科技型创业企业的影响——文献综述与政策综合

Einar Rasmussen, O. Bulanova, Are Jensen, T. Clausen
{"title":"科技型创业企业的影响——文献综述与政策综合","authors":"Einar Rasmussen, O. Bulanova, Are Jensen, T. Clausen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2857118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How to convert scientific and technological knowledge developed in public research institutions into economic and societal impact is a key concern for both research and innovation policy. Policy makers and universities have spent considerable resources to promote the creation of science-based entrepreneurial firms (SBEFs) as a tool to create value from investments made in research. The impacts of SBEFs are, however, highly debated among both practitioners and researchers. Some argue that these firms play an important role in terms of revenue and job creation, but also as technology transfer agents. Thus, SBEFs are considered to have an important role in the innovation system by transforming scientific knowledge into application. Others question the impact of SBEFs and argue that exceptional success stories cannot be generalized and that most SBEFs are technology lifestyle firms that remain small, despite strong public support. \nWe have conducted an extensive search in high quality international journals and identified 162 scientific articles dealing with SBEFs. We observed that the number of studies on SBEFs has grown rapidly over the last decade and has contributed to a better understanding of the role and the particular characteristics of this type of new ventures. The literature is dominated by studies from North America and Western Europe, particularly the US and the UK. A subset of 14 articles explicitly considered the impacts generated by SBEFs. Two different perspectives can be identified. Some studies explored the economic impacts of SBEF, often in terms of contributions to regional development. Other studies discussed the impacts of SBEFs as technology transfer agents serving a role in the dissemination of research into application. Most studies portray a highly positive image of the impacts generated by SBEFs. However, the literature is dominated by a handful of successful case examples and some authors question whether the general prominence given to SBEFs in government policies can be justified. SBEFs seem to be a special type of firms that have other purposes than other startups in terms of technology transfer and other societal benefits. However, many potential types of impacts have not been sufficiently explored by empirical data. For instance, successful acquisitions are rarely included in the datasets used. Much work remains before any general conclusions can be made whether and under which conditions SBEFs creates an impact that exceeds the alternatives. \nAnother subset of 28 articles included empirical data regarding the links between the start-up conditions and the performance of SBEFs. It seems clear that SBEFs face particular opportunities and challenges compared to other new ventures related to their academic origin and their need to develop links to commercial actors, particularly in the earliest stages of venture development. The studies investigate a number of factors have been found to influence the performance of SBEFs in different contexts, but how these factors interrelates remains scarcely studied. There is no doubt that policies and support can promote the performance and impacts of SBEFs, but the mechanisms leading to successful outcomes appears to be highly context specific. Thus, policy actions need to be differentiated according to the particular regional and institutional context, the phase of development, and the business model chosen by the SBEFs, as well as the type of impacts sought. \nIn the 42 studies reviewed above that considered impact and performance, we observed that a broad range of indicators were used. Most studies were looking at firm level performance using indicators such as survival, employment, resource acquisition, financial indicators and growth measures. Although indicators to measure impact at regional level and in terms of technology transfer were discussed in several studies, it seems very difficult to measure these types of outcomes. None of the studies explored the non-economic and societal impacts generated by SBEFs in any detail. \nSBEFs have long development paths and successful firms typically remain small for a rather long time period before they start to grow. To be able to capture this development there is a need to measure their impact over a longer period of time than most current studies have done. Studies following the development of a cohort of SBEFs or university technologies over an extensive period of time, where different economic and societal outcomes are considered, would yield important new insights.","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"04 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Science-Based Entrepreneurial Firms - A Literature Review and Policy Synthesis\",\"authors\":\"Einar Rasmussen, O. Bulanova, Are Jensen, T. Clausen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2857118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How to convert scientific and technological knowledge developed in public research institutions into economic and societal impact is a key concern for both research and innovation policy. Policy makers and universities have spent considerable resources to promote the creation of science-based entrepreneurial firms (SBEFs) as a tool to create value from investments made in research. The impacts of SBEFs are, however, highly debated among both practitioners and researchers. Some argue that these firms play an important role in terms of revenue and job creation, but also as technology transfer agents. Thus, SBEFs are considered to have an important role in the innovation system by transforming scientific knowledge into application. Others question the impact of SBEFs and argue that exceptional success stories cannot be generalized and that most SBEFs are technology lifestyle firms that remain small, despite strong public support. \\nWe have conducted an extensive search in high quality international journals and identified 162 scientific articles dealing with SBEFs. We observed that the number of studies on SBEFs has grown rapidly over the last decade and has contributed to a better understanding of the role and the particular characteristics of this type of new ventures. The literature is dominated by studies from North America and Western Europe, particularly the US and the UK. A subset of 14 articles explicitly considered the impacts generated by SBEFs. Two different perspectives can be identified. Some studies explored the economic impacts of SBEF, often in terms of contributions to regional development. Other studies discussed the impacts of SBEFs as technology transfer agents serving a role in the dissemination of research into application. Most studies portray a highly positive image of the impacts generated by SBEFs. However, the literature is dominated by a handful of successful case examples and some authors question whether the general prominence given to SBEFs in government policies can be justified. SBEFs seem to be a special type of firms that have other purposes than other startups in terms of technology transfer and other societal benefits. However, many potential types of impacts have not been sufficiently explored by empirical data. For instance, successful acquisitions are rarely included in the datasets used. Much work remains before any general conclusions can be made whether and under which conditions SBEFs creates an impact that exceeds the alternatives. \\nAnother subset of 28 articles included empirical data regarding the links between the start-up conditions and the performance of SBEFs. It seems clear that SBEFs face particular opportunities and challenges compared to other new ventures related to their academic origin and their need to develop links to commercial actors, particularly in the earliest stages of venture development. The studies investigate a number of factors have been found to influence the performance of SBEFs in different contexts, but how these factors interrelates remains scarcely studied. There is no doubt that policies and support can promote the performance and impacts of SBEFs, but the mechanisms leading to successful outcomes appears to be highly context specific. Thus, policy actions need to be differentiated according to the particular regional and institutional context, the phase of development, and the business model chosen by the SBEFs, as well as the type of impacts sought. \\nIn the 42 studies reviewed above that considered impact and performance, we observed that a broad range of indicators were used. Most studies were looking at firm level performance using indicators such as survival, employment, resource acquisition, financial indicators and growth measures. Although indicators to measure impact at regional level and in terms of technology transfer were discussed in several studies, it seems very difficult to measure these types of outcomes. None of the studies explored the non-economic and societal impacts generated by SBEFs in any detail. \\nSBEFs have long development paths and successful firms typically remain small for a rather long time period before they start to grow. To be able to capture this development there is a need to measure their impact over a longer period of time than most current studies have done. Studies following the development of a cohort of SBEFs or university technologies over an extensive period of time, where different economic and societal outcomes are considered, would yield important new insights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":131271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"04 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2857118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2857118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

如何将公共研究机构开发的科技知识转化为经济和社会影响是研究和创新政策的一个关键问题。决策者和大学已经花费了大量资源来促进建立基于科学的创业公司(sbef),作为从研究投资中创造价值的工具。然而,sbef的影响在从业人员和研究人员之间存在高度争议。一些人认为,这些公司在收入和创造就业机会方面发挥着重要作用,同时也是技术转让的代理人。因此,科技创新基金在将科学知识转化为应用的创新系统中具有重要作用。其他人则质疑创业型企业的影响,认为特殊的成功故事不能一概一概,大多数创业型企业都是科技生活方式公司,尽管得到了公众的大力支持,但规模仍然很小。我们在高质量的国际期刊中进行了广泛的检索,并确定了162篇涉及sbef的科学文章。我们注意到,在过去十年中,关于sbef的研究数量迅速增长,有助于更好地理解这类新企业的作用和特点。这些文献主要来自北美和西欧,尤其是美国和英国的研究。14篇文章的子集明确考虑了sff产生的影响。可以确定两种不同的观点。一些研究探讨了可持续发展基金的经济影响,通常是在对区域发展的贡献方面。其他的研究则讨论了可持续发展基金作为技术转让媒介在将研究成果推广应用方面的作用所产生的影响。大多数研究都对sffs产生的影响给予高度肯定的评价。然而,文献中主要是少数成功的案例,一些作者质疑政府政策中给予sbef的普遍突出地位是否合理。sbef似乎是一种特殊类型的公司,在技术转移和其他社会效益方面,它与其他初创公司有着不同的目的。然而,许多潜在类型的影响还没有得到经验数据的充分探讨。例如,成功的收购很少包括在使用的数据集中。在得出关于sbef是否以及在何种条件下产生超过替代方案的影响的一般性结论之前,还有很多工作要做。28篇文章的另一个子集包括关于启动条件与sbef绩效之间联系的经验数据。显然,与其他新企业相比,特别的机遇和挑战与它们的学术起源有关,它们需要与商业行为者建立联系,特别是在企业发展的最初阶段。这些研究调查了已经发现的影响sbef在不同背景下表现的一些因素,但这些因素如何相互关联仍然很少研究。毫无疑问,政策和支持可以促进可持续发展基金的绩效和影响,但导致成功结果的机制似乎是高度具体的。因此,政策行动需要根据特定的区域和体制背景、发展阶段、可持续发展基金选择的业务模式以及所寻求的影响类型来区分。在上述考虑影响和绩效的42项研究中,我们观察到使用了广泛的指标。大多数研究都是使用生存、就业、资源获取、财务指标和增长指标等指标来考察公司层面的绩效。虽然在若干研究中讨论了在区域一级和在技术转让方面衡量影响的指标,但似乎很难衡量这类结果。这些研究都没有详细探讨sffs产生的非经济和社会影响。sbef的发展道路很长,成功的公司在开始成长之前通常会在相当长的一段时间内保持小规模。为了能够把握这一发展,有必要在较长时期内衡量其影响,而不是目前大多数研究所做的。在很长一段时间内,对一系列sbef或大学技术的发展进行跟踪研究,考虑到不同的经济和社会结果,将产生重要的新见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Impact of Science-Based Entrepreneurial Firms - A Literature Review and Policy Synthesis
How to convert scientific and technological knowledge developed in public research institutions into economic and societal impact is a key concern for both research and innovation policy. Policy makers and universities have spent considerable resources to promote the creation of science-based entrepreneurial firms (SBEFs) as a tool to create value from investments made in research. The impacts of SBEFs are, however, highly debated among both practitioners and researchers. Some argue that these firms play an important role in terms of revenue and job creation, but also as technology transfer agents. Thus, SBEFs are considered to have an important role in the innovation system by transforming scientific knowledge into application. Others question the impact of SBEFs and argue that exceptional success stories cannot be generalized and that most SBEFs are technology lifestyle firms that remain small, despite strong public support. We have conducted an extensive search in high quality international journals and identified 162 scientific articles dealing with SBEFs. We observed that the number of studies on SBEFs has grown rapidly over the last decade and has contributed to a better understanding of the role and the particular characteristics of this type of new ventures. The literature is dominated by studies from North America and Western Europe, particularly the US and the UK. A subset of 14 articles explicitly considered the impacts generated by SBEFs. Two different perspectives can be identified. Some studies explored the economic impacts of SBEF, often in terms of contributions to regional development. Other studies discussed the impacts of SBEFs as technology transfer agents serving a role in the dissemination of research into application. Most studies portray a highly positive image of the impacts generated by SBEFs. However, the literature is dominated by a handful of successful case examples and some authors question whether the general prominence given to SBEFs in government policies can be justified. SBEFs seem to be a special type of firms that have other purposes than other startups in terms of technology transfer and other societal benefits. However, many potential types of impacts have not been sufficiently explored by empirical data. For instance, successful acquisitions are rarely included in the datasets used. Much work remains before any general conclusions can be made whether and under which conditions SBEFs creates an impact that exceeds the alternatives. Another subset of 28 articles included empirical data regarding the links between the start-up conditions and the performance of SBEFs. It seems clear that SBEFs face particular opportunities and challenges compared to other new ventures related to their academic origin and their need to develop links to commercial actors, particularly in the earliest stages of venture development. The studies investigate a number of factors have been found to influence the performance of SBEFs in different contexts, but how these factors interrelates remains scarcely studied. There is no doubt that policies and support can promote the performance and impacts of SBEFs, but the mechanisms leading to successful outcomes appears to be highly context specific. Thus, policy actions need to be differentiated according to the particular regional and institutional context, the phase of development, and the business model chosen by the SBEFs, as well as the type of impacts sought. In the 42 studies reviewed above that considered impact and performance, we observed that a broad range of indicators were used. Most studies were looking at firm level performance using indicators such as survival, employment, resource acquisition, financial indicators and growth measures. Although indicators to measure impact at regional level and in terms of technology transfer were discussed in several studies, it seems very difficult to measure these types of outcomes. None of the studies explored the non-economic and societal impacts generated by SBEFs in any detail. SBEFs have long development paths and successful firms typically remain small for a rather long time period before they start to grow. To be able to capture this development there is a need to measure their impact over a longer period of time than most current studies have done. Studies following the development of a cohort of SBEFs or university technologies over an extensive period of time, where different economic and societal outcomes are considered, would yield important new insights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Consequences of Intrapreneurship in Exporting Firms: A Structural-model Approach How the Law Can Better Protect Small Business Owners against Location Risk in the Brick-and-Mortar Retail Sector K-Y Index: A Dow Jones like Index for Global Cryptocurrency Markets Business Plan: A Road Map for a Successful Entrepreneurship Financial Innovation for Energy Innovation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1