) A systematic review of business incubation research. J Technol Transf 29(1):55–82
Heirman A, Clarysse B (2004) How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. J Technol Transf 29(3–4):247–268
Heirman A, Clarysse B, van den Haute V (2003) Starting resource configuration of research-based start-ups and the interaction with technology, institutional background, and industrial dynamics, gent
Helm R, Mauroner O (2007) Success of research-based spin-offs. State-of-the-art and guidelines for further research. Rev Manag Sci 1(3):237–270
Helm R, Mauroner O (2011) Soft starters, research boutiques and product-oriented firms: different business models for spin-off companies. Int J Entrep Small Bus 12(4):479
Hmieleski KM, Ensley MD (2007) A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. J Organ Behav 28(7):865–889
Hölzl A, Lobe S (2014) Predicting above-median and below-median growth rates. Rev Manag Sci 10(1):105–133. doi:10.1007/s11846-014-0145-5
Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategy Manag J 20(2):195–204
Jaouen A, Lasch F (2015) A new typology of micro-firm owner-managers. Int Small Bus J 33(4):397–421
Kessler EH, Bierly PE (2002) Is faster really better? An empirical test of the implications of innovation speed. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 49(1):2–12
Kleinschmidt EJ, Cooper RG (1991) The impact of product innovativeness on performance. J Prod Innov Manag 8(4):240–251
Kleinknecht A (1993) Why do we need new innovation output indicators? In: Kleinknecht A, Bain D (eds) New concepts in innovation output measurement. St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp 1–9
Knockaert M, Ucbasaran D, Wright M, Clarysse B (2011) The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: the case of science-based entrepreneurial firms. Entrep Theory Pract 35(4):777–803
Kraus S, Rigtering JPC, Hughes M, Hosman V (2012) Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands. Rev Manag Sci 6(2):161–182
Lauer Schachter H (2010) Objective and subjective performance measures: a note on terminology. Adm Soc 42(5):550–567
Lechler T (2001) Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success. Small Bus Econ 16(4):263–278
Lendner C (2003) How university business incubators help start-ups to succeed: an international study
Li H (2001) How does new venture strategy matter in the environment-performance relationship? Manag Res 12:183–204
Li H, Atuahene-Gima K (2001) The impact of interaction between R&D and marketing on new product performance: an empirical analysis of Chinese high technology firms. Int J Technol Manag 21(1–2):61–75
Lockett A, Wright M, Franklin S (2003) Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Bus Econ 20(2):185–200
Lockett A, Siegel D, Wright M, Ensley MD (2005) The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: managerial and policy implcations. Res Policy 34(7):981–993
Lowe R, Marriott S (2006) Enterprise: entrepreneurship and innovation concepts, contexts and commercialization. BH (Butterworth-Heinemann) Elsevier, Oxford
Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad Manag Rev 21(1):135–172
Lynn GS, Akgün AE (2003) Launch your new products/services better, faster. Res Technol Manag 46(3):21–26
Mahar JF, Coddington DC (1965) The scientific complex: proceed with caution. Harv Bus Rev 43(1):140–155
Matsuno K, Mentzer J, Oezsomer A (2002) The effects of entrepreneurial procilivitz and market orientation on business performance. J Mark 66:18–32
Menguc B, Auh S (2006) Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. J Acad Mark Sci 34(1):63–73
Menon A, Bharadwaj SG, Howell R (1996) The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in intraorganizational relationships. J Acad Mark Sci 24(4):299–313
Meyer M, Gupta V (1994) The performance paradox. Res Organ Behav 16:309–369
Morrison JD, Wetzel WE (1991) A supportive environment for faculty spin-off companies. In: Brett AM, Gibson DV, Smilor RW (eds) University spin-off companies: economic development, faculty entrepreneurs, and technology transfer. Roman and Littlefield Publishers Inc, Savage
Murphy GB, Trailer JW, Hill R (1996) Measuring performance in entrepreneurship. J Bus Res 36:15–23
Mustar P (1997) How French academics create hi-tech companies: the conditions for success or failure. Sci Public Policy 24:37–43
Mustar P (2001) Spin-offs from public research: trends and outlook. STI Rev (26):165–172
Mustar P, Renault M, Colombo MG, Piva E, Fontes M, Lockett A, Wright M, Clarysse B, Moray N (2006) Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: a multi-dimensional taxonomy. Res Policy 35(2):289–308
Nagelkerke N (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78(3):691–692
Nelson A, Earle A, Howard-Grenville J, Haack J, Young D (2014) Do innovation measures actually measure innovation? Obliteration, symbolic adoption, and other finicky challenges in tracking innovation diffusion. Res Policy 43(6):927–940
Nicolaou N, Birley S (2003) Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. J Bus Ventur 18(3):333–359
O’Shea RP, Chugh H, Allen TJ (2008) Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. J Technol Transf 33(6):653–666
Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley, New York
Peterson RA (1994) A meta-analysis of cronbach’s coefficient alpha. J Consum Res 21(2):381–391
Pirnay F, Surlemont B, Nlemevo F (2003) Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Bus Econ 21(4):355–369
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag 12(4):531–544
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903
Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analysing industries and competitors. Free Press, New York
Powers JB, McDougall PP (2005) University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 20(3):291–311
Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harv Bus Rev 68(3):79–91
Roberts EB (1991) Entrepreneurs in high technology: lessons from MIT and beyond. Oxford University Press, New York
Rogers EM (1986) The role of the research university in the spin-off of high-technology companies. Technovation 4(3):169–181
Romijn H, Albu M (2002) Innovation, networking and proximity: lessons from small high technology firms in the UK. Reg Stud 36(1):81–86
Sabherwal R, Becerra-Fernandez I (2005) Integrating specific knowledge: insights from Kennedy Space Center. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(3):301–315
Sandberg WR (1986) New venture performance: the role of strategy and industry structure. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA
Sapienza HJ, Smith KG, Gannon MJ (1988) Using subjective evaluations of organizational performance in small business research. Am J Small Bus 12:45–53
Sapienza HJ, Parhankangas A, Autio E (2004) Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. J Bus Ventur 19(6):809–829
Scholten VE (2006) The early growth of academic spin-offs: factors influencing the early growth of dutch spin-offs in the life sciences. ICT and Consulting, Wangeningen
Schoonhoven C, Eisenhardt K, Lyman K (1990) Speeding products to market: waiting time to first product introduction in new firms. Adm Sci Q 35:177–207
Schwartz M, Hornych C (2010) Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation 30(9–10):485–495
Scillitoe JL, Chakrabarti AK (2010) The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation 30(3):155–167
Smilor RW, Gibson DV, Dietrich GB (1990) University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. J Bus Ventur 5(1):63–76
Soetanto DP, van Geenhuizen M (2011) Social networks, university spin-off growth and promises of ‘living labs’. Reg Sci Policy Pract 3(3):305–321
Solymossy E (1997) Push/pull motivation: does it matter in venture performance?
Song M, Podoynitsyna K, van der Bij H, Halman JIM (2008) Success factors in new ventures: a meta-analysis. J Prod Innov Manag 25(1):7–27
Spielkamp A, Egeln J, Gottschalk S, Rammer C (2004) Spin-offs in Germany—conceptual considerations and empirical evidence. In: Dowling M, Schmude J, Zu Knyphausen-Aufsess D (eds) Advances in interdisciplinary European entrepreneurship research, vol 3. LIT Verlag, Münster, pp 153–181
Sproles GB, Kendall EL (1986) A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-marking styles. J Consum Aff 20(2):267–279
Steffensen M, Rogers EM, Speakman K (2000) Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. J Bus Ventur 15(1):93–111
Tatikonda MV, Montoya-Weiss MM (2001) Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: the influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Manag Sci 47(1):151–172
Tübke A (2005) Success factors of corporate spin-offs. International studies in entrepreneurship, vol 2. Springer, New York
van Praag M (2003) Business survival and success of young small business owners. Small Bus Econ 21:1–17
Venkatraman N, Ramanujam V (1987) Measurement of business economic performance: an examination of method convergence. J Manag Stud 13(1):109–123
Wall TD, Michie J, Patterson M, Wood SJ, Sheenan M, Clegg CW, West M (2004) On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Pers Psychol 57(1):95–118
Walter A, Auer M, Ritter T (2006) The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. J Bus Ventur 21(4):541–567
West GP (2007) Collective cognition: when entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, Make Decisions. Entrep Theory Pract 31(1):77–102
Yli-Renko H, Autio E, Sapienza HJ (2001) Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategy Manag J 22(6–7):587–613
Zahra SA, Bogner WC (2000) Technology strategy and software new venture’s performance: exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. J Bus Ventur 15(2):135–173
Zahra SA, Matherne BP, Carleton JM (2003) Technological resource leveraging and the internationalisation of new ventures. J Int Entrep 1(2):163–186
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Annex 1: Summary statistics for dependent and independent constructs
Median | Mean | SD | Min | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Influencing factors | |||||
Push motivation | |||||
Reorganization | 7 | 6.44 | 1.360 | 1 | 7 |
Problems | 7 | 6.08 | 1.697 | 1 | 7 |
Team size | |||||
Size of founding team | 2 | 4.15 | 11.192 | 1 | 120 |
Degree of innovation | |||||
Degree of novelty | 4 | 3.82 | 1.644 | 1 | 7 |
Novelty of the spin-off idea | 4 | 3.82 | 1.598 | 1 | 7 |
Technological competitive advantage | 5 | 4.81 | 1.476 | 1 | 7 |
Parent support during spin-off process | |||||
Tangible support (infrastructure) from parent | 3 | 3.31 | 2.218 | 1 | 7 |
Intangible support (information) from parent | 2 | 2.42 | 1.814 | 1 | 7 |
Support by intellectual property | 1 | 2.43 | 2.005 | 1 | 7 |
Consultation | 5 | 4.54 | 2.309 | 1 | 7 |
Cooperation | |||||
Benefit of cooperation with parent | 5 | 4.56 | 1.789 | 1 | 7 |
Reference partnership with parent | 5 | 4.51 | 1.800 | 1 | 7 |
Intensity of cooperation with parent | 5 | 4.94 | 1.813 | 1 | 7 |
Coordination of cooperation with parent | 3 | 3.27 | 1.866 | 1 | 7 |
Impact of cooperation with parent | 4 | 4.27 | 1.966 | 1 | 7 |
Market assessment | |||||
Market assessment | 3 | 3.52 | 1.366 | 1 | 7 |
Assessment of competition | 3 | 3.42 | 1.444 | 1 | 7 |
Market attractiveness | |||||
Market potential | 5 | 4.68 | 1.403 | 1 | 7 |
Market growth | 5 | 4.98 | 1.463 | 1 | 7 |
Constructs of spin-off success based on | |||||
General performance | |||||
General opinion of the business success | 5 | 5.12 | 1.231 | 1 | 7 |
Sales growth | 5 | 4.51 | 1.235 | 1 | 7 |
Cash flow | 4 | 4.41 | 1.428 | 1 | 7 |
Profitability | 4 | 4.30 | 1.472 | 1 | 7 |
Long-term prospects | |||||
Market share | 4 | 4.19 | 1.312 | 1 | 7 |
Long-term perspective | 5 | 4.97 | 1.229 | 1 | 7 |
Technological application | |||||
Achievements of new patents | 2 | 3.32 | 2.563 | 1 | 7 |
Licensing | 1 | 2.70 | 2.383 | 0 | 7 |
Financial performance | |||||
Cash flow | 4 | 4.41 | 1.428 | 1 | 7 |
Profitability | 4 | 4.30 | 1.472 | 1 | 7 |
Growth | |||||
Employee growth p. a. (in %) | 75 | 171 | 423.3 | 1 | 4818 |
Sales growth p. a. (in %) | 102.2 | 294.9 | 433.8 | 10 | 3341 |
General performance index | 4.5 | 4.585 | 1.095 | 1.5 | 7 |
Long-term prospects index | 5 | 4.576 | 1.095 | 1.5 | 7 |
Technological application index | 3 | 3.009 | 1.769 | 1 | 7 |
Financial performance index | 4.5 | 4.356 | 1.290 | 1.5 | 7 |
Growth index | 99.4 | 199.2 | 404.9 | 8.21 | 4079.5 |
Annex 2
See Table 5
Annex 3
See Table 6
Annex 4
See Table 7
Annex 5
See Table 8
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Helm, R., Mauroner, O. & Pöhlmann, K. Towards a better understanding of performance measurements: the case of research-based spin-offs. Rev Manag Sci 12, 135–166 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0217-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0217-9
Keywords
- Performance measurement
- Research-based spin-offs
- Spin-off success factors
- Innovation
- Scientific entrepreneurship
- Public research organizations