Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptions of Firm Competitive Advantages from Teaming Up with Universities: An Exploratory Study

  • Chapter
Book cover University Evolution, Entrepreneurial Activity and Regional Competitiveness

Part of the book series: International Studies in Entrepreneurship ((ISEN,volume 32))

  • 1897 Accesses

Abstract

In the context of university collaborations, we know very little about why some firms perceive that teaming up with universities provide them with competitive advantages. One reason why we know so little is that university collaborations can take different forms and vary in terms of the nature of relationships, the motivation of parties and the outcomes that are expected from the collaboration. Another reason why is the lack of panel data that can be used to empirically study the competitive advantages that firms obtain from collaborating with universities. That said, the Kauffman Firm Survey (KFS) is a large dataset that asks firm owners about the competitive advantages of their firms and the reasons why they exist. In this paper, we use the KFS perceptual variables to explore the perception of firm owners about the competitive advantages of teaming up with universities. While there are limitations to the empirical conclusions that can be drawn, the research questions we explore using the KFS sample provide interesting avenues for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agrawal A (2005) Engaging the inventor: exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strateg Manag J 27(1):63–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez SA, Barney JB (2001) How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners. Acad Manag Exec 15(1):139–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arenius P, Minniti M (2005) Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 24(3):233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyres NS, Liebeskind JP (1998) Privatizing the intellectual commons: universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. J Econ Behav Organ 35(4):427–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis S, Sydow N, Woerter M (2008) Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data. J Technol Transf 33(5):504–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahemia H, Squire B (2010) A contingent perspective of open innovation in new product development projects. Int J Innov Manag 14(04):603–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barge-Gil A, Modrego A (2011) The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants. J Technol Transf 36(1):61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessy C, Brousseau E (1998) Technology licensing contracts features and diversity. Int Rev Law Econ 18(4):451–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi M, Chiesa V, Frattini F (2009) Exploring the microfoundations of external technology commercialization: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Eur J Innov Manag 12(4):444–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop K, D’Este P, Neely A (2011) Gaining from interactions with universities: multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Res Policy 40(1):30–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonardo D, Paleari S, Vismara S (2010) The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms. J Technol Transf 35(1):141–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou Y, Tsakanikas A, Vonortas NS (2001) University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. J Technol Transf 26(1):153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardozo R, Ardichvili A, Strauss A (2011) Effectiveness of university technology transfer: an organizational population ecology view of a maturing supplier industry. J Technol Transf 36(2):173–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman B, Perez-Castrillo D, Veugelers R (2002) Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments. Int J Ind Organ 20(6):775–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccagnoli M, Graham SJ, Higgins MJ, Lee J (2010) Productivity and the role of complementary assets in firms’ demand for technology innovations. Ind Corp Chang 19(3):839–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen JF, Olesen MH, Kjær JS (2005) The industrial dynamics of open innovation—evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Res Policy 34(10):1533–1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann P (2000) Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: the role of complementary assets. Acad Manag J 43(4):663–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coberly BM, Gray DO (2010) Cooperative research centers and faculty satisfaction: a multi-level predictive analysis. J Technol Transf 35(5):547–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn IM, Henderson RM (1998) Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J Ind Econ 46(2):157–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn IM, Stern S (2010) Finding the endless frontier: lessons from the life sciences innovation system for technology policy. Capital Society 5(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn IM, MacGarvie MJ, Müller E (2010) Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance. Ind Corp Chang 19(3):899–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coff RW (1999) When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: the resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organ Sci 10(2):119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D. Econ J 99(397):569–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manag Sci 48(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo MG, D’Adda D, Piva E (2010) The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: an empirical analysis. J Technol Transf 35(1):113–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupe T (2003) Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. J Technol Transf 28(1):31–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrand ÅL (1997) Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms. Res Policy 26(3):331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels E (2012) Second‐order competences and Schumpeterian rents. Strateg Entrep J 6(1):42–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dew N, Goldfarb B, Sarasvathy S (2006) Optimal inertia: when organizations should. Adv Strateg Manag 23:73–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durand R, Bruyaka O, Mangematin V (2008) Do science and money go together? The case of the French biotech industry. Strateg Manag J 29(12):1281–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller I, Ailes CP, Roessner JD (2002) Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers. Res Policy 31:457–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller I, Feldman M (2010) The commercialization of academic patents: black boxes, pipelines, and Rubik’s cubes. J Technol Transf 35(6):597–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco AM, Sarkar MB, Agarwal R, Echambadi R (2009) Swift and smart: the moderating effects of technological capabilities on the market pioneering–firm survival relationship. Manag Sci 55(11):1842–1860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella A (2005) Patents and the division of innovative labor. Ind Corp Chang 14(6):1223–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans JS, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res Policy 32(2):333–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giarratana MS, Fosfuri A (2007) Product strategies and survival in Schumpeterian environments: evidence from the US security software industry. Organ Stud 28(6):909–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17:109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh C, Rogers M (2007) The value of intellectual property rights to firms and society. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 23(4):541–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grindley PC, Teece DJ (1997) Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. Calif Manag Rev 39(2):1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn J, Link AN, Vonortas NS (2000) Research partnerships. Res Policy 29(4):567–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall BH, Link AN, Scott JT (2001) Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: evidence from the advanced technology program. J Technol Transf 26(1):87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):247–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins R, Johnston A, Steffenson R (2008) Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy. Econ Soc 1:321–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Keupp MM, Gassmann O (2009) Determinants and archetype users of open innovation. R&D Manag 39(4):331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemperer P (1990) How broad should the scope of patent protection be? RAND J Econ 21:113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köhler F (2011) Patent cross-licensing, the influence of IP interdependency and the moderating effect of firm size. J Technol Transf 36(4):448–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry R, Amara N, Rherrad I (2006) Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Res Policy 35(10):1599–1615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Acad Manag Rev 31(3):638–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden DP, Link AN (1999) Federal laboratories as research partners. Int J Ind Organ 17(4):575–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler U (2011) Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future directions. Acad Manag Perspect 25(1):75–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link AN, Bauer LL (1989) Cooperative research in U.S. manufacturing. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Link AN, Rees J (1990) Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Bus Econ 2(1):25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link AN, Scott JT (2001) Public/private partnerships: stimulating competition in a dynamic market. Int J Ind Organ 19(5):763–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D (2010) Incentives in university technology transfers. Int J Ind Organ 28(4):362–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH, Balkin DB (2005) Innovation speed: transferring university technology to market. Res Policy 34(7):1058–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews JA (2003) Strategizing by firms in the presence of markets for resources. Ind Corp Chang 12(6):1157–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M (2006) Academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship: on the importance of start-up companies in commercializing academic patents. J Technol Transf 31(4):501–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosey S, Wright M (2007) From human capital to social capital: a longitudinal study of technology‐based academic entrepreneurs. Entrep Theory Pract 31(6):909–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA (2002) Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Res Policy 31(3):399–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray F, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. J Econ Behav Organ 63(4):648–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ndofor HA, Sirmon DG, He X (2011) Firm resources, competitive actions and performance: investigating a mediated model with evidence from the invitro diagnostics industry. Strateg Manag J 32(6):640–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C (1997) Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource based views. Strateg Manag J 18(9):697–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea RP, Allen TJ, Chevalier A, Roche F (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Res Policy 34(7):994–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann M, Walsh K (2008) Engaging the scholar: three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Res Policy 37(10):1884–1891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industry and competitors. Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industry and competitors. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ransbotham S, Mitra S (2010) Target age and the acquisition of innovation in high-technology industries. Manag Sci 56(11):2076–2093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao RS, Chandy RK, Prabhu JC (2008) The fruits of legitimacy: why some new ventures gain more from innovation than others. J Mark 72(4):58–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen E, Borch OJ (2010) University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Res Policy 39(5):602–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed R, DeFillippi RJ (1990) Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 15:88–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Robb A, Ballou J, DesRoches D, Potter F, Zhao Z, Reedy EJ (2009) An overview of the Kauffman firm survey: results from the 2004–2007 data. Available at SSRN 1392292

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Polit Econ 94:1002–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N (1992) Scientific instrumentation and university research. Res Policy 21(4):381–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter AJ, Martin BR (2001) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res Policy 30(3):509–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoro MD, Chakrabarti AK (2002) Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Res Policy 31(7):1163–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapienza HJ (1992) When do venture capitalists add value? J Bus Ventur 7(1):9–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer S, Green J (1990) Novelty and disclosure in patent law. RAND J Econ 21:131–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane S, Stuart T (2002) Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Manag Sci 48(1):154–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro C (1985) Patent licensing and R & D rivalry. Am Econ Rev 75(2):25–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon DG, Hitt MA, Arregle JL, Campbell JT (2010) The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses: investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strateg Manag J 31(13):1386–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon DG, Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Gilbert BA (2011) Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. J Manag 37(5):1390–1412

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Adm Sci Q 44(2):315–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terlaak A, King AA (2006) The effect of certification with the ISO 9000 quality management standard: a signaling approach. J Econ Behav Organ 60(4):579–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tether BS (2002) Who co-operates for innovation, and why: an empirical analysis. Res Policy 31(6):947–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todorovic Z, McNaughton RB, Guild P (2011) ENTRE-U: an entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation 31(2):128–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van De Vrande V, de Jong JP, Vanhaverbeke W, De Rochemont M (2009) Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 29(6):423–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Policy 33(1):147–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins RR, Ruefli TW (2002) Sustained competitive advantage: temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance. Organ Sci 13(1):81–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright M, Vohora A, Lockett A (2004) The formation of high-tech university spinouts: the role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. J Technol Transf 29(3):287–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo CS (2010) Product cycle theory and the maturation of the Internet. Northwest Univ Law Rev 104(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Young B, Hewitt-Dundas N, Roper S (2008) Intellectual Property management in publicly funded R&D centres—a comparison of university-based and company-based research centres. Technovation 28(8):473–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra SA, Sapienza HJ, Davidsson P (2006) Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda. J Manag Stud 43(4):917–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J (2009) The performance of university spin-offs: an exploratory analysis using venture capital data. J Technol Transf 34(3):255–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker LG, Darby MR, Brewer MB (2001) Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev 88(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong JS (2002) Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manag Sci 48(1):138–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, USA

    Sharon Simmons

  2. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    Jonathan Levie & Erik Monsen

Authors
  1. Sharon Simmons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Levie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik Monsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon Simmons .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

    David Audretsch

  2. Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany

    Erik Lehmann

  3. Technology Management, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

    Michele Meoli

  4. University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

    Silvio Vismara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Simmons, S., Levie, J., Monsen, E. (2016). Perceptions of Firm Competitive Advantages from Teaming Up with Universities: An Exploratory Study. In: Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., Meoli, M., Vismara, S. (eds) University Evolution, Entrepreneurial Activity and Regional Competitiveness. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17713-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation