Key driving factors for product and service innovations in UK university spin-offs

Abstract

<jats:p> 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. </jats:p>

Bibliometrix analysis of medical tourism

“…Table 3 identifies the authors and their publications in the 20 top rankings. Analyzing the table, Demicco is the author with the highest number of publications, 28–40 fifteen, followed by Connel 1,2,41–46 and Han 47–55 with nine publications, Medhekar 56–60 and Na with seven, Frederick, 61–67 Gan, 62–67 Smith, 68–73 Cooper 25,74–78 and with six and Eto 79–82 and Lee 83…”

“…Table 3 identifies the authors and their publications in the 20 top rankings. Analyzing the table, Demicco is the author with the highest number of publications, [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] fifteen, followed by Connel 1,2,41-46 and Han [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] with nine publications, Medhekar [56][57][58][59][60] and Na with seven, Frederick, 61-67 Gan, [62][63][64][65][66][67] Smith, [68][69][70][71][72][73] Cooper 25,[74][75][76][77][78] and with six and Eto [79][80][81]…”

Intermediation in Technology Transfer Processes in Agro-Industrial Innovation Systems: State of Art

“…Within the framework of these technology transfer processes, the following factors are taken into account: the generation of innovation in organizations [16], social capital [17] involved in the social networks of the actors who participate in the technology transfer [18], their interactions [19] and their previous relationships [20]; the university-industry relationships [21], the formality of the process (which can be formal or informal) according to knowledge management and the interactions between actors [17], [22], the limits of organizations and incentives [23], economic benefits e.g. profits on patents [24], technological cooperation between organizations [24], patents seen as a transfer mechanism [18], [25], the business culture that universities can adopt [21], the option of allowing students to participate in industry [17], the culture of the parties [17], legal frameworks [24], the uncertainties of innovations involved in technology transfer processes [26], and the importance of considering the intellectual property in the processes [13], [27]. This intellectual property can be seen materialized in the adoption of technology transfer mechanisms such as the creation of spin-off, patent licensing, collaboration actions between academia and industry [28], and the training of professionals with knowledge that contribute to the solution of industry needs [29].…”

Characteristics and Outputs of University Spin-offs in the United Kingdom

“…Other studies note that servitization (Vandermerwe and Rada 1988; Martinez et al 2010) is widely practiced among firms that offer products to the market. More recently, Baines and Lawton Smith (2019) find that factors contributing to USOs’ success are application of technology and the development of services to meet the needs of clients/markets.…”

“…A significant stream of literature has been devoted to debating how USOs fit into or have an impact on innovation ecosystems. Rutten and Boekma (2009) and others (Lawton Smith and Ho 2006;Shane 2005;Zhang 2009;Asterbo and Bazzazian 2011;Heblich and Slavtchev 2014;Baines 2015;Fernández-Alles, Camelo-Ordaz, and Franco-Leal 2015;Conceição, Faria, and Fontes 2017; Association of University Technology Managers 2016) examine the coevolution, cospecialization, and coopetition of various actors involved in innovation to conceptualize the positioning (e.g., knowledge or technology transfer to other entities) of the USOs within the (eco)system. Local absorptive capacity, the presence of local firms that are able to engage with outputs of university research in the form of products and services from USOs, is critical (Chapple et al 2005;Lester 2005).…”