How Networks and Support May Remove Bottlenecks in Growth of University Spin-Offs (the Case of Delft University of Technology)

• Autorzy: Marina van Geenhuizen , Danny Soetanto
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This chapter reports results of a study on the growth pattern of university spin-off firms. It includes an analysis of obstacles faced by these firms at different ages and of impacts of external factors on growth, i.e. support and knowledge networks. Delft University of Technology (The Netherlands) serves as an example of technical universities in Northwest Europe that have adopting a low selective model in the early years of the incubation strategy. This model implies a relatively slow growth of a large part of the spin-offs. It appears that obstacles to growth tend to be concerned with shortages in knowledge and skills in market issues and in management. In addition, market-related obstacles tend to be most resistant to disappear with age compared with other obstacles. Overall, the reduction rate of obstacles is 65.0% after six years, but it is 100% among highly innovative spin-offs. Networks enabling a certain diversity in knowledge that flows through the network tend to have a positive impact on growth. These are loose networks, weak networks, and networks of partners with a somewhat heterogeneous background and partners located at a relatively large distance from the spin-off firm. A positive influence on growth is also true for a mix of conventional support and added value support. The chapter briefly concludes with recommendations for an improved support to spin-offs and with some future research paths. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Spin-off; Higher technical schools; Triple Helix model; Case study

PL

Spin-off; Wyższe szkoły techniczne; Model Triple Helix; Studium przypadku

• Czasopismo: Biuletyn Polska Akademia Nauk. Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju
• Rocznik: 2007
• Numer: nr 235 Marketing technologiczny i marketing terytorialny = Technological and Territorial Marketing
• Strony: 302--323

Twórcy

autor

Marina van Geenhuizen

• Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

autor

Danny Soetanto

• Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Bibliografia

• Armstrong H., Taylor J., 2000, Regional Economics and Policy, 3rd ed. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
• Audretsch D. B., 1998, Agglomeration and the Location of Innovative Activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14, pp.18-29.
• Camagni R., 1991, Local Milieu, Uncertainty and Innovation Networks: Towards a Dynamic Theory of Economic Space, [in:] Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives, R. Camagni (ed ). Belhaven Press, London, pp . 121-144.
• Castells M., Hall P., 1994, Technopoles of the World. Routledge, London.
• Charles D., 2003, Universities and Territorial Development: Reshaping the Regional Role of English Universities. Local Economy 18, pp.7-20.
• Charles D., Howells J., 1992, Technology Transfer in Europe: Public and Private Networks. Belhaven Press, London.
• Clarysse B., Wright M., Lockett A., Velde E. van de, Vohora A., 2005, Spinning out New Ventures: a Typology of Incubation Strategies from European Research Institutions. Journal of Business Venturing 20 (2), pp. 183-216.
• Coleman J. S., 1990, Foundations of Social Theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Druilhe C., Garnsey E., 2004, Do Academic Spin-outs Differ and Does It Matter? Journal of Technology Transfer 29, pp. 269-285.
• Etzkovitz H., 2002, Incubation of Incubators: Innovation as a Triple Helix of University - Industry - Government Networks. Science and Public Policy 29, pp. 115-128.
• Feeser H. R., Willard G. E., 1989, Incubator and Performance: a Comparison of High and Low Growth High-Tech Firms. Journal of Business Venturing 4, pp. 429-442.
• Florida R., 2002, The Economic Geography of Talent. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92, pp. 743-755.
• Geenhuizen M. van, 2003, How Can We Reap the Fruits of Academic Research in Biotechnology? In Search of Critical Success Factors in Policies for New-firm Formation. Environment and Planning C, 21, pp. 139-155.
• Geenhuizen M. van, Nijkamp P., 1996, What Makes the Local Environment Important for High Tech Small Firms? [in:] New Technology Based Firms in the 199IT, R. Oakey (ed.).Vol. 11. Chapman, London, pp.T41-151.
• Geenhuizen M. van, Gibson D., Heitor M. V. (eds.), 2004, Regional Development and Conditions for Innovation in the Network Society. University Press, West Lafayette, Purdue.
• Geenhuizen M. van, Reyes-Gonzalez L., 2006, Does a Clustered Location Matter for High-technology Companies' Performance? The Case of Biotechnology in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change (in press).
• Geenhuizen M. van, Soetanto D. P, 2004, Academic Knowledge and Fostering Entrepreneurship: An Evolutionary Perspective, [in:] Entrepreneurship in the Modern Space Economy: Evolutionary and Policy Perspectives, H. Groot, P. Nijkamp, R. Stough (eds.). Edward Elgar, London, pp. 252-268.
• Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M., 1994, The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.
• Granovetter M., 1973, The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6), pp. 1360-1380.
• Groot H. de, Nijkamp P., Stough R. (eds.), 2004, Entrepreneurship and Regional Economic Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• Hackett S. M.. Dilts, D. M., 2004, A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research. Journal of Technology Transfer 29, pp. 55-82.
• Hannon P. D., Chaplin P., 2003, Are Incubators Good for Business? Understanding Incubation Practice - the Challenges for Policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21, pp. 861-881.
• Heinnan 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, pp. 247-268.
• Hoang H., Antoncic B., 2003, Network-based Research in Entrepreneurship: a Critical Review. Journal of Business Venturing 17, pp. 1-23.
• Keeble D., Lawson C., Moore B., Wilkinson F., 1999, Collective Learning Processes, Networking and 'Institutional Thickness' in the Cambridge Region. Regional Studies 33, pp. 319-332.
• Leydesdoiff L., 2003, A Methodological Perspective on the Evaluation of the Promotion of University-Industry-Government Relations. Small Business Economics 20, pp. 201-204.
• Lieberman M. B., Montgomery D. B., 1998, First-mover (Dis)advantages: Retrospective and Link with the Resource-based View. Strategic Management Journal 19, pp. 1111-1125.
• Marsden P. V., 1987, Core Discussion Networks of Americans. American Sociological Review 52 (1), pp. 122-131.
• Marsden P. V., Campbel K. E., 1984, Measuring Tie Strength. Social Forces 63 (2), pp. 482-501.
• Maskell P., Malmberg A., 1999, Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics 25, pp. 167-185.
• McEvily, Zaheer A., 1999, Bridging Ties: A Source of Firm Heterogeneity in Competitive Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20, pp. 1133-1156.
• MEA (Ministry of Economic Affairs), 2003a, Technology-based Start-up Survey 2003. The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs.
• MEA (Ministry of Economic Affairs), 2003b, TechnoPartner Action Program. From Knowledge to Prosperity. The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs.
• Monck C. S. P., Porter R. B., Quintas P., Storey D. J., Wynarczyk P., 1988, Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. Croorn Helm, London.
• Nowotny H., Scott P., Gibbons M., 2001, Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.
• Powell W. W., Koput K. W., Bowie J. I., Smith-Doehrr L., 2002, The Spatial Clustering of Science and Capital: Accounting for the Biotech Firm-Venture Capital Relationships. Regional Studies 36, pp. 291-305.
• Reid S., Garnsey E., 1998, Incubation Policy and Resource Provision: Meeting the Needs of Young, Innovative Firms, [in:] New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s, R. Oakey, W. During (eds.), Vol. V. Chapman, London, pp. 67-80.
• Roberts E. B., 1991, Entrepreneurs in High-technology. Lessons from MIT and Beyond. Oxford University Press, New York.
• Rowley T., Behrens D., Krackhardt D., 2000, Redundant Governance Structure: An Analysis of Structural and Relational Embeddedness in the Steel and Semiconductor Industries. Strategic Management Journal 21, pp. 269-386.
• Saxenian A., 1994, Regional Advantage. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Scholten V., 2006, The Early Growth of Academic Spin-offs: Factors Influencing the Early Growth of Dutch Spin-offs in the Life-sciences. ICT and Consulting. PhD dissertation, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.
• Shane S., 2004, Academic Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• Smilor R. W., Gibson, D. V., Kozmetsky G., 1988, Creating the Technopolis: High Technology Development in Austin, Texas. Journal of Business Venturing 4, pp. 49-67.
• Soetanto D., Geenhuizen M. van, 2006, University Spin-offs at Different Ages: In Search of Obstacles to Better Match Support, [in:] New Technology Based Firms in the New Millenium, A. Groen, R. Oakey, P. Sijde, Kauser S. (eds.). V, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 23-37.
• Soetanto D., Geenhuizen M. van, 2007, Technology Incubators and Knowledge Networks. A Rough-set Approach in Comparative Project Analysis. Enviromnent and Planning B (Planning and Design) (in press).
• Uzzi B., 1996, The Sources of Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: the Network Effects. American Sociological Review 61, pp. 674-698.
• Viale R., Etzkowitz H., 2005, Third Academic Revolution: Polyvalent Knowledge: the "DNA" of the Triple Helix. Presentation at the 5th Triple Helix Conference, The Capitalization of Knowledge, May 18-21 2005, Fondazione Rosselli, Turino, Italy.