Academic and Surrogate Entrepreneurs in University Spin-out Companies

Universities have two options when they formulate policies to develop new technology-based start-ups. One approach is to encourage faculty members to engage in this activity. Another avenue is to encourage surrogate (external) entrepreneurs to assume a leadership role. Based on a survey of technology transfer/business development officers at 57 U.K. universities, we examine perceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. We also analyze whether there are significant differences in these attitudes between universities that have launched many start-ups and those that have been less active in this arena. Our results imply that the most significant barriers to the adoption of entrepreneurial-friendly policies are cultural and informational. We also find that universities that generate the most start-ups have more favorable attitudes towards surrogate entrepreneurs. It appears that a combination of academic and surrogate entrepreneurship might be the best approach for universities that wish to develop successful technology-transfer based start-up companies.

[1]  R. Kanter,et al.  Engines of Progress: Designing and Running Entrepreneurial Vehicles in Established Companies: Analog Devices Enterprises , 1990 .

[2]  Mike Wright,et al.  Venture capitalists and serial entrepreneurs , 1997 .

[3]  R. Harrison,et al.  Informal venture capital: a study of the investment process, the post-investment experience and investment performance , 1996 .

[4]  P. Westhead,et al.  Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms , 1995 .

[5]  David V. Gibson,et al.  University spin-out companies: Technology start-ups from UT-Austin , 1990 .

[6]  James J. Chrisman,et al.  Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary , 1995 .

[7]  Ray Kinsella,et al.  Campus companies and the emerging techno-academic paradigm: the Irish experience☆ , 1997 .

[8]  Jim Taylor.  A statistical analysis of the 1992 research assessment exercise , 1995 .

[9]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  High-technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities , 1998 .

[10]  Gary W. Matkin.  Technology transfer and the university , 1990 .

[11]  David Zilberman,et al.  UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS: IMPACTS ON LOCAL AND U.S. ECONOMIES , 1993 .

[12]  D. D. Vaus,et al.  Surveys in Social Research , 1991 .

[13]  M. Wright,et al.  High-tech management buy-outs , 1999 .

[14]  Mike Wright,et al.  Venture Capital and Private Equity: A Review and Synthesis , 1998 .

[15]  Rosabeth Moss Kanter,et al.  Engines of progress: Designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies; The new venture process at Eastman Kodak, 1983-1989 , 1991 .

[16]  Carolyn Y. Woo,et al.  Initial Human and Financial Capital as Predictors of New Venture Performance , 1997 .

[17]  D. Felsenstein.  University-related science parks - 'seedbeds' or 'enclaves' of innovation? , 1994 .

[18]  Richard N. Cardozo,et al.  Mapping the university technology transfer process , 1997 .

[19]  M. Dowling,et al.  Using R&D cooperative arrangements to leverage managerial experience: A study of technology-intensive new ventures , 1994 .

[20]  Jérôme Doutriaux,et al.  Growth pattern of academic entrepreneurial firms , 1987 .

[21]  Edward B. Roberts,et al.  Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations , 1998 .

[22]  Karel J. Samsom,et al.  University scientists as entrepreneurs: a special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing , 1993 .

[23]  Everett M. Rogers,et al.  The role of the research university in the spin-off of high-technology companies , 1986 .