Academic entrepreneurship: phase-specific constraints and needs

Abstract

Purpose Academic entrepreneurship is extremely relevant in knowledge and technology transfer (KTT). The purpose of this study is to provide insights into phase-specific constraints and needs impacting scientists’ engagement in entrepreneurial activities at public research institutions. Design/methodology/approach In an exploratory case study, 40 qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with German academic entrepreneurs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Findings Based on the data analysis, an ideal-typical founding process with phase-specific barriers and needs was identified. Many constraints and associated needs occur in more than one phase, including the lack of knowledge, the demand for exchange formats, the lack of time and financial resources, institutionalized return options, the lack of human resources and the lack of incentives. Research limitations/implications Given its exploratory approach, this study has limitations regarding its generalization; however, the presented findings may induce further research and in-depth analysis on this matter. Practical implications Several recommendations for action are provided for each phase of the founding process to strengthen the (entrepreneurial) transfer in research organizations. Generally, a pioneering indicator of excellence in the science system should be developed to promote transfer next to publications. Originality/value The study contributes to existing literature on determinants of academic entrepreneurship by indicating the phase-specific constraints and needs throughout the founding process and discussing those needs in the theoretical context of current societal and technological mega-trends.

Capture coproduction behavior in networking alumni communities: Progress from platform belongingness, knowledge sharing, and citizenship behavior

“…The results confirm that sense of belonging is the relational task-conveying mechanism to indirectly generate coproduction through knowledge sharing and then citizenship (Bolino et al, 2002). This building behavior constitutes a critical source of sustainable competitive advantage for a networking community (Müller-Wieland et al, 2019). A platform is incomplete when objectives only focus on the instrumental features and supporting functions are not considered.…”

Sustainable technology development during intellectual property rights commercialisation by university startups

“…Life-cycle theory suggests that change occurs at distinct developmental stages and thus provides a systematic framework for explaining IPR commercialisation from the licensing phase to the post-startup phase. As a startup grows and progresses through defined stages – research, orientation, pre-founding and establishment – it faces specific challenges and barriers (Müller-Wieland et al , 2019). Here, these stages are illustrated in Figure 1, which shows how startups pass through an exploratory phase and then an STD phase.…”

A theory-driven model of the spin-off creation process: A Social Information Processing perspective

“…Another crucial organizational variable to be mentioned is the effect of peers and its impact on forming the intentions (Bergmann et al, 2018;Moog et al, 2015). In some cases, peers' lack of support is considered an obstacle in the entrepreneurial process (Müller Wieland et al, 2019).…”

“…Great importance has been attributed to a heterogeneous group of university characteristics and different forms of university incentives. Good examples are the external relations of the university (Müller-Wieland et al, 2019;Muscio & Ramaciotti, 2019;Rasmussen & Wright, 2015), the University regulations about spin-offs and patenting (Fini et al, 2011;Muscio et al, 2016;Ndonzuau et al, 2002), as well as policies supporting entrepreneurship (Muscio & Ramaciotti, 2019) and specific incentives for entrepreneurship (Parmentola & Ferretti, 2018;Rasmussen & Wright, 2015).…”

“…The literature on academic entrepreneurship is quite fragmented (Skute, 2019). There is a lack of research that looks at academic entrepreneurship phenomenon with a holistic perspective (Müller Wieland, Muschner & Schraudner 2019;Wood, 2011), and an absence of a theory-driven model for the spin-off creation process (Nicolaou & Birley, 2003;Rasmussen, Mosey & Wright, 2011). This lack makes it very difficult to accumulate knowledge about how the process mentioned above unfolds (Mrozowski, 2020;Wood, 2011).…”