Commercialization of Innovation by Western Universities

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.

1. Mathisen M., Rasmussen T. E. (2019) The development, growth, and performance of university spinoffs: a critical review // The Journal of Technology Transfer. 1–48.

2. Villani E., Einar Rasmussen E., Grimaldi R. (2017) How intermediary organizations facilitate universityindustry technology transfer: A proximity approach. Technological forecasting and social change // An international journal. 86–102.

3. Rasmussen E., Moen O., Gulbrandsen M. (2006) Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge // Technovation. 26:518–533.

4. Munari F., Pasquini M., Toschi L. (2015) From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe // Journal of Technology Transfer. 40:948–975.

5. Shane S. (2004) Academic entrepreneurship university spinoffs and wealth creation / Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

6. Mathisen M. T. (2017) The growth of research-based spin-offs: Unleashing the value of academic entrepreneurship / Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 224 p.

7. Wright M., Lockett A., Clarysse B., Binks M. (2006) University spin-out companies and venture capital // Munari Research Policy. 35:481–501.

8. Munari F., Toschi L. (2011) Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spinoffs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK // Industrial and Corporate Change. 20:397–432.

9. Toole A. A., Czarnitzki D. (2007) Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program // Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 63:716–738.

10. Yague-Perales R.M., March-Chorda I. (2012) Performance analysis of research spin-offs in the Spanish biotechnology industry // Journal of Business Research. 65:1782–1789.

11. Zhang J. F. (2009) The performance of university spinoffs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data // Journal of Technology Transfer. 34:255–285.

12. Meoli M., Paleari S., Vismara S. (2013) Completing the technology transfer process: M&As of science-based IPOs // Small Business Economics. 40:227–248.

13. Stephan A. (2014) Are public research spin-offs more innovative? // Small Business Economics. 43:353–368.

14. Lowe R. A., Ziedonis A. A. (2006) Overoptimism and the performance of entrepreneurial firms // Management Science. 52:173–186.

15. Wennberg K., Wiklund J., Hellerstedt K., Nordqvist M. (2011) Implications of intra-family and external ownership transfer of family firms: short-term and long-termperformance differences // Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 5:352–372.

16. Ensley M. D., Hmieleski, K.A. (2005) A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups // Research Policy. 34:1091–1105.

17. Salvador E. (2011) Are science parks and incubators good «brand names» for spin-offs? The case study of Turin // Journal of Technology Transfer. 36:203–232.

18. Ortin-Angel P., Vendrell-Herrero F. (2014) University spin-offs vs. other NTBFs: Total factor productivity differences at outset and evolution // Technovation. 34:101–112.

19. Colombo M. G., D’Adda D., Piva E. (2010) The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis // Journal of Technology Transfer. 35:113–140.

20. Bonardo D., Paleari S., Vismara S. (2011) Valuing university-based firms: The effects of academic affiliation on IPO performance // Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 35:755–776.

21. Bonardo D., Paleari S., Vismara S. (2010) The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms // Journal of Technology Transfer. 35:141–180.

22. Miozzo M., DiVito L. (2016) Growing fast or slow?: Understanding the variety of paths and the speed of early growth of entrepreneurial science-based firms // Research Policy. 45:964–986.

23. Mueller C., Westhead P., Wright M. (2012) Formal venture capital acquisition: can entrepreneurs compensate for the spatial proximity benefits of South East England and ‘star’ golden-triangle universities? // Environment and Planning. 44:281–296.

24. Lubik S., Garnsey E. (2016) Early business model evolution in science-based ventures: The case of advanced materials // Long Range Planning. 49:393–408.

25. Gans J. S., Stern S. (2003) The product market and the market for «ideas»: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs // Research Policy. 32:333–350.

26. Vincett P. S. (2010) The economic impacts of academic spin-off companies, and their implications for public policy // Research Policy. 39:736–747.