Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Management-Herausforderungen in der frühen Entwicklung junger Unternehmen und deren Einfluss auf das Überleben akademischer Spin-offs Read chapter Read first chapter

2014 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Unternehmerische Chancen in dem frühen Entwicklungsprozess akademischer Spin-Offs

Der Einfluss des Humankapitals im Kontext des wissensbasierten Ansatzes

Author : Andreas Winkelbach

Published in: Fallstudien zur Gründung und Entwicklung innovationsorientierter Unternehmen

Publisher: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Überblick

Akademische Spin-Offs sind gewerbliche Ausgründungen von Hochschulabsolventen oder Mitarbeitern öffentlicher Forschungseinrichtungen. Mittels der Kommerzialisierung von Technologien aus der akademischen Mutterorganisation können derartige Unternehmen einen wertvollen Beitrag zum technologischen und ökonomischen Fortschritt einer Volkswirtschaft leisten. Voraussetzung für die Entstehung entsprechender Effekte ist die Identifikation unternehmerischer Chancen und deren erfolgreiche Überführung in marktfähige Anwendungen. In diesem Zusammenhang ist das Humankapital der Gründer von höchster Relevanz. In Abhängigkeit des Humankapitals ergeben sich unterschiedliche Erfolgspotentiale für ein akademisches Spin-Off. Dessen Bedeutung muss jedoch mit dem Entwicklungsprozess eines akademischen Spin-Offs und in Abhängigkeit zu der Natur einer Chance differenziert betrachtet werden.
Bezugnehmend fokussiert die vorliegende ganzheitliche und explorativ ausgerichtete Studie konzeptionelle und methodische Grundlagen zu der Beziehung des Humankapitals akademischer Spin-Offs und dem Umgang mit unternehmerischen Chancen. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist diese Untersuchung in der klassischen Entrepreneurship-Forschung zu verorten. Der Bezugsrahmen erstreckt sich über die Analyse der frühen Phasen des Entwicklungsprozesses akademischer Ausgründungen und untersucht hierbei die differenzierte Bedeutung des Humankapitals im Zeitverlauf und dessen determinierende Wirkung auf die Natur einer Chance. Anhand einer Fallstudie über ein akademisches Spin-Off im frühen Entwicklungsstadium werden diese Zusammenhänge dezidiert aufgezeigt. Gleichzeitig werden basistheoretische Annahmen im Kontext des wissensbasierten Ansatzes analysiert und hinterfragt.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Management-Herausforderungen in der frühen Entwicklung junger Unternehmen und deren Einfluss auf das Überleben akademischer Spin-offs
next chapter Marktorientierte Produktentwicklung aus Sicht der Humankapitaltheorie
Footnotes
1
Häufig verwendete Synonyme in diesem Zusammenhang sind „university spin-off“ und „university spin-out“ (USO) (vgl. bspw. [61], S. 874 und [85], S. 147).
 
2
U.a. der wissensbasierte Ansatz („knowledge-based-view“), der Kernkompetenzansatz („competence-based-view“) und der Ansatz der dynamischen Fähigkeiten („dynamic-capabilities“) (vgl. bspw. [33], [65] und [90]).
 
3
Ausnahmen bilden bspw. Liebeskind ([50]), Grant ([32]) und Spender ([85]). Dennoch bedienen sich diese Autoren auch des epistemologischen Ansatzes.
 
4
Im Deutschen werden häufig die Begriffe verborgenes, stilles oder implizites Wissen als Synonym verwendet.
 
5
Harper ([36], S. 617) folgend, besteht ein Gründerteam aus Individuen, die ein gemeinsames Ziel verfolgen, welches erst unter optimalem Einsatz individueller unternehmerischer Tätigkeiten erzielt werden kann.
 
6
Für einen Überblick bisheriger Ergebnisse vgl. u. a. Colombo und Grilli ([14], S. 797–799).
 
7
Für Definitionen des Begriffes „Grundlagenforschung“ vgl. u. a. Salter und Martin ([69]) und OECD ([60])
 
8
Vor- und Nachteile von Planungsdokumenten sind bei Dencker et al. ([21], S. 520) nachzulesen.
 
Literature
1.
Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (2005) Entrepreneurship, innovation, and technological Change. Now Publishers Inc, Hannover
2.
Balconi M (2002) Tacitness, codification of technological knowledge and the organisation of industry. Research Policy Jg 31:357–379CrossRef
3.
Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17:99–120CrossRef
4.
Becker GS (1975) Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
5.
Bercovitz J, Feldmann M (2006) Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. J Technol Transfer 31(1):175–188CrossRef
6.
Bosma N, Van Praag M, Thurik R, De Wit G (2004) The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of startups. Small Bus Econ 23:227–236CrossRef
7.
Bower DJ (2003) Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm. R D Management 33(2):97–106CrossRef
8.
Breznitz SM, O’Shea RP, Allen TJ (2008) University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters. J Prod Innovat Manag 25:129–142CrossRef
9.
Brüderl J, Preisendörfer P, Ziegler R (1992) Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. Am Sociol Rev 57(2):227–242CrossRef
10.
Chandler GN, Jansen E (1992) The Founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance. J Bus Ventur 7:223–236CrossRef
11.
Chandy RK, Tellis GJ (1998) Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. J Marketing Res 35:474–487CrossRef
12.
Chesbrough H, Rosenbloom RS (2002) The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind Corp Change 11(3):529–555CrossRef
13.
Chiesa V, Piccaluga A (2000) Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. J Bus Ventur 19(1):55–79
14.
Colombo MG, Grilli L (2005) Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: a competence-based view. Res Pol 34(6):795–816CrossRef
15.
Companys YE, McMullen JS (2007) Strategic entrepreneurs at work: the nature, discovery, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Small Bus Econ 28:301–322CrossRef
16.
Conner KR, Prahalad CK (1996) A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organ Sci 7(5):477–501CrossRef
17.
Cooper AC, Gimeno-Gascon FJ, Woo CY (1994) Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. J Bus Ventur 9(5):371–395CrossRef
18.
Danneels E (2004) Disruptive technology reconsidered: a critique and research agenda. The J. Prod. Innov. Manage 21:246–258CrossRef
19.
Davidsson P, Honig B (2003) The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. J Bus Ventur 18:301–331CrossRef
20.
Delmar F, Shane S (2003) Does business-planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strateg Manag J 24:1165–1185CrossRef
21.
Dencker JC, Gruber M, Shah SK (2009) Pre-entry knowledge, learning, and the survival of new firms. Organ Sci 20(3):516–537CrossRef
22.
Djokovic D, Souitaris V (2008) Spinouts from academic Institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research. J Technol Transfer 33:225–247CrossRef
23.
Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res Pol 11:147–162CrossRef
24.
Dosi G (1988) Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J Econ Lit 26(3):1120–1171
25.
Dunn P, Cheatham L (1993) Fundamentals of small business financial management for start Up, survival, growth, and changing economic circumstances. Managerial Finance 19(8):1–13CrossRef
26.
Eckhardt JT, Shane SA (2003) Opportunities and entrepreneurship. J Manage 29(3):333–349CrossRef
27.
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550
28.
Eisenhardt KM, Santos FM (2002) Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy? In: Pettigrew A, Thomas H, Whittington R (Hrsg) Handbook of strategy and management. Sage, London, UK, S 139–164
29.
Franklin S, Wright M, Lockett A (2001) Academic and Surrogate Entrepreneurs in University Spin-out Companies. J Technol Transfer 6(1-2):127–141.CrossRef
30.
Gimeno J, Folta TB et al (1997) Survival of the fittest? entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Adm Sci Q 42(4):750–783CrossRef
31.
Grant R (2002) The knowledge-based view of the firm. In: Choo CW, Bontis N (Hrsg) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York, S 133–148
32.
Grant RM (1996a) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7(4):375–387CrossRef
33.
Grant RM (1996b) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J 17(Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm):109–122CrossRef
34.
Gruber M (2007) Uncovering the value of planning in new venture creation: A process and Contingency Perspective. J Bus Ventur 22(6):782–807CrossRef
35.
Gruber M, MacMillan IC, Thompson JD (2008) Look before you leap: market opportunity identification in emerging technology firms. Manage Sci 54(9):1652–1665CrossRef
36.
Harper DA (2008) Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. J Bus Ventur 23:613–626CrossRef
37.
Hatch NW, Dyer JH (2004) Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strateg Manag J 25(12):1155–1178CrossRef
38.
Heirman A, Clarysse B (2004) How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. J Technol Transfer 29(3/4):247–268CrossRef
39.
Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg Manag J 24(10):997–1010CrossRef
40.
Helmers C, Rogers M (2011) Does patenting help high-tech start-ups? Res Pol 40:1016–1027CrossRef
41.
Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT (2003) The performance of incubent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manage Rev 28(2):257–274
42.
Honig B, Karlsson T (2004) Institutional forces and the written business Plan. J Manage 30(1):29–48CrossRef
43.
Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the Literatures. Organ Sci 2(1):88–115CrossRef
44.
Kazanjian RK, Drazin R (1990) A stage-contingent model of design and growth for technology based new ventures. J Bus Ventur 5(3):137–150CrossRef
45.
Kirzner IM (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. J Econ Lit 35:60–85
46.
Kock A, Gemünden HG, Salomo S, Schultz C (2011) The mixed blessings of technological innovativeness for the commercial success of new products. J Prod Innov Manage 28:28–43CrossRef
47.
Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ Sci 3(3):383–398CrossRef
48.
Lane PJ, Lubatkin M (1998) Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strateg Manag J 19:461–477CrossRef
49.
Leonard-Barton D (1990) A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organ Sci 1(3):248–266CrossRef
50.
Liebeskind JP (1996) Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J 17(Knowledge and the Firm):93–107
51.
Lockett A, Wright M (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res Pol 34:1043–1057CrossRef
52.
Lockett A, Wright M, Franklin S (2003) Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Bus Econ 20:185–201CrossRef
53.
Marvel MR, Lumpkin GT (2007) Technology entrepreneurs’ human capital and its effect on innovation radicalness. Entrep Theor Pract 31(6):807–828CrossRef
54.
McDermott CM, Colarelli O’ConnorG (2002) Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues. J Prod Innov Manage 19:424–438CrossRef
55.
McEvily SK, Chakravarthy B (2002) The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strateg Manag J 23(4):285–305CrossRef
56.
Mian SA (1997) Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. J Bus Ventur 12:251–285CrossRef
57.
Mosey S, Wright M (2007) From human capital to social capital: a longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrep Theor Pract 31(6):909–935CrossRef
58.
Ndonzuau FN, Pirnay F, Surlemont B (2002) A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation 22:281–289CrossRef
59.
Nicolaou N, Birley S (2003) Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. J Bus Ventur 18(3):333–359CrossRef
60.
OECD (2002) The measurement of scientific and technological activities. proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Frascati Manual. OECD, Paris
61.
Patel PC, Fiet JO (2011) Knowledge combination and the potential advantages of family firms in searching for opportunities. Entrep Theor Pract 35(6):1179–1197CrossRef
62.
Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press, Oxford
63.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB et al (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903CrossRef
64.
Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. Anchor Day Books, New York
65.
Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporate. Harv Bus Rev 68(3):79–91
66.
Priem RL, Butler JE (2001) Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Acad Manage Rev 26(1):22–40
67.
Rappert B, Webster A, Charles D (1999) Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Res Pol 28(8):873–890CrossRef
68.
Reed R, DeFillippi RJ (1990) Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Acad Manage Rev 15(1):88–102
69.
Salter AJ, Martin BR (2001) The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res Pol 30:509–532CrossRef
70.
Samuelsson M, Davidsson P (2009) Does venture opportunity variation matter? investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures. Small Bus Econ 33:229–255CrossRef
71.
Schmidt A, Heinrichs S, Walter A (2011) Technologiebasierte Spin-offs - Ein Forschungsüberblick zu Einflussgrößen ihrer Entwicklung. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 81(6):677–714
72.
Scott M, Bruce R (1987) Five stages of growth in small business. Long Range Plan 20(3):45–52CrossRef
73.
Sexton D, Bowman-Upton N (1991) Entrepreneurship: Creativity and Growth. MacMillan, New York
74.
Shane S (2000) Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ Sci 11(4):448–469CrossRef
75.
Shane S (2001a) Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Manage Sci 47(2):205–220CrossRef
76.
Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manage Rev 25(1):217–226
77.
Shane S, Stuart T (2002) Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Manage Sci 48:154–170CrossRef
78.
Shepherd DA, DeTienne DR (2005) Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrep Theor Pract 29(1):91–112CrossRef
79.
Simonin BL (1999) Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strateg Manag J 20(7):595–623CrossRef
80.
Singh R (2001) A comment on developing the field of entrepreneurship through the study of opportunity recognition and exploitation. Acad Manage Rev 26(1):10–12CrossRef
81.
Smilor RW, Gibson DV, Dietrich GB (1990) University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. J Bus Ventur 5(1):63–76CrossRef
82.
Smith BR, Matthews CH, Schenkel MT (2009) Differences in entrepreneurial opportunities: the role of tacitness and codification in opportunity identification. J Small Bus Manag 47(1):38–57CrossRef
83.
Smith KG, Mitchell TR, Summer CE (1985) Top level management priorities in different stages of the organizational life cycle. Acad Manage J 28(4):799–820CrossRef
84.
Spender JC (1989) Industry recipes: an enquiry into the nature and sources of managerial judgement. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK
85.
Spender JC (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J 17(Winter Special Issue):45–62
86.
Steffensen M, Rogers EM, Speakman K (1999) Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. J Bus Ventur 15:93–111CrossRef
87.
Sternitzke C (2010) Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations. Res Pol 39:810–821CrossRef
88.
Stuart TE, Hoang H et al (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Adm Sci Q 44(2):315–349CrossRef
89.
Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (Sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350CrossRef
90.
Teece DJ, Pisano G et al (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533CrossRef
91.
Ucbasaran D, Westhead P, Wright M (2008) Opportunity identification and pursuit: does an entrepreneur’s human capital matter? Small Bus Econ 30:153–173CrossRef
92.
Ucbasaran D, Westhead P, Wright M (2009) The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. J Bus Ventur 24:99–115CrossRef
93.
Unger JM, Rauch A, Frese M, Rosenbusch N (2011) Human capital and entrepreneurial success: a meta-analytical review. J Bus Ventur 26:341–358CrossRef
94.
Vanaelst I, Clarysse B, Wright M, Lockett A, Moray N, S’Jegers R (2006) Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: an examination of team heterogenity. Entrep Theor Pract 30(2):249–271CrossRef
95.
Van deVAH, Hudson R, Schroeder DM (1984) Designing new business startups: entrepreneurial, organizational, and ecological considerations. J Manage 10(1):87–107
96.
Veryzer RWJ (1998) Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. J Prod Innov Manage 15(4):304–321CrossRef
97.
Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Pol 33(1):147–175CrossRef
98.
Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5:171–180CrossRef
99.
Wiklund J, Shepherd D (2003) Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strateg Manag J 24(13):1307–1314CrossRef
100.
Winter S (1987) Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In: Teece D (Hrsg) The Competitive Challenge-Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Ballinger
101.
Winter SG, Szulanski G (2001) Replication as strategy. Organ Sci 12(6):730–743CrossRef
102.
Wright M, Vohora A, Lockett A (2004) The formation of high-tech university spinouts: the role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. J Technol Transfer 29(3/4):287–310CrossRef
103.
Wright M, Hmieleski KM, Siegel DS, Ensley MD (2007) The Role of human capital in technological entrepreneurship. Entrep Theor Pract 31(6):791–806CrossRef
104.
105.
Yin RK (2003) Case study research. Design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks
106.
Zahra SA, Van de Velde E, Larrañeta B (2007) Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Ind Corp Change 16(4):569–608CrossRef
107.
Zander U, Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organ Sci 6(1):76–92CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Unternehmerische Chancen in dem frühen Entwicklungsprozess akademischer Spin-Offs
Author
Andreas Winkelbach
Copyright Year
2014
Book
Fallstudien zur Gründung und Entwicklung innovationsorientierter Unternehmen

Print ISBN: 978-3-658-03597-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-658-03598-3

Copyright Year: 2014

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03598-3_2

Premium Partner

    Image Credits