Institutional Origin and Resource Endowments to Science-Based Entrepreneurial Firms: A European Exploration

This paper addresses theoretical and empirical gaps in the relationships between the nature of institutional origin, firm resources and growth in the context of spinning off ventures from public research organisations (PROs). Institutional origin is considered a two dimensional construct consisting of the formality of technology transfer and the research specificity of a PRO. In this perspective, these variables are hypothesised to predict the resource endowments of science-based entrepreneurial firms. Additionally, given the widespread attention from academics and policy makers to IP based science-based entrepreneurial firms, the formality of technology transfer is expected to be associated with growth. Empirical tests of hypotheses derived from this view are based on data from 184 science-based entrepreneurial firms, representing 48 public research organisations. Multivariate analysis of variance shows that institutional origin predicts firm resources, showing significance levels for start capital. An ordinal interaction effect shows that companies established with a formal transfer of technology start with higher resource levels, and even more so when started from a PRO with a specific research base. This suggests that specific PROs are more selective in the projects they consider eligible for spin off incubation and creation. Next to this, two-stage regression analysis indicates that the formality of technology transfer has a single direct effect on growth in employees and capital, independent of the start capital of the firm, pointing to the intrinsic advantage of having protected intellectual property formally transferred to the science-based entrepreneurial firm at the onset of the business activities.

[1]  J. R. Moore,et al.  The theory of the growth of the firm twenty-five years after , 1960 .

[2]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  The External Control of Organizations. , 1978 .

[3]  S. Maxwell,et al.  Multivariate Analysis of Variance , 1985 .

[4]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Charles W. Hofer,et al.  Improving New Venture Performance: The Role of Strategy, Industry Structure, and the Entrepreneur , 1987 .

[6]  Warren Boeker,et al.  Strategic Change: The Effects Of Founding And History , 1989 .

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

[8]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Speeding Products to Market: Waiting Time to First Product Introduction in New Firms. , 1990 .

[9]  Edward B. Roberts,et al.  Entrepreneurs in high technology : lessons from MIT and beyond , 1991 .

[10]  Robert O. Keohane,et al.  Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. , 1995 .

[11]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[12]  Sue Birley,et al.  A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size , 1994 .

[13]  Mark C. Suchman.  Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches , 1995 .

[14]  L. Lynn,et al.  Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework , 1996 .

[15]  Gregory G. Dess,et al.  Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It To Performance , 1996 .

[16]  C. Oliver.  SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: COMBINING INSTITUTIONAL AND RESOURCE- BASED VIEWS , 1997 .

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

[18]  James N. Baron,et al.  Engineering Bureaucracy: The Genesis of Formal Policies, Positions, and Structures in High-Technology Firms , 1999 .

[19]  Everett M. Rogers,et al.  Spin-offs from research centers at a research university☆ , 2000 .

[20]  Katleen Baeyens,et al.  The survival of venture capital backed companies , 2002 .

[21]  J. Pennings,et al.  Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology‐based ventures , 2001 .

[22]  J. Barney.  Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view , 2001 .

[23]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Designing Efficient Institutions for Science-Based Entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden , 2007 .

[24]  Scott Shane,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[25]  W. Scott,et al.  INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL RESEARCH FORUM , 2002 .

[26]  Robert L. Mason,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 2003 .

[27]  V. Mangematin,et al.  Development of SMEs and heterogeneity of trajectories: the case of biotechnology in France , 2003 .

[28]  P. Davidsson,et al.  Arriving at the high growth firm , 2003 .

[29]  B. Looy,et al.  Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? , 2004 .

[30]  B. Clarysse,et al.  A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off , 2004 .

[31]  B. Clarysse,et al.  How and Why do Research-Based Start-Ups Differ at Founding? A Resource-Based Configurational Perspective , 2004 .

[32]  Fiona E. Murray.  The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life , 2004 .

[33]  Elizabeth Garnsey,et al.  Do Academic Spin-Outs Differ and Does it Matter? , 2004 .

[34]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  Editor's introduction: building and deploying scientific and technical human capital , 2004 .

[35]  B. Clarysse,et al.  Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms , 2005 .

[36]  Silviano Esteve‐Pérez,et al.  The Resource-Based Theory of the Firm , 2006 .