Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 153–173 | Cite as

Neither absent nor too present: the effects of the engagement of parent universities on the performance of academic spin-offs

  • Marco Ferretti
  • Salvatore Ferri
  • Raffaele FiorentinoEmail author
  • Adele Parmentola
  • Alessandro Sapio
Article

Abstract

There is a lack of studies regarding the impact of parent-child relationships on the growth of academic spin-offs (ASOs). The aim of this paper is to investigate whether the presence of the parent university can affect a new venture’s ability to create value after the spin-off is founded. We analyze the engagement of parent universities by examining their different roles in ownership structures and on boards of directors, and we test theoretical hypotheses using a sample of 194 Italian ASOs. Overall, our findings suggest that “neither absent nor too present” is the strategy that the parent university should adopt to support the growth of its spin-offs. These findings contribute to extending the parent-child approach to studies of ASO performance. We provide suggestions for ownership and board composition decisions after spin-off to help universities configure ex ante appropriate actions for the growth of new ventures.

Keywords

Academic spin-offs New ventures Universities Performance Academic entrepreneurship Parent-child approach 

JEL classification

L25 L26 M13 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the University of Naples Parthenope.

References

  1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., Ferretti, M., & Parmentola, A. (2012). An individual-level assessment of the relationship between spin-off activities and research performance in universities. R&D Management, 42(3), 225–242.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00680.x.Google Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9157-3.Google Scholar
  3. Agarwal, R., & Shahb, S. K. (2014). Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Research Policy, 43, 1109–1133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.012.Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501–522.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20159599.Google Scholar
  5. Andersson, M., Baltzopoulos, A., & Lööf, H. (2012). R&D strategies and entrepreneurial spawning. Research Policy, 41(1), 54–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.005.Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9288-1.Google Scholar
  7. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909–924.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1556419.Google Scholar
  8. Baltagi, B. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Barba Navaretti, G., Castellani, D., & Pieri, F. (2014). Age and firm growth: evidence from three European countries. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 823–837.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9564-6.Google Scholar
  10. Bathelt, H., Kogler, D. F., & Munro, A. K. (2010). A knowledge-based typology of university spin-offs in the context of regional economic development. Technovation, 30(9), 519–532.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.04.003.Google Scholar
  11. Bell, A., & Jones, K. (2015). Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(1), 133–153.  https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.7.Google Scholar
  12. Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E., & Sánchez García, J. L. (2015). Can a magic recipe foster university spin-off creation? Journal of Business Research, 68, 2272–2278.  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2016/9-3/6.Google Scholar
  13. Bigdeli, A. Z., Feng, L., & Shi, X. (2015). Sustainability and scalability of university spinouts: a business model perspective. R&D Management.  https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12167.
  14. Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2010). Valuing university-based firms: the effects of academic affiliation on IPO performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 755–776.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00369.x.Google Scholar
  15. Capasso, M., Cefis, E., & Sapio, A. (2013). Reconciling quantile autoregressions of firm size and variance–size scaling. Small Business Economics, 41(3), 609–632.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9445-9.Google Scholar
  16. Carlsson, B., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Braunerhjelm, P. (2009). Knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: a historical review. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1193–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtp043.Google Scholar
  17. Chai, S., & Shihb, W. (2016). Bridging science and technology through academic–industry partnerships. Research Policy, 45, 148–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.007.Google Scholar
  18. Chang, Y. C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M. H. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38, 936–946.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.03.005.Google Scholar
  19. Chatterji, A. K. (2009). Spawned with a silver spoon? Entrepreneurial performance and innovation in the medical device industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 185–206.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.729.Google Scholar
  20. Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30(4), 329–339.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00187.Google Scholar
  21. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van de Velde, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1420–1442.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00991.x.Google Scholar
  22. Coad, A., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2013). Like milk or wine: does firm performance improve with age? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 24, 173–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2012.07.002.Google Scholar
  23. Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Vivarelli. (2016). To be born is not enough: the key role of innovative start-ups. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 277–291.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9716-y.Google Scholar
  24. Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2012). Strengths firms’ genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: a comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, 41, 79–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.010.Google Scholar
  25. Criaco, G., Minola, T., Migliorini, P., & Serarols-Tarrès, C. (2013). “To have and have not”: founders’ human capital and university start-up survival. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(4), 567–593.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9312-0.Google Scholar
  26. Dahlstrand, Å. L. (1997). Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms. Research Policy, 26(3), 331–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00016-4.Google Scholar
  27. Daley, L., Mehrotra, V., & Sivakumar, R. (1997). Corporate focus and value creation: evidence from spinoffs. Journal of Financial Economics, 45, 257–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(97)00018-4.Google Scholar
  28. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1.Google Scholar
  29. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.12.003.Google Scholar
  30. Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 327–352.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000034126.23592.23.Google Scholar
  31. Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5.Google Scholar
  32. Dosi, G. (2007). Statistical regularities in the evolution on industries: a guide through some evidence and challenges for the theory. L’industria, 29(2), 153–186.  https://doi.org/10.1430/27262.Google Scholar
  33. Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 269–285.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000034123.26133.97.Google Scholar
  34. Epure, M., Prior, D., & Serarols, C. (2016). Assessing technology-based spin-offs from university support units. Regional Studies, 50(3), 411–428.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.921669.Google Scholar
  35. Eriksson, T., & Kuhn, J. M. (2006). Firm spin-offs in Denmark 1981–2000—patterns of entry and exit. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(5), 1021–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.11.008.Google Scholar
  36. Feldman, E. R., Amit, R., & Villalonga, B. (2016). Corporate divestitures and family control. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 429–446.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2329.Google Scholar
  37. Fernández-Alles, M., Camelo-Ordaz, C., & Franco-Leal, N. (2015). Key resources and actors for the evolution of academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 976–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9387-2.Google Scholar
  38. Ferriani, S., Garnsey, E., & Lorenzoni, G. (2012). Continuity and change in a spin-off venture: the process of reimprinting. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(4), 1011–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts001.Google Scholar
  39. Festel, G. (2013). Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 454–470.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9256-9.Google Scholar
  40. Filatotchev, I., Toms, S., & Wright, M. (2006). The firm’s strategic dynamics and corporate governance life-cycle. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2(4), 256–279.  https://doi.org/10.1108/17439130610705481.Google Scholar
  41. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2011). Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1113–1127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.013.Google Scholar
  42. Fini, R., Fu, K., Mathisen, M. T., Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2017). Institutional determinants of university spin-off quantity and quality: a longitudinal, multilevel, cross-country study. Small Business Economics, 48(2), 361–391.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9779-9.Google Scholar
  43. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: top executives and their effects on organizations. Minneapolis: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2003). Not the usual suspects: how to use board process to make boards better. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 101–113.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2003.10025204.Google Scholar
  45. Franco-Leal, N., Soetanto, D., & Camelo-Ordaz, C. (2016). Do they matter? The role of non-academics in the internationalization of academic spin-offs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 410–440.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-016-0184-x.Google Scholar
  46. Galati, F., Bigliardi, B., Petroni, A., & Marolla, G. (2017). Which factors are perceived as obstacles for the growth of Italian academic spin-offs? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(1), 84–104.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1199853.Google Scholar
  47. Gredel, D., Kramer, M., & Bend, B. (2012). Patent-based investment funds as innovation intermediaries for SMEs: in-depth analysis of reciprocal interactions, motives and fallacies. Technovation, 32(9), 536–549.Google Scholar
  48. Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 633–656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3.Google Scholar
  49. Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2007). Which tangible and intangible assets matter for innovation speed in start‐ups? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4), 303–315.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00253.x.Google Scholar
  50. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Rreview, 28(3), 383–396.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.10196729.Google Scholar
  51. Hsiao, C., Pesaran, M. H., & Tahmiscioglu, A. K. (2002). Maximum likelihood estimation of fixed effects dynamic panel data models covering short time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 109(1), 107–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00143-9.Google Scholar
  52. Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellström, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: university spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(3), 271–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-0930-z.Google Scholar
  53. Knockaert, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2013). The service role of outside boards in high tech start-ups: a resource dependency perspective. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 69–84.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00787.x.Google Scholar
  54. Kripfganz, S. (2016). Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation of linear dynamic short-T panel data models. Stata Journal, 16(4), 1013–1038.Google Scholar
  55. Lechner, C., Dowling, M., & Wolpe, I. (2006). Firm networks and firm development: the role of the relational mix. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 514–540.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.004.Google Scholar
  56. Lehouxa, P., GDaudelinb, G., Williams-Jones, B., JDenis, J. L., & Longo, C. (2014). How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 43, 1025–1038.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.001.Google Scholar
  57. Leitch, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2005). Maximising the potential of university spin-outs: the development of second-order commercialisation activities. R&D Management, 35(3), 257–272.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00388.x.Google Scholar
  58. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.006.Google Scholar
  59. Lubik, S., Garnsey, E. W., & Minshall, T. (2013). Value creation from the innovation environment: partnership strategies in university spin‐outs. R&D Management, 43(2), 136–150.  https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12006.Google Scholar
  60. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.003.Google Scholar
  61. McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators: the relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of the incubator’s resources. Technovation, 28(5), 277–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.012.Google Scholar
  62. Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 345–362.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9721-1.Google Scholar
  63. Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34(7), 1010–1027.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.016.Google Scholar
  64. Mosey, S., Lockett, A., & Westhead, P. (2006). The importance of bridging networks for university technology transfer: a case study of the Medici fellowship scheme. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18(1), 71–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320500520635.Google Scholar
  65. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 3, 643–659.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.013.Google Scholar
  66. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., 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. Research Policy, 35, 289–308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.11.001.Google Scholar
  67. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X282862.Google Scholar
  68. Navis, C., & Glynn, M. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: influence of investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479–499.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.0361.Google Scholar
  69. Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00019-0.Google Scholar
  70. Nosella, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2009). University-level mechanisms supporting the creation of new companies: an analysis of Italian academic spin-offs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(6), 679–698.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320903052657.Google Scholar
  71. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011.Google Scholar
  72. O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2007). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9060-0.Google Scholar
  73. Oe, A., & Mitsuhoshi, H. (2013). Founders’ experiences for startups’ fast break-even. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2193–2201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.01.011.Google Scholar
  74. Ortín-Ángel, P., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2014). University spin-offs vs. other NTBFs: total factor productivity differences at outset and evolution. Technovation, 34(2), 101–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.006.Google Scholar
  75. Ouimet, P., & Zarutskie, R. (2014). Who works for startups? The relation between firm age, employee age, and growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(3), 386–407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfinance.2014.03.003.Google Scholar
  76. Parhankangas, A., & Arenius, P. (2003). From a corporate venture to an independent company: a base for a taxonomy for corporate spin-off firms. Research Policy, 32, 463–481.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00018-5.Google Scholar
  77. Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39(5), 602–612.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.002.Google Scholar
  78. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9386-3.Google Scholar
  79. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43(1), 92–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.007.Google Scholar
  80. Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00542.x.Google Scholar
  81. Sapienza, H. J., Parhankangas, A., & Autio, E. (2004). Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 809–829.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.06.002.Google Scholar
  82. Scholten, V., Omta, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.05.001.Google Scholar
  83. Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. (2011). Examining the performance effects of post spin‐off links to parent firms: should the apron strings be cut? Strategic Management Journal, 32(10), 1083–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.928.Google Scholar
  84. Seward, J. K., & Walsh, J. P. (1996). The governance and control of voluntary corporate spin-off. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 25–39.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199601)17.Google Scholar
  85. Shane, S. (2004a). Academic entrepreneurship: university spin-offs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  86. Shane, S. (2004b). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00114-3.Google Scholar
  87. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm036.Google Scholar
  88. Slavtchev, V., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2015). Support for public research spin-offs by the parent organizations and the speed of commercialization. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1507–1525.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9443-6.Google Scholar
  89. Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. (2016). The impact of university-based incubation support on the innovation strategy of academic spin-offs. Technovation, 50-51, 25–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.11.001.Google Scholar
  90. Soetanto, D., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2015). Getting the right balance: university networks’ influence on spin-offs’ attraction of funding for innovation. Technovation, 36-37, 26–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.10.008.Google Scholar
  91. Sorrentino, M., & Williams, M. L. (1995). Relatedness and corporate venturing: does it really matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 59–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00007-H.Google Scholar
  92. Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2000). A dynamic perspective of internal fit in corporate venturing. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 25–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00040-3.Google Scholar
  93. Treibich, T., Konrad, K., & Truffer, B. (2013). A dynamic view on interactions between academic spin-offs and their parent organizations. Technovation, 33(12), 450–462.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.06.012.Google Scholar
  94. Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S'Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: an examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 249–271.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00120.x.Google Scholar
  95. Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university-based spin-off companies. Technovation, 34(1), 31–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.004.Google Scholar
  96. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00107-0.Google Scholar
  97. Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005.Google Scholar
  98. Walter, S. G., Heinrichs, S., & Walter, A. (2014). Parent hostility and spin‐out performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13), 2031–2042.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2201.Google Scholar
  99. Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.014.Google Scholar
  100. Williams, R., Allison, P., & Benito, E. M. (2015). Linear dynamic panel-data estimation using maximum likelihood and structural equation modeling. In 2015 Stata conference (No. 11). Stata Users Group.Google Scholar
  101. Woo, C. Y., Willard, G. E., & Daellenbach, U. S. (1992). Spinoff performance: a case of overstated expectations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(6), 433–447.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130604.Google Scholar
  102. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Bink, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35, 481–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.01.005.Google Scholar
  103. Zahra, S. A., Van de Velde, E., & Larraneta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 569–608.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm018.Google Scholar
  104. Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: an exploratory analysis using venture capital data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 255–285.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-008-9088-9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and Quantitative StudiesUniversità di Napoli ParthenopeNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Accounting, Management, and EconomicsUniversità di Napoli ParthenopeNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations