Parsimonious Determinants of Pre-Incubated Academic Spin-Offs Initial Performance: a Configurational Perspective
Keywords:organizational performance, academic spin-offs, configurational perspective, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)
AbstractThe aim of this paper is to refine, from a configurational perspective, the understanding of causal conditions underlying performance differences between new academic technology-based firms. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), a research strategy conceived to investigate parsimonious configurations that explain a given result of interest in small-N populations, was adopted as the methodological approach. The analyses were performed using a database related to 81 Brazilian academic spin-offs, pre-incubated by a governmental innovation promotion program. Based on the resultant configurations, parsimonious sets of variables for explaining the initial performance of these new ventures were obtained. Complementary findings and their respective implications are also discussed.
BARNEY, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
COELHO, B.F.P. (2008). Desenvolvimento de um processo de decisão para classificação de projetos tecnológicos apoiados pelo Programa de Incentivo à Inovação (PII). Trabalho de Graduação, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
CRONQVIST, L. (2007). Tosmana - Tool for Small-N Analysis (Version 1.3). [Software]. Marburg. http://www.tosmana.net [Accessed September 10, 2009].
DE COSTER, R., Butler, C. (2005). Assessment of proposals for new technology ventures in the UK: characteristics of university spin-off companies. Technovation,25, 535-543.
DJOKOVIC, D., Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from acade -mic institutions. A literature review with suggestions for further research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 225-247.
DRUILHE, C., Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4), 269-285.
FISS, P. (2007). Towards a set-theoretic approach for studying organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180-1198.
GONÇALVES, C.A., Muniz, R.M., Freitas, J.S., Cheng, L.C. (2009). Modelo para avaliação de desempenho organizacional: Uma proposta para orientação da pesquisa entre Brasil e União Européia na área de estratégia. In: Silva, J.R., Barbosa, A.C.Q. (Eds.) Estado, Empresas e Sociedade: Um Mosaico Luso-Brasileiro. Edições Colibri, Lisboa. pp. 65-102.
GRANSTRAND, O. (1998). Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Research Policy, 27, 465-489.
GRECKHAMMER, T., Misangyi, V., Elms, H., Lacey, R. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 695-726.
HERRMANN, P. (2005). Evolution of strategic management: the need for new dominant designs. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7, 111-130.
HOSKISSON, R.E., Hitt, M.A., Wan, W.P., Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: swings of pendulum. Journal of Management, 25, 417-456.
HUTZSCHENREUTER, T., Kleindienst, I. (2006). Strategy-process research: what have we learned and what is still to be explored. Journal of Management, 32, 673-720.
KAKATI, M. (2003) Success criteria in high-tech new ven -tures. Technovation, 23, 447-457.
KETCHEN, D.J., Boyd, B.K.Jr., Bergh, D.D. (2008). Research methodology in strategic management: past accomplishments and future challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 643-658.
KNIGHT, R. M. (1994) Criteria used by venture capitalists: a cross-cultural analysis. International Small Business Journal, 113(1), 26-37.
MACMILLAN, I.C. (1985) Criteria used by venture capitalist to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 119-128.
MAHONEY, T.J., McGahan, A.M. (2007). The field of stra -tegic management within the evolving science of strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(1), 79-99.
MELLAHI, K., Sminia, H. (2009). Guest Editors' Introduction: The frontiers of strategic management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 1-7.
MEYER, A. D., Tsui, A. S., Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configu-rational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175-1195.
MINTZBERG, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
MINTZBERG, H., Waters, J.A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257-272.
MUSTAR, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M.G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Moray, N. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35, 289-308.
WHITTINGTON, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29, 731-735.
ZACHARAKIS, A. L., Meyer, G. D. (2000). The potential of actuarial decision models: can they improve the venture capital investment decision? Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 323-346.
NDONZUAU, F.N., Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B. (2002). Astage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281-289.
O'SHEA, R.P., Chugh, H., Allen, T.J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653-666.
RAGIN, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.
RAGIN, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
RIHOUX, B. (2006). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods. International Sociology, 21, 679-706.
ROBERTS, E., Eesley, C. (2009). Entrepreneurial Impact:The Role of MIT. Massachussets Institute of Technology.
ROTHAERMEL, F.T., Agung, S.D., Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
SONG, M., Podoynitsyna, K., van der Bij, H., Halman, J.I.M.. (2008) Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 25, 7-27.
VENKATRAMAN, N. (2008). Advancing strategic management insights: Why attention to methods and measurement matters. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 790-794.
VOHORA, A., Wright, M., Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33, 147-175.
WERNERFELT, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2011 Journal of Technology Management & Innovation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.