Published Online:22 Aug 2016https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2014.0138
Abstract
Spin-off firms originate from several sources including universities, existing firms, and government research centers. Thus far, work on spin-off activity has focused on factors that influence the creation and performance of corporate spin-offs, with recent attention turning to those from universities. Spin-offs from government laboratories and research centers have largely been overlooked. Additionally, little work has compared the outcomes of different spin-off types. Using a database of all nanotechnology firms founded between 1981 and 2002, this study examines academic, corporate, and government spin-offs as well as other start-ups across five outcomes including firm cessation, acquisition, liquidation, bankruptcy, venture capital, and government small business innovation funding. The data show that lineage, both in terms of intellectual property and founder background, does influence outcomes; however, each type of firm origin has provocative distinctions. These findings unpack the categorization of spin-off firms to clarify the role of early knowledge transfer mechanisms and initial resource portfolios. Implications for the study of microfoundations of entrepreneurship are discussed.
The article by Woolley sheds light on the importance of various foundational inputs that can be used in spin-off companies. Based on an excellent blending of well-established ideas for some inputs and intuitive claims for others, the author investigates a complex array of possible effects on several indicators of success in spin-offs. The empirical findings reveal, among other things, that intellectual property and founders from government are quite important. These findings have obvious implications for future theory building and empirical work in the spin-off research stream, where such government origins have played relatively minor roles. As important, the findings have implications for a number of other research streams where the backgrounds of individuals and the sources of entrepreneurial ideas play key roles.
C. Chet Miller, Action Editor
REFERENCES
- 2014. National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43: 476–494. Google Scholar
- 2004. Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 501–522.Link , Google Scholar
- 2006. Organizations evolving 2nd ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
- 1984. Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
- 2002. Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31: 145–158. Google Scholar
- 2005. Analysis of young, small firms that have closed: Delineating successful from unsuccessful closures. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 343–358. Google Scholar
- 2010. The Knowledge-based typology of university spin-offs in the context of regional economic development. Technovation, 30: 519–532. Google Scholar
- 2007. Early teams: The impact of team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 147–173. Google Scholar
- 1980. Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York City, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
- 1994. A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size. Journal of Business Venturing, 9: 7–31. Google Scholar
- 2002. Techniques of event history modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
- 2008. The time frames of entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 23: 1–20. Google Scholar
- 2011. The problem of political design in federal innovation organization. In K. H. FealingJ. I. LaneJ. H. Marburger, IIIShipp S. S. (Eds.), The science of science policy, 302–326. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
- 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29: 627–655. Google Scholar
- 2013. Impact of the type of corporate spinoff on growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4): 943–959. Google Scholar
- 2002. Coming from good stock: Career histories and new venture formation. In M. LounsburyM. Ventresca (Eds.), Social structure and organizations: 229–262. Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier. Google Scholar
- 2001. The new spin on spinoffs. In fostering high tech spinoffs: A public strategy for innovation. OECD STI Review: 13–55. Paris: OECD. Google Scholar
- 1998. Resource redeployment following horizontal acquisitions in Europe and North America, 1988–1992. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 631–661. Google Scholar
- 1998. High-technology spinoffs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation, 18: 1–11. Google Scholar
- 1996. The Fates of de novo and de alio producers in the American automobile industry 1885-1981. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 117–137. Google Scholar
- 1989. Density dependence in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations. American Sociological Review, 54: 524–541. Google Scholar
- 2009. Spawned with a silver spoon? Entrepreneurial performance and innovation in the medical device industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 185–206. Google Scholar
- 2014. Dynamic capabilities and managing human capital. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28: 395–408.Link , Google Scholar
- 2015. Spinoffs and the ascension of Silicon Valley. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24: 837–858. Google Scholar
- 2004. A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spinoff. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 55–79. Google Scholar
- 2007. Academic spinoffs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16: 609–640. Google Scholar
- 2011. Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spinoff companies. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 1420–1442. Google Scholar
- 1998. Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 523–542. Google Scholar
- 2005. Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34: 795–816. Google Scholar
- 2012. Firms’ genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: A comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, 41: 79–92. Google Scholar
- 2003. Purpose and performance of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Small Business Economics, 20: 137–151. Google Scholar
- 2004. Turning scientific and technological human capital into economic capital: The experience of biotech start-ups in France. Research Policy, 33: 631–642. Google Scholar
- 2014. The who, why, and how of spinoffs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23: 661–688. Google Scholar
- 1991. Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 6: 405–429. Google Scholar
- 2008. The effect of small business managers’ growth motivation on firm growth: A longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32: 437–457. Google Scholar
- 2011. Divergent paths to commercial science: A comparison of scientists’ founding and advising activities. Research Policy, 40: 69–80. Google Scholar
- 2004. Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29: 269–285. Google Scholar
- 1990. A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 297–312. Google Scholar
- 2008. Los Alamos and Sandia: R&D treasures. BusinessWeek. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-09-10/los-alamos-and-sandia-r-and-d-treasures. Accessed September 2, 2014. Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
- 1990. Founding strategy and performance: A comparison of high and low growth high tech firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 87–98. Google Scholar
- 2012. Unpacking firm exit at the firm and industry levels: The adaptation and selection of firm capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 794–819. Google Scholar
- 2006. Spin-outs: Knowledge diffusion through employee mobility. Rand Journal of Economics, 37: 841–860. Google Scholar
- 2001. Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 127–141. Google Scholar
- 2003. University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28: 17–30. Google Scholar
- 2012. Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5: 189–211. Google Scholar
- 2004. The Seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 366–403. Google Scholar
- 2012. Econometric analysis 7th ed.. Boston, MA: Pearson. Google Scholar
- 1988. The ecology of organizational mortality: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 25–52. Google Scholar
- 2005. Rush to Market in Nanosensors, But Most Aren’t “Nano”. Lux Research Press Release, May 26, 2005. Google Scholar
- 2002. The birth of capabilities: Market entry and the importance of pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11: 725–760. Google Scholar
- 2011. For Buyers of Web Start-Ups, Quest to Corral Young Talent. New York Times, A1. Google Scholar
- 2003. Getting off to a good start: The effects of upper echelon affiliations on underwriter prestige. Organization Science, 14: 244–263. Google Scholar
- 2011. The evolution of federally funded research & development centers. www.fas.org/pubs/pir/2011spring/FFRDCs.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2012. Google Scholar
- 2001. Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. Rand Journal of Economics, 32: 167–198. Google Scholar
- 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91: 240–259. Google Scholar
- 2010. The origin and growth of industry clusters: The making of Silicon Valley and Detroit. Journal of Urban Economics, 67: 15–32. Google Scholar
- 2000. Dominance by birthright: Entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the US television receiver industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 997–1016. Google Scholar
- 2005. Entry by spinoffs. Management Science, 51: 1291–1306. Google Scholar
- 2011. The Relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: The case of science-based entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35: 777–803. Google Scholar
- 2000. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 411–432. Google Scholar
- 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 41–58. Google Scholar
- 1997. Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spinoff firms. Research Policy, 26: 331–344. Google Scholar
- 2005. The creation of spinoff firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34: 981–993. Google Scholar
- 2005. R&D networks and product innovation patterns-academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on science parks. Technovation, 25: 1025–1037. Google Scholar
- 2016. Clusters of opportunity: How shocks affect the timing and content of spin-off entry. Working paper. Google Scholar
- 2009. The contribution of (not so) public research to commercial innovations in the field of combinatorial chemistry. Research Policy, 38: 957–970. Google Scholar
- 2007. From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31: 909–935. Google Scholar
- 2001. The commercialization of national lab technology through the formation of ‘spinoff’ firms: Evidence from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 3: 106–119. Google Scholar
- 2011. Do venture capitalists have a bias against investment in academic spin-offs? Evidence from the micro- and nanotechnology sector in the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20: 397–432. Google Scholar
- 2004. The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33: 643–659. Google Scholar
- 2006. Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spinoffs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35: 289–308. Google Scholar
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office 2007. Nanotechnology: Big things from a tiny world. http://nano4me.org/handbook/QbC.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2006. Google ScholarNational Science and Technology Council . 2000. National nanotechnology initiative and its implementation plan. Washington, DC: The Office of Science and Technology Policy. Google ScholarNational Science Foundation 2014a. Federally funded R&D centers report declines in R&D spending in FY 2012. www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14308/. Accessed September 2, 2014. Google ScholarNational Science Foundation 2014b. Master government list of federally funded R&D centers. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist. Accessed September 2, 2014. Google Scholar- 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
- 2003. Social networks in organizational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49: 1702–1725. Google Scholar
- 2003. From a corporate venture to an independent company: A base for a taxonomy for corporate spinoff firms. Research Policy, 32: 463–481. Google Scholar
- 2002. A genealogical approach to organizational life chances: The parent-progeny transfer among Silicon Valley law firms, 1946-1996. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 474–506. Google Scholar
- 2001. Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21: 253–261. Google Scholar
- 2005. Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34: 1076–1090. Google Scholar
- 2010. Material strategies of legitimacy in sustained innovation. Working Paper. Google Scholar
- 1990. Predictors of success in new technology based ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 201–220. Google Scholar
- 2005. Technology sourcing through acquisitions: Evidence from the U.S. drug industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 89–103. Google Scholar
- 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68: 195–222. Google Scholar
- 1997. Founder characteristics, start-up process and strategy/structure variables as predictors of shortline railroad performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22: 5–22. Google Scholar
- 2004. Knowledge relatedness and post-spinoff growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 809–829. Google Scholar
- 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
- 1983. Effects of recontracting on shareholder wealth: The case of voluntary spinoffs. Journal of Financial Economics, 437–467. Google Scholar
- 1990. Speeding products to market: Waiting time to first product introduction in new firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 177–207. Google Scholar
- 1996. The governance and control of voluntary corporate spinoffs. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 25–39. Google Scholar
- 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11: 448–469. Google Scholar
- 2004. Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar
- 2002. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48: 154–170. Google Scholar
- ., 2011. National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36: 587–604. Google Scholar
- 1986. Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 171–193. Google Scholar
- 1999. Prepared written statement and supplemental material of R. E. Smalley. June 22, 1999. Accessed December 13, 2007. Google Scholar
- 2006. Measuring the performance of Oxford University, Oxford Brookes University and the government laboratories’ spinoff companies. Research Policy, 35: 1554–1568. Google Scholar
- 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13: 290–312. Google Scholar
Sobel–Goodman Mediation Test UCLA: Institute for Digital Research and Education. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ado/analysis/sgmediation.hlp.htm. Accessed February 2, 2016. Google Scholar- 1990. Impact of entrepreneurial and management experience on early performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 151–162. Google Scholar
- 2001. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 59–72. Google Scholar
- 2010. The economic impacts of academic spinoff companies, and their implications for public policy. Research Policy, 39: 736–747. Google Scholar
- 2014. Founding team composition and early performance of university-based spinoff companies. Technovation, 34: 31–43. Google Scholar
- 2006. The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spinoff performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 541–567. Google Scholar
- 2012. Partnering with universities: A good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms? Small Business Economics, 38: 197–215. Google Scholar
- 2003. The effects of human capital, organizational demography, and interpersonal processes on venture partner perceptions of firm profit and growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 145–164. Google Scholar
- 2010. Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25: 361–375. Google Scholar
- 2011. The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40: 1128–1143. Google Scholar
- 2003. Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1307–1314. Google Scholar
- 2010. Technology emergence through entrepreneurship across multiple industries. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4: 1–21. Google Scholar
- 2014. The creation and configuration of infrastructure for entrepreneurship in emerging domains of activity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38: 721–747. Google Scholar
- 1991. Event history analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
- 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 587–613. Google Scholar
- 2007. Knowledge conversion capability and the growth of corporate and university spinoffs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16: 569–608. Google Scholar
