We explore the link between the long‐term innovation outcomes of university–industry collaborations (UICs) – in particular, whether the UIC has led to further exploitative or exploratory innovation – and the adoption of boundary‐spanning practices. This extends the current literature on UICs, which has mainly focused on short‐term innovation outputs and on the features of boundary‐spanning individuals and teams. Relying on a unique, purposefully constructed evidence base combining information from 95 semi‐structured interviews with participants in 75 UICs and from publicly available databases, we find that adopting a ‘bridging’ approach to boundary spanning – through formal and structured practices and communication procedures – increases the likelihood that the UIC will lead to further exploitative innovation. A ‘blurring’ approach to boundary spanning – through informal practices to de‐emphasize boundaries between organizations – increases the likelihood that the UIC will lead to further exploratory innovation. The choice of each boundary‐spanning approach is in turn influenced by the collaborators’ prior experience with internal knowledge creation and collaborative knowledge co‐creation. Management and policy implications are discussed.

Purpose This paper aims to explore and propose the skills and capabilities required in developing products and services within UK university spin-offs (USOs) by considering the model of products/services development (Verona, 1999). Design/methodology/approach Mixed methods of 20 in-depth interviews and questionnaire survey with 204 founders of USOs were used in this study. Findings The findings contribute in filling the literature gap by proposing key knowledge and capabilities required to develop products/services within the unique and non-commercial context, in which USOs are created by academics who do not necessarily have entrepreneurial or business experience. Originality/value This research contributes to studies of product/service development by proposing a modification of elements within the existing theoretical model to be applicable to the specific firm and country context, such as USOs in the UK. Further, the study extends knowledge on the interplay between knowledge management and product development. The applications of the findings are that they can inform academic entrepreneurs on the capabilities significant in the development process. They can also act as indicators to technology transfer offices in what is needed for the provision of appropriate support and training to academic founders/entrepreneurs to foster and enhance other entrepreneurial activities.

University spin-offs (USOs) are an important firm class since they constitute an economically important sub-group of high-tech start-up firms: they have, consequently, engendered many academic studies. However, what the firms deliver by way of innovation in the form of new products and services has largely been missing from the academic entrepreneurship literature. By adopting a mixed research methodology of in-depth interviews and a survey, this study highlights key factors associated with the success of product and service development by USO firms in the United Kingdom – such as understanding customer needs, networks, clear market analysis, applications of technology, and the vision, mission and value of the company. The findings resonate with various studies in innovation management on the key elements of product and service performance predictors. The article also helps to fill a gap in the academic entrepreneurship literature by providing an understanding beyond the success factors in setting up USOs. The study should therefore raise the awareness of and benefit various actors (e.g. academic entrepreneurs and technology transfer offices) with regard to the provision of the activities and skills required to develop products and services successfully.

The individual‐opportunity (IO) nexus has been a highly influential perspective in entrepreneurship, but its market‐focused and variance‐deterministic character pose serious limitations where entrepreneurship is intended as a development policy for disabled people. The extant research in disability entrepreneurship converges in the recognition of structural barriers faced by disabled entrepreneurs, but in most cases, the multilevel challenges only translate to adaptive mechanisms at an individual level. When the IO nexus is adopted as a lens, its variance‐deterministic setup and market‐focused outcome definitions are in favor of entrepreneurs with conventional characteristics, but less helpful for a policy purpose where substantial non‐economic value could be overlooked. Two critical points for consideration in disability entrepreneurship research are the role of context in which the disabled entrepreneurs are embedded, and the influences of different levels of analysis.