This article explores how the use of process theories can lead to a better understanding of the university spin-off venture formation process. The most frequently used conceptualization of the new venture formation process is the stage model or life-cycle theory. However, no conceptual framework exists to describe how the venturing process proceeds from one stage to the next. Based on a longitudinal study of the initiation and early development of four university spin-offs, this article shows that life-cycle, teleological, dialectic and evolutionary theories explain different aspects of the spin-off venturing process. In combination, these theories may provide a more holistic understanding of the academic entrepreneurship process. The assumptions of each theory suggest important implications for further research on academic entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial processes in general.
BacharachSB (1989) Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review14(4): 496–515.
4.
BakerTNelsonRE (2005) Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly50(3): 329–366.
5.
BercovitzJFeldmanM (2008) Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science19(1): 69–89.
6.
BhaveMP (1994) A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing9(3): 223–242.
7.
BorchOJArthurMB (1995) Strategic networks among small firms: Implications for strategy research methodology. Journal of Management Studies32(4): 419–441.
8.
BruyatCJulienPA (2001) Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing16(2): 165–180.
9.
BurgelmanR (1983) A process model for internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly28(3): 223–244.
10.
BygraveWDHoferCW (1991) Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice16(2): 13–22.
11.
ChandlerGNLyonDW (2001) Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship reserach: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice25(4): 101–113.
12.
ClarysseBMorayN (2004) A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing19(1): 55–79.
13.
CohenMDMarchJGOlsenJP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly17(1): 1–25.
14.
CooperRG (1993) Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
15.
CrookTRShookCLMorrisML. (2010) Are we there yet? An assessment of research design and construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods13(1): 192–206.
16.
CulePERobeyD (2004) A dual-motor, constructive process model of organizational transition. Organization Studies25(2): 229–260.
17.
CzarniawskaB (1998) A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. London: Sage.
18.
DavidssonPWiklundJ (2001) Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice25(4): 81–99.
19.
DegroofJ-JRobertsEB (2004) Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer29(3–4): 327–352.
20.
DelmarFDavidssonPGartnerWB (2003) Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing18(2): 189–216.
21.
Di GregorioDShaneS (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?Research Policy32(2): 209–227.
22.
DrazinRGlynnMAKazanjianRK (2004) Dynamics of structural change. In: PooleMSVan de VenAH (eds) Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 161–189.
23.
DruilheCGarnseyE (2001) Academic spin-off ventures: A resource opportunity approach. In: DuringWOakeyRKauserS (eds) New Technology-based Firms in the New Millennium. Oxford: Elsevier, 175–190.
24.
DruilheCLGarnseyE (2004) Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter?Journal of Technology Transfer29(3–4): 269–285.
25.
EckhardtJTShaneSA (2003) Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management29(3): 333–349.
26.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
27.
EisenhardtKMGraebnerME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal50(1): 25–32.
28.
FayolleA (2003) Research and researchers at the heart of entrepreneurial situations. In: SteyaertCHjorthD (eds) New Movements in Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 35–50.
29.
FranklinSWrightMLockettA (2001) Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer26(1–2): 127–141.
30.
GalbraithJ (1982) The stages of growth. Journal of Business Strategy3(1): 70–79.
31.
GartnerWB (2004) Handbook of Entrepreneurial Dynamics: The Process of Business Creation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
GersickCJG (1994) Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal37(1): 9–45.
33.
GrandiAGrimaldiR (2005) Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing20(6): 821–845.
34.
GrantPPerrenL (2002) Small business and entrepreneurial research. International Small Business Journal20(2): 185–211.
35.
HansenELBirdBJ (1998) The stages model of high-tech venture funding: Tried but true?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice21(winter): 111–122.
36.
HeirmanAClarysseB (2004) How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer29(3–4): 247–268.
37.
JensenRThursbyM (2001) Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review91(1): 240–259.
38.
JonesOMacphersonAWoollardD (2008) Entrepreneurial ventures in higher education. International Small Business Journal26(6): 683–708.
39.
KenneyMGoeWR (2004) The role of social embeddedness in professional entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy33(5): 679–844.
40.
KesslerAFrankH (2009) Nascent entrepreneurship in a longitudinal perspective. International Small Business Journal27(6): 720–742.
41.
KlofstenM (2005) New venture ideas: An analysis of their origin and early development. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management17(1): 105–119.
42.
LecaBNaccacheP (2006) A critical realist approach to institutional entrepreneurship. Organization13(5): 627–651.
43.
LevieJLichtensteinBB (2010) A terminal assessment of stages theory: Introducing a dynamic states approach to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice34(2): 317–350.
44.
LewinAYWeigeltCBEmeryJD (2004) Adaptation and selection in strategy and change. In: PooleMSVan de VenAH (eds) Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 108–160.
45.
LewisMWGrimesAJ (1999) Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review24(4): 672–690.
46.
LichtensteinBBDooleyKJLumpkinGT (2006) Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing21(2): 153–175.
47.
LockettAWrightM (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy34(7): 1043–1057.
48.
LockettASiegelDWrightM. (2005) The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy34(7): 981–993.
49.
LockettNKerrRRobinsonS (2008) Multiple perspectives on the challenges for knowledge transfer between higher education institutions and industry. International Small Business Journal26(6): 661–681.
50.
LowMBMacMillanIC (1988) Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management14: 139–161.
51.
MackenzieKD (2000) Processes and their frameworks. Management Science46(1): 110–125.
52.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1976) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
53.
McKelveyB (2004) Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing19(3): 131–341.
54.
McMullenJSShepherdDA (2006) Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review31(1): 132–152.
55.
MinnitiMBygraveW (2001) A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice25(Spring): 5–16.
56.
MohrLB (1982) Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
57.
MorayNClarysseB (2005) Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy34(7): 1010–1027.
58.
MoseySWrightM (2007) From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice31(November): 909–935.
59.
MullenMRBudevaDGDoneyPM (2009) Research methods in the leading small business and entrepreneurship journals: A critical review with recommendations for future research. Journal of Small Business Management47(3): 287–307.
60.
MustarPRenaultMColomboMG. (2006) Conceptualizing the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multidimensional taxonomy. Research Policy35(2): 289–308.
61.
NeergaardH (2003) The process of entrepreneurship: A managerial and organizational journey. In: SteyaertCHjorthD (eds) New Movements in Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 160–176.
62.
NelsonRRWinterSG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
63.
NicolaouNBirleyS (2003) Social networks in organizational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon. Management Science49(12): 1702–1725.
64.
O’SheaRPAllenTJChevalier. (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy34(7): 994–1009.
65.
PentlandBT (1999) Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review24(4): 711–724.
66.
PettigrewA (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science1(3): 267–292.
67.
PhanPH (2004) Entrepreneurship theory: Possibilities and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing19(5): 617–620.
68.
PolitisD (2005) The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice29(4): 399–424.
69.
PolkinghorneDE (1988) Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
70.
PooleMSVan de VenAH (2004) Theories of organizational change and innovation processes. In: Van de VenAHPooleMS (eds) Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 374–397.
71.
PooleMSVan de VenAHDooleyK. (2000) Organizational Change and Innovation Processes. New York: Oxford University Press.
72.
RasmussenE (2008) Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation28(August): 506–517.
73.
RasmussenEBorchOJ (2010) University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy39(5): 602–612.
74.
RasmussenEMoenØGulbrandsenM (2006) Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation26(4): 518–533.
75.
RobertsEB (1991) Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
76.
SarasvathySD (2001) Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review26(2): 243–263.
77.
SarasvathySD (2003) Entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Journal of Economic Psychology24(2): 203–220.
78.
ScottMBruceR (1987) Five stages of growth in small business. Long Range Planning20(3): 45–52.
79.
ShahSKTripsasM (2007) The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal1(1–2): 123–140.
80.
ShaneS (2004) Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
81.
ShaneSStuartT (2002) Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science48(1): 154–170.
82.
ShaneSLockeEACollinsCJ (2003) Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review13(2): 257–279.
83.
SimonHA (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
84.
Slotte-KockSCovielloN (2010) Entrepreneurship research on network processes: A review and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice34(1): 31–57.
85.
StephanPELevinSG (1996) Property rights and entrepreneurship in science. Small Business Economics8(3): 177–188.
86.
StevensonHHJarilloJC (1990) A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal11: 17–27.
UcbasaranDWestheadPWrightM (2001) The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice25(4): 57–80.
89.
UyMAFooM-DAguinisH (2010) Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods13(1): 31–54.
90.
Van de VenAHEnglemanRM (2004) Event- and outcome-driven explanations of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing19(3): 343–358.
91.
Van de VenAHHargraveTJ (2004) Social, technical and institutional change: A literature review and synthesis. In: PooleMSVan de VenAH (eds) Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 259–303.
92.
Van de VenAHPooleMS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review20(3): 510–540.
93.
Van de VenAHPooleMS (2002) Field research methods. In: BaumJAC (ed.) Companion to Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell, 867–888.
94.
Van de VenAHPooleMS (2005) Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies26(9): 1377–1404.
95.
VanaelstI.ClarysseBWrightM. (2006) Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice30(2): 249–271.
96.
VohoraAWrightMLockettA (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy33(1): 147–175.
97.
WrightMBirleySMoseyS (2004) Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer29(3–4): 235–246.
98.
YinRK (1989) Case Study Research. Design and Methods (Vol. 5). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
