This paper presents the findings of an exploratory study into spin-out firms established during a five-year period at ten UK universities. The author suggests that merely counting the number of spin-outs formed reveals little about the overall efficiency of technology transfer efforts at universities. Instead, one has also to consider other aspects, such as the institutional setting from which spin-outs emerge, as well as several characteristics of the spin-outs themselves, including their origins and growth, the investments received and their continuing presence in the local economy. The paper also conveys the attitudes of directors of technology transfer offices on issues such as technology transfer policy, the management of the spin-out process, and the demand to achieve targets for spin-out numbers. The directors reveal reservations about the legitimacy and value of count data and simple comparisons between universities as a measure of commercialization efforts, and express concern about the use of targets as performance indicators.
ABRC (Advisory Board for the Research Councils) (1986), Report of the Working Party on the Private Sector Funding of Scientific Research, HMSO, London.
2.
ACOST (Advisory Council on Science and Technology) (1993), A Report on Medical Research and Health, Cabinet Office, Office of Science and Technology, HMSO, London.
3.
BaconF. (1605), The Advancement of Learning, published asBacon Advancement of Learning, Standard Publications, Champaign, IL, 2007.
4.
BaconF. (1620), Novum Organum, published asNovum Organum: True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature, Kessinger, Kila, MT.
5.
BarberM. (2007), Instruction to Deliver: Tony Blair, Public Services and the Challenge of Achieving Targets, Politico's, Petersfield.
6.
BirleyS. (2002), ‘Universities, academics, and spinout companies: Lessons from Imperial’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol 1, No 1, pp 133–154.
7.
BlackmanC.SegalN. (1991), ‘Access to skills and knowledge: Managing the relationships with higher education institutes’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol 3, No 3, pp 297–303.
8.
BooneJ. (2007), ‘Squaring up to turning a triangle into a diamond’, Financial Times, Special Report, 26 April, p 5.
BroersA. (2005), ‘Wake up to the future’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 8 April, p 14.
11.
BushV. (1945), Science – the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
12.
ChappleW.LockettA.SiegelD.WrightM. (2005), ‘Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence’, Research Policy, Vol 34, No 3, pp 369–384.
13.
CharlesD.ConwayC. (2001), Higher Education Business Interaction Survey, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
14.
ChrismanJ.J.HynesT.FraserS. (1995), ‘Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 10, pp 267–281.
15.
ClarysseB.WrightM.LockettA.Van de EldeE.VohoraA. (2005), ‘Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 20, pp 183–216.
16.
DaveyS. (2005), ‘A lay-by on the road to market’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 8 July, p 16.
17.
DavisC. (2005a), ‘Hefce “failing” to reward spin-offs’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 11 March, p 7.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2005), Departmental Report, HMSO, London.
20.
Economist (2002), ‘Innovation's golden goose’, The Economist, Vol 365, No 8303, 14 December.
21.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1997), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government, Pinter, London.
22.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 109–123.
23.
GeunaA. (1999), The Economics of Knowledge Production: Funding and the Structure of University Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
24.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London.
25.
GustonD.H.KenistonK., eds (1994), The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
26.
HandscombeR.D. (1996), ‘Rewards for inventors: A review of current practice in UK universities’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 10, No 3, pp 189–198.
27.
HEFCE (2003), Higher Education–Business Interaction Survey 2000–1, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Bristol.
28.
HEFCE (2004), Higher Education–Business Interaction Survey 2001–2, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Bristol.
29.
HEFCE (2005), Higher Education–Business Interaction Survey 2002–3, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Bristol.
30.
HirstP. (1965), ‘Liberal education and the nature of knowledge’, in ArchambaultR.D., ed, Philosophical Analysis and Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
House of Commons (1976), Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report: University–Industry Relations, HMSO, London.
33.
HowellsJ.NedevaM.GeorghiouL. (1998), Industry–Academic Links in the UK, HEFCE, Bristol.
34.
JamiesonD.W.JansenC. (2001), ‘Technology transfer and economic growth’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 15, No 3, pp 189–196.
35.
JencksC.RiesmanD. (1968), The Academic Revolution, Doubleday, New York.
36.
JollyV.K. (1997), Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
37.
KingR. (2003), ed, The University in the Global Age (Universities into the 21st Century), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
38.
KlineS.J.RosenbergN. (1986), ‘An overview of innovation’, in LandauR.RosenbergN., eds, The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 275–305.
39.
LambertR. (2003), Lambert Review of Business–University Collaboration: Final Report, HMSO, London.
40.
LoweJ. (1993a), ‘Academic enterprise and organisation control’, Discussion Papers in Business and Management, No 4, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
41.
LoweJ. (1993b) ‘Commercialisation of university research: A policy perspective’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol 5, No 1, pp 27–31.
42.
LundvallB.-Å. (1988), ‘Innovation as an interactive process: From user–producer interaction to the national system of innovation’, in DosiG.FreemanC.NelsonR.SilverbergG.SoeteL., eds, Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, pp 349–369.
43.
LynskeyM.J. (2006), ‘The dismantling of redundant dichotomies: Biotechnology as an exemplar of university–industry collaboration’, Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, Vol 12, No 2, pp 127–147.
44.
LynskeyM.J. (2008a), ‘Knowledge spillovers from public research institutions to the private sector: Evidence from Japanese new technology-based firms’, in DuringW.OakeyR.KauserS., eds, New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium, Volume VI, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
45.
LynskeyM.J. (2008b), ‘Knowledge spillovers from public research institutions to the private sector: Evidence from Japanese high-technology start-up firms’, International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, forthcoming.
46.
MacleodR.M. (1971), ‘The support of Victorian science’, Minerva, Vol 9, pp 197–230.
47.
MaleckiE.J. (1997), Technology and Economic Development, Addison Wesley Longman, London.
48.
MetcalfeJ.S. (1997), ‘Science policy and technology policy in a competitive economy’, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol 24, No 78, pp 723–740.
49.
MoweryD.C.NelsonR.R.SampatB.N.ZiedonisA.A. (1999), ‘The effects of the Bayh–Dole Act on US university research and technology transfer’, in BranscombL.M.KodamaF.FloridaR., eds, Industrializing Knowledge: University–Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 269–306.
50.
MoweryD.C.ZiedonisA.A. (2002), ‘Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole act in the United States’, Research Policy, Vol 31, No 3, pp 399–418.
51.
NCIHE (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education) (1997), Higher Education in the Learning Society, HMSO, London.
52.
NelsonR.R. (2001), ‘The contribution of American research universities to technological progress in industry’, paper presented to RIETI (Research Institute for Economy, Trade and Industry), Tokyo, 11 December.
53.
NicolaouN.BirleyS. (2003), ‘Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 18, No 3, pp 333–359.
54.
NightingaleP. (1998), ‘A cognitive model of innovation’, Research Policy, Vol 27, No 7, pp 689–709.
55.
OECD (2002), Benchmarking Industry–Science Relationships, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
56.
OST (Office of Science and Technology) (1993), Realising Our Potential – a Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, HMSO, London.
57.
OST (Office of Science and Technology) (2005) Science, Engineering and Technology Indicators, Table 3.1, www.ost.gov.uk/setstats/3/t3_1.htm.
58.
O'SheaR.P.AllenT.J.ChevalierA.RocheF. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities’, Research Policy, Vol 34, No 7, pp 994–1009.
59.
SmithOwen J.PowellW.W. (2001), ‘To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success in technology transfer’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 26, No 1–2 pp 99–114.
60.
PadmoreT.SchützeH.GibsonH. (1998), ‘Modelling systems of innovation: An enterprise-centred view’, Research Policy, Vol 26, No 6, pp 605–624.
61.
PatelK. (1998), ‘Money man makes serial killings’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 27 March.
62.
PavittK. (1997), ‘Academic research, technical change and government policy’, in KrigeJ.PestreD., eds, Science in the Twentieth Century, Harwood, Amsterdam, pp 143–158.
63.
PavittK. (2001), ‘Costing innovation: Vain search for benchmarks’, Research Technology Management, Vol 44, No 1, p 16.
64.
PavittK. (2004), ‘Changing patterns of usefulness of university research’, in GrandinK.WormbsN.WidmalmS., eds, The Science–Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications, Science History Publications, Sagamore Beach, MA, pp 119–131.
65.
PowersJ.B.McDougallP.P. (2005), ‘University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource based view of academic entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 20, No 3, pp 291–311.
66.
RappertB. (1995), ‘Shifting notions of accountability in public and private sector research in the UK: Some central concerns’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 22, No 6, pp 383–390.
67.
RappertB.WebsterA.CharlesD. (1999), ‘Making sense of diversity and reluctance: Academic–industrial relations and intellectual property’, Research Policy, Vol 28, No 8, pp 873–890.
68.
RashdallH. (1896), The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
69.
RobertsE.B. (1991), Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond, Oxford University Press, New York.
70.
RochfordF. (2006), ‘Is there any clear idea of a university?’, Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, Vol 28, No 2, pp 147–158.
71.
RSC (2005), Chemical Science Spin-outs from UK universities - Review of Critical Success Factors, 2005, Royal Society of Chemistry, London.
72.
SalterA.J.MartinB.R. (2001), ‘The economic benefits of publicly-funded basic research: A critical review’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 3, pp 509–532.
73.
ShaneS.A. (2004), Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
74.
ShepherdJ. (2005a), ‘Drug specialist doubles value’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 28 October, p 7.
ShepherdJ. (2006c), ‘Make more capital from knowledge transfer, Tories tell academics’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 29 September.
79.
ShinnT. (1998) ‘The impact of research and education on industry: A comparative analysis of the relationship of education and research systems to industrial progress in six countries’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 12, No 5, pp 270–289.
80.
SmilorR.W.GibsonD.V.DietrichG.B. (1990), ‘University spin-out companies: Technology start-ups from UT-Austin’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 5, pp 63–76.
81.
SternS. (2007) ‘The mania for measuring that will send you off target’, Financial Times, 24 July, p 12.
82.
StuartT.E.DingW.W. (2006), ‘When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol 112, No 1, pp 97–144.
83.
THES (2003), ‘Technology transfer in UK universities “thriving” despite fall in spinout activity’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 14 November.
84.
THES (2007), ‘Spin-off boom’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 20 July.
85.
UDIL (University Directors of Industrial Liaison) (1989), ‘University intellectual property: Its management and commercial exploitation’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 4, No 4/5.
86.
UNICO (2004), UK University Commercialisation Survey: Financial Year 2003, University Companies Association, Cambridge.
87.
UNICO (2005) UK University Commercialisation Survey: Financial Year 2004, University Companies Association, Cambridge.
88.
VesperK.H.McMullanW.E. (1988), ‘University spin-offs: What we think we know and what we'd like to know’, Working Paper No 8847, Faculty of Management, University of Calgary, Calgary.
89.
WebsterA.RappertB.CharlesD.R. (2003), ‘Controlling intellectual property across the high-tech frontier: University spin-offs, SMES and the science base’, in BlackburnR.A., ed, Intellectual Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms, Routledge, London and New York, pp 105–122.
90.
WrightM.LockettA.ClarysseB.BinksM. (2006), ‘University spin-out companies and venture capital’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 4, pp 481–501.
91.
WrightM.VohoraA.LockettA. (2002), Annual UNICO–NUBS Survey on University Commercialisation Activities: Financial Year 2001, UNICO/NUBS, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham.
92.
WrightM.VohoraA.LockettA. (2003), Annual UNICO–NUBS Survey on University Commercialisation Activities: Financial Year 2002, UNICO/NUBS, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham.
93.
ZuckerL.G.DarbyM.R.ArmstrongJ. (1998), ‘Geographically localized knowledge: Spillovers or markets?’, Economic Inquiry, Vol 36, No 1, pp 65–86.
