University Commercialization Strategies in the Development of Regional Bioclusters

To analyze university contribution to economic development, the present study examines universities' technology transfer policies and their associated economic development impact. The article examines how a university defines itself as part of a region as well as what activities, if any, do university commercialization strategies in context of their regional environment affect spin-off activity. Furthermore, this study explores the ways universities contribute to regional economic development by examining existing theories and analyzing universities' relationships with both government and industry in two regions. This study draws from Roberts and Malone's (1996) selectivity–support typology and highlights this article's argument by comparing the commercialization strategies of world-class universities strategies in the development of regional biotechnology clusters in Massachusetts and in Connecticut. This article investigates the notion of whether universities can differently influence the economic development processes of the while still having successful commercial outcomes. These findings build on previous research (Clarysse et al., 2005; Degroof and Roberts, 2004; Powers and McDougall, 2005), which argues that low support–low selectivity policies may be more suitable to entrepreneurially developed environments, whereas high support–high selectivity policies are more efficient in entrepreneurially underdeveloped environments. Masachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is located in a strong technopole region, whereby many of its support structures for spin-off formation are provided by the regional infrastructure of the Cambridge–Boston region. In contrast, Yale University, which has an underdeveloped entrepreneurial context, has had to take a more proactive role in providing incubation capabilities to their spin-off projects. This finding supports a contingent based perspective of academic entrepreneurship, whereby low support–low selectivity policies are more fitted to entrepreneurially developed environments, whereas high support–high selectivity policies are more efficient in entrepreneurially underdeveloped environments.

[1]  T. Allen,et al.  Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities , 2005 .

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

[3]  Edward Lorenz,et al.  Collective Learning, Tacit Knowledge and Regional Innovative Capacity , 1999 .

[4]  M. Wright,et al.  Spinning Out New Ventures: A Typology of Incubation Strategies from European Research Institutions , 2005 .

[5]  Barry Moore,et al.  Collective Learning Processes, Networking and 'Institutional Thickness' in the Cambridge Region , 1999 .

[6]  C. Sabel,et al.  The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity , 1984 .

[7]  Shiri M. Breznitz,et al.  Boston Metropolitan Area Biotechnology cluster/La Grappe Biotechnologique De la Region Metropolitaine De Boston , 2005 .

[8]  Mike Wright,et al.  Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence , 2005 .

[9]  A. Markusen.  Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts* , 1996 .

[10]  Scott Shane,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation , 2004 .

[11]  M. Porter.  The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[12]  Rebecca Henderson.  The Innovator's Dilemma as a Problem of Organizational Competence , 2006 .

[13]  Jakki J. Mohr,et al.  Successful Development and Commercialization of Technological Innovation: Insights Based on Strategy Type , 2006 .

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

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

[16]  Joshua B. Powers,et al.  Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies , 2005 .

[17]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

[18]  Frank Wilkinson,et al.  Collective Learning and Knowledge Development in the Evolution of Regional Clusters of High Technology SMEs in Europe , 1999 .