Abstract
Over the past decades, universities have increasingly become ambidextrous organizations reconciling scientific and commercial missions. In order to manage this ambidexterity, technology transfer offices (TTOs) were established in most universities. This paper studies a specific, often implemented, but rather understudied type of TTO, namely a hybrid TTO model uniting centralized and decentralized levels. Employing a qualitative research design, we examine how and why the two TTO levels engage in diverse boundary spanning activities to help nascent spin-off companies move through the pre-spin-off process. Our research identifies differences in the types of boundary spanning activities that centralized and decentralized TTOs perform and in the parties they engage with. We find geographical, technological and organizational proximity to be important antecedents of the TTOs’ engagement in external and internal boundary spanning activities. These results have important implications for both academics and practitioners interested in university technology transfer through spin-off creation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
University spin-offs are defined as new ventures initiated within a university setting and based on technology derived from university research (Rasmussen and Borch 2010).
References
Ambos, T. C., Makela, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
Apple, K. S. (2008). Evaluating technology transfer offices. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 17, 139–157.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C. P., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). The handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 21–35.
Booz, R. J., & Lewis, L. K. (1997). Facilitating technology transfer among organizations: An applied communication strategy concept for organizational boundary spanners. Journal of Technology Transfer, 22(1), 35–46.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.
Cash, D. W. (2001). “In order to aid in diffusion useful and practical information”: Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 431–453.
Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon.
Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2012). Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of technology transfer centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 943–966.
Coupe, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31–46.
Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.
Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.
Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17, 55–83.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29, 87–111.
Hackett, E. (2001). Organizational perspectives on university-industry research relations. In J. Croissant & S. P. Restivo (Eds.), Degrees of compromise (pp. 1–21). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hellström, T., & Jacob, M. (2003). Boundary organisations in science: From discourse to construction. Science and Public Policy, 30(4), 235–238.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Identifying organizational subcultures: An empirical approach. Journal of Management Studies, 35(1), 1–12.
Hoppe, H. C., & Ozdenoren, E. (2005). Intermediation in innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5–6), 483–503.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization and knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–598.
Kenney, M., & Goe, W. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33, 691–707.
Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89.
Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university-industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.
Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.
Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 185–200.
Louis, K., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., & Stoto, M. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.
Lysonski, S. (1985). A boundary theory investigation of the product managers role. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 26–40.
Macho-Stadler, I., Perez-Castrillo, D., & Veugelers, R. (2007). Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(3), 483–510.
Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.
Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401–1423.
Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309–319.
Nooteboom, B. (1999). Inter-firm alliances: Analysis and design. London: Routledge.
O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.
Parker, J. N., & Crona, B. (2012). On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 262–289.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Tavistock.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267–292.
Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.
Piercy, N. F. (2009). Strategic relationships between boundary-spanning functions: Aligning customer relationship management with supplier relationship management. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(8), 857–864.
Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences (SUNY series in philosophy of the social sciences). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39(5), 602–612.
Rasmussen, E., Moen, O., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.
Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003a). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1357–1369.
Stuart, T., & Ding, W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.
Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39, 47–59.
Tsai, W. P. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals—Their role in information-transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.
Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553–564.
Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154.
Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.
West, J. (2008). Commercializing open science: Deep space communications as the lead market for Shannon theory, 1960–73. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1506–1532.
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public administration, 80(1), 103–124.
Woerter, M. (2012). Technology proximity between firms and universities and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 828–866.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed., Applied social research methods series, Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 255–285.
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J. W. (2011). The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents in buyer–supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 318–328. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.07.001.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all respondents who participated in the data collection for this study. The first author also gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by Research Foundation Flanders. We would further like to thank the organizers and participants of the ZEW workshop on spin-off entrepreneurship in Mannheim, November 2011, for their comments on our paper. Finally, we thank the guest editor and two anonymous reviewers for their comments that helped us to improve our paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M. et al. Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model. Small Bus Econ 43, 289–307 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9537-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9537-1