Review of Managerial Science

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 561–574 | Cite as

Fostering entrepreneurship: an innovative business model to link innovation and new venture creation

  • Barbara Del Bosco
  • Roberto ChiericiEmail author
  • Alice Mazzucchelli
Original Paper


The paper investigates the link between academic innovation and new venture creation. It presents a case study of an Italian firm that has developed an innovative business model, transforming academic innovation into new ventures and tackling some of the key challenges of the academic entrepreneurial process. This case is particularly interesting because it can be seen as an “Enterprises Factory” that has already created 14 startups. It differs from both incubators and venture capital funds because it combines different forms of support—including both technical competencies to develop the innovation and managerial and entrepreneurial skills to create a new venture—and also acts as a founder of each new venture. The paper has theoretical and practical implications since it describes how this innovative business model fosters academic entrepreneurship, and it provides a model for possible replication in different contexts.


Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial process Innovation Startup Italy Case study 

JEL Classification

L26 M13 


  1. Agarwal R, Shah SK (2014) Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Res Policy 43(7):1109–1133Google Scholar
  2. Aldridge TT, Audretsch D (2011) The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship. Res Policy 40(8):1058–1067Google Scholar
  3. Autio E, Kenney M, Mustar P, Siegel D, Wright M (2014) Entrepreneurial innovation: the importance of context. Res Policy 43(7):1097–1108Google Scholar
  4. Baldini N, Fini R, Grimaldi R (2015) The transition towards entrepreneurial universities: an assessment of academic entrepreneurship in Italy. In: Link AN, Siegel DS, Wright M (eds) The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 218–244Google Scholar
  5. Barbero JL, Casillas JC, Wright M, Garcia AR (2014) Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations? J Technol Transf 39(2):151–168Google Scholar
  6. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) ‘Model 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3/4):201–234Google Scholar
  7. Clarysse B, Tartari V, Salter A (2011a) The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Res Policy 40(8):1084–1093Google Scholar
  8. Clarysse B, Wright M, Van de Velde E (2011b) Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. J Manag Stud 48(6):1420–1442Google Scholar
  9. Colombo MG, Piva E (2012) Firms’ genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: a comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups. Res Policy 41(1):79–92Google Scholar
  10. Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13(1):3–21Google Scholar
  11. Covin JG, Slevin DP (1991) A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrep Theory Pract 16(1):7–26Google Scholar
  12. Davey T, Rossano S, van der Sijde P (2016) Does context matter in academic entrepreneurship? The role of barriers and drivers in the regional and national context. J Technol Transf 41(6):1457–1482Google Scholar
  13. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (1994) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  14. Dess GG, Lumpkin GT, McKee JE (1999) Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure, and process: suggested research directions. Entrep Theory Pract 23(3):85–103Google Scholar
  15. Di Gregorio D, Shane S (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Res Policy 32(2):209–227Google Scholar
  16. Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32Google Scholar
  17. Ensley MD, Hmieleski KM (2005) A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Res Policy 34(7):1091–1105Google Scholar
  18. Ferreira JJM, Fernandes CI, Kraus S (2017) Entrepreneurship research: mapping intellectual structures and research trends. Rev Manag Sci. Google Scholar
  19. Financial Times (2017) The FT 1000: 1000 Europe’s fastest growing companies.
  20. 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):237–270Google Scholar
  21. Kedmenec I, Strašek S (2017) Are some cultures more favourable for social entrepreneurship than others? Econ Res Ekonomska Istrazivanja 30(1):1461–1476Google Scholar
  22. Krueger NF, Reilly MD, Carsrud AL (2000) Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. J Bus Ventur 15(5–6):411–432Google Scholar
  23. Lockett A, Wright M (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res Policy 34(7):1043–1057Google Scholar
  24. Markin E, Swab RG, Marshall DR (2017) Who is driving the bus? An analysis of author and institution contributions to entrepreneurship research. J Innov Knowl 2(1):1–9Google Scholar
  25. McFadzean E, O’Loughlin A, Shaw E (2005) Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 1: the missing link. Eur J of Innov Manag 8(3):350–372Google Scholar
  26. Miles MB, Huberman MA (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn, 20(1):159–160Google Scholar
  27. O’Shea RP, Allen TJ, Chevalier A, Roche F (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Res Policy 34(7):994–1009Google Scholar
  28. Olugbola SA (2017) Exploring entrepreneurial readiness of youth and startup success components: entrepreneurship training as a moderator. J Innov Knowl 2(3):155–171Google Scholar
  29. Rasmussen E, Wright M (2015) How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective. J Technol Transf 40(5):782–799Google Scholar
  30. Richter C, Kraus S, Syrjä P (2015) The shareconomy as a precursor for digital entrepreneurship business models. Int J Entrep Small Bus 25(1):18–35Google Scholar
  31. Roig-Tierno N, Kraus S, Cruz S (2018) The relation between coopetition and innovation/entrepreneurship. Rev Manag Sci 12(2):379–383Google Scholar
  32. Schmitz A, Urbano D, Dandolini GA, de Souza JA, Guerrero M (2017) Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: a systematic literature review. Int Entrep Manag J 13(2):369–395Google Scholar
  33. Schumpeter JA (1989) Essays: on entrepreneurs, innovations, business cycles and the evolution of capitalism. Taylor & Francis Group Ltd, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Shah SK, Tripsas M (2007) The accidental entrepreneur: the emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strateg Entrep J 1(1–2):123–140Google Scholar
  35. Shane S (2001) Technology regimes and new firm formation. Manag Sci 47(9):1173–1190Google Scholar
  36. Shane S (2003) A general theory of entrepreneurship: the individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  37. Shane S, Khurana R (2003) Bringing individuals back in: the effects of career experience on new firm founding. Ind Corp Change 12(3):519–543Google Scholar
  38. Shane S, Stuart T (2002) Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Manag Sci 48(1):154–170Google Scholar
  39. Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  40. Stuart TE, Ding WW (2006) When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. Am J Sociol 112(1):97–144Google Scholar
  41. Visintin F, Pittino D (2014) Founding team composition and early performance of university—based spin-off companies. Technovation 34(1):31–43Google Scholar
  42. Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Policy 33(1):147–175Google Scholar
  43. Yin RK (2003) Case study research. Design and methods, vol 26. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and LawUniversity of Milano - BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations