This article provides an attempt to better understand the establishment of international knowledge relationships, including changes over time. Internationalization of young high-tech firms is strongly required given the drive for upscaling technology solutions and given the increased global spread of knowledge centers. To increase understanding, a framework of conditions of capability formation in internationalization is developed and measured using a sample of 105 university spin-off firms in Northwest Europe. In early years, 62% of these firms employed knowledge relationships abroad, often crossing continents. The main capabilities in this stage tend to be connected to education (PhD) and market training, innovation activity at practical level, and diversity in preceding domestic networks. Subsequent changes on the firm level show a somewhat stronger internationalization, 74%, associated with other capabilities compared to early years, mainly derived in previous internationalization, pre-start work experience and innovation activity at an advanced level. However, the results also point to a ‘problematic’ segment of firms, including shrinking patterns and persistent absence of internationalization. To summarize, we observe inertia as well as (highly) dynamic patterns of knowledge relationships abroad, with important implications for management and policy.

Commercialization of inventions urges university spin-off firms to develop networks abroad, particularly if they are active in a small national economy. While it is recognized that young spin-offs are vulnerable due to lack of various resources and capabilities, support in internationalization from the university is rare. We investigate university spin-offs' internationalization using a sample of 105 of such firms in Northwest European countries. In early years, 62 per cent employ international networks, enhanced by capabilities gained in PhD education, participation in market training and innovation experience at practical level, but also (and strongly) by diversity among partners in domestic networks. Subsequent growth leads to a stronger internationalization, mainly derived from early patterns of internationalization, but a good 30 per cent of the spin-offs tend to face problematic situations, namely a shrinking pattern or persistent lack of internationalization. The paper concludes with some challenges for improvement.

This chapter deals with small high-technology firms introducing sustainable energy inventions to the market. The focus is on university spin-offs, which typically show weak skills in management and marketing, but strong technology skills – in this chapter, solar photovoltaics, wind energy, biomass and hydro-power. A simplified conceptual model is explored by focusing on institutional aspects (countries) and network access as well as firms’ entrepreneurial orientation. The exploration of time to market draws on a selected sample of spin-offs in northwest Europe using rough-set analysis. The results show that the highest probability for quick market introduction occurs in an ‘innovation leader’ country (Sweden, Denmark, Finland) and among spin-offs’ involved in multiple networks, followed by those with a practical orientation and access to substantial investment. There are no differences between entrepreneurial ecosystems in metropolitan areas and remote/small urban places. Rather, the results indicate a trend for compensation in ‘thin regions’ through long-distance networks and ‘workplace learning’.

This chapter investigates the extent to which university spin-off firms in new medical technology reach the market and create job growth, for example, in support in care-providing, minimally invasive surgery, tissue engineering (organs), and information and communications technology (ICT)-supported diagnosis. The study draws on a small selective sample and employs rough-set analysis to identify preliminary causal patterns. One of the strongest influences seems the subsector indicating diversity in technical complexity (risk) and regulation (testing and approval), while management experience and access to venture capital also have a role. Furthermore, drawing on in-depth case study analysis, the preliminary conclusion is drawn that spin-offs in complex and risk-taking fields are able to survive in close research collaboration with the ‘mother’ university and/or academic hospital, and through this link, with universities and hospitals in global networks. Others that lack such relationship tend to be much more vulnerable, particularly due to healthcare budget constraints and firm-specific lack of management experience.

Little is known about how young high-tech ventures create openness in their knowledge networks. This paper explores the influence of antecedent resources on openness in knowledge networks, seen as diversity in knowledge partners, and explores the impact of openness on growth. The results from 105 university spin-off firms suggest that three antecedents positively influence openness, namely, founders’ prestart experience, education and innovation experience, and one negatively, namely, size of the founding team. Regarding non-linearity, there are signs of cubic influences, potentially in line with passing critical junctures. In addition, external factors tend to have no influence on openness, except for region of location. Further, shaping the right amount of openness and benefitting from it seem a struggle, as an increasing openness tends to influence growth with decreasing returns.

Acknowledgements of "Cities and Sustainable Technology Transitions: Leadership, Innovation and Adoption"

Diversity in knowledge is often regarded as beneficial to small firm performance. University spin-off firms, established to develop new products/services towards market introduction, are typically exposed to diversity in knowledge, through the founding team’s background and/or through external networks. Growth of university spin-off firms is usually modest, and this raises questions on what matters most for them, diversity in the founding team or in the network and whether benefits increase or decrease with growing diversity. Results are derived from a sample of 105 university spin-off firms and application of linear and curve-linear regression models of firm growth. The following trends are observed. First, influence of network diversity is stronger compared to influence of team diversity for employment growth, not for turnover growth. Further, influence of network diversity is overall positive, while influence of team diversity is negative for turnover. With regard to curvilinear patterns, diversity in social networks (different partners) tends to cause increasing returns in both employment and turnover growth, while diversity in working experience in the team tends to cause decreasing returns for turnover. Overall, this study confirms relatively strong and more positive influence from network diversity (social networks) in early years. The results are helpful in increasing awareness on these issues in incubation support programs.

University spin-off firms contribute to bringing knowledge created at university to market. The networks these firms employ with other Triple Helix actors serve as not only getting access to resources but also shaping processes of collective learning in transforming the knowledge most adequately. In addition, spin-offs may affect the networks and behavior of network participants. While the first role has received large attention, collective learning and transforming networks and network partners have not. The paper addresses a key requirement in this setting, namely diversity in networks. We use a database of 105 young university spin-off firms and measure the socio-economic networks. A share of around 25 to 35 % of the firms tends to have an important potential mediator role, as they employ three to five different partners, connect with large firms as well as governments (outside the university), and have inserted a majority of strangers (outsiders) in their network. In the next step, to better understand partner diversity, we assess a simplified model. The level of innovativeness is found to be an important driver of diversity, with pre-start working experience (domains) and multidisciplinary education as important enabling factors. In exploring actual mediator roles using two case studies, we observe that Triple Helix actors are most diverse and tightly connected in testing activities in practice (pilots) enabling transformation of networks and network partners. The paper concludes with a summary, policy relevance, and future research paths.

Universities increasingly are taking on the commercialization of knowledge as their third mission. More recently, they appear to be challenged to go even beyond that mission and adopt more interactive relationships with user groups and society. A shift like this calls for a solid study on how well the knowledge commercialization has performed at university in recent years. Focussing on a European country, the Netherlands, this paper provides a characterization of that performance and the underlying factors, and in particular the boundary-spanning capacity of university teams. In an analysis of trends in commercialization, involving almost 370 university-driven technology projects, we observe that 22% of all older projects succeed in market access within ten years after start of the project. For younger ones, this is 15% of all projects within 5 years after start. To clarify these possibly low levels, a rough-set analysis of about 40 technology projects is carried out, pointing to the years of collaboration with a large firm/user organization and an efficient use of resources as positive influences on commercialization, while affinity among project managers with the market also tends to be a key factor. Despite a general trend of more permeable university-industry boundaries, it deserves recommendation to further increase boundary-spanning activities, among other things through co-creation labs.

Industrial competence is increasingly dispersed across the globe, urging technology-based firmsin Europe to establish international knowledge relationships, sometimes even at larger distances.This paper examines patterns of international knowledge relationships and the influence ofcapability factors of university spin-off firms on building such relationships and changes herein,using a sample of 105 of firms in Northwest European countries. In early patterns, 62 per cent ofthe sampled firms employed knowledge relationships abroad. Remarkably, these relationshipsoften cross continents, witness the spin-offs active outside of Europe outnumbering the onesactive within Europe (33.5 versus 28.5 per cent). The main capability factors affecting theseearly relationships tend to be PhD education in the founding team, participation in training, andthe capability to innovate on a practical level that responds to market demand. Subsequentchanges have led to a high overall internationalization in knowledge relationships of 82 per cent,but also reveal diverse trends among spin-offs, namely, no change for one third of then versus anincrease of spatial reach for another one third. This result points to absence of an overall patternof evolving steps, except for the trend that later relationships are mainly influenced by previouspatterns.

Commercialization of research projects at the university, in particular, its efficiency and performance, have attracted little attention in the empirical literature to date. This despite the fact that commercialization of university knowledge is increasingly seen as a third task of universities and understanding of what enhances and what blocks the processes involved, is virtually lacking, particularly on the project level. The purpose of this chapter is therefore to identify factors that influence the performance of university-driven knowledge projects, including efficiency, in the context of commercialization of knowledge at universities. In this context, the study employs Data Envelop Analysis combined with Rough-Set Analysis on a sample of 42 projects in the Netherlands. The major factors influencing overall performance in commercialization turn out to be years of collaboration with large firms and efficiency in use of resources in the projects, but the affinity of the project managers at university with the market also plays a role. The best overall results in commercialization (introduction to market in a relatively short time) are gained with a longer period of collaboration with large firms (5-10 years) and a medium level of efficiency. There are also some contradictory trends. The chapter concludes with implications of the results, as well as some future research paths.