Do Academic Spin-Outs Differ and Does it Matter?

By C. Druilhe, Elizabeth Garnsey. 2004

369 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper questions the widespread tendency to view academic spin-outs as an undifferentiated category and explores typologies of companies originating in universities, using a Penrosean conceptualization of entrepreneurial activity. We initially identified five main types of business activities pursued by academic entrepreneurs, which we revised after analyzing a database of Cambridge University spin-outs and real-time exemplars of emerging ventures. The refined typology takes into account the dynamic of the entrepreneurial process. As the business models of ventures evolve they may enter a different category of business activity. We conclude by discussing the academic and practical needs for a better understanding of the heterogeneity of spin-outs, the diversity of which has theoretical and policy implications.

Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/947ca26be7ea8d1118c5bd0674d58430ddcb948e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management of Technology and Innovation

Citations in the corpus

The performance of university spin-offs: an exploratory analysis using venture capital data (2009, background): “Druilhe and Garnsey (2004) define university spin-offs as companies founded by academics or students who are still members of or have just quit a university.”
Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence (2005, background): “Existing research has shown that different industry sectors require different types of knowledge and different business models (Druilhe and Garnsey, 2004). Owen Smith and Powell (2001) have shown that technology transfer in the life”
Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model (2009, background): “Though there are no international comparisons, it is also quite possible that it has been the most fertile university in terms of technology-based entrepreneurship outside the United States (Garnsey and Heffernan, 2005; Druilhe and Garnsey, 2004; Myint et al., 2005; SegalQuinceWicksteedLtd., 1985).”
University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature (2007, background): “Druilhe and Garnsey (2004) Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter?”
Models and Methods of University Technology Transfer (2013, positive): “Druilhe and Garnsey (2004) Diversity of spinouts, that is the type and intensity of resources academic entrepreneurs require for realizing a business opportunity, are likely to vary considerably according to the type of activity undertaken and the amount of resources already possessed by the…”
Success factors of university-spin-offs: Regional government support programs versus regional environment (2014, background): “This definition reflects the opinion of the majority of the scholars (including, e.g., Markman et al., 2004; Degroof and Roberts, 2004; Lawton Smith and Ho, 2006; Egeln et al., 2003), but not all of them (e.g., Druilhe and Garnsey, 2004; Djokovic and Souitaris, 2008).”
The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms (2010, background): “‘‘developed by students or faculty based on their research, or utilized research from a university’s technology transfer area’’; Druilhe and Garnsey (2004, p. 274) identify companies ‘‘drawing on university-based technological and scientific knowledge and involving academics or students who were s”
Exploring the resource logic of student entrepreneurs (2012, background): “Furthermore, earlier studies (see for example Druilhe and Garnsey, 2004; Souitaris et al., 2007) claim that entrepreneurs who start up new firms in a university context often are confronted with many possibilities to use resources within this context at low or no cost, such as free access to…”
University Spin-Out Companies and Venture Capital (2006, neutral): “The complexities of the problems involved in the development of USOs are well-recognised (e.g. Autio, 1997; Carayannis et al., 1998; Clarysse et al., 2005; Druilhe and Garnsey, 2004; Fontes, 2005; Mangematin et al., 2002).”
An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage in Informal University Technology Transfer (2007, background): “Relatedly, Druilhe and Garnsey (2004) examined longitudinal data from Cambridge University and found that informal relationships with industry were often precursors to a formal spin out that likewise did not involve the university.”
Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework (2008, background): “In passing from one phase to the next, Druilhe and Garnsey (2004) found spinoffs modify, refine and develop their business model as they improve their knowledge of resources and opportunities.”