Towards Commercialisation of Academic Research Results: Lessons Learned from Swedish Microelectronics Research Peter Svenssona, Anna Öhrwall Rönnbäckb Linköping Institute of Technology, Sweden
Summary The aim of this paper is to explore and describe the commercialisation gap between academia and industry in a research program setting. We provide empirical and theoretical evidence of researchers’ lack of knowledge how to strategically approach the commercialisation of research findings and the lack of relevant networks toward industry and intermediaries. A model of how to bridge this commercialisation gap is built up based on preoperational strategy, establishing networks and entering the market. We conclude with managerial guidelines for researchers, industry, intermediaries and research financers. Keywords: Academic entrepreneurship, pre-operational strategy, commercialisation model, training
1
Introduction
Universities have increasingly been looked upon as a source for economic development. Together with a pressure from within the universities to find new streams of revenues, the importance of technology transfer to industry has been emphasized (Powers 2005). Especially start-up firms based on findings from academic research are important to the local economic development, since they tend to locate geographically close to the university, and thereby contribute to a fruitful business environment in the university proximity (Di Gregorio 2003). However, there are several obstacles taking research results into business, creating a gap between academia and industry. One obstacle is the researchers’ lack of knowledge in how to commercialise research findings due to the low entrepreneurial activity of some regions and therefore little experience in handling these processes.(Henrekson and Rosenberg 2000) Researchers are in need of outside advisors and dependent of high quality information about the business environment they are about to enter (Smeltzer et al. 1991). Research has shown that professional service providers for exploitation of research findings, such as technology transfer offices at the universities, increase the chances of successful commercialisation (Powers 2005). Just looking at factors that contribute to formation of more new firms, it has been found that the level of intellectual eminence of the university, together with policies of a
Peter Svensson, Phd Candidate in Industrial Economics and Management, Linköping Institute of Technology, SE-58183 Linköping (Sweden); Fax: +46 13 28 18 73; email:
[email protected] (corresponding author) b Anna Öhrwall Rönnbäck, Ass Professor in Industrial Economics and Management, Linköping Institute of Technology, SE-58183 Linköping (Sweden); Fax: +46 13 28 18 73; email:
[email protected]
1
making equity investments and maintaining a low inventor’s share are positive factors (Di Gregorio 2003). A condition of important notice for this paper is that in Sweden intellectual property (IP) resulting from research belongs not to the university but to the researcher himself/herself. This means that the researcher has the exclusive right to exploit his or her research results, as opposed to the situation in most other countries, where the university holds the intellectual property rights (IPR). In entrepreneurship research it has been found that personal networks to potential customers, investors, authorities, and suppliers are of importance for nascent entrepreneurs’ ability to successfully start up a new firm. These relationships are bridging the credibility gap that exists when a firm has yet not been established and of course has no track record. (Birley 1996) Most researchers do not have long-term relationships with potential customers. This may be a reason why corporate spin-offs have a better track record compared to university spin-offs (Lindholm-Dahlstrand 2001). Therefore it is of interest to pursue research of how professional relationships between academia and industry can be established early on in a research program. Shane and Venkataram (2003) show a need for technology entrepreneurship research to diverge from entrepreneurship research to use more of the existing models of technology management and strategy. This is because of the importance of e.g. intellectual property rights, access to complementary assets in marketing, distribution and manufacturing strongly influence technology firm strategy. A support system for commercialisation at the university will increase the output of inventions (Powers 2005), but such a system costs and many researchers do not know of its existence. Therefore we aim to understand how to reach more researchers, what researchers can do by themselves to increase their commercial success in a country where it is the researcher who owns their research findings. The objective of this study is to explore and describe the commercialisation gap between academia and industry in a research program setting. We aim to develop a tentative model for commercialisation of academic research results from the perspective of a program in applied research in microelectronics. We also suggest some managerial guidelines for parties involved in the commercialisation process, such as industry parts, research financers, and research leaders. 2
Theory
2.1
Technology entrepreneurship strategy Most researchers in technology have some ideas how to improve existing products based on their research findings. Many also find new technology that they can understand will have a great impact on industries. Their main conundrum is how to reach the market for their findings, and build up production, distribution channels, and sales organization. If the
2
researcher or group of researchers decides to commercialise parts of their findings, there are several strategic choices to be made (Gans and Stern 2003). In the following we refer to researchers’ commercialisation efforts, e.g. licensing or expansion of a new firm, as a “technology start-up”. This can imply either that the researchers start a new firm and leave the university, that the researchers retain a part-time position at the University, or the technology is commercialised but the researcher maintain at the University and only have some equity and loose connection to the technology start-up (Nicolaou and Birley 2003). The researchers can either try to build up a new value chain with a disruptive technology (Anderson and Tushman 1990; Tushman and Romanelli 1985; Utterback 1996), or they can integrate their technology into an existing value chain already in place by an incumbent firm. If they choose to pursuit the first strategy for their technology start-up, large investments are needed in order to sell a whole system and build up a supply chain. The second strategy is less investment intensive but in order to get value for their research findings, the researchers need to be proficient negotiators. This is similar to the two sources of barriers for an entering firm already defined by Porter (1980), first structural entry barriers including pre-operational investments and start-up losses, second the risk of retaliation by the incumbent firms. These two different strategies for technology entrepreneurs are argued to be affected by the specific industry’s competitive environment. When a researcher as above mentioned translates the idea to a valuable proposition for potential customers the researcher is entering a “market for ideas”. Gans and Stern (2003) present an analysis model that we find useful for technology start-ups. They suggest that depending on the possibility for the researchers to protect their invention, and how reliant the technology is on incumbent’s complementary assets, the start-up needs to set its strategy. The analysis starts by looking at the innovation in relation to existing industries concerning intellectual property rights. If the start-up can protect its invention by patents this means they can more easily show their invention to incumbents and negotiate into cooperation. The second factor is the complementary assets of the incumbents. This means that in some industries there is a value for the start-up to find its way in to these assets so they do not need to build up investment intensive structures such as sales organizations, distribution links and so forth. Taking the two factors excludability and complementary assets into consideration there are four different playing fields and alternative strategies depending of characteristics the industry looks like and how secure the intellectual protection rights are, see Figure 1. Figure 1 – Commercialisation strategy environments
3
Source: Gans and Stern (2003)
If the technology is novel and a new industry emerges, Utterback (1996) shows that it will be a fluid phase with many competing firms and later enter a dominant design of the product. Porter (1980) finds common structural characteristics in the fluid phase, e.g. technological uncertainty, strategic uncertainty, high initial costs but steep cost reduction, embryonic companies, first-time buyers, short time horizon and subsidies. Early barriers in such an industry is proprietary technology, access to distribution channels, access to raw materials and skilled labour, cost advantages due to experience and risk. Porter argues that in an emerging industry the strategic freedom is the greatest and suggests looking at shaping industry structure, externalities in industry development, changing role of suppliers and channels and shifting mobility barriers. In these types of markets Christensen (1997) argues that due to the knowledge destruction of new technology the incumbents are least likely to adopt the new technology and therefore the technology start-up has an attacker’s advantage. These issues are integrated into Gans and Sterns (2003) model and we will therefore use their model when analysing our data findings. 2.2
Social network theory Personal networks are important for an entrepreneur to successfully start up a new firm to potential customers, investors, authorities, and suppliers (Birley 1996). A relationship marketing approach is adopted when analysing the case, meaning marketing is “seen as relationships, networks and interaction” (Gummesson 1994, p. 5). According to this view, firms interact with other actors in a business network context, performing activities and employing different resources in these interactions (Anderson et al. 1994) and value is cocreated in these interactions (Grönroos 1996; Normann 2001). Compared to the resource base of the business network, the firm’s internal resources are often scarce; for this reason drawing on resources from network relationships is important (Gummesson 2004; Hammarkvist et al. 1982; Johannisson 1998; Ostgaard and Birley 1996). This is particularly true for a technology
4
start-up based on research findings not yet having their first customer. The firm in this very early stage has to rely on its stakeholders’ relationships. Long-term relationships with customers are considered important as the activities performed are continuously improving as the relationship becomes deeper (Anderson et al. 1994; Grönroos and Ojasalo 2004; Hammarkvist et al. 1982). Similarly on an individual level, the more frequent persons interact with one another, the stronger their relationship is inclined to be (Granovetter 1973). The firm’s offering is an input to this value creating process and long-term relationships are emphasised before transactions (Normann and Ramírez 1993; Vargo and Lusch 2004). A dialogue with customers is for that reason necessary for researchers if they want to be competitive and have offerings that allow them to succeed (Normann and Ramírez 1993). Accordingly, relationships with key customers are of strategic importance. The problem with research findings with business potential is that the researcher initially does not have any customers and sometimes not even an application. Consequently, previous relationships are of interest for the researcher, manager and/or stakeholders. These relationships could have been developed before the start-up was initiated. If the researcher previously worked for some other firm, these relationships can involve former customers or other actors that are assumed to be potential customers for the start-up. If the researcher has no prior experience with industry it will be of interest to look at what networks and potential stakeholders the researcher can initiate a relationship with. Birley (1996) shows that in order to get a firm going, the founder needs to develop relationships to different stakeholders and create a virtuous circle of credibility building. Gummesson (2004) emphasizes the importance to understand that every person has a valuable personal network that also can be activated during certain circumstances. This means that not only the person the researcher meets is of interest, but his/her entire contact network. 2.3
Combining technology entrepreneurship strategy and social network theory Trying to understand what a researcher needs to be able to commercialise the findings, it is essential to understand the environment in which the technology can be used. This environment affects what kind of approach the researcher ought to have when taking the findings into an offering together with the first customer. It can therefore be of interest to combine the preoperational strategic framework of Gans and Stern (2003) with the operational execution of network theory (Birley 1996; Gummesson 2004; Gummesson 2002; Normann and Ramírez 1993). We have summarized results from previous research in a first tentative process model for commercialisation of academic research results, Figure 2. Figure 2 – Tentative process model for commercialisation of academic research results
5
Preoperational strategy IPR, licensing, industry, etc
Establishing relationships Actors, credibility, etc
Entering market Offering, business plan, etc
The preoperational strategy work helps the researcher to decide which actors to try to establish relationships with. Establishing relationships often takes a lot of time, and it is therefore vital to understand which relationships to prioritise (Granovetter 1973). Depending on the IPR and the structure of the industry, i.e. the industry incumbents’ complementary assets (Gans and Stern 2003), the researcher needs to establish relationships with for example either intermediaries or companies with a reputation of assisting innovations (Birley 1996; Gans and Stern 2003). Maturity of the industry is another environmental factor to take into consideration in deciding the technology start-up’s strategy (Porter 1980).
3
Methodology
We have studied commercialisation of academic research results from a Swedish electronic research program, EPROPER, in which three academic research institutes took part: Chalmers Institute of Technology (Gothenburg), Royal Institute of Technology (Stockholm), and Linköping Institute of Technology. The study was conducted as a multiple case study (Yin 1989, Eisenhardt 1989) with a research method influenced by action research (Gummesson 1988). At the end of the EPROPER program, two studies were initiated to describe difficulties to commercialise research results, of which this was one. Our intervention consisted in interviews with research leaders in the three research groups, communication training for PhD students, participation in meetings and workshops with the EPROPER board, the EPROPER scientific advisory board and with industry parties (separately), meetings on market strategy and business plan with one of the research groups, and a business workshop with two of the research groups, intermediaries, and venture capitalists. To start with, interviews and meetings were arranged with research leaders of the three areas. These meetings were complemented with laboratory visits. As a second step, we participated in several workshops where industry parts and researchers met to discuss need for research and possibilities to take use of research results in industry. Third, we organized
6
workshops where research results were presented and demonstrated to groups of representatives from industry and venture capital. Fourth, we analyzed the empirical findings with regard to previous research in relationship marketing (eg Grönroos 1997, Normann and Ramírez 1993), technology entrepreneurship theory (Gans and Stern 2003), and entrepreneurial theory and social networks (eg Ostgaard and Birley 1996). Finally, we draw some conclusions that we present in this paper as “Managerial guidelines” and findings of more theoretical interest for the research area commercialization of academic research. 4
Data findings
4.1
About the research school The research program EPROPER, Electronic Production and Production Engineering Research, was part of the government-financed Strategic Research Foundation prioritized research areas during 2000-2004. The vision for the program was “to give the Swedish Electronics Industry leading edge technology and competence in electronic packaging and production”. The program included about 20 PhD students and about 10 senior researchers. Of these, the major part of the PhD students was fully employed by the universities and some were employed by companies, so called “industry PhD candidate”. The senior researchers were employed by universities and a few by research institutes. We chose three areas to study, of which one was followed more in-depth: (1) polymeric materials, large area panel MCM production, opto-electrical modules and polymer electronics, at Linköping Institute of Technology, in collaboration with the research institute Acreo1, (2) new integrated packaging modules using IC processes, chip-package co- design, simulation and mixed signal system design at the Royal Institute of Technology, and (3) research on materials, reliability, and PCB assembly technology and processes conducted at Chalmers Institute of Technology, in collaboration with the research institute IVF2. The commercialisation process for findings from these research groups is described in two parts below. The first part describes work methods when the research program was running, and the second part contains experiences on commercialization of research results from the participating researchers, based on our interviews and workshops. 4.2
Part 1 – work methods in the research program The research program had intensive cooperation with the electronics production industry. For example, in order to encourage the industrial influence in the program, the director of EPROPER was fully employed by Ericsson. As a support to the program director and 1 2
www.acreo.se www.ivf.se
7
decision making in the program, a board and an industrial reference group were organized with participants from small and large firms in the Swedish electronics industry, such as ABB, Ericsson Microwave, Flextronics, Kitron, MyData Automation, Saab Ericsson Space, besides the scientific advisory board with internationally renowned researchers in the area. The universities involved all have technology transfer offices. Work methods of the program included annual meetings where the PhD candidates and research leaders presented findings both to the scientific advisory board and to the industry reference group. In between, the research leaders supervised PhD candidate projects, including laboratory work and development of demonstrators besides writing scientific articles for academic publication. The PhD candidates conducted research in the research group, often in a specific area dedicated for their PhD project, wrote scientific papers, followed PhD courses, and were assistant teachers in undergraduate courses. Moreover, senior researchers conducted their own research connected to the research program, including eg writing and applying for long-term financing of their research. In a few cases, commercial initiatives were undertaken, such as collaboration with companies, or finding the right person to run early commercial ventures. Each research group had several projects run in parallel, each with one or a couple of PhD candidates. Research findings came along the way, some early, and some later on, as illustrated in the process chart in Figure 3. Figure 3 – Emerging results from the research groups and selected commercialisation projects.
research finding commercialisation
RESEARCH GROUP 1
RESEARCH GROUP 2
RESEARCH GROUP 3
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
8
TIME
4.3
Part 2 – lessons learned Our interviews with research leaders revealed an interest to commercialise some of the research findings, but also several obstacles against commercialisation in their daily work. First, the main task for a research leader, besides teaching, is to conduct his or her research, supervise PhD students, and search financing for further research. They regarded the PhD research like a knowledge base that the research leader can make applicable, but the time for commercialisation is limited, and so are the incentives. “Universities only focus on publications and not patent and commercialisation”, as one of the research leaders expressed it. One of the interviewed researchers also criticised the application process for research grants. “The big industries sit in every committee and therefore it will never be research about emerging technologies in other fields than what suits the big corporations.” A consequence of this was also that the company representatives searched for incremental technological discoveries rather than future emerging technologies. This was highlighted especially as our study was conducted during the telecom crisis in Sweden 2003-2004, where eg Ericsson reduced its R&D work force remarkably, something that had far-reaching consequences on the complete industry; both partners and suppliers were affected. Industry representatives in research program committees and advisory boards, each from their specific situation, also recommended reduced investments in telecom, with effected research in the microelectronics field. Moreover, another opinion from one researcher was that patents seemed very important to attract venture capital. However, in applied microelectronics there is often a way around the IP. This implies a different practice to protect technology inventions, lying more in a methodology, systems integration approach. A related issue, and one of the main problems expressed by research leaders in commercialisation of research findings, is to find money for prototyping, since a prototype seemed to be needed to attract investors and customers. In several meetings with one of the research leaders we discussed the business potential of the group’s research results. In order to better understand the difference between separate research results, we suggested a classification of the research results depending on (a) their business potential and (b) their technological feasibility. These two dimensions provided a qualitative, relative comparison between the separate research findings (as illustrated in Figure 3) of the research group. “Business potential” referred to an estimation of possible market size, current offerings on the market, and the competition for some thought applications from the research findings. “Technological feasibility” signified how easy or difficult applications could be developed from research findings and the ability to industrialize and produce the thought products. The results of the classification were sketched in a diagram as shown in Figure 4.
9
Figure 4 – Classification of research results with regard to business potential and technological feasibility WAIT
EXPLORE NOW
WAIT
WAIT
LOW
HIGH
HIGH Business potential LOW
Technological feasibility
With the classification as a base, we asked some of the researchers to prepare presentations of applications derived from the research results to groups of industry parties and to a group of venture capitalists, research funds, and research institutes and university intermediaries. We asked the researchers to present the selected applications, in the upper right corner of Figure 4, as clearly and instructively as possible, preferably with live demonstrations at the workshop. The results of these workshops were that although the participants caught a very good understanding of the presented application thanks to the demonstration, the gap between industry and possible investors and business developers was substantial. Several comments were in line with “we do not succeed easily with commercialisation of academic results”, and “there is obviously needed more from both parts in order to meet and reach commercialisation”. Afterwards some researchers continued having a dialogue about how to commercialise with the technology transfer office that participated at the workshop. This connection led to researchers participating in business plan courses and feedback on their commercialisation strategy. A question we asked ourselves was why the research groups did not already have established contacts with the technology transfer offices prior to our intervention. The answer was that the technology transfer offices and the researchers know about each other. It is perceived as important and beneficial to have industry representatives involved in the research schools from the beginning, as in the EPROPER program. However, another opinion from interviewed researchers was that big corporations in Sweden do not want to invest in small research companies. Finally, many of the researchers we have interviewed wanted to learn more about technology trends and how to manage emerging technologies.
10
Analysis We found that the research program was organised to constitute a platform for industryacademy networking. There was an industry reference group; several PhD candidates and the research program leader were employed by corporations. Industry-academia cooperation was stipulated in the program, eg annual meetings where researcher presented their findings for industry representatives. This confirms previous research by for example Birley (1996), who emphasizes the importance of creating credibility through establishing relationships with various stakeholders in a venture, and that long-term relationships with customers, in this case potential customers, improve the chance of creating a competitive offering consistent with (Granovetter 1973; Normann and Ramírez 1993). The universities involved all have technology transfer offices, that according to Powers (2005) should increase the chance of successful commercialisation. Research findings are described in figure 2 and are identified by the research leader or by the research team. It is therefore important that the researchers are targeted as the ones to understand the commercialisation process, not only the intermediaries at the universities. The fact that the researchers in Sweden own their research, and the universities do not, might have an impact on the willingness of the universities to invest in support for commercialisation. The researchers in this study found the support from the universities weak. Moreover the technology transfer offices were not known about prior to our intervention This is supported in DiGregorio (Di Gregorio 2003), who found that a maintaining a low inventor’s share is a positive factor for the formation of new firms. In Sweden the researchers’ share of the invention is 100 %. One technological research finding can often be used in different applications for different markets in different industries. We saw that the researchers have good understanding of which applications this finding can be used for, although they sometimes have problems communicating how the finding can be applied. However, commercialisation was not a prioritised activity in the researchers’ day-to-day activities. When we started to work with the research groups, we found a willingness to commercialise. In the workshops we organised with industry and venture capital firms, the researchers were expected to present their findings as industrial applications. This required training in how to present, conceptualise, select application etc. To communicate results to industry also implies risktaking if the researcher is not familiar with IPR practices in the field. The model presented by Gans and Stern (2003) shows the complexity of strategic decision-making for a technology start-up. We found that prior to apply their analysis model the researcher needs to reflect on possible applications that can be derived from the research findings. Due to the limited amount of time for the researchers they need to have an intuitive model to decide which application to commercialize, as suggested in figure 4. This is based on the technical feasibility and business potential, and is a tool for reducing the amount of
11
applications and to prioritise among them. This selection process is also a first step to establish a business case. We found that the research leader had good market knowledge, which made it simple to find the essential data. Selecting application should also take into consideration if the potential customers are geographically close to the research institute. Thereafter a strategic analysis of each of these thought applications can be conducted. We illustrate the process in Figure 5. Figure 5 – Refined tentative process model for commercialisation of research results
Application 1 Application 2 Research result
Application .. Application n
STRATEGY ANALYSIS for each application
For the chosen strategy: BUILD RELATIONSHIP with the “right” partner
Despite the research program’s natural network between academia and industry we found some obstacles hindering the commercialisation process. Industry representatives’ objective was never specified as to support the commercialisation of research findings, rather their mission were to decide the direction of the research program and make sure the research areas are relevant to industry. (Granovetter 1973) To fully take advantage of the decided strategy effective relationships have to be build. We could see in the research school that this was very new to the researchers and therefore they need help. The research school is good because it is a neutral platform. A thorough research on the dynamics of the targeted industry needs to be done before entering into networking. In a three year University research project there is time to decide what industry to enter with the technology and then try to establish relationship with industry incumbents, brokers or potential customers according to what strategy is chosen. These meetings can be facilitated by the research school because of their independence and reputation. Establishing relationships takes time, it is therefore crucial to select relationships of strategic importance, as shown in previous research (Anderson et al. 1994; Grönroos and Ojasalo 2004; Hammarkvist et al. 1982). We argue therefore that the researchers get in contact with potential customers as soon as they decide which application
12
to commercialise. Also supported is the construct of credibility building through different stakeholders enter a virtuous circle in order to bridge the commercialisation gap (Birley 1996). We summarise our analysis through the following model: based on preoperational strategy, establishing networks and entering the market bridging the commercialisation gap. This is most probably an iterative process, but the first occasion the researcher needs to work through each of these sub processes one at a time. Figure 6. Tentative model for bridging the commercialisation gap
Findings with commercial potential
Application Application identification selection
Strategy analysis
Establishing relationships
Licensing or spinning-off
Preoperational Strategy
5
Managerial guidelines
The researchers ought to understand the process of commercialisation. Therefore we suggest the following pieces of advice, for new PhD students as well as research leaders: • Communicate technology and applications accessibly for industry through practical demonstrations and visualizations. • Use existing knowledge of industry and substitutes within the research group to make strategic decisions. • Find a team with industry credibility for commercialisation. • Create relationships throughout the research program, especially with industry representatives and intermediaries. When starting a research program, especially in applied research, the financer needs to find cost-effective ways to give the opportunity to commercialisation. We propose the following activities:
13
• • • • •
Improve the researchers’ awareness of the commercialisation process directly through; PhD courses in innovation, motivational guest speakers and so on. Provide workshops in market strategy for researchers where intuitive models to build business case out of their findings are used. Presentations of potential commercial applications should be an integrated part of intermediate research result presentations, and directed towards industry. Proactively facilitate meetings between researchers and industry representatives, potential customers, and intermediaries. Connect master students with the researchers in order to write a business plan for selected research findings.
Several companies are involved in the formation of a research program. In order to take better advantage of invested time and engagement, industry parties need a more proactive approach: • • •
Present for researchers how the company works when incorporating or start new businesses based on external innovations. Regard researchers in academia as important resources in identifying needs, as lead users, and idea generators. Tell researchers early on of their needs of applications and what their technology strategy is
4. Conclusion We have found that the commercialisation gap in a research school setting are affected by factors such as research visibility, lack of business knowledge/presentation, lack of strategy, not right industry representatives, lack of resources for prototyping, lack of knowledge of relationship marketing from both researchers and research schools, problems with customers abroad. We have also found a willingness to commercialise from researchers, a pragmatic attitude in how to commercialise, a willingness to learn about commercialisation. These findings imply that the commercialisation support system at the Swedish Universities of today is not enough. There is a need for straight forward intuitive models that are based on management research for the researchers to use. The researcher need better preparedness, about what a commercialization process is, when to do what in the process, and how to select applications of their findings. It is of importance to understand which parties will do what in a university commersialisation support system and to put the researcher in the middle of these studies, especially in a country where the researcher owns the intellectual property.
14
5. References Anderson, James C., Håkan Håkansson, and Jan Johanson (1994), "Dyadic Business Relationships Within a Business Network Context," Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 1-15. Anderson, Philip and Michael L. Tushman (1990), "Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 (No. 4), pp. 604-33. Birley, Sue and Tone A. Ostgaard (1996), "New Venture Growth and Personal Networks," Journal of Business Research (36), 37-50. Christensen, Clayton M. (1997), The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Di Gregorio, Dante and Scott Shane (2003), "Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?" Research Policy (32), 209-27. Gans, J S and Scott Stern (2003), "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Vol 32, pp. 333-50. Granovetter, Mark S. (1973), "The Strength of Weak Ties," American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360-80. Grönroos, Christian (1996), Marknadsföring i tjänsteföretag (3 ed.). Malmö: Liber-Hermods. Grönroos, Christian and Katri Ojasalo (2004), "Service productivity: Towards a conceptualization of the transformation of inputs into economic results in services," Journal of Business Research, 57, 41423. Gummesson, Evert (1994), "Making Relationship Marketing Operational," International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5 (5), 5-20. ---- (2004), Many-to-Many Marketing: Från one-to-one till many-to-many i nätverksekonomins marknadsföring: Liber Ekonomi. ---- (2002), Relationsmarknadsföring: Från 4P till 30R. Kristianstad: Liber Ekonomi. Hammarkvist, Karl-Olof, Håkan Håkansson, and Lars-Gunnar Mattsson (1982), Marknadsföring för konkurrenskraft (First ed.). Malmö, Sweden: Liber-Hermods. Henrekson, Magnus and Nathan Rosenberg (2000), Akademiskt entreprenörskap - universitet och näringsliv i samverkan. Kristianstad: SNS Förlag. Johannisson, Bengt (1998), "Personal networks in emerging knowledge-based firms: spatial and functional patterns," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 10 (4), 297-312. Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Åsa (2001), "Entrepreneurial Origin and Spinn-off Performance: A Comparison between Corporate and University Spinn-offs," in Corporate and Research-based Spinoffs: Drivers for Knowledge-based Innovation and Entrepreneurship, IPTS Technical Report Series, P. Moncada-Paternò-Castello, Tübke, A., Miège, R. and Yaquero, T. B. (Ed.): European Commission, EUR 19903 EN. Nicolaou, Nicos and Sue Birley (2003), "Social Networks in Organizational Emergence: The University Spinout Phenomenon," Management Science, Vol. 49 (No. 12), pp. 1702-25.
15
Normann, Richard (2001), Reframing Business - When the Map Changes the Landscape. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Normann, Richard and Rafael Ramírez (1993), "From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy," Harvard Business Review, 71 (4), 65. Ostgaard, Tone A. and Sue Birley (1996), "New Venture Growth and Personal Networks," Journal of Business Research, 36 (1), 37-50. Porter, Michael E. (1980), Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press. Powers, John B. and Patricia P. McDougall (2005), "University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing (20), 291-311. Shane, Scott and S. Venkataraman (2003), "Guest editors' introduction to the special issue on technology entrepreneurship," Research Policy, vol. 32, pp. 181-84. Smeltzer, Larry R., Barry L. van Hook, and Roger W. Hutt (1991), "Analysis of the use of advisors as information sources in venture startups," Journal of Smal Business Management. Tushman, M. and E. Romanelli (1985), "Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation," in Research in Organizational Behaviour, L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw, Eds. Vol. 7. Utterback, James M. (1996), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), "Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1-17.
16
