Performance analysis of research spin-offs in the Spanish biotechnology industry

Perales, Rosa María Yagüe; March-Chordà, Isidre

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.038

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the literature on spin-offs suggests that there are also some major differences between CSOs and PROs, as CSOs seem to economically outperform PROs (Stankiewicz 1994;Lindholm-Dahlstrand 1997;Callan 2001;Tübke 2005;Ensley and Hmieleski 2005;Mustar et al 2008;Yagüe-Perales and March-Chordà 2012;Zhang 2009;Wennberg et al 2011). This advantage of CSOs over PROs begs the question as to what factors cause these advantages and to what extent they impact the innovation performance implications of the alliances in which these different categories of spin-offs engage.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to alternative alliance partner settings, we, therefore, also consider two major categories of spin-offs with very different backgrounds: corporate spin-offs (CSOs), firms that were spun-off (divested) by other firms, public research spin-offs (PROs), and firms that were spunoff (divested) by universities or public research organizations (Shane 2004;Helm and Mauroner 2007;Klepper 2009 for an overview). Prior research reveals significant differences between these two types of spinoff firms in such aspects as superior employment and sales growth of CSOs compared to PROs (e.g., Stankiewicz 1994;Callan 2001;Ensley and Hmieleski 2005;Yagüe-Perales and March-Chordà 2012;Zhang 2009). On the other hand, not much is known about the similarities or differences in the networking strategies of CSOs and PROs and how the underlying alliance choices made by these young, technology-intensive firms can help explain subsequent innovation performance differences between PROs and CSOs (cf., Lindholm-Dahlstrand 1997;Löfsten and Lindelöf 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alliances and the innovation performance of corporate and public research spin-off firms

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore the innovation performance benefits of alliances for spin-off firms, in particular spin-offs either from other firms or from public research organizations. During the early years of the emerging combinatorial chemistry industry, the industry on which our empirical analysis focuses, spin-offs engaged in alliances with large and established partners, partners of similar type and size, and with public research organizations, often for different reasons. We seek to understand to what extent alliances of spin-offs with other firms (either large-or small-and medium-sized firms) affected their innovation performance and also how this performance may have been affected by their corporate or public research background. We find evidence that in general alliances of spin-offs with other firms, in particular alliances with large firms, increased their innovation performance. Corporate spin-offs that formed alliances with other firms outperformed public research spin-offs with such alliances. This suggests that, in terms of their innovation performance, corporate spin-offs that engaged in alliances with other firms seemed to have benefitted from their prior corporate background. Interestingly, it turns out that the negative impact of alliances on the innovation performance of public research spin-offs was largely affected by their alliances with small-and medium-sized firms.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alliances and the innovation performance of corporate and public research spin-off firms

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Во-вторых, их деятельность предполагает более дальний инвестиционный горизонт и, в-третьих, более низкий уровень доходов за сравнимый период. В то же время исследователи Munari, Toole, Yague-Perales, Zhang [8][9][10][11] указывают на то, что аффилированной университету структуре легче получить финансирование от венчурных фондов на этапе становления, если эти фонды частично или полностью государственные, так как последние предпочитают организации, имеющие прочные связи с университетами.…”

Section: практика зарубежных университетовunclassified

Commercialization of Innovation by Western Universities

Fishman

2020

jour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is shown that the vast majority of foreign researchers consider university structures to be an important and economically sustainable mechanism for the transfer of new industrial technologies, that these structures accelerate the economic development of territories by creating new knowledge-intensive (high-tech) jobs, and increase tax revenues to local budgets. Thanks to government funding and public support, university research structures demonstrate higher survival rates compared to firms affiliated to corporate organizations. The structures affiliated to universities are very active in using state aid programs, remain residents of business incubators for longer, and are beneficiaries of funds supporting research and development. Private venture funds are more likely to finance them. University-affiliated structures are more innovative than firms associated with corporate organizations. These structures have a greater number of patented inventions, demonstrate a higher survival rate and a higher liquidity rating, but have lower profitability. University-related structures are innovative firms and can commercialize both specific inventions and more implicit knowledge obtained as a result of scientific research. It is noted that the biggest challenge for such a firm is the transformation of technological assets into marketable offers.

show abstract

“…They are mainly represented by biotechnology (Yagüe-Perales and March-Chordà, 2011). Biotechnology embraces technological implementations using biological systems and live organisms and transforms or creates products or procedures by making use of basic engineering, life and computer sciences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An economic valuation of a biotechnology R&D project in a developing economy

Erbas

Memis²

2012

Electron. J. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Biotechnology complements technological developments in main sectors of economies, such as health, energy, and agriculture, and thus contributes to economic development. It provides solutions to the problems that are frequently faced in developing economies, such as resource constraints, lower productivity and environmental concerns. In order to benefit from biotechnology, its associated markets need to develop and function well to support the developments and transactions of intangible assets, such as technology transfers, license agreements and research and development joint ventures. Economic valuation of the intangible assets is necessary for the development and functioning of these markets. It provides better understanding of value creation at micro scales and its economic and financial dynamics. The literature lacks valuation studies in biotechnology sectors in developing economies. This study performs economic valuation analysis of a research and development project of a Turkish biotechnology company operating in health sector. Turkey, as a developing economy, has slow progress in biotechnology despite its wealth of biological resources and genetic variety. Thus, the study provides an excellent case to analyze valuation issues in developing economies. It uses data from in-depth interviews from the company and employs real options and discounted cash flow (DCF) methods. Results: Developing countries and biotechnology sector introduce additional risks that need to be accounted for in valuation. These risks reduce the value of the project under real options and discounted cash flow methods. Since real options method permits the valuation of options that might arise during the R&D process and provides flexibility to managers to act, it results in higher values compared to discounted cash flow method. The grant from a public institution that partially financed the Project reduces the discount factor and thus increases the value of it. Conclusions: Economic values of biotechnology intangibles in developing countries are affected by country and sector risks and public financing. Thus, both microeconomic and macroeconomic policy interventions are important for the development of biotechnology in these economies. While public financing enables the risky R&D projects to take place, it makes them more valuable than they would be under no intervention. Long run effects of these interventions require diligent analyses.

show abstract

Performance analysis of research spin-offs in the Spanish biotechnology industry

Cited by 26 publications

References 42 publications

Alliances and the innovation performance of corporate and public research spin-off firms

Alliances and the innovation performance of corporate and public research spin-off firms

Commercialization of Innovation by Western Universities

An economic valuation of a biotechnology R&D project in a developing economy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About