Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework

[1]  J. Myles Shaver,et al.  Limitations to interorganizational knowledge acquisition: The paradox of corporate venture capital , 2009 .

[2]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  Developing the selection and valuation capabilities through learning: The case of corporate venture capital , 2009 .

[3]  S. Zahra,et al.  The effect of international venturing on firm performance: The moderating influence of absorptive capacity , 2008 .

[4]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  The effect of governance modes and relatedness of external business development activities on innovative performance , 2008 .

[5]  Michael J. Lenox,et al.  When does corporate venture capital investment create firm value , 2006 .

[6]  Markku V. J. Maula,et al.  New ventures' inward licensing: examining the effects of industry and strategy characteristics , 2005 .

[7]  Markku V. J. Maula,et al.  Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures , 2005 .

[8]  M. Lenox,et al.  When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures?: Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates , 2005 .

[9]  Erkko Autio,et al.  Corporate Venture Capitalists and Independent Venture Capitalists: What do they know, Who do They Know and Should Entrepreneurs Care? , 2005 .

[10]  S. Zahra.  Corporate entrepreneurship and growth , 2005 .

[11]  Jaideep Anand,et al.  Non‐additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: a real options‐based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology , 2004 .

[12]  E. Autio,et al.  Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth , 2004 .

[13]  Gary Dushnitsky,et al.  Limitations to Inter-Organizational Knowledge Acquisition: The Paradox of Corporate Venture Capital , 2004 .

[14]  Kenneth Husted,et al.  Stimulating innovation through corporate venture bases , 2004 .

[15]  Martin Kenney,et al.  The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford , 2004 .

[16]  A. Link,et al.  Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. , 2004 .

[17]  Scott Shane,et al.  Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States , 2004 .

[18]  Nicos Nicolaou,et al.  Social Networks in Organizational Emergence: The University Spinout Phenomenon , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[19]  R. Rao,et al.  Do Spin‐offs Expropriate Wealth from Bondholders? , 2003 .

[20]  Mats A. Lundqvist,et al.  Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology , 2003 .

[21]  Susan A. Hill,et al.  CORPORATE VENTURING PERFORMANCE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE APPLICABILITY OF VENTURE CAPITAL MODELS. , 2003 .

[22]  P. Drucker,et al.  Corporate Entrepreneurship: Top Managers and New Business Creation , 2003 .

[23]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  Emerging Issues in Corporate Entrepreneurship , 2003 .

[24]  Ann C. Logue.  Learning about Internal Capital Markets from Corporate Spin-Offs , 2003 .

[25]  Sue Birley,et al.  Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts , 2003 .

[26]  Robert B. Archibald,et al.  Evaluating the NASA small business innovation research program: preliminary evidence of a trade-off between commercialization and basic research , 2003 .

[27]  Markku V. J. Maula,et al.  Prerequisites for the creation of social capital and subsequent knowledge acquisition in corporate venture capital , 2003 .

[28]  Annaleena Parhankangas,et al.  From a corporate venture to an independent company: a base for a taxonomy for corporate spin-off firms , 2003 .

[29]  Scott Shane,et al.  Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? , 2003 .

[30]  Mike W. Peng.  INSTITUTIONAL TRANSITIONS AND STRATEGIC CHOICES : IMPLICATIONS FOR CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN RUSSIA , 2003 .

[31]  H. Chesbrough.  The Governance and Performance of Xerox's Technology Spin-Off Companies , 2003 .

[32]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies , 2002 .

[33]  Shinichi Kobayashi,et al.  Impacts of government high-tech policy: a case study of CAD technology in China , 2002 .

[34]  Massimo G. Colombo,et al.  How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy , 2002 .

[35]  Alok K. Chakrabarti,et al.  FIRM SIZE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTRALITY IN INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY INTERACTIONS , 2002 .

[36]  Hans Löfsten,et al.  Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms : academic-industry links, innovation and markets , 2002 .

[37]  J. Mentzer,et al.  The Effects of Entrepreneurial Proclivity and Market Orientation on Business Performance , 2002 .

[38]  S. Zahra,et al.  Middle managers' perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale , 2002 .

[39]  Morgan P. Miles,et al.  Exploring the Practice of Corporate Venturing: Some Common Forms and Their Organizational Implications , 2002 .

[40]  A. Tishler,et al.  Converting military technology through corporate entrepreneurship , 2002 .

[41]  P. Conceição,et al.  Innovative science and technology commercialization strategies at 3M: a case study , 2002 .

[42]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  Making sense of corporate venture capital. , 2002, Harvard business review.

[43]  A. Kumaraswamy,et al.  INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE SPONSORSHIP OF COMMON TECHNOLOGICAL STANDARDS: THE CASE OF SUN MICROSYSTEMS AND JAVA * , 2002 .

[44]  Sukanya Kemp,et al.  Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing , 2002 .

[45]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: How Do University Inventions Get Into Practice? , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[46]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[47]  Scott Shane,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[48]  Christopher L. Tucci,et al.  Corporate Venture Capital in the Context of Corporate Innovation , 2002 .

[49]  Maryann Feldman,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[50]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

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

[52]  Markku V. J. Maula.  Corporate venture capital and the value-added for technology-based new firms , 2001 .

[53]  Terrence E. Brown,et al.  An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior , 2001 .

[54]  R. Hisrich,et al.  Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation , 2001 .

[55]  M. Sarkar,et al.  Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance , 2001 .

[56]  M. Hitt,et al.  Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation , 2001 .

[57]  Curba Morris Lampert,et al.  Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions , 2001 .

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

[59]  Jennifer W. Spencer,et al.  How Relevant is University-Based Scientific Research to Private High-Technology Firms? A United States–Japan Comparison , 2001 .

[60]  R. Duane Ireland,et al.  Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth , 2001 .

[61]  R. Amit,et al.  A dynamic perspective of internal fit in corporate venturing , 2001 .

[62]  T. Keil.  Building external corporate venturing capability: Initial condi- tions, learning processes and knowledge management , 2001 .

[63]  D. Scharfstein,et al.  Learning About Internal Capital Markets from Corporate Spinoffs , 2000 .

[64]  Donald O. Neubaum,et al.  Entrepreneurship in Medium-Size Companies: Exploring the Effects of Ownership and Governance Systems , 2000 .

[65]  M. Bray,et al.  University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions , 2000 .

[66]  S. Gopalakrishnan,et al.  The Institutionalization of Knowledge Transfer Activities within Industry-University Collaborative Ventures , 2000 .

[67]  V. Narayanan.  Managing Technology and Innovation for Competitive Advantage , 2000 .

[68]  Judith B. Sedaitis.  Technology transfer in transitional economies: a test of market, state and organizational models , 2000 .

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

[70]  Roberto Mazzoleni,et al.  How Do University Inventions Get into Practice ? , 2000 .

[71]  Mike Wright,et al.  Corporate entrepreneurs and privatized firms in russia, ukraine, and belarus , 1999 .

[72]  Michael A. Hitt,et al.  Corporate Entrepreneurship and Cross-Functional Fertilization: Activation, Process and Disintegration of a New Product Design Team , 1999 .

[73]  James J. Chrisman,et al.  Toward a Reconciliation of the Definitional Issues in the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship , 1999 .

[74]  A. Link,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices : An Exploratory Study # , 1999 .

[75]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[76]  Paul A. Gompers,et al.  The Determinants of Corporate Venture Capital Successes: Organizational Structure, Incentives, and Complementarities , 1998 .

[77]  Erkko Autio,et al.  New, technology-based firms in small open economies—An analysis based on the Finnish experience , 1998 .

[78]  George A. Fontanills.  The Options Course: High Profit & Low Stress Trading Methods , 1998 .

[79]  David Ehrlich,et al.  Can Big Companies Become Successful Venture Capitalists , 1998 .

[80]  K. Talluri,et al.  The Alliances of Spin-Offs Versus Start-Ups: Social Ties in the Genesis of Post-Soviet Alliances , 1998 .

[81]  Pier A. Abetti,et al.  The birth and growth of toshiba's laptop and notebook computers: A case study in Japanese corporate venturing , 1997 .

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

[83]  Åsa Lindholm Dahlstrand,et al.  Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms , 1997 .

[84]  Rita Gunther McGrath.  A Real Options Logic for Initiating Technology Positioning Investments , 1997 .

[85]  James J. Chrisman,et al.  Program Evaluation and the Venture Development Program at the University of Calgary: A Research Note , 1997 .

[86]  K. McNally.  Corporate Venture Capital: Bridging the Equity Gap in the Small Business Sector , 1997 .

[87]  J. Birkinshaw.  Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations : The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives , 1997 .

[88]  Mark Simon,et al.  Corporate versus independent new ventures: Resource, strategy, and performance differences , 1997 .

[89]  Camille Carrier.  Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study , 1996 .

[90]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures , 1996 .

[91]  Lenos Trigeorgis,et al.  Evaluating leases with complex operating options , 1996 .

[92]  James P. Walsh,et al.  THE GOVERNANCE AND CONTROL OF VOLUNTARY CORPORATE SPIN‐OFFS , 1996 .

[93]  Scott L. Lummer,et al.  Can Takeover Losses Explain Spin-Off Gains? , 1995, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[94]  Pier A. Abetti,et al.  The rise and fall of the Merlin-Gerin Foundry Business: A case study in French corporate entrepreneurship , 1995 .

[95]  S. Zahra.  Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The case of management leveraged buyouts , 1995 .

[96]  Mario Sorrentino,et al.  Relatedness and corporate venturing: Does it really matter? , 1995 .

[97]  S. Zahra,et al.  Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis , 1995 .

[98]  Michael Hay,et al.  Confronting the challenges of corporate entrepreneurship: Guidelines for venture managers , 1994 .

[99]  C. Baden‐Fuller,et al.  Creating corporate entrepreneurship , 1994 .

[100]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism , 1994 .

[101]  Jeff Allen,et al.  Fostering Corporate Entrepreneurship: Cross-Cultural Comparisons of the Importance of Individualism Versus Collectivism , 1994 .

[102]  Edward H. Bowman,et al.  Calls on high‐technology: Japanese exploration of venture capital investments in the United States , 1992 .

[103]  S. Zahra.  Predictors and Financial Outcomes of Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Study , 1991 .

[104]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[105]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[106]  M. Porter.  From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy , 1989 .

[107]  Terry E. Winters,et al.  Venture capital investing for corporate development objectives , 1988 .

[108]  Hollister B. Sykes.  The anatomy of a corporate venturing program: Factors influencing success , 1986 .

[109]  D. Hambrick.  High Profit Strategies in Mature Capital Goods Industries: A Contingency Approach , 1983 .

[110]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[111]  Charles W. Hofer.  Toward a Contingency Theory of Business Strategy , 1975 .

[112]  R. Rumelt.  Strategy, structure, and economic performance , 1974 .

[113]  E. Penrose.  The theory of the growth of the firm twenty-five years after , 1960 .