The importance of surrogate entrepreneurship for incubated Swedish technology ventures

Universities and incubators that are more experienced in venture creation have been found to appoint surrogate entrepreneurs as one way to improve entrepreneurial team formation. However, it is not known how such intervention into the core of a venture affects performance. This article investigates the impact of surrogate entrepreneurs on technology ventures stemming from leading Swedish university incubators. From a total of 170 ventures incorporated 1995-2005, belonging to 16 incubators, 59 ventures (35%) have received incubator help to recruit a surrogate entrepreneur. Swedish surrogate ventures perform significantly better in terms of growth and revenue compared to non-surrogates. Significantly higher performance of surrogates is also found in the subgroup academic technology ventures as well as the largest technology subgroup of information and communication technology (ICT) ventures. These findings in combination with a case study of the most productive incubation environment are used to propose future research and policy regarding university incubators intervening into entrepreneurial team formation in different ways.

[1]  Raymond Radosevich,et al.  A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources , 2014 .

[2]  Andrew J. Nelson,et al.  Organizational Modularity and Intra-University Relationships between Entrepreneurship Education and Technology Transfer , 2005 .

[3]  Mike Wright,et al.  The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Longitudinal Study of University Spin‐Off Venture Emergence , 2011 .

[4]  M. Wright,et al.  University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe , 2008 .

[5]  Jonathan Potter.  Entrepreneurship and Higher Education. , 2008 .

[6]  Philip E. Auerswald,et al.  Valleys of Death and Darwinian Seas: Financing the Invention to Innovation Transition in the United States , 2003 .

[7]  Thomas Ritter,et al.  The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance , 2006 .

[8]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature , 2007 .

[9]  Harald Bathelt,et al.  A knowledge-based typology of university spin-offs in the context of regional economic development , 2010 .

[10]  Mike Wright,et al.  Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies , 2005 .

[11]  Lorraine Warren,et al.  Technology-Based Entrepreneurship Education: Meeting Educational and Business Objectives , 2009 .

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

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

[14]  Lois S. Peters,et al.  The Role of Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process , 2004 .

[15]  Bart Clarysse,et al.  Nurturing and Growing Innovative Start-Ups: The Role of Policy as Integrator , 2007 .

[16]  Samuel S. Holloway,et al.  Creating a University Technology Commercialisation Programme: Confronting Conflicts Between Learning, Discovery, and Commercialisation Goals , 2011 .

[17]  David V. Gibson,et al.  Overview of US incubators and the case of the Austin Technology Incubator , 2003 .

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

[19]  S. Kassicieh.  Benefits From Using Surrogate Entrepreneurs In Technology Commercialization , 2011 .

[20]  Sean M. Hackett,et al.  A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research , 2004 .

[21]  M. Wright,et al.  Science Parks and the Performance of New Technology-Based Firms: A Review of Recent U.K. Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research , 2003 .

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

[23]  S. Sarasvathy.  Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency , 2001 .

[24]  Mats Lundqvist,et al.  Sustainable Wealth Creation beyond Shareholder Value , 2008 .

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

[26]  Truls Erikson,et al.  Entrepreneurial capital: the emerging venture's most important asset and competitive advantage , 2002 .

[27]  Vangelis Souitaris,et al.  Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research , 2008 .

[28]  David Zilberman,et al.  University Research and Offices of Technology Transfer , 2002 .

[29]  John Yencken,et al.  Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and new technology based firms : an integrated model , 2004 .

[30]  Anna Bergek,et al.  Incubator best practice: A framework , 2008 .

[31]  Roger Sørheim,et al.  Action-based entrepreneurship education , 2006 .

[32]  S. Sarasvathy,et al.  Effectuation and Over–Trust: Debating Goel and Karri , 2008 .

[33]  Phillip H. Phan,et al.  Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research , 2005 .

[34]  J. Stoner,et al.  Innovative approaches to global sustainability , 2008 .

[35]  Eva Berggren,et al.  The entrepreneurial university's influence on commercialisation of academic research : The illustrative case of Chalmers University of Technology , 2011 .

[36]  Mike Wright,et al.  Entrepreneurship and University Technology Transfer , 2004 .

[37]  Å. Dahlstrand.  University knowledge transfer and the role of academic spin-offs , 2008 .

[38]  Mariagrazia Squicciarini.  Science Parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: who innovates more? A duration model , 2008 .

[39]  Raymond Radosevich,et al.  A Comparative Study of Entrepreneurship Incidence among Inventors in National Laboratories , 1996 .

[40]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[41]  Hyungrae Jo,et al.  The relationship between an entrepreneur's background and performance in a new venture , 1996 .

[42]  Mike Wright,et al.  Entrepreneurial Team Development in Academic Spinouts: An Examination of Team Heterogeneity , 2006 .

[43]  Mike Wright,et al.  Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies , 2004 .

[44]  Mark Peterson,et al.  Entrepreneurial Self–Efficacy: Refining the Measure , 2009 .

[45]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Exploring board formation and evolution of board composition in academic spin-offs , 2010 .

[46]  Edward B. Roberts,et al.  Overcoming Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructures for Academic Spin-Off Ventures , 2004 .

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

[48]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  University–incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance , 2005 .

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

[50]  Frank Janssen,et al.  Cultural and Outcomes-Related Issues in Implementing an Interdisciplinary Cross-Campus Entrepreneurship Education Program , 2010 .

[51]  Stephen K. Markham,et al.  Bridging the Valley of Death: Lessons Learned From 14 Years of Commercialization of Technology Education , 2009 .

[52]  Frédéric Nlemvo,et al.  Toward a Typology of University Spin-offs , 2003 .

[53]  Michael D. Ensley,et al.  The Role of Human Capital in Technological Entrepreneurship , 2007 .

[54]  Susanne Ollila,et al.  The venture creation approach: integrating entrepreneurial education and incubation at the university , 2011 .

[55]  Mike Wright,et al.  Academic and Surrogate Entrepreneurs in University Spin-out Companies , 2001 .

[56]  Sarfraz A. Mian,et al.  Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms , 1996 .

[57]  Mike Wright,et al.  Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies , 2003 .