nach oben

Review of Managerial Science

Erschienen in:

24.10.2016 | Original Paper

Towards a better understanding of performance measurements: the case of research-based spin-offs

verfasst von: Roland Helm, Oliver Mauroner, Kendra Pöhlmann

Erschienen in: Review of Managerial Science | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Although performance measurement has been a prominent topic especially in an entrepreneurial context, researchers struggle to obtain conclusive results. We link this to the fact that the key role of different performance measurements has been neglected and consequently want to fill this gap by contrasting five different performance measures against each other, being: general performance, long-term perspective, technological application, financial indicators and growth. The new perspective we are offering is taking different performance measures into account at the same time and examining whether one specific measurement seems to favor, correlate or stand in some kind of causal relationship with specific exogenous success factors. By investigating the phenomenon in the case of research-based spin-offs (RBSOs), a type of newly founded ventures that is exemplary for an entrepreneurial context, we are offering insights on best performing spin-offs regarding their starting configuration, support mechanism and product-market combination. Drawing on a database of 177 spin-offs from publicly funded non-university research institutes, an analysis via logistic regression showed that each performance measurement shows different results, but the negative effect of push motivation and the positive influencing factors of a high degree of innovation and profound knowledge in assessing the targeted market are accepted success factors independent from the measurement used.

Vorheriger Artikel The relationship between organizational identification and internal whistle-blowing: the joint moderating effects of perceived ethical climate and proactive personality

Nächster Artikel Firm level R&D intensity: evidence from Indian drugs and pharmaceutical industry

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Max-Planck-Society, Helmholtz Association, Leibniz Association.

Summary statistics for the dependent and independent constructs can be found in Annex 1.

Av. M. E. are the average marginal effects. M.E.@m. are the marginal effects at means. All significance values are indicated. Having used directional hypothesis, the p values can be cut in halves. With regards to heteroscedasticity, we computed standard errors that are robust to heteroscedasticity. Results using robust standard errors confirmed the results given by the standard analyses.

Akgün AE, Lynn GS (2002) Antecedents and consequences of team stability on new product development performance. J Eng Tech Manag 19(3–4):263–286CrossRef

Andersson M, Klepper S (2012) Characteristics and performance of new firms and spinoffs in Sweden. IFN working paper (902), pp 1–55

Autio E (1994) New, technology-based firms as agents of R&D and innovation: an empirical study. Technovation 14(4):259–273CrossRef

Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (2012) Specification, evaluation and interpretation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 40:8–34CrossRef

Baum JAC, Calabrese T, Silverman BS (2000) Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategy Manag J 21(3):267–294CrossRef

Bergek A, Norrman C (2008) Incubator best practice: a framework. Technovation 28(1–2):20–28CrossRef

Bøllingtoft A, Ulhøi JP (2005) The networked business incubator—leveraging entrepreneurial agency?: Special issue on science parks and incubators. J Bus Ventur 20(2):265–290CrossRef

Brinckmann J (2007) Competence of top management teams and success of new technology-based firms. Springer, Wiesbaden

Brinckmann J, Grichnik D, Kapsa D (2010) Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance in small firms. J Bus Ventur 25(1):24–40CrossRef

Brüderl J, Preisendörfer P, Ziegler R (1992) Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. Am Sociol Rev 57(2):227–242CrossRef

Brush CG, Vanderwerf PG (1992) A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance. J Bus Ventur 7:157–170CrossRef

Burke A, Fraser S, Greene FJ (2010) The multiple effects of business planning on new venture performance. J Manag Stud 47(3):391–415CrossRef

Bygrave W (2010) The entrepreneurial process. In: Bygrave W, Zacharakis A (eds) The portable MBA in entrepreneurship. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–27

Calantone RJ, Di Benedetto CA, Bhoovaraghavan S (1994) Examining the relationship between degree of innovation and new product success. J Bus Res 30(2):143–148CrossRef

Carayannis EG, Rogers EM, Kurihara K, Allbritton MM (1998) High-technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation 18(1):1–11CrossRef

Carbonell P, Rodriguez AI (2006) The impact of market characteristics and innovation speed on perceptions of positional advantage and new product performance. Int J Res Mark 23(1):1–12CrossRef

Chiesa V, Piccaluga A (2000) Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Manag 30(4):329–339CrossRef

Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16:64–73CrossRef

Clarysse B, Degroof J, Heirman A (2003) Growth paths of technology-based companies in life sciences and information technology, Brussels

Clarysse B, Wright M, Lockett A, van de Velde E, Vohora A (2005) Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. J Bus Ventur 20(2):183–216CrossRef

Clarysse B, Wright M, van de Velde E (2011) Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. J Manag Stud 48(6):1420–1442CrossRef

Cochran AB (1981) Small business mortality rates: a review of the literature. J Small Bus Manag 19(4):50–59

Colombo MG, Grilli L (2005) Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: a competence-based view. Res Policy 34(6):795–816CrossRef

Colombo MG, Grilli L (2010) On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: exploring the role of founders’ human capital and venture. J Bus Ventur 25(6):610–626CrossRef

Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ (1994) Determinants of timeliness in product development. J Prod Innov Manag 11(5):381–396CrossRef

Cortina JM (1993) What Is coefficient alpha?: An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78(1):98–104CrossRef

Dahlqvist J, Davidsson P (2000) Business start-up reasons and firm performance. Front Entrep Res

Dautzenberg K, Reger G (2010) Entrepreneurial team characteristics and success of new technology-based firms in Germany. IJBG 4(1):71–94CrossRef

Delmar F (1997) Measuring growth: methodological considerations and empirical results. In: Donckels R, Miettinen A (eds) Entrepreneurship and SME research: on its way to the next millennium. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp 199–216

Delmar F, Davidsson P (2000) Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrep Reg Dev 12:1–23CrossRef

Delmar F, Shane S (2003) Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategy Manag J 24(12):1165–1185CrossRef

Dess GG, Robinson RB (1984) Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategy Manag J 5(3):265–273CrossRef

Dewangan V, Godse M (2014) Towards a holistic enterprise innovation performance measurement system. Technovation 34(9):536–545CrossRef

Doblinger C, Dowling M, Helm R (2016) An institutional perspective of public policy and network effects in the renewable energy industry: enablers or disablers of entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation? Entrep Reg Dev Int J 28(1–2):126–156CrossRef

Dowling M, Helm R (2006) Product development success through cooperation: a study of entrepreneurial firms. Technovation 26(4):483–488CrossRef

Druilhe C, Garnsey E (2004) Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? J Technol Transf 29(3–4):269–285CrossRef

Egeln J, Gottschalk S, Rammer C, Spielkamp A (2002) public research spin-offs in Germany, Mannheim

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res (JMR) 18(1):39–50CrossRef

Gartner WB (1985) Conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Acad Manag Rev 10(4):696–706CrossRef

Grimaldi R, Grandi A (2005) Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment of incubating models. Technovation 25(2):111–121CrossRef

Gübeli MH, Doloreux D (2005) An empirical study of university spin-off development. Eur J Innov Manag 8(3):269–282CrossRef

Gurău C, Lasch F, Dana L (2015) Sources of entrepreneurial value creation: a business model approach. Int J Entrep Small Bus 25(2):192–207CrossRef

Hackett SM, Dilts DM (2004) A systematic review of business incubation research. J Technol Transf 29(1):55–82CrossRef

Heirman A, Clarysse B (2004) How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. J Technol Transf 29(3–4):247–268CrossRef

Heirman A, Clarysse B, van den Haute V (2003) Starting resource configuration of research-based start-ups and the interaction with technology, institutional background, and industrial dynamics, gent

Helm R, Mauroner O (2007) Success of research-based spin-offs. State-of-the-art and guidelines for further research. Rev Manag Sci 1(3):237–270CrossRef

Helm R, Mauroner O (2011) Soft starters, research boutiques and product-oriented firms: different business models for spin-off companies. Int J Entrep Small Bus 12(4):479CrossRef

Hmieleski KM, Ensley MD (2007) A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. J Organ Behav 28(7):865–889CrossRef

Hölzl A, Lobe S (2014) Predicting above-median and below-median growth rates. Rev Manag Sci 10(1):105–133. doi:10.1007/s11846-014-0145-5 CrossRef

Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategy Manag J 20(2):195–204CrossRef

Jaouen A, Lasch F (2015) A new typology of micro-firm owner-managers. Int Small Bus J 33(4):397–421CrossRef

Kessler EH, Bierly PE (2002) Is faster really better? An empirical test of the implications of innovation speed. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 49(1):2–12CrossRef

Kleinschmidt EJ, Cooper RG (1991) The impact of product innovativeness on performance. J Prod Innov Manag 8(4):240–251CrossRef

Kleinknecht A (1993) Why do we need new innovation output indicators? In: Kleinknecht A, Bain D (eds) New concepts in innovation output measurement. St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp 1–9

Knockaert M, Ucbasaran D, Wright M, Clarysse B (2011) The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: the case of science-based entrepreneurial firms. Entrep Theory Pract 35(4):777–803CrossRef

Kraus S, Rigtering JPC, Hughes M, Hosman V (2012) Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands. Rev Manag Sci 6(2):161–182CrossRef

Lauer Schachter H (2010) Objective and subjective performance measures: a note on terminology. Adm Soc 42(5):550–567CrossRef

Lechler T (2001) Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success. Small Bus Econ 16(4):263–278CrossRef

Lendner C (2003) How university business incubators help start-ups to succeed: an international study

Li H (2001) How does new venture strategy matter in the environment-performance relationship? Manag Res 12:183–204

Li H, Atuahene-Gima K (2001) The impact of interaction between R&D and marketing on new product performance: an empirical analysis of Chinese high technology firms. Int J Technol Manag 21(1–2):61–75

Lockett A, Wright M, Franklin S (2003) Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Bus Econ 20(2):185–200CrossRef

Lockett A, Siegel D, Wright M, Ensley MD (2005) The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: managerial and policy implcations. Res Policy 34(7):981–993CrossRef

Lowe R, Marriott S (2006) Enterprise: entrepreneurship and innovation concepts, contexts and commercialization. BH (Butterworth-Heinemann) Elsevier, Oxford

Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad Manag Rev 21(1):135–172CrossRef

Lynn GS, Akgün AE (2003) Launch your new products/services better, faster. Res Technol Manag 46(3):21–26CrossRef

Mahar JF, Coddington DC (1965) The scientific complex: proceed with caution. Harv Bus Rev 43(1):140–155

Matsuno K, Mentzer J, Oezsomer A (2002) The effects of entrepreneurial procilivitz and market orientation on business performance. J Mark 66:18–32

Menguc B, Auh S (2006) Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. J Acad Mark Sci 34(1):63–73

Menon A, Bharadwaj SG, Howell R (1996) The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in intraorganizational relationships. J Acad Mark Sci 24(4):299–313CrossRef

Meyer M, Gupta V (1994) The performance paradox. Res Organ Behav 16:309–369

Morrison JD, Wetzel WE (1991) A supportive environment for faculty spin-off companies. In: Brett AM, Gibson DV, Smilor RW (eds) University spin-off companies: economic development, faculty entrepreneurs, and technology transfer. Roman and Littlefield Publishers Inc, Savage

Murphy GB, Trailer JW, Hill R (1996) Measuring performance in entrepreneurship. J Bus Res 36:15–23CrossRef

Mustar P (1997) How French academics create hi-tech companies: the conditions for success or failure. Sci Public Policy 24:37–43

Mustar P (2001) Spin-offs from public research: trends and outlook. STI Rev (26):165–172

Mustar P, Renault M, Colombo MG, Piva E, Fontes M, Lockett A, Wright M, Clarysse B, Moray N (2006) Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: a multi-dimensional taxonomy. Res Policy 35(2):289–308CrossRef

Nagelkerke N (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78(3):691–692CrossRef

Nelson A, Earle A, Howard-Grenville J, Haack J, Young D (2014) Do innovation measures actually measure innovation? Obliteration, symbolic adoption, and other finicky challenges in tracking innovation diffusion. Res Policy 43(6):927–940CrossRef

Nicolaou N, Birley S (2003) Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. J Bus Ventur 18(3):333–359CrossRef

O’Shea RP, Chugh H, Allen TJ (2008) Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. J Technol Transf 33(6):653–666CrossRef

Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley, New York

Peterson RA (1994) A meta-analysis of cronbach’s coefficient alpha. J Consum Res 21(2):381–391CrossRef

Pirnay F, Surlemont B, Nlemevo F (2003) Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Bus Econ 21(4):355–369CrossRef

Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag 12(4):531–544

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903CrossRef

Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analysing industries and competitors. Free Press, New York

Powers JB, McDougall PP (2005) University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 20(3):291–311CrossRef

Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harv Bus Rev 68(3):79–91

Roberts EB (1991) Entrepreneurs in high technology: lessons from MIT and beyond. Oxford University Press, New York

Rogers EM (1986) The role of the research university in the spin-off of high-technology companies. Technovation 4(3):169–181CrossRef

Romijn H, Albu M (2002) Innovation, networking and proximity: lessons from small high technology firms in the UK. Reg Stud 36(1):81–86CrossRef

Sabherwal R, Becerra-Fernandez I (2005) Integrating specific knowledge: insights from Kennedy Space Center. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(3):301–315CrossRef

Sandberg WR (1986) New venture performance: the role of strategy and industry structure. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA

Sapienza HJ, Smith KG, Gannon MJ (1988) Using subjective evaluations of organizational performance in small business research. Am J Small Bus 12:45–53CrossRef

Sapienza HJ, Parhankangas A, Autio E (2004) Knowledge relatedness and post-spin-off growth. J Bus Ventur 19(6):809–829CrossRef

Scholten VE (2006) The early growth of academic spin-offs: factors influencing the early growth of dutch spin-offs in the life sciences. ICT and Consulting, Wangeningen

Schoonhoven C, Eisenhardt K, Lyman K (1990) Speeding products to market: waiting time to first product introduction in new firms. Adm Sci Q 35:177–207CrossRef

Schwartz M, Hornych C (2010) Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation 30(9–10):485–495CrossRef

Scillitoe JL, Chakrabarti AK (2010) The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation 30(3):155–167CrossRef

Smilor RW, Gibson DV, Dietrich GB (1990) University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. J Bus Ventur 5(1):63–76CrossRef

Soetanto DP, van Geenhuizen M (2011) Social networks, university spin-off growth and promises of ‘living labs’. Reg Sci Policy Pract 3(3):305–321CrossRef

Solymossy E (1997) Push/pull motivation: does it matter in venture performance?

Song M, Podoynitsyna K, van der Bij H, Halman JIM (2008) Success factors in new ventures: a meta-analysis. J Prod Innov Manag 25(1):7–27CrossRef

Spielkamp A, Egeln J, Gottschalk S, Rammer C (2004) Spin-offs in Germany—conceptual considerations and empirical evidence. In: Dowling M, Schmude J, Zu Knyphausen-Aufsess D (eds) Advances in interdisciplinary European entrepreneurship research, vol 3. LIT Verlag, Münster, pp 153–181

Sproles GB, Kendall EL (1986) A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-marking styles. J Consum Aff 20(2):267–279CrossRef

Steffensen M, Rogers EM, Speakman K (2000) Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. J Bus Ventur 15(1):93–111CrossRef

Tatikonda MV, Montoya-Weiss MM (2001) Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: the influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Manag Sci 47(1):151–172CrossRef

Tübke A (2005) Success factors of corporate spin-offs. International studies in entrepreneurship, vol 2. Springer, New York

van Praag M (2003) Business survival and success of young small business owners. Small Bus Econ 21:1–17CrossRef

Venkatraman N, Ramanujam V (1987) Measurement of business economic performance: an examination of method convergence. J Manag Stud 13(1):109–123

Wall TD, Michie J, Patterson M, Wood SJ, Sheenan M, Clegg CW, West M (2004) On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Pers Psychol 57(1):95–118CrossRef

Walter A, Auer M, Ritter T (2006) The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. J Bus Ventur 21(4):541–567CrossRef

West GP (2007) Collective cognition: when entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, Make Decisions. Entrep Theory Pract 31(1):77–102CrossRef

Yli-Renko H, Autio E, Sapienza HJ (2001) Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategy Manag J 22(6–7):587–613CrossRef

Zahra SA, Bogner WC (2000) Technology strategy and software new venture’s performance: exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. J Bus Ventur 15(2):135–173CrossRef

Zahra SA, Matherne BP, Carleton JM (2003) Technological resource leveraging and the internationalisation of new ventures. J Int Entrep 1(2):163–186CrossRef

Titel: Towards a better understanding of performance measurements: the case of research-based spin-offs
verfasst von: Roland Helm
Oliver Mauroner
Kendra Pöhlmann
Publikationsdatum: 24.10.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Review of Managerial Science / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1863-6683
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-6691
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0217-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Firm level R&D intensity: evidence from Indian drugs and pharmaceutical industry

The impact of top management teams on firm innovativeness: a configurational analysis of demographic characteristics, leadership style and team power distribution

Determinants of firm value in Latin America: an analysis of firm attributes and institutional factors

The pricing efficiency of exchange-traded commodities

Entrepreneurial orientation and firm value: Does managerial discretion play a role?

Image and reputation of family firms: a systematic literature review of the state of research

Premium Partner