Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection

Mitigating climate change requires directed innovation efforts to develop and deploy energy technologies. Innovation activities are directed towards the outcome of climate protection by public institutions, policies and resources that in turn shape market behaviour. We analyse diverse indicators of activity throughout the innovation system to assess these efforts. We find efficient end-use technologies contribute large potential emission reductions and provide higher social returns on investment than energy-supply technologies. Yet public institutions, policies and financial resources pervasively privilege energy-supply technologies. Directed innovation efforts are strikingly misaligned with the needs of an emissions-constrained world. Significantly greater effort is needed to develop the full potential of efficient end-use technologies

Evolving missions and university entrepreneurship:Academic spin-offs and graduate start-ups in the entrepreneurial society

A recent call has urged to broaden the conceptualization of university entrepreneurship in order to appreciate the heterogeneity of contexts and actors involved in the process of entrepreneurial creation. A gap still persists in the understanding of the variety of ventures generated by different academic stakeholders, and the relationships between these entrepreneurial developments and university missions, namely, teaching and research. This paper addresses this particular gap by looking at how university teaching and research activities influence universities’ entrepreneurial ventures such as academic spin-offs and graduate start-ups. Empirically, we analyse the English higher education sector, drawing on institutional data at the university level. First, we explore the ways in which teaching and research activities are configured, and secondly, we examine how such configurations relate to academic spin-offs and graduate start-ups across different universities over time. Our findings suggest, first, that the evolution of USOs and graduate start-ups exhibit two different pathways over time; and second, that teaching and research both affect entrepreneurial ventures but their effect is different.JRC.B.4-Human Capital and Employmen

An Approach Merging the IDM-Related Knowledge

Patents are one of the main innovation knowledge sources for engineers and companies. Inventive Design Method (IDM) – results from a research that extends from TRIZ and contains formal knowledge description components using ontologies, such as problems, partial solutions, and parameters. In this paper, we introduce IDM-Similar model that extends existing research work in IDM-related knowledge. A neural network named Word2vec and cosine similarity approach are used to build this model to compute the similarity among problems in wide range domains’ patents covering from the chemistry to mechanics and the computer to physics. Our model assumes that a partial solution of a patent could be used to solve the problem of another patent from a different domain if these two problems are similar enough. Experiments show that our model is a promising alternative to classical TRIZ for engineers to associate their problems in a field to solutions from patents of another field. Consequently, the step dedicated to solution concepts ideation is improved using our work

Rowing against the wind: how do times of austerity shape academic entrepreneurship in unfriendly environments?

[EN] Academic spin-offs (ASOs) help universities transfer knowledge or technology through business projects developed by academic staff. This investigation aims at analyzing the critical factors for spin-off creation at universities operating in crisis-raven, entrepreneurship-unfriendly environments. Such factors revolve around four types of resources: environmental, institutional, organizational, and personal. Focusing on a Southern European context, as an example of an unfriendly environment affected by economic crisis, an entrepreneurial university (the Technical University of Valencia in Spain, UPV) is our research setting. Through a case study approach, we examine the potential of UPV as a springboard for ASOs. Our results show an adverse local environment, a rather favorable influence of institutional and organizational drivers, and a mixed role of personal factors. Our findings illustrate that UPV consistently supports spin-off creation due to a greater (rather positive) reflexivity from its institutional, organizational and personal resources than the (negative) imprinting of the unfriendly environment. This helps counter-balance the structural unfriendliness for academic entrepreneurship, and trigger a crisis-led risk-taking attitude by academic staff. Hence, UPV should continue with its current strategy of supporting academic entrepreneurship, and might transfer best practices to other universities also affected by unfavorable environmental conditions. Generally speaking, we would advise universities facing adverse circumstances to develop rules and mechanisms for academic entrepreneurship, carefully revise and improve malfunctions, and become involved throughout the whole process of spin-off development. All in all, our study advances understanding of how the different drivers for ASO creation can be revamped by universities located in unfriendly environments, having in mind the key role that universities play in fostering social and economic development through academic entrepreneurship in such environments.The authors would like to thank the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (grant PAID-06-12-0916), and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant ECO2011-29863), for their financial support for this research.Seguí-Mas, E.; Oltra, V.; Tormo-Carbó, G.; Sarrión Viñes, F. (2017). Rowing against the wind: how do times of austerity shape academic entrepreneurship in unfriendly environments?. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 1-42. doi:10.1007/s11365-017-0478-zS142Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41, 757–774.Alemany, L. (2011). Libro blanco de la iniciativa emprendedora en España. Resource document. ISEAD. http://idl.isead.edu.es:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/859/1/658ALElib.pdf . Accessed 31 October 2015.Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: the case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.ARWU (2017). Academic Ranking of World Universities 2017. Resource document. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2017.html . Accesed 15 August 2017.Ashcroft, B., Holden, D., & Low, K. (2004). Potential entrepreneurs and the self employment choice decision. In Strathclyde Discussion papers in Economics, 4–16. Glasglow: University of Strathclyde.Autio, E., & Kauranen, I. (1994). Technologist-entrepreneurs versus nonentrepreneurial technologists: Analysis of motivational triggering factors. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 6, 315–328.Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.Bonnacorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41, 837–863.Bruneel, J., Van de Velde, E., & Clarysse, B. (2013). Impact of the type of corporate spin-off on growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 943–959.CampusHabitat5U (2017). International Campus of Excellence. Resource document. UPV. http://campushabitat5u.es/?lang=en . Accessed 5 October 2017.Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The chase of academic spin-offs companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30, 329–339.Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: IAU Press.Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79.Cohen, M., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1–23.Creswell, J.W. & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications.De Cleyn, S. H., Braet, J., & Klofsten, M. (2015). How human capital interacts with the early development of academic spin-offs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 599–621.Doutriaux, J., & Peterman, D. (1982). Technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Babson Park: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.European Commission (2017). Erasmus 2013–14. Top 500 higher education institutions receiving Erasmus students. Resource document. EC. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/statistics/2014/erasmus-receiving-institutions_en.pdf Accessed 5 October 2017.Eurovoc (2017). Mutilingual Thesaurus of the European Union. Resource document. http://eurovoc.europa.eu Accessed 03 February 2017.Franzoni, C. & Lissoni, F. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship, patents and spinoffs: Critical issues and lessons for Europe. CESPRI, Università Commerciale “Luigi Bocconi”. Working Paper No. 80.Fritsch, M., & Aamoucke, R. (2013). Regional public research, higher education, and innovative start-ups: An empirical investigation. Small Business Economics, 41, 865–885.Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 696–706.Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11–32.Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research: The merging European Evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “What” and “How” of the case Study Rigor: Three Strategies based on Published Work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710–737.Gómez Gras, J. M., Galiana Lapera, D. R., Mira Solves, I., Verdú Jover, A. J., & Sancho Azuar, J. (2008). An empirical approach to the organisational determinants of spin-off creation in European universities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 187–198.Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics' organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 821–845.Güemes, J.J. (2011), “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Informe GEM España 2010”. Resource document. GEM España. http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/616. Accessed 15 January 2015 .Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Hülsbeck, M., & Pickavé, E. N. (2014). Regional knowledge production as determinant of high-technology entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence for Germany. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10, 121–138.INE (2016). INEbase: Operaciones estadísticas. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (National [Spanish] Statistical Institute). Resource document. INE. http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/indice.htm . Accessed 2 July 2016.Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36-37, 1–11.Kroll, H. (2009). Demonstrating the instrumentality of motivation oriented approaches for the explanation of academic spin-off formation—an application based on the Chinese case. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 97–116.LAEI (2013). Ley 14/2013, de 27 de septiembre, de Apoyo a Emprendedores y su Internacionalización (‘Act of Support to Entrepreneurs and their Internationalization’). Government of Spain, 27 September. Resource document: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2013/09/28/pdfs/BOE-A-2013-10074.pdf . Accessed 10 March 2016.Lam, A., & De Campos, A. (2015). Content to be sad’ or ‘runaway apprentice’? The psychological contract and career agency of young scientists in the entrepreneurial university. Human Relations, 68(5), 811–841.LCTI (2011). Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación (‘Science, Technology and Innovation Act’). Government of Spain, 1 June. Resource document: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/06/02/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-9617.pdf . Accessed 10 March 2016.León-Darder, F. (2016). La internacionalització de l’empresa valenciana. In E. Seguí-Mas (Ed.), Una nova via per a l’empresa valenciana (pp. 61–80). Catarroja: Editorial Afers & Fundació Nexe.LES (2011). Ley 2/2011, de 4 de marzo, de Economía Sostenible (‘Sustainable Economy Act’). Government of Spain, 4 March, Resource document. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/03/05/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-4117.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2016 .Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013). Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41, 797–817.Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2006). Environmental hostility and firm behavior – An empirical examination of new technology-based firms on science parks. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 386–406.Link, N., & Scott, T. (2005). Opening the ivory’s tower door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34, 1106–1112.Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.LOMLOU (2007). Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/2011, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades (‘Act of Modification of the University Act’). Government of Spain, 12 April. Resource document. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/04/13/pdfs/A16241-16260.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016).LOU (2001). Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de Universidades (‘University Act’). Government of Spain, 21 December. Resource document: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2001/12/24/pdfs/A49400-49425.pdf . Accessed 11 March 2016.Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259–283.Martínez Carrascal, C. & Mulino Ríos, M. (2014). La evolución del crédito bancario a las empresas españolas según su tamaño. Un análisis basado en la explotación conjunta de la información de la CIR y de la CBI, Boletín Económico - Banco de España, Enero (January), pp. 117–125.Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Smith, A. R. (2015). Entrepreneurial inception: The role of imprinting in entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 11–28.MIET (Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism) (2012). Estadísticas Pyme. Evolución e indicadores. No. 10″, Resource document. http://www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/ESTADISTICAS_PYME_N10_2011.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016 .Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (2008). Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.Morales-Gualdrón, S. Y., Gutiérrez-Gracias, & Roig Dobón, S. (2009). The entrepreneurial motivation in academia: A multidimensional construct. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6, 301–317.Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneur, 31, 909–936.Mosey, S., Lockett, A., & Westhead, P. (2006). Creating network bridges for university technology transfer: The Medici fellowship programme. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 71–91.Mosey, S., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2012a). Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 587–607.Mosey, S., Noke, H., & Binks, M. (2012b). The influence of human and social capital upon the entrepreneurial intentions and destinations of academics. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24, 893–910.Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J. P. (2016). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 171–197.Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001a). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of Bayle-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001b). Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characyeristics of US university Patents after the Bayle-Dole Act, 1981-1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.O’Shea, R., Allen, J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Morse, K., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Experience. R&D Management, 37(1), 1–16.O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.Ortín, P., Salas, V., Trujillo, M.V., & Vendrell, F. (2007). El spin-off universitario en España como modelo de creación de empresas intensivas en tecnología. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. Secretaría General de Industria. Dirección General de Política de la Pyme. Resource document. http://www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/Informe spinnoff.pdf . Accessed 2 October 2016.Papaoikonomou, E., Segarra, P., & Li, X. (2012). Entrepreneurship in the context of crisis: Identifying barriers and proposing strategies. International Advances in Economic Research, 18, 111–119.Piperopoulos, P., & Piperopoulos, G. (2010). Is Greece finally on the right path toward entrepreneurship, innovation, and business clusters? International Journal of Public Administration, 33(1), 55–59.Powers, B., & McDougall, P. (2005). University startup formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.Red OTRI (2016). Informe de la Encuesta de Investigación y Transferencia 2014 de las universidades españolas. Resource document. http://www.redotriuniversidades.net/index.php/informa-encuesta/6-encuesta-redotri/informa-encuesta-2014/download . Accessed 22 June 2016.Redero San-Román, M. (2002). Origen y desarrollo de la universidad franquista. Studia Zamorensia, 6, 337–352.Rodríguez-Gulías, M. J., Rodeiro-Pazos, D., & Fernández-López, S. (2017). The effect of university and regional knowledge spillovers on firms’ performance: an analysis of the Spanish USOs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1), 191–209.Rodríguez-San Pedro, L.E. (2014). Las universidades españolas en su contexto historic. Resource document. Universia. http://universidades.universia.es/universidades-de-pais/historia-de-universidades/historia-universidad-espanola/pasado-reciente/pasado-reciente-multiplicidad-regimen-autonomico.html . Accessed 28 July 2015.Samsom, K., & Gurdon, M. (1990). Entrepreneurial scientist: Organizational performance in scientist-started high technology firms. Forest Park: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., de Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 369–395.Shane, S., & Khurana, R. (2003). Bringing individuals back in: The effects of career experience on new firm founding. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 519–543.Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 63–76.Soler i Marco, V. (2009). Creixement i canvi estructural. In V. Soler (Ed.), Economia espanyola i del País Valencià. Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 1–10.Tech Transfer UPV FCR (2016). Air Nostrum, Caixa Popular e IVI entran en el fondo de la UPV. Resource document. TTUPV FCR. http://www.techtransferupv.com/noticias/air-nostrum-caixa-popular-e-ivi-entran-en-el-fondo-de-la-upv/ (4 April) Accessed 10 July 2016.The Times Higher Education (2017). 100 Under 50 Ranking 2017. Resource document. THE. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/young-university-rankings#!/page/0/length/-1/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats . Accessed 15 august 2017.UPV (2007). Instituto IDEAS 15 aniversario (1992–2007). Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/entidades/IDEAS/menu_urlv.html?http://www.upv.es/entidades/IDEAS/info/memoria15a%F1os.pdf . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2011). Corporación empresarial. Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-4904-corporacion-emp-es.html . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2014). Plan de emprendimiento global. Resource document. UPV. https://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-6846-plan-de-emprend-es.html . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2015). Jornadas de Puertas Abiertas 2015–16. Resource document. UPV. www.upv.es/contenidos/ORIENTA/info/jpa_ciclos_2015-16.ppt . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2017a). Spin-Off UPV. Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/entidades/I2T/info/891434normalc.html . Accessed 5 October 2017.UPV (2017b). Ciudad Politécnica de la Innovación. Parque Científico en Red de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Quienes Somos. Presentación. Resource document. UPV. http://cpi.upv.es/quienes-somos/presentacion . Accessed 5 October 2017.UPV (2017c). Servicio de Promoción y Apoyo a la Investigación, la Innovación y la Transferencia. Presentación. Resource document. UPV. http://i2t.webs.upv.es/i2t/presentacion.php. Accessed 5 October 2017 .UPV. (2017d). Tech Transfer UPV. UPV: Resource document http://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-8355-tech-transfer-u-es.html. Accessed 5 October 2017 .UPV (2017e). Mission statement, vision and values. Resource document. UPV. https://www.upv.es/organizacion/la-institucion/misionvisionvalores-plan-upv-en.html Accessed 17 October 2017.Vargas Vasserot, C. (2012). Las spin-offs académicas y su posible configuración como empresas de economía social. REVESCO. Revista de Estudios Cooperativos, 107, 186–205.VLC/Campus (2017). VLC/Campus. Valencia, International Campus of Excellence. Resource document. UPV. http://www.vlc-campus.com/en . Accessed 5 October 2017.Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.Weatherston, J. (1995). Academic Entrepreneurs: Is a spin-off Company too risky. Proceedings of the 40th International Council on Small Business, Sydney, 18–21.Willoughby, M., Talon, J., Millet, J., & Ayats, C. (2013). University services for fostering creativity in hi-tech firms. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 1103–1116.Wright, M., & Mosey, S. (2012). Strategic entrepreneurship, resource orchestration and growing spin-offs from universities. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24, 911–927.Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks.Yusof, M., & Jain, K. J. (2010). Categories of university-level entrepreneurship: A literature survey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 81–86

Alliances and the innovation performance of corporate and public research spin-off firms

We explore the innovation performance benefits of alliances for spin-off firms, in particular spin-offs either from other firms or from public research organizations. During the early years of the emerging combinatorial chemistry industry, the industry on which our empirical analysis focuses, spin-offs engaged in alliances with large and established partners, partners of similar type and size, and with public research organizations, often for different reasons. We seek to understand to what extent alliances of spin-offs with other firms (either large- or small- and medium-sized firms) affected their innovation performance and also how this performance may have been affected by their corporate or public research background. We find evidence that in general alliances of spin-offs with other firms, in particular alliances with large firms, increased their innovation performance. Corporate spin-offs that formed alliances with other firms outperformed public research spin-offs with such alliances. This suggests that, in terms of their innovation performance, corporate spin-offs that engaged in alliances with other firms seemed to have benefitted from their prior corporate background. Interestingly, it turns out that the negative impact of alliances on the innovation performance of public research spin-offs was largely affected by their alliances with small- and medium-sized firms

Technological diversification within UK’s small serial innovators

This paper investigates the determinants of technological diversification among UK’s small serial innovators (SSIs). Using a longitudinal study of 339 UK-based small businesses accounting for almost 7000 patents between 1990 and 2006, this study constitutes the first empirical examination of technological diversification among SMEs in the literature. Results demonstrate that technological diversification is not solely a large firm activity, challenging the dominant view that innovative SMEs are extremely focused and specialised players with little technological diversification. Our findings suggest a nonlinear (i.e. inverse-U-shaped) relationship between the level of technological opportunities in the environment and the SSIs’ degree of technological diversification. This points to a trade-off between processes of exploration and exploitation across increasingly volatile technology regimes. The paper also demonstrates that small firms with impactful innovations focus their innovative activity around similar technological capabilities while firms that have introduced platform technologies in the past are more likely to engage in technological diversification

The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States

This paper presents cross-country comparisons between Canada and the United States in terms of the impact of public grants and scientific collaborations on subsequent nanotechnology-related publications. In this study we present the varying involvement of academic researchers and government funding to capture the influence of funded research in order to help government agencies evaluate their efficiency in financing nanotechnology research. We analyze the measures of quantity and quality of research output using time-related econometric models and compare the results between nanotechnology scientists in Canada and the United States. The results reveal that both research grants and the position of researchers in co-publication networks have a positive influence on scientific output. Our findings demonstrate that research funding yields a significantly positive linear impact in Canada and a positive non-linear impact in the United States on the number of papers and in terms of the number of citations we observe a positive impact only in the US. Our research shows that the position of scientists in past scientific networks plays an important role in the quantity and quality of papers published by nanotechnology scientists

Leveraging knowledge as a competitive asset? The intensity, performance and structure of universities’ entrepreneurial knowledge exchange activities at a regional level

© 2016, The Author(s). Universities are no longer considered to be isolated islands of knowledge, but as institutions increasingly engaged with a range of external partners through entrepreneurial activities. This paper examines the associations between the intensity and performance of knowledge exchange activities undertaken in UK universities with non-academic actors. Drawing on data concerning the structural factors of interactions of universities in the UK with external partners, the paper sheds further light on the nature of these activities through a prism of competitive and uncompetitive regions in order to better understand how universities may be able to leverage both their knowledge and partnerships more effectively as competitive assets. On the one hand, it is found that academics in uncompetitive regions are more intensively engaged in entrepreneurial activities but generate less income from them than their counterparts in competitive regions, suggesting that there are differences in the income-generating capacity of academics across regions. On the other hand, academic knowledge is found to be more strongly bounded within a certain distance in uncompetitive regions whilst geographical distance seems less of a hindrance to academics in competitive regions