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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
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
Alvarez SA, Barney JB (2001) How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners. Acad Manag Exec 15(1):139–148
Arenius P, Minniti M (2005) Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 24(3):233–247
Argyres NS, Liebeskind JP (1998) Privatizing the intellectual commons: universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. J Econ Behav Organ 35(4):427–454
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
Bahemia H, Squire B (2010) A contingent perspective of open innovation in new product development projects. Int J Innov Manag 14(04):603–627
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
Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120
Bessy C, Brousseau E (1998) Technology licensing contracts features and diversity. Int Rev Law Econ 18(4):451–489
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
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
Bonardo D, Paleari S, Vismara S (2010) The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms. J Technol Transf 35(1):141–180
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
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
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
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
Chesbrough HW (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press, Boston
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
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
Coberly BM, Gray DO (2010) Cooperative research centers and faculty satisfaction: a multi-level predictive analysis. J Technol Transf 35(5):547–565
Cockburn IM, Henderson RM (1998) Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J Ind Econ 46(2):157–182
Cockburn IM, Stern S (2010) Finding the endless frontier: lessons from the life sciences innovation system for technology policy. Capital Society 5(1):1
Cockburn IM, MacGarvie MJ, Müller E (2010) Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance. Ind Corp Chang 19(3):899–925
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
Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D. Econ J 99(397):569–596
Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152
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
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
Coupe T (2003) Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. J Technol Transf 28(1):31–46
Dahlstrand ÅL (1997) Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms. Res Policy 26(3):331–344
Danneels E (2012) Second‐order competences and Schumpeterian rents. Strateg Entrep J 6(1):42–58
Dew N, Goldfarb B, Sarasvathy S (2006) Optimal inertia: when organizations should. Adv Strateg Manag 23:73–99
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
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
Feller I, Feldman M (2010) The commercialization of academic patents: black boxes, pipelines, and Rubik’s cubes. J Technol Transf 35(6):597–616
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
Gambardella A (2005) Patents and the division of innovative labor. Ind Corp Chang 14(6):1223–1233
Gans JS, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res Policy 32(2):333–350
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
Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17:109–122
Greenhalgh C, Rogers M (2007) The value of intellectual property rights to firms and society. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 23(4):541–567
Grindley PC, Teece DJ (1997) Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. Calif Manag Rev 39(2):1–34
Hagedoorn J, Link AN, Vonortas NS (2000) Research partnerships. Res Policy 29(4):567–586
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
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
Huggins R, Johnston A, Steffenson R (2008) Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy. Econ Soc 1:321–340
Keupp MM, Gassmann O (2009) Determinants and archetype users of open innovation. R&D Manag 39(4):331–341
Klemperer P (1990) How broad should the scope of patent protection be? RAND J Econ 21:113–130
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
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
Lavie D (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Acad Manag Rev 31(3):638–658
Leyden DP, Link AN (1999) Federal laboratories as research partners. Int J Ind Organ 17(4):575–592
Lichtenthaler U (2011) Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future directions. Acad Manag Perspect 25(1):75–93
Link AN, Bauer LL (1989) Cooperative research in U.S. manufacturing. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA
Link AN, Rees J (1990) Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Bus Econ 2(1):25–31
Link AN, Scott JT (2001) Public/private partnerships: stimulating competition in a dynamic market. Int J Ind Organ 19(5):763–794
Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D (2010) Incentives in university technology transfers. Int J Ind Organ 28(4):362–367
Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH, Balkin DB (2005) Innovation speed: transferring university technology to market. Res Policy 34(7):1058–1075
Mathews JA (2003) Strategizing by firms in the presence of markets for resources. Ind Corp Chang 12(6):1157–1193
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oliver C (1997) Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource based views. Strateg Manag J 18(9):697–713
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
Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press, New York
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
Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industry and competitors. Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industry and competitors. The Free Press, New York
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
Ransbotham S, Mitra S (2010) Target age and the acquisition of innovation in high-technology industries. Manag Sci 56(11):2076–2093
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
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
Reed R, DeFillippi RJ (1990) Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 15:88–102
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
Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Polit Econ 94:1002–1037
Rosenberg N (1992) Scientific instrumentation and university research. Res Policy 21(4):381–390
Salter AJ, Martin BR (2001) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res Policy 30(3):509–532
Santoro MD, Chakrabarti AK (2002) Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Res Policy 31(7):1163–1180
Sapienza HJ (1992) When do venture capitalists add value? J Bus Ventur 7(1):9–27
Scotchmer S, Green J (1990) Novelty and disclosure in patent law. RAND J Econ 21:131–146
Shane S, Stuart T (2002) Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Manag Sci 48(1):154–170
Shapiro C (1985) Patent licensing and R & D rivalry. Am Econ Rev 75(2):25–30
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
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
Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Adm Sci Q 44(2):315–349
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
Tether BS (2002) Who co-operates for innovation, and why: an empirical analysis. Res Policy 31(6):947–967
Todorovic Z, McNaughton RB, Guild P (2011) ENTRE-U: an entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation 31(2):128–137
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
Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Policy 33(1):147–175
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
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
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
Yoo CS (2010) Product cycle theory and the maturation of the Internet. Northwest Univ Law Rev 104(2)
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
Zahra SA, Sapienza HJ, Davidsson P (2006) Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda. J Manag Stud 43(4):917–955
Zhang J (2009) The performance of university spin-offs: an exploratory analysis using venture capital data. J Technol Transf 34(3):255–285
Zucker LG, Darby MR, Brewer MB (2001) Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev 88(1)
Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong JS (2002) Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manag Sci 48(1):138–153
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17713-7_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17712-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17713-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)