Technovation 22 (2002) 281289 www.elsevier.

com/locate/technovation

A stage model of academic spin-off creation

Frederic Nlemvo Ndonzuau *, Fabrice Pirnay , Bernard Surlemont
` ` SME and Entrepreneurship Research Centre, University of Liege, Boulevard du Rectorat 7 (B33), 4000 Liege, Belgium Received 17 June 2000; received in revised form 10 January 2001; accepted 7 February 2001

Abstract The commercialisation of scientic and technological knowledge produced within publicly funded research institutions such as universities, laboratories, research centres, and so forth, is increasingly considered by policymakers as raw material for developing and sustaining regional economic growth. This paper focuses on one of the most promising ways to transfer research results to the market place, namely, the creation of academic spin-offs. Its main aim is to identify, understand, and distinguish the major issues raised by the creation of such companies from the point of view of both public and academic authorities. To achieve this, some well-known international spin-off support programmes have been benchmarked. We used these observations to build up a general model that puts forward the major issues involved in the transformation of research results into the creation of economic value within the perimeter of universities. Based on inductive research, the model is composed of four successive stages interacting in a sequential manner. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: University spin-off; Technology transfer; Universityindustry relationships

1. Introduction In the USA, the birthplace of academic entrepreneurship, the spin-off phenomenon achieved its rst success many years ago. Popularised by the development of the legendary Silicon Valley and Route 128 around prestigious universities such as Stanford and MIT, academic spin-offs (ASOs) have been part of the American academic landscape for decades (Alistair et al., 1991; Roberts, 1991). In Europe, the phenomenon is still in its infancy. Although the rst university spin-offs appeared in the mid-1970s, they were considered as epiphenomena; universities were often totally indifferent to them and sometimes even opposed to their development (Stankiewicz, 1994). More recently, universities and politicians have realized the strategic role that laboratories and research centres can play, through their ability to create and diffuse knowledge, in fostering a regions capacity to innovate (Doutriaux, 1991). Since a signicant proportion of the products and processes that are currently sold and

used could not have been developed without academic research (Manseld 1995, 1998), most universities and research centres are aware that they can exploit their own research results by promoting and sustaining the creation of new ventures. In a recent report titled Fostering Entrepreneurship, the Organization for European Cooperation and Development stresses that universities need to develop structural and formal policies to facilitate the transition from research to the creation of new ventures (OECD, 1998).

2. Objectives and methodology Since the drive for entrepreneurship within university laboratories is recent, research on how universities are trying to promote the creation of spin-offs is still in its infancy (Radosevich, 1995; Roberts and Malone, 1996; Carrayannis et al., 1998; Steffensen et al., 2000). In particular, the different issues raised by the creation of value from university research amount largely to a black box (Fig. 1). The objective of this paper is to open that black box in order to identify, understand and distinguish the major issues raised by the creation of such companies from the standpoints of both public and academic authorities.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32-43-66-29-45; fax: +32-43-6645-74. E-mail address: f.ndonzuau@ulg.ac.be (F.N. Ndonzuau).

0166-4972/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 6 - 4 9 7 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 9 - 0

282

F.N. Ndonzuau et al. / Technovation 22 (2002) 281289

Fig. 1.

The black box of economic value creation from university research.

Our research method relies on a two-step approach. First, we identied and analysed some well-known international spin-off support programmes, and then used our observations to build up a general model that set out the major issues involved in the transformation of research results into the creation of economic value within the universities. The research relies on eld studies conducted within universities. Three main criteria guided our choice of sites: the site must: (i) have successfully implemented a spin-off programme (condition of renown); (ii) be comparable with most European universities (condition of scale); and (iii) have taken original and interesting initiatives (condition of originality). The following 15 universities were visited between February and July 1999: University of Turku, Finland Helsinki Technology University, Finland Linkoping University, Sweden University of Twente (Enschede), The Netherlands Strathclyde University of Glasgow, UK Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium ` University of Liege, Belgium ` Universite Technologique de Compiegne, France Weizmann Institute of Technology, Rehovot, Israel Ben Gurion University, Israel University of Maryland, USA University of Pennsylvania, USA North Carolina State University, USA Duke University Medical Centre, USA Laval University, Quebec, Canada At each site, we interviewed ofcials from local development agencies, managers of universities liaison ofces and incubators, and founders of spin-off rms. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, addressing issues that deal with the problematic of research valorisation. In every site, we progressively built up a picture of the situation that was cross-validated by different actors looking at problems from very different angles (Eisenhardt, 1989). It is worth noting that the following analyses consist of common tendencies observed in different sites we visited. For the sake of conciseness we do not give these experiences in more detail. However, while describing our model, sometimes we briey supply some pertaining

empirical facts that underline our model. In so doing, we emphasize or illustrate some specic topics.

3. The four stages of the global spin-off process From the in-depth analyses of our data, four stages emerged as relevant in explaining the transformation of academic research results into economic value. The black box of Fig. 1 can be specied as an inputoutput model with the four following stages (Fig. 2): Stage 1: to generate business ideas from research; Stage 2: to nalize new venture projects out of ideas; Stage 3: to launch spin-off rms from projects; Stage 4: to strengthen the creation of economic value by spin-off rms. Each of these four stages has a specic function in the global spin-off process. The rst stage generates and assesses ideas with regard to possible commercialisation; the second stage considers these ideas and translates the most promising of them into genuine entrepreneurial projects; the third stage realizes the best projects by creating new spin-off rms; and the fourth stage consolidates and strengthens the economic value created by these new rms. A selection process occurs at each stage, which suggests that the model is an ecological one (Hannan and Freeman, 1987). Indeed, not all research results generate business ideas; not all ideas amount to opportunities for new venture projects (Timmons, 1994); attractive opportunities do not necessarily lead to the creation of spin-off rms; and such rms, ultimately, do not all generate economic value. A note of caution must be made with respect to the models suggested assumption of linearity. The four stages are not wholly independent of each other. Economic value depends on the quality of rms, which depends on the quality of nalized projects, which themselves depend on the quality of the initial ideas. In fact, the efciency of this multi-stage process depends on its weakest link. This four-stage model identies the various changes of status that research results have to undergo to generate economic value; thus, research resultsbusiness ideasnew venture projectsspin-off companieseconomic value. The process is neither straightforward nor spon-

F.N. Ndonzuau et al. / Technovation 22 (2002) 281289

283

Fig. 2.

The global process of valorisation by spin-off.

taneous. Instead, it is strewn with numerous obstacles, difculties, impediments, hindrances, and other sources of resistance (hereafter called issues). In fact, a key value of the model is that it associates with each stage specic delineated issues that are presented in a structured and coherent framework.

4. Stage 1: generating business ideas The purpose of the rst stage is to produce business ideas, suggestions, and proposals within the scientic community for commercial exploitation. For most universities, doing business with their research requires radical changes in the way they have traditionally exploited their results (Etzkowitz et al., 19981). Indeed, such commercial exploitation necessarily implies that two opposite concepts of science become closer, namely, the scientic conception, which considers science as an end in itself, and the economic conception, which considers it more as a means to achieve other goals (in particular making money) (McMillan et al., 2000). One of the main problems, therefore, is how to reconcile these two opposite conceptions (Doutriaux, 1991; Dasgupta and David, 1994). In this respect, the two major difculties to overcome by universities we visited are: (a) the academic culture; and (b) the internal identication. 4.1. The academic culture The majority of universities we visited consider that the rules used for promotion in the professorship scale are contrary to the entrepreneurial culture. This cultural problematic reects the sensitive issue of the ultimate ends of university research. This issue has long been avoided because of the strong inuence of the scientic paradigm on the academic culture (Brown, 1985; Etzkowitz, 1989; McMillan et al., 2000). According to that paradigm, the sole purpose of academic research is to increase and enhance human knowledge, regardless of any practical application. This paradigm recognizes only two ways of exploiting knowledge: (i) publications (i.e.
See particularly chapter 1 entitled Entrepreneurial science: the second academic revolution, by Etzkowitz, H. and Webster, A., pp. 2146.
1

books, articles or conferences) that contribute to the collective and cumulative process of knowledge production; and (ii) education that provides students with opportunities to learn the latest scientic ndings and discoveries. According to this conception, academic research is clearly a public good (Bok 1982, 1990; Geisler, 1993; Callon, 1994; Etzkowitz, 1998). This paradigm has progressively contributed to a system of values that is deeply rooted in the academic culture and that opposes the valorisation of research through spin-offs. Within this system of values, three features seem particularly difcult to change: the publish or perish drive, the ambiguous relationship of researchers to money, and the disinterested nature of academic research. 4.1.1. The publish or perish drive As is well recognized in the literature, organizations need to t their human resources management to their objectives (Mintzberg, 1989). In universities, this t is achieved notably through a policy of appointments and internal promotions based on an assessment of researchers contributions to the progress of science. Publishing articles in prestigious journals and international reviews is particularly recommended to increase the likelihood of advancement. This strategy has been popularised within the academic community in the evocative slogan publish or perish. In the universities we visited, researchers are really publishing-oriented since their hope of getting a higher position at their institution or elsewhere is tied to their prociency in publishing. So, the publication drive appears as a barrier to creating new spin-offs. Though understandable in a scientic sense, these incentives to publish research results extensively have perverse effects from the standpoint of the economicallyoriented exploitation of those results. Indeed, as soon as they are published, results lose a major part of their economic attractiveness. A single publication may be enough to remove all their originality value, since once they are in the public domain, they cannot benet from legal protections such as patents, which are often decisive in a valorisation policy. 4.1.2. The ambiguous relationships of researchers to money Most academic researchers consider money as a means of scientic progress, in contrast to businessmen,

284

F.N. Ndonzuau et al. / Technovation 22 (2002) 281289

who consider money as an end in itself and science only as a means to that end (Samson and Gurdon, 1993). These relationships to money are symptomatic of the cultural differences between the two worlds. When a researcher intends to launch a research project, he/she submits an application for money to carry out his/her research free from any other liabilities. In the business sphere, the idea of subsidy is replaced with that of contract, which implies compliance with liabilities pertaining to the contract (concerning results, delays, and so forth). 4.1.3. The disinterested nature of academic research For a long time, fundamental research has been considered a worthy activity of universities. The distance that most researchers keep from practice induces distrust, or even in some cases contempt, towards applied research and those researchers who prostitute science by pursuing goals other than the progress of knowledge. The refusal to integrate concrete and goal-oriented applications with the process of research explains why many academic research results are not directly suitable for economic exploitation (Udell, 1990). It is essential, therefore, to demystify the ivory tower in which many researchers are entrenched. In most universities which constitute our sample, researchers role incorporates an increasing mission of service to society, which, notably, allows the economic exploitation of their research results (Reitan, 1997). 4.2. The internal identication Until recently, universities have never bothered to detect promising ideas within their research centres and laboratories. The establishment of a valorisation policy requires the capacity both to identify ideas and to assess their potential (Roberts and Malone, 1996: 2021). The majority of universities we visited organized themselves so as to develop, inside the institution, the abilities and skills required to identify and evaluate the most promising ideas, in miscellaneous and specialized elds of research. 4.2.1. The identication of ideas Probably one of the most important tasks is to persuade directors of research centres to keep their doors open in order to allow promising ideas to be detected. Indeed, researchers generally mistrust external agents investigating their projects, in particular in professional organizations such as universities, with extreme drives for decentralization and individualization (Mintzberg, 1989). Thus, identication policy requires sensitive contacts, the development of mutual trust, and the organization of an efcient internal diffusion of information.

4.2.2. The assessment of ideas Each idea identied is unique as far as the assessment of its economic potential is concerned. One idea may be at once brilliant from a technical point of view and impracticable from a commercial one; another may be of limited scientic interest but be commercially promising. Whatever the ideas, their assessment requires an analysis of their technological, commercial and personal aspects, so as to shed light not only on their economic potential, but also on the most suitable way to exploit them commercially. Technological evaluation requires the ability to assess the extent to which research results are stable and/or sufciently developed to lead to industrial exploitation by identifying their possible applications, assessing their technical feasibility, and, in some circumstances, suggesting further research and development. This task is complicated by the broad range of research often conducted within the university, from information technology to pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, for which the range of possible applications is usually extremely wide. This requires the development of expertise with internal partners (i.e. professors) or external partners (i.e. consulting rms). However, this technological evaluation is necessary but not sufcient to validate the potential of an idea. Indeed, from the perspective of business exploitation, the commercial potential must also be assessed to verify the extent to which there might be a viable market. At this stage, multiple questions must be addressed: What are the different applications of a given technology? Which are the most promising? Who are the key players in those markets? How high are the barriers to entry? Is the potential good enough to build up a viable company? At this stage, the evaluation is still very approximate because further developments might be necessary or because the applications are so innovative that there is as yet no denite market (McMullan and Melnyk, 1988; Steinmueller, 1994). While the rst step of the process is to feed the ow of business proposals, the second stage consists of investigating in more depth the most promising ideas in order to develop new venture projects.

5. Stage 2: nalizing new venture projects The ideas generated by the rst stage of the process are generally ill-structured, with many grey areas that need to be claried. Such ideas usually consist of technical and scientic elements, while their potential to make money is not yet precisely known. At this stage, there is merely a feeling or a rough presumption that research results display promising economic potential. That presumption must be validated in a business project. The purpose of the second phase is therefore to trans-

F.N. Ndonzuau et al. / Technovation 22 (2002) 281289

285

form an ill-structured idea into a coherent and structured venture creation project addressing two specic issues: the protection and the development of the idea. This step may require major investments, and clearly signies the rst major step from the research to the business sphere. 5.1. Protection of ideas We noted that the potential to valorise an idea depends most of time on its level of protection. So, not amazing is the fact that in quite almost the universities we visited this aspect is integrated to the problematic of ideas protection. This problematic is particularly complicated by the fact that sometimes the ownership of ideas belongs to researchers (as in most Scandinavian universities) and sometimes to universities (as in Belgium or USA). Protection underscores two main problems: (i) how to identify clearly the owners of results; and (ii) how to protect efciently these results from counterfeiting, copying, and imitations. Who is the owner of results on which an idea is based? Answering this question is far from straightforward. Several elements are ambiguous, such as the multiplicity of funding sources, the diversity of conventions established between funding organizations and teams of researchers, the collaboration between different research centres (public or private), the various status of people carrying out research activities (professors, contractual researchers, doctoral students, and so forth), and, nally, the intangible character of most results. All these elements contribute to complicating the task of protecting intellectual rights. Each case is specic and generally requires an in-depth analysis in order to determine who is the owner of results, not to mention the criterion of originality that the publish or perish culture can jeopardize. As soon as the owner(s) of results are clearly identied, the next problem is the efcient protection of those results (Rappert et al., 1999). In this respect, two different aspects may be considered: natural protection and articial protection. Natural protection is based on both the technological level of the results (the degree of innovation) and barriers to imitation that give the results owners a technological lead for a considerable period of time. However, as most academic research results do not enjoy high barriers to imitation coupled with a strong technological lead, articial protection, such as patents or copyrights, is generally more appropriate (Lowe, 1993). The management of intellectual rights can be both technical and costly. It requires specialists who understand how to formulate a patent project in order to minimize the possibilities of evading the protection. Indeed, previous research shows the limited time advantage that protection confers (Manseld, 1998). Therefore, a cost benet analysis must be conducted on the usefulness of

such legal protection. In that respect, a strategy must be dened in terms of the duration and geographic coverage of the patent. 5.2. The development of business ideas As soon as the economic potential of an idea is recognized and, possibly, legally protected, a decision must be taken on how best to exploit it (selling, licensing or spinning-off) (Lee and Gaertner, 1994). If the spin-off option is chosen, the next step is to transform the idea into a genuine entrepreneurial project. This transformation involves: (i) technological development, that is, the production of a prototype; and (ii) commercial development, that is, the construction of a business plan. This idea to project transformation consumes time, energy and money. In most cases the liaison ofces are required to guide the development of an idea to a feasible project. As a consequence, they also manage the development of both a prototype and a business plan. This aspect appears to be more and more important in the universities of our sample. 5.2.1. Technological development The purpose of technological development is to verify the possibilities of industrial exploitation. The expected output is a rst release of products, services, or processes (called hereafter a prototype). This prototype can make it possible not only to check whether production can be extended to a larger industrial scale but also to demonstrate to potential customers and partners what the technology can achieve. Such technological development raises both material and non-material issues. Material issues refer to the availability of technical facilities (equipment, instruments, machinery, and so forth) that may be necessary to build up a prototype. Such facilities can be sophisticated and very expensive to acquire. Non-material issues refer to the time that technological development may require. Research results may need several months or years of additional work before they can be exploited. During this period, one challenge is to prevent researchers from developing a technically-pure prototype while ignoring the constraints of time and money. A clear schedule with precise milestones and deadlines must be dened (Sljivic, 1993) 5.2.2. Commercial development Whereas commercial assessment makes it possible to determine whether an idea is a business opportunity, the purpose of commercial development is to specify in a business plan the ways in which this opportunity will be actually exploited. A good business plan plays essentially two important roles. First, it helps to design a coherent strategy and to

286

F.N. Ndonzuau et al. / Technovation 22 (2002) 281289

estimate more accurately key elements such as investments, turnover, operating costs, or treasury forecasts. Second, it gives concrete form to a selling document for bankers and investors by giving them a structured and coherent image of the ways in which the results are intended to be exploited. 5.3. Financing From our investigation, nancing this development stage seems to be particularly problematic. Indeed, while most universities usually support the different costs related to legal protections as part of their intellectual property policy, very few of them can cope with the nancing of both technological and commercial development (prototypes and business plans). As well, while on the one hand public funding is essentially dedicated to fundamental research, on the other hand very few private nancial backers (i.e. venture capitalists) invest so early in the process because of the unpredictability and instability of the high-technology market and the supposedly low entrepreneurial capabilities of researchers. This nancing gap is undoubtedly the key problem to overcome in order to nalize genuine entrepreneurial projects (Oakey, 1995; Reitan, 1997). Inventions from university research usually stem from research projects supported by governments grants which may not have anticipated the invention. Usually some further work is neededto bring about a prototype, requiring a year, or part of a year, of additional workIn the meantime the inventor is left without support (McQueen and Wallmark, 1985)

capital funds while other consider these problems as being beyond their mission and sphere of competence. 6.1. Access to resources All entrepreneurial projects need resources to become concrete economic realities. This is particularly relevant for ASOs, since most operate in high-tech sectors. Two kinds of resources will be considered here: intangible (human); and tangible (money and material). 6.1.1. Intangible resources The management of high-technology rms differs greatly from that of university laboratories. That is why it must be possible to separate ASOs from the rules usually applied in universities. In view of the competitive pressure to which they are generally exposed, ASOs have to be surrounded by competent people to avoid making mistakes. Numerous studies have shown that one of the main reasons for failure of rms in general, and of ASOs in particular, is not so much the poor quality of the business opportunity as the poor quality of management (Timmons, 1994). Moreover, the development of a new business cannot succeed without management expertise (know-how) and good social networks (know-who) (Mustar, 1997). One issue at this stage is access to outside coaches for mentoring the ASO management team (Radosevich, 1995: 890891). Access to such outside expertise raises two fundamental questions: how to identify key people (the identication problem); and how to involve these people in the ASO (the incentive problem). 6.1.2. Tangible resources Besides these intangible resources, all start-up rms also need both material and nancial resources (Mian, 1997). Universities we visited increasingly provide access to facilities such as test devices, precise measurement instruments, laboratory equipment, and so forth, which are very expensive to acquire. At this stage, it is worth noting that the problem is access to such resources rather than acquisition of them. Regarding the nancial resources, the challenge is not so much to nd money that to reduce the need for it. Early on, nancial resources have much more value than later in the development. Indeed, since nancial backers view start-ups like ASOs as very risky, they tend not only to be very conservative in their valuation of a new venture, but also to ask for high expected returns as a compensation of risk. The danger is of course for the inventor (or the founder of the venture) to lose control of his/her company as his/her share of the equity is too diluted. This danger of dilution is likely to increase as the business grows and injections of new capital are needed to nance growth.

6. Stage 3: launching spin-off rms At the end of the second stage of the process, a new venture project should be ready. The third stage deals with the creation of a new rm to exploit an opportunity managed by a professional team and supported by available resources. These are the three key pillars of any entrepreneurial success (Timmons, 1994). The issues that have to be dealt with will progressively move away from specic academic contingencies towards business considerations. It is important to point out two problems at this stage: the availability of resources; and the relationships that should be established between the spin-off rm and its mother university. ASOs involved in high-tech subjects generally move in an uncertain environment. This turmoil may deal with access to resources. In order to help them overcoming these problems some universities are actively concerned in nding solutions like, for instance, raising venture

F.N. Ndonzuau et al. / Technovation 22 (2002) 281289

287

6.2. Relationships with the university of origin Conicting interests may arise in the relationship between a university and its spin-offs. In that respect, some universities have set a code of best practice in order to prevent or avoid potential conicts. While all ASOs progressively cut their umbilical cord with the academic environment, most usually retain some relationships with their original university. Such relationships can be established either at an institutional level (between the university and a spin-off), or at a personal level (between the university and the researcher). 6.2.1. Institutional relationships between universities and their spin-offs In terms of purposes, means, and methods, universities differ so greatly from ASOs that they could consider the creation of ASOs as the nal outcome of a process in which they are no longer concerned. However, in spite of their differences, the organizations generally maintain collaborative relationships with each other (Doutriaux, 1992; Rappert et al., 1999), for several reasons (Bray and Lee, 1998): universities can hold some ASOs equity shares (nancial resources); ASOs can exploit a patented technology owned by universities (intangible resources); ASOs can have access to some university facilities (material resources).

7. Stage 4: strengthening the creation of economic value Although the creation of new technology-based rms such as ASOs constitutes a fundamental step in the process of valorisation by spin-off, this stage is not the nal one. The perspective must be enlarged and extended to the ultimate purpose of the process, namely, the creation of economic value by ASOs, generating for the local economy both tangible advantages (jobs, investment, taxes, and so forth) and intangible advantages (economic renewal, entrepreneurial dynamism, constitution of centres of excellence, and so forth). In writing this paper, our intention is not to tackle the very complex problem of how to boost the economic development of a region. We limit our considerations to new technology-based rms with a high growth potential, for which two specic problems emerge from our eld research and warrant particular attention: the relocation risk; and the non-exploitation of the full industrial potential of technological projects. 7.1. The relocation risk This problem concerns the way the local economy can take full advantage of the economic value created by ASOs. Most ASOs are generally active in markets with high growth potential and international scope, so they can quickly encounter problems regarding infrastructure, the recruitment of skilled people, or the funding of their development. In these respects, local authorities should be particularly careful to prevent technological start-ups from leaving the region, as in the case of two Belgian spin-offs that have moved to the Netherlands. 7.2. The change of trajectories The second problem concerns more specically technology-based and product-oriented ASOs. Most of these technological rms develop a two-step growth strategy (Monsted, 1998). Indeed, because they do not generally succeed in raising sufcient funds to implement directly their industrial strategy, they may decide, in an effort to reduce risks, to temporarily develop service activities such as consulting. These activities generate some cash that may be necessary to nance technological development so that the product is ready to be launched on the market. From the point of view of the local economy, such a growth strategy presents some risks. We observed that some ASOs have decided to remain indenitely at stage 1, while giving up their initial project that had much more promising prospects for the local economy.

6.2.2. Personal relationships between universities and their researchers From doctoral students spending all their time conducting research activities, to professors dividing their time between research and teaching activities, the range of researchers likely to launch a spin-off is very wide. We could observe that the more a researcher is entrenched and deeply anchored in his/her institution, the more difcult it will be for him/her to leave the university to launch an entrepreneurial project (Udell, 1990), not only because of the comfortable environment that he/she would be quitting, but also because of the numerous organizational difculties involved in quitting. These various relationships, both institutional and personal, between a university and its spin-offs can generate conicts of interests. Thus, spin-off managers could be tempted to subcontract a great part of their R&D activities to the laboratories they came from and incidentally benet from an effective research infrastructure accessed at a lower cost than that available in the market. The natural complicity between some researchers who have created spin-offs and their original afliation could lead to situations where universities unintentionally subsidize some of the activities of their spin-offs.

288

F.N. Ndonzuau et al. / Technovation 22 (2002) 281289

8. Conclusions Both academic and public authorities are paying increasing attention to the commercialisation of scientic and technical knowledge produced within publiclyfunded research institutions (universities, laboratories, research centres, and so forth). Considered as a key element in sustaining regional economic development, it seems imperative that policymakers better understand the process of ASO creation from public technology sources. Based on inductive research, this article opens the black box by which academic research is transformed into economic value by the creation of new ventures. It identies four key stages interacting in a sequential manner. In doing so, it sheds light on major issues raised during each stage. As a consequence, a major contribution of this article is to pinpoint in a structured way the major issues that policymakers and university authorities have to take into account while developing an appropriate spin-off policy within public-funded research institutions. Hence, the model gives people interested in the valorisation of research by the creation of ASOs a general framework on which they can rely for conceiving suitable institutional mechanisms for supporting and fostering academic entrepreneurship. It also provides some guidelines to organise in and around universities instruments such as liaison ofces, entrepreneurship centres, venture capital funds and incubators, in an effort to spur entrepreneurship and favour the creation of value out of academic research. Acknowledgements This paper is a part of a broader project devoted to benchmark institutional policies carried out by wellknown universities to foster and encourage the creation of ASOs. This study was prepared with the support of the Government of the Communaute Francaise de Belgique, Belgium (Grant No. 598.378 D.O.45A.B. 31.01.20.48). References
Alistair, B., Gibson, D., Smilor, R., 1991. University Spin-off Companies: Economic Development, Faculty Entrepreneurs, and Technology Transfer. Rowman & Littleeld. Bok, D., 1982. Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social Responsibilities of the Modern Universities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bok, D., 1990. Universities and the Future of America. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Bray, M., Lee, J., 1998. University revenues from technology transfer: licensing fees vs. equity positions an analysis. In: Proceedings of the Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Conference, University of Ghent, Belgium, 2024 May.

Brown, W.S., 1985. A proposed mechanism for commercializing university technology. Technovation 3, 1925. Callon, M., 1994. Is science a public good? Science, Technology and Human Values 19, 395424. Carrayannis, E., Rogers, E., Kurihara, K., Allbritton, M., 1998. High technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation 18 (1), 111. Dasgupta, P., David, P.A., 1994. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23, 487521. Doutriaux, J., 1991. University culture, spin-off strategy, and success of academic entrepreneur at Canadian universities. In: Proceedings of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Conference, pp. 406421. Doutriaux, J., 1992. Interaction entre lenvironnement universitaire et ` les premieres annees des entreprises essaimantes canadiennes. Revue internationale P.M.E. 5 (2), 739. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532550. Etzkowitz, H., 1989. Entrepreneurial science in the academy: a case of the transformations of norms. Social Problems 36 (1), 1427. Etzkowitz, H., 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new universityindustry linkages. Research Policy 27 (8), 823833. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Healey, P. (Eds.), 1998. Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. State University of New-York Press, Albany, NY. Geisler, R.L., 1993. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J., 1987. Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Lee, Y.S., Gaertner, R., 1994. Technology transfer from university to industry: a large-scale experiment with technology development and commercialization. Policy Studies Journal 22 (2), 384401. Lowe, J., 1993. Commercialization of university research: a policy perspective. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 5 (1), 2737. Manseld, E., 1995. Academic research underlying industrial innovation: sources, characteristics, and nancing. The Review of Economics and Statistics 77 (1), 5565. Manseld, E., 1998. Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical ndings. Research Policy 26 (7/8), 773776. McMillan, G.S., Narin, F., Deds, D.L., 2000. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Research Policy 29 (1), 18. McMullan, E.W., Melnyk, K., 1988. University innovation centres and academic venture formation. R&D Management 18 (1), 512. McQueen, D.H., Wallmark, J.T. 1985. Support for new ventures at Chalmers University of Technology. In: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Conference. Mian, S.A., 1997. Assessing and managing the University technology incubator: an integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing 12, 251285. Mintzberg, H., 1989. Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organizations. The Free Press, New York. Monsted, M., 1998. Inventors and investors networking and uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the High-Tech Small Firm Conference, 45 June, University of Twente, The Netherlands, pp. 263290. Mustar, PH., 1997. Spin-off enterprises how French academics create hi-tech companies: the conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy 24 (1), 3743. Oakey, R., 1995. High-technology New Firms. Variable Barriers to Growth. Paul Chapman, London. OECD, 1998. Fostering Entrepreneurship. OECD, Paris. Radosevich, R., 1995. A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources. International Journal of Technology Management 10 (7/8), 879893.

F.N. Ndonzuau et al. / Technovation 22 (2002) 281289

289

Rappert, B., Webster, A., Charles, D., 1999. Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academicindustrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy 28 (7), 873890. Reitan, B., 1997. Fostering technical entrepreneurship in research communities: granting scholarships to would-be entrepreneurs. Technovation 17 (6), 287296. Roberts, E.B., 1991. Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Roberts, E.B., Malone, D., 1996. Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management 26 (1), 1748. Samson, K.J., Gurdon, M.A., 1993. University scientists as entrepreneurs: a special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation 13 (2), 6371. Sljivic, N., 1993. University spin-off companies: management requirements and pitfalls to be avoided. International Journal of Educational Management 7 (5), 3234. Stankiewicz, R., 1994. Spin-off companies from universities. Science and Public Policy 21 (2), 99107. Steffensen, M., Rogers, E., Speakman, K., 2000. Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing 15 (1), 93111.

Steinmueller, W.E., 1994. Basic research and industrial innovation. In: Dodgson, M., Rothwell, R. (Eds.), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 5466. Timmons, J.A., 1994. New Venture Creation, Irwin. Udell, G., 1990. Academe and the goose that lays its golden eggs. Business Horizon 33 (2), 2937.
` Frederic Nlemvo received his doctorate from the University of Liege, Belgium, in 1998, where he has been working as Teaching Assistant since 1995, and as Researcher at the SME and Entrepreneurship Research Centre. From this year, Dr Nlemvo holds a post-doctoral position at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and is also in charge of teaching Venture Creation in continuous education programmes. Fabrice Pirnay is Researcher at the SME and Entrepreneurship Research ` Centre, University of Liege, Belgium. He conducts his dissertation at the University of Lille 2 (France) in the area of academic spin-offs. Bernard Surlemont is currently Professor of International Management and Entrepreneurship at the University of Liege, Belgium and Professor ` of Entrepreneurship at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. He gradu` ated from the University of Liege and gained his MBA and his PhD at the INSEAD, Fontainebleau (France). He is the director of the SME and ` Entrepreneurship Research Centre at the University of Liege.