By Topic

Strengths and Weaknesses of Academic Startups: A Conceptual Model

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

2 Author(s)
Colombo, M.G. ; Dept. of Manage., Econ., & Ind. Eng., Politec. di Milano, Milan ; Piva, E.

This paper aims to extend our understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of academic startups (ASUs) and other new technology-based firms (NTBFs). First, relying on insights from the resource- and competence-based theories of the firm and the literature on social networks and financial economics, we identify the factors that might differentiate ASUs and other NTBFs. Then, we combine the results of prior studies on NTBFs and the evidence from four theory-building case studies of Italian ASUs to formulate a series of empirically testable hypotheses that relate to the differences between ASUs and other NTBFs as to the extent and nature of the initial funding and knowledge gaps, and the strategies that firms adopt to close them. Our analysis suggests that ASUs' major relative strengths reside in the lower initial funding gap and greater investments in technical activities. Conversely, ASUs' major weakness consists of the lack of commercial knowledge: ASUs suffer from greater initial gaps in this field and encounter serious obstacles in implementing effective strategies to close them. The paper also offers original insights relating to the impact of the appropriability regime of technology on the financing and alliance strategies of ASUs as opposed to those of other NTBFs. More specifically, when the appropriability regime is weak, ASUs' choices as to the characteristics of external investors and alliance partners, and the organisation of the relations with them are influenced by the desire to mitigate appropriability hazards. Conversely, appropriability hazards have a smaller influence on the decisions of non-ASU NTBFs.

Published in:

Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:55 ,  Issue: 1 )