شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی موانع توسعه شرکت‌های زایشی دانشگاهی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری کارآفرینی گرایش کسب و کار جدید، دانشگاه رازی

2 استادیار گروه مدیریت و کارآفرینی، دانشگاه رازی

چکیده

هدف از این پژوهش شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی موانع توسعه شرکت‌های زایشی دانشگاهی با روش ترکیبی (طرح آشیانه‌ای) در استان کرمانشاه بود. در مرحله کیفی با استفاده از نظریه برخاسته از داده، با نمونه 13 نفری شامل مدیران شرکت‌های زایشی دانشگاهی و افراد متخصص در استان کرمانشاه و با استفاده از مصاحبه‌های عمیق نیمه‌ساختارمند، داده‌ها گردآوری و نتایج به­دست آمده و مدل مستخرج از طریق نمونه‌ای متشکل از 100 کارشناس ارزیابی شد تا اعتبار درونی پژوهش افزایش یابد. نتیجه این بخش به حذف برخی از مفاهیم و تغییر در گروه‌بندی برخی دیگر منجر شد. با استفاده از رویکرد ساختی چارمز، به ترتیب اولویت، 9 مقوله به ­عنوان موانع توسعه شرکت‌های زایشی دانشگاهی شناسایی شدند. مهم‌ترین موانع مطرح شده شامل ضعف در تدوین برنامه بازاریابی و توسعه بازار، کمبود سرمایه‌گذاری و منابع مالی، ضعف در زیرساخت‌ها و بسترهای قانونی و حمایتی، نبود حمایت کافی از سوی گروه‌های پشتیبان، ضعیف بودن کار تیمی و مدیریتی، برآوردهای اقتصادی اشتباه، ناهماهنگی با تغییرات فناوری، ضعف در ویژگی‌های شخصیتی کارآفرینانه و ضعف در خدمات مشاوره‌ای و آموزشی بود. درنهایت، راهکارهایی برای رفع یا اصلاح موانع پیشنهاد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identification and prioritization of barriers to the development of academics’ spin-off companies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saba Amira 1
  • Yousef Mohammadifar 2
  • Nader Naderi 2

1 Doctoral student in Entrepreneurship New Business Trend, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The purpose of this research was to identify and prioritize the barriers to the development of academics’ spin-off companies by using a mixed method in Kermanshah province. In the qualitative stage, using a grounded theory, a sample of 13 people consisting of managers of the academics’ spin-off companies and Kermanshah specialists. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. To increase the internal validity of the research, the results and the extracted model, were evaluated through a sample of 100 experts. The result of this section has led to the elimination of some concepts and changes in the classification of others. Using Charmaz's constructive approach, the research results identified and prioritized nine barriers in development of academics’ spin-off companies. The most important barriers included weaknesses in marketing plan and market development, lack of investment and financial resources, weaknesses in infrastructure and legal and support infrastructure, lack of adequate support from support groups, teamwork and management weaknesses, miscalculating economic estimates, inconsistencies with technological changes, weakness in entrepreneurial personality traits, and weakness of consulting and training services. Finally, solutions were proposed for elimination and correction of barriers.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Prioritization
  • Academics’ Spin-off company
  • Barriers to the development
  • Kermanshah
1. AAliipour, A., Enayati, T., & Niyaz Azari, K. (2016). Providing a model for generation companies to conduct academic research. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 23 (1), 115-136 (in Persian).
2. AAlipour, A., & Enayati, T. (2015). Designing a model of research firms with the aim of developing social capital in universities. Social Capital Management Quarterly, 3 (1), 1-21 (in Persian).
3. Aam Hamid, G., Nur, A., Wahyudi, S., Muhammad, N., & Ida Idayu, M. (2015). Commercialization strategy formulation for university spin-off: A case study. Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, IMECS. Hong Kong.
4. Afshari, M., & Mohammadzadeh, A. (2012). The challenges of research culture in Iran. Second Conference on Management of Research and Technology. Tehran: Sharif University of Technology, 226-235 (in Persian).
5. Aghajani, H.A., & Talibnejad, A. (2011). Comparative evaluation of the performance of selected technology development centers in Iran. Entrepreneurship Development, 4 (13), 149-165 (in Persian).
6. Allen, J.W. (2001). Capital markets and corporate structure: The equity carve-outs of Thermo Electron. J. Financial Economy, 48, 99-124.
7. Anna, S., Tadeusz, M., & Magdalena, F. (2015). Socio-cultural circumstances to establish university spin-off companies. 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics and the Affiliated Conferences, 3, 3677- 3681.
8. Baldinia, N. (2010). University spin-offs and their environment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22 (8), 859-876.
9. Benneworth, P.S., & Charles, D.R. (2004). Overcoming learninguncertainties in the innovationprocess: The contribution of clusteringto firms' innovation performance.
10. Bozeman, B. (2000).Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29 (4-5), 627-55.
11. Brannback, M., Renko, M., & Carsrud, A. (2009). Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship: Networking within and across boundaries. Retrieved 15 Dec 2009 from http://www.Turkuschools.net/papers/B15. 4602533633.pdf. 2-5.
12. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
13. Christian, C., & Antonio, P. (2015). Measuring the performance of academic spin-offs. Analysis of the optimal methods predicting ventures development. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4 (1), 175-192.
14. Cooper, D. (2001). University spin-off firms in Canada and their economic impact. Ottawa: Presentation to the OECD.
15. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nded). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Cummings, J.L., & Teng, B.S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 20, 39- 68.
17. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in industry science links. Research Policy, 34 (3), 321-342.
18. Dittmar, A. (2004). Capital structure in corporate spin-offs. Journal of Business, 77, 9-43.
19. Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29 (3-4), 269-285.
20. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2004). Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions. Industry and innovation, 11 (3), 207-223.
21. Ektiyarzadeh, A. (2013). Growth model of academic generation companies. Iranian Management Science, 8 (31), 61-87 (in Persian).
22. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109-121.
23. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
24. González, J., & Kuechle, G. (2013). An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer. Economic Development Quarterly, 27 (1), 6-17.
25. Hafezian, M., Salehi, M., & Enayati, T. (2014). Factors influencing university incubator infrastructure and its role in establishing university-generating companies. Entrepreneurship Development, 7 (4), 715-732 (in Persian).
26. Hashemnia, SH., Emadzadeh, M., Samadi, S., & Sakati, P. (2009). Investigating the factors affecting the specific earnings of academic research in Iranian Industrial Universities. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 15 (52), 1-22 (in Persian).
27. Helm, R., & Mauroner, O. (2007). Success of research, based spin-offs state of the art and guidelines for further research. Springer, 1 (3), 237-270.
28. Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during transition. Research Policy, 33, 975-995.
29. Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F., & Morris, M.H. (2006). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels. Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (2), 21-30.
30. Kaarela, M. (2013). Challenges of technology commercialization: Lessons from Finnish-Russian innovation alliance on nanotechnology. Paper presented at the Euro Nano forum 2013 Workshop on Technology Commercialization, June 18–20, 2013, in Dublin,Ireland.http://www. euronanoforum2013.eu/presentations/presentatins-from-workshops.
31. Kazemi, A., Safari, A., & Arabi, S. (2015). Investigating the factors affecting the success of academic generation companies (case study: Companies based in Isfahan scientific-research town). Entrepreneurship Development, 8 (11), 119-138 (in Persian).
32. Leung, M., & Mathews, J. (2006). Origins and dynamics of university spinoff enterprise. Macquaire Graduate School of Management. DBA of Graduate School of Management,
33. Lockett, A., Wrigt, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities: Spinout strategy. Small Business Economics, 20 (2), 185-201.
34. Noori, A., & Mehr Mohammadi, M. (2011). A paradigm for using data-driven theory in educational research. Course Studies. 6 (23): 8-35 (In Persian).
35. Ortín-Ángel, P., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2014). University spin-offs vs. other NTBFs: Total factor productivity differences at outset and evolution. Technovation, 34 (2), 101-112.
36. Paula, S., & Guilherme, A. (2015). Science spinoff in the context of Brazilian academic entrepreneurship. International Association for Management of Technology IAMOT Conference Proceedings.
37. Plewa, C. (2005). Differences in perceived benefits from university-industry relationship. South Australia, University of Adelide.
38. Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. (2010) .Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical test. Technovation, 30 (5-6), 332-347.
39. Purezzat, A.S. A., & Heydari, A. (2011). Identifying and categorizing the challenges and barriers to knowledge commercialization using the QQ method. Science and Technology Policy, 4 (1), 49-62 (in Persian).
40. Purezzat, A.S.A., Gholipour, A., & Nadir Khanlo, S. (2010). Identifying and prioritizing the factors influencing knowledge commercialization in universities (by comparing the approaches of five prestigious universities in the world). Entrepreneurship Development, 3 (1), 35-66 (in Persian).
41. Rasmussen, E., Moen, E., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26, 518-533.
42. Rasmussen, E., Moseyb, S., & Wrightc, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43, 92-106.
43. Samson, K.J., & Gurdon, M.A. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13 (2), 67-31.
44. Sharifzadeh, A., & Asadi, A. (2011). University, entrepreneurship and knowledge development. Tehran: University of Tehran Jihad Publications (in Persian).
45. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university- industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111-133.
46. Sternberg, R. (2014). Success factors of university-spin-offs: Regional government support programs versus regional environment, Institute of Economic and Cultural Geography. Technovation, (34), 137-148.
47. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques. London: Stage Publication.
48. Tajeddin, M., Zali, M.R., & Khayatan, M. (2010). Investigating the structural barriers to formation of University of Tehran generation companies and providing solutions. International Conference on Management, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Shiraz (iIn Persian).
49. Taylor, P.J., & Ullah, F. (2005). The impact of science park and incubator location on the finance opportunities of technology‐based small firms. Vol. IV, Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
50. Tübke, A. (2004). Success factors of corporate spin-offs. Springer Science & Business Media, 2, 41- 59.
51. Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23 (6), 355-379.
52. Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university, based spin-off companies. Technovation, 34, 31-43.
53. Yadollahi Farsi, J., Zare, H., & Hejazi, R. (2011). Identifying the components of friendship affecting the commercialization performance of academic research. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 18 (63), 90-96 (in Persian).
54. Ziai, M.P. (2012). The importance of diversity of resources in the success of the process of creating research companies. Technology Growth, 8 (32), 54-61 (in Persian).
55. Zolfaghari, A., & Hejazi, R. (2013). Explanation of conceptual model of growth of academic spin-offs (case study: ACECR1 spin-offs). Journal of Economics Business Research, 4 (5), 33-51 (in Persian).