Proximity as a Resource Base for Competitive Advantage: University–Industry Links for Technology Transfer

By Peter Lindelöf, Hans Löfsten. 2004

245 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bf98118821f5e4c2a4481a9073be61c7298dcef2

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany (2010, background): “Though, studies using the control-group concept find that on-park firms exhibit a higher degree of cooperation propensity in innovation processes with higher education institutions than comparable firms located outside those facilities (Colombo and Delmastro, 2002; Lindelöf and Löfsten, 2004; Fukuga”
Science Parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: who innovates more? A duration model (2008, background): “No significant differences emerge with respect to the profitability of the NTBFs located in and out-SPs (Löfsten and Lindelöf 2005 ), but in-SP NTBFs are found more likely to have links with HEIs than out-of-Park firms (Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2002; Lindelöf and Löfsten, 2004).”
Science Parks in Japan and Their Value-Added Contributions to New Technology-Based Firms (2006, unknown): “12 Lindelof and Loftsen (2004) indicate that Swedish science parks encourage both formal and informal research networks between on-park NTBFs and a local university, including cooperative research, consultation, and”
Specialization as strategy for business incubators: An assessment of the Central German Multimedia Center (2008, background): “Technology intensive industries are heavily reliant on some R&D core resources (Lindelöf and Löfsten, 2004).”
A control group study of incubators’ impact to promote firm survival (2010, background): “Previous studies in incubator/ incubation research use four important variables to identify an appropriate control group: firm location, industry affiliation, age of the firm and legal form (e.g., Colombo and Delmastro, 2002; Ferguson and Olofsson, 2004; Lindelöf and Löfsten, 2004; Löfsten and Linde”
Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity (2011, unknown): “Regional R&Dspending has been found to be a relevant measure of regional innovative competitiveness (FELDMAN et al., 2002; LINDELÖF and LÖFSTEN, 2004; LINK and SIEGEL, 2005).”
University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature (2007, background): “Lindelof and Lofsten (2004) Does proximity to university provide new technologybased firms (NTBFs) with competitive advantage?”
The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model (2015, background): “Market Impact and Economic Development Lindelöf and Löfsten (2004) Lindelöf, Peter, Löfsten, Hans, 2004.”
Making sense of innovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: a forgotten lesson for policymakers (2011, background): “In addition, empirical evidence shows that proximity between local universities and firms promotes the exchange of ideas (Lindelöf and Löftsen, 2004) and also improves the performance of innovative firms (Hanel and St-Pierre, 2006; Caloghirou et al.”