6 Starting Up from Science: The Case of a University-Organised Commercialisation Project

  • Malena Ingemansson Havenvid


Today, the conventional view of the university is not just that of an independent research and educational institution but also as a direct source of new business ventures and innovation (e.g., Meyer, 2003; Rider, 2009). Although universities have historically been expected to contribute to society in various ways (Widmalm, 2008), the contemporary role of the university is to have a more or less direct impact on economic growth by providing ‘productified’ research results ready to become embedded in a business setting (Ingemansson, 2010). The role of creating an indirect economic impact, by producing new knowledge and educated people that eventually create benefits for society, is now widely regarded as outdated and a more ‘networked’ view of how universities are supposed to contribute is taking over. This point of view is illustrated by the following quotation from the Lisbon Strategy, which was created as a guide for the European Union (EU) to develop into a ‘knowledge-based economy’: ‘In the past, universities would develop new knowledge and, when it was mature, it might be picked up by business for commercial application. Far too much knowledge remains locked up in universities and the development of new knowledge takes too little account of the needs of business. This innovation model is out of date. Today, innovation is built around knowledge networks which, by sharing, developing and accumulating knowledge, facilitate a rapid development of products and services out of new ideas.’ (EU Communication from the Commission to the European Council, 2006, pp. 4–5)


Venture Capital Innovation Process Academic Entrepreneurship Lisbon Strategy Resource Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baraldi, E., & Havenvid, M. I. (2015). Identifying new dimensions of business incubation: A multi-level analysis of Karolinska institute’s incubation system. Technovation, 50–51, 53–68.Google Scholar
  2. Baraldi, E., Ingemansson, M., & Launberg, A. (2014). Controlling the commercialisation of science across interorganisational borders. Four cases from two major Swedish universities. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 382–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baraldi, E., & Waluszewski, A. (2011). Betting on science or muddling through the network. Two universities and one innovation commission. IMP Journal, 5(3), 172–192.Google Scholar
  4. Bower, J. (2003). Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm. R&D Management, 33(2), 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciabuschi, F., Perna, A., & Snehota, I. (2012). Assembling resources when forming new business ventures. Journal of Business Research, 65, 220–229.Google Scholar
  6. Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2010). On growth drivers of high-tech start ups: Exploring the role of founders human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 610–626.Google Scholar
  7. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubois, A., & Araujo, L. (2004). Research methods in industrial marketing studies. In H. Håkansson, D. Harrison, A. Waluszewski (Eds.),Rethinking marketing: Developing a new understanding of markets. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EU (2006). Communication from the Commission to the European Council, 589.Google Scholar
  11. Feeser, H. R., & Willard, G. E. (1990). Founding strategy and performance: A comparison of high and low growth in high tech firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregorio Di, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.Google Scholar
  14. Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (Eds.). (2007). Knowledge and innovation in business and industry—The importance of using others. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L-E., Snehota, I., and Waluszewski, A., (2009). Business in Networks, Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Hellman, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of start up firms: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance, LVII, 1, 169–197.Google Scholar
  17. IngemanssonM. (2010). Success as science but burden for business? On the difficult relationship between scientific advancement and innovation. Dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  18. Ingemansson, M., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Success in science and burden in business. On the difficult relationship between science as a developing setting and business as a producer-user setting. IMP Journal, 3(2), 20–56.Google Scholar
  19. Jones-Evans, D., & Klofsten, M. (1999). Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: The role of the industrial liaison office. R&D Management, 29(1), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. La Rocca, A., & Snehota, I. (2014). Relating in business networks: Innovation in practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lind, F. (2015). Goal diversity and resource development in an inter-organisational project. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(3-4), 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Linné, Å. (2012). China’s creation of biopharmaceutical drugs: combining political steering, military research, and transnational networking, doctoral thesis, Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  23. Locket, A., Siegle, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions. Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34, 981–993.Google Scholar
  24. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115.Google Scholar
  25. Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and research endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms, Research Policy, 34(7), 1010–1027.Google Scholar
  26. Nyström, G., Razaq, A., Strømme, M., Nyholm, L., & Mihranyan, A. (2009). Ultrafast all-polymer paper-based batteries, Nano Letters, 9(10), 3635–3639.Google Scholar
  27. Ragin, C., & Becker, H. S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rider, S. (2009). The future of the European university: Liberal democracy or authoritarian capitalism? Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 1, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenberg, N. (1994). Exploring the black box—Technology, economics, and history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shih, T. (2009). Scrutinizing a Policy Ambition to Make Business Out of Science – Lessons From Taiwan, doctoral thesis, Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  34. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Styhre, A., & Lind, F. (2010). The softening bureaucracy: Accommodating new research opportunities in the entrepreneurial university. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van de Ven, A., Polley, D., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Waluszewski, A., Håkansson, H., & Ingemansson, M. (2014). Innovation forecasts—Unavoidable and context dependent. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(6), 1045–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Widmalm, S. (2008). Forskning och industri under andra världskriget. In Widmalm, S., ed. (2008) Vetenskapens Sociala Strukturer. Sju historiska fallstudier om konflikt, samverkan och makt, Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malena Ingemansson Havenvid
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Economics and Technology ManagementNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations