TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-139Individual-level antecedents of spin-off involvementJulie Callaert, ECOOM - K.U.Leuven, BelgiumMaria Concetta Capezio, Politecnico di Milano, ItalyPaolo Landoni, Bart Van Looy, INCENTIM - K.U.Leuven, BelgiumThe concept of academic entrepreneurship (Etzkowitz et al., 1998) has inspired a vivid research agenda covering a variety ofissues at the level of innovation systems, institutions and individual scientists (for a comprehensive overview, see Rothaermel etal., 2008). On the level of individual academics, a growing body of evidence points towards the feasibility and even positiveeffects of combining scientific and entrepreneurial activities (e.g., Azoulay et al., 2007; Calderini & Franzoni., 2004; Van Looy etal.,2004, 2006). At the same time, the dynamics behind successful academic entrepreneurship remain somewhat obscure. Inspite of some qualitative evidence suggesting an impact of individual strategies (e.g. Callaert et al., 2008), the gap in theliterature remains significant. Moreover, this literature strongly focuses on academic patenting, with less attention being paid tospin-off activities (for notable exceptions: see Fini et al., 2008; Grandi & Grimaldi, 2003). Our study contributes by analyzingantecedents of spin-off involvement at the individual level of academic researchers, and by relating it to scientific and technologicalperformance.Academic spin-offs are companies created to exploit knowledge that originates within universities. The importance of thesecompanies for creating economical growth is widely acknowledged (e.g. Roberts, 1991; Shane, 2004), and their creation hasbecome a key issue for policy makers around the world (e.g., Lockett and Wright, 2005). Consequently several authors (DiGregorio & Shane, 2003; Grandi & Grimaldi, 2005; O’Shea et al., 2005) have studied the factors fostering their creation. Muchof this research concerns institutional support (e.g. government laws, ?nancial and non-?nancial incentives, etc.) and universitypolicies (e.g. spin-off regulations, business plan competitions, university business incubators, etc.). Individual level factors,such as researchers’ scientific and technological profiles, have been less studied. Accordingly, as different scholars point out,additional research is required at this level to understand academic motivations and capabilities in developing successful spinoffs(Lockett and Wright, 2005; Rothaermel et al., 2008).For our individual level analysis, we started from survey data, that were gathered from autonomous engineering professors at theCatholic University of Leuven (KUL) and the Politecnico of Milano (PoliMi). Both universities have opted for an ‘entrepreneurial’orientation on the level of the university and are characterized by similar regulations and attitudes towards managing knowledgeand technology transfer. Over 500 professors were contacted, and we had a response rate of approximately 35%. We received186 filled out questionnaire with information about professors’ collaborative projects with firms, realized in the period from 2003to 2007, including their involvement in spin-off companies. These survey data were complemented with secondary source dataon publications and patents, as obtained through the ISI-Web of Knowledge and the EPO-PATSTAT databases respectively.Our econometric analyses consider individual-level characteristics of professors (age, university, field, teamsize, scientificoutput, involvement in consultancy) and their relations with involvement in spin off activities on the one hand and with patentingactivities on the other hand. In comparing antecedents of spinoff involvement to those of patenting activities, special attention isbeing paid to the mutual relations between scientific productivity, patenting productivity and spinoff involvement.The first results reveal significant university and field effects, whereas age and involvement in consultancy activities are insignificantin relation to both spinoff and patenting activities. Teamsize is positively related to spin off involvement but not to patenting.Furthermore, we can reconfirm the positive relation between scientific performance and patenting – as already widely documentedin the literature – but our results do confirm the same for spinoffs. Given the latter observation and a positive relation betweenspin off and patenting activities, we are engaging in additional modelling using structural equation and path analytical techniques,in order to create further insight into the relation between patenting activities and spinoffs, and into their direct or indirectrelations with scientific performance.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 201043