entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs:a business model perspective

8/8/2019 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs:a business model perspective

1/21

Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2008 15

Copyright 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs:a business model perspective

Stefan A. Sanz-Velasco*

School of Technology Management and Economics,

Chalmers University of Technology,

Vera Sandbergs All 8, SE-412 96 Gteborg, Sweden Sude

Fax: +46-31-772 1917 E-mail: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

Rgnvaldur SaemundssonReykjavik University,

Ofanleiti 2, 103 Reykjavik, Iceland Icelande

Fax: +354-510 6201

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper investigates how academic entrepreneurs learn todevelop their start-up ventures into viable businesses, and how the environmentinfluences this learning. Inexperienced academic entrepreneurs likelyneed to adjust their business conceptions before these become viable. Theseadjustments and the associated learning are captured in an innovative way byfollowing the changes in business models of eight Nordic academic spin-offs in both supportive and less supportive environments. The results help

entrepreneurs and policy-makers to identify which learning behaviours maylead to essential business model changes, and should clarify the complementaryrole of learning through experience and through external relations.

Keywords: entrepreneurial learning; academic spin-offs; business model;learning behaviour; environment.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sanz-Velasco, S.A. andSaemundsson, R. (2008) Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs: a business model perspective, Int. J. Entrepreneurship and InnovationManagement, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.1535.

Biographical notes: Stefan A. Sanz-Velasco is a researcher at ChalmersUniversity of Technology. His research pertains to entrepreneurial learningwithin technology-based entrepreneurship. He has mainly attended to the

mobile internet industry and seeks to correlate entrepreneurial learning withperformance, e.g., applying the business model concept.

Rgnvaldur Saemundsson is an Associate Professor at Reykjavik University.His research is focused on technology-based entrepreneurship, especially onopportunity and knowledge development in relation to early growth processesin new technology-based firms.


2/21

16 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

1 Introduction

Observations have been made on the changing role of universities in society

(e.g., Etzkowitz et al., 2000). In addition to the traditional roles of knowledge production

and diffusion through research and teaching, universities have become more actively

involved in the commercialisation of knowledge. While licensing might be the most

common means of commercialisation for universities, the creation of academic spin-off

ventures has received increased attention lately (Shane, 2004; Powers and McDougall,

2005). Academic spin-offs are seen as important means for enhancing local economic

development, generating income to support research, and encouraging inventor

involvement (Shane, 2004, pp.1739).

In parallel with the changing role of universities, the role of academics in academic

spin-offs has also changed. From being more likely to have the role of advisors,

facilitating the transfer of knowledge to the new venture, they are today more likelyto be members of the entrepreneurial team; thus playing a greater role in identifying

and developing the entrepreneurial opportunity, acquiring resources, and organising

the venture (Zucker et al., 1998; Murray, 2002). Being able to accomplish this

requires knowledge of industry conditions as well as business and managerial

competencies (e.g., Chandler and Jansen, 1992), which academics and their students are

unlikely to have in the start-up phase (Roberts, 1991; Cooper and Daily, 1997; Bower,

2002; Grandi and Grimaldi, 2005).

To build up the necessary business-related knowledge and competence

requires learning. Clarysse et al. (2000) found that the early stage of development

in research-based spin-off ventures is characterised by this learning, both through

trial-and-error (i.e., experience) and interaction with external actors. They also provide

some evidence that the relative importance of each learning process is dependent on the

nature of the environment. For example ventures without access to external actors with

entrepreneurial experience are more likely to rely on learning through trial-and-error.

Despite the recognition of the importance of academic spin-offs, little attention has

been given to the process through which these ventures are created (Grandi and

Grimaldi, 2005). In particular we lack systematic knowledge of how academic

entrepreneurs learn different aspects of developing a viable business and how their

learning behaviours are influenced by the nature of the environment. The purpose of this

paper is to address these issues by answering two research questions:

What learning behaviours do academic entrepreneurs apply as they learn to develop

their start-up ventures into viable businesses?

How are the learning behaviours of academic entrepreneurs influenced by the nature

of the environment?

The research questions are answered through empirical investigation of academic

spin-offs in the Nordic countries. The empirical work is guided by the business model

concept, which is used for delineating various aspects of developing a viable business.

Drawing on ideas about business conceptions, the business model is used as a means to

discriminate between learning within a given cognitive frame, and learning leading to

changes in the cognitive frame. The latter, which is the focus of this paper, is especially

important when entrepreneurs are inexperienced and hence are unlikely to have clear or

viable conceptions of their businesses at start-up.


3/21

Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 17

The paper is structured as follows. First, a frame of reference is constructed for the

empirical analysis. Academic spin-off ventures will be briefly touched upon beforediscussing the business model concept. Thereafter, learning will be elaborated upon,

followed by a discussion of environmental influences on learning behaviours, before

presenting a summary to guide empirical work. The methodology then explained pertains

to a case study approach where data are collected from academic spin-offs in Sweden,

Denmark, Finland and Iceland. While these countries have many political and cultural

similarities, there are important differences regarding entrepreneurial activities, as well as

the direct and indirect mechanisms supporting academic spin-offs; examples are

university support services, seed financing and entrepreneurship policy. Thereafter, data

are presented on learning behaviours leading to changes in business models, and how

these are moderated by the national environment. Finally, conclusions are drawn and

implications presented for academic entrepreneurs and policy-makers.

2 Frame of reference

2.1 Academic spin-off ventures

Academic spin-off venture are new firms originating in universities or other research

settings. There exist a number of concepts and definitions describing the academic

spin-off venture that differ in their scope regarding possible parent organisation, the

origin of the entrepreneurial team and the degree of knowledge transfer from the

parent organisation to the spin-off ventures (see Pirnay et al. (2003) for an overview).

For example, Clarysse et al. (2000) define research-based spin-offs as new companies set

up by a university, technical school or a research institution to commercialise results from

Research and Development (R&D), irrespective of the origins of the individuals foundingthe venture. On the other hand, Roberts (1991) defines new technology-based firms as

new companies established by individuals currently, or formerly, associated with a

university or a university research laboratory, irrespective of the degree of knowledge

transfer involved.

This paper focuses on entrepreneurial learning by academic entrepreneurs in

engineering and the natural sciences who have little business experience. The focus is

therefore on researchers and students in universities that are actively engaged in the

creation and development of a new firm based on scientific or technical knowledge

originating within the university. Based on McQueen and Wallmark (1982) we thus

define academic spin-offs as new ventures meeting the following criteria:

the founding team is composed of university researchers and/or university students

the activity of the venture is based on scientific and technical knowledge generated

in the university environment

the transfer of knowledge has to be direct and not through intermediate employment.

Since it is intended to address business-related learning among these ventures, there is a

need for a concept that can capture core business activities, i.e., a focusing device that

allows us to study how the original business conception is developed into a viable

business idea. It is argued that the business model is such a concept.


4/21


2.2 The business model

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) have broadly described the entrepreneurship field

as the nexus of opportunities and the entrepreneurial individuals who pursue these.

A number of authors closely relate opportunities and business models (Hitt et al., 2002;

Ardichvili et al., 2003; Markides and Charitou, 2004). Davidsson (2005) argues that an

elaborated opportunity may qualify as a business model; the latter is also said to create

value through the exploitation of (technological) opportunities (Amit and Zott, 2002,

p.20; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002). It is therefore suggested that entrepreneurs

apply the business model, as a way of operationalising the entrepreneurial opportunity

that is guided by the business conception (Witt, 2000; Sanz-Velasco, 2004). The business

conception pertains to what business to do, how to do it, under what constraints, and how

to work on those constraints over time (Witt, 2000, p.739). The business model

is a boundary object (Star and Griesemer, 1989) that is characterised by linkingtogether actors from diverse areas, and it has been credited as a useful tool for learning

(Boland and Tenkasi, 1995, p.362). Analogous to Witt (2000), Chesbrough and

Rosenbloom (2002) argue that a ventures business model plays an important cognitive

role, which also means that it can constrain the venture. The ability to develop the

business model is therefore difficult, but crucial for success. Let us turn to a business

model definition that operationalises the opportunity.

To begin with, a business model definition suggested by Sjlander and Magnusson

comprises the interrelated insights responding at least to the following set of questions:

Who shall the firm supply with what, and how is this done; how is valuecreated by the customer and user while the product and/or service of the firmare being used; how and by what mechanisms shall the firm, in competition,secure a sustainable and fair share of that value in a way that allows it to

keep cash above zero, eventually make a satisfying profit, in order to satisfycritical stakeholders and increase its resources and value so that lastinglongevity is secured and its investors expectations of return on theirinvestment are being met? (Sjlander and Magnusson, 2002, p.5)

To put it simply, it consists of five questions and three prerequisites. As we want to

capture business-related learning, we have been inspired by the definition above. But we

also try to keep our business model definition as simple as possible to allow for

understanding among practitioners (i.e., a boundary object). The best sign of a good

definition would be if it could serve as a practitioner tool, which points to that it could be

suitable to formulate the business model in terms of questions. Following other authors

(e.g., Magretta, 2002; Mitchell and Coles, 2004), we therefore consider the definition as

the set of answers to the following five questions:

What is the offer to the customer?

Who is the customer?

What is the value thereby created for the customer?

What is the revenue model?

How is that offer conveyed to the customer, e.g., sourcing, development,

distribution, and technology?


5/21


Except for the revenue model, this resembles Normanns (1977) definition of a business

idea. As we have now confined our framework to commercial activities for academicentrepreneurs, let us address the related learning.

2.3 A model of entrepreneurial learning

Even though research on learning processes in entrepreneurial ventures is still in an

early stage (Ravasi and Turati, 2005, p.139), entrepreneurship, and thereby venturing,

has been described as a learning process (Woo et al., 1994, p.509; Hill and Levenhagen,

1995; Minniti and Bygrave, 2001, p.7). There is also the widespread assumption of the

positive effects of learning, e.g., that learning increases the capacity to take effective

action (Kim, 1993, p.43). Entrepreneurs learning activities are said to emerge from the

reactive or proactive responses to opportunities (Young and Sexton, 1997). Recognising

and acting on opportunities, as important parts of entrepreneurial learning, haveconsequently been underlined (Deakins and Freel, 1998, p.150; Rae, 2000, p.151).

Recognising and acting on opportunities has been depicted as incorporating cognitive and

behavioural learning on behalf of the organisation (Lumpkin and Lichtenstein, 2005,

p.460). The entrepreneur tries to coordinate the venture members in this learning process

through the business conception (Witt, 2000), which can be captured by the business

model. In fact, the organisation can be seen as the means to accomplish the business

conception through applying the business model.

It is common to differentiate between individual and organisation level learning

(Shaver and Scott, 1991; Kim, 1993; Crossan et al., 1999). Organisational learning is

envisaged in this paper, while acknowledging that organisations can only learn through

their members. However, it should be emphasised that entrepreneurship almost always

pertains to small organisations, in terms of employees, which is also the case for the

ventures in this paper. In particular it has been pointed out that technology-based

entrepreneurship is mostly undertaken by a team of founders (Cooper, 1986), which can

often equal the entire organisation. Since learning about entrepreneurial opportunities in

practice involves shared processes at group and organisational level (Dutta and Crossan,

2005, p.441), our approach is to extend entrepreneurial learning to encompass the entire

organisation. Thus, organisational learning is our focal interest point.

The two most common approaches to organisational learning are cognitive and

behavioural (Argyris and Schn, 1978; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Lumpkin and Lichtenstein,

2005, p.38). It has been argued that organisational learning concerns putting cognitive

theories into action (Argyris and Schn, 1978). The cognitive aspects of organisational

learning are usually discussed in terms of shared mental models or cognitive frames

(Argyris and Schn, 1978; Kim, 1993), which are necessary for organisational

interpretation (Daft and Weick, 1984). Mental models play an active role in whatcan be seen and done, making sense of the world, but can also restrict our understanding

(Kim, 1993). Entrepreneurs are said to build mental models (i.e., cognitive frames) as

part of their experimental learning in the venturing process (Nicholls-Nixon et al., 2000).

Organisational learning has consequently been exemplified as the process by which

management teams reshape their shared cognitive maps of the firm, its markets and

competitors (Dutta and Crossan, 2005, p.433). Despite the importance of cognition here

described, it has been remarked that without entrepreneurial behaviour there will be no

new companies created in the first place (Shaver and Scott, 1991), which means that we

need to address behaviour, action and change.


6/21


Change does not necessarily imply learning, but it is noted that the two are frequently

used interchangeably (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). For example Mintzberg and Waters (1982)argue that organisational learning equals change, and Edmondson (2002) treats the two

concepts as almost inseparable, arguing that a useful conception of organisational

learning must include change, and thereby action (p.128). Hill and Levenhagen (1995,

pp.1067, 1071) argue that action is particularly important in entrepreneurship, and

Gartner et al. (2003, p.124) argue that without action there is no insight, as a corollary

of stating that in entrepreneurship, it is entrepreneurial activity that matters. As a

consequence, entrepreneurial organisations frequently apply enactment (Weick, 1979)

and act intrusively. The entrepreneurial learning generated by this action reduces the

uncertainty present in entrepreneurship (Starkey, 1996, p.1).

Cognition and behaviour are often combined, since learning is knowledge about

the interrelationship between the organisations actions and the environment, as well

as the actions that are taken based on such knowledge (Kim, 1993, p.42). There isan inalienable interactive relationship between cognition and action (Dutta and

Crossan, 2005, p.435), which means that understanding guides action, but action also

informs understanding (Crossan et al., 1999, p.524). In sum, to be sure to have captured

learning, we want there to be both cognitive and behavioural changes involved.

A common way to approach this is to address different levels of learning.

When shared mental models are developed to potentially affect organisational action,

it is called double-loop learning (Argyris and Schn, 1978), which e.g., pertains

to questioning whether the right actions are pursued in order to achieve the goal

(e.g., the business conception). Single-loop learning on the other hand implies

incremental modifications that improve the efficiency of organising. Fiol and Lyles

(1985) also address different levels of learning, i.e., higher and lower level. Higher level

learning concerns new actions, corresponding to double-loop learning, and a typically

desired consequence is a new cognitive frame. Lower level learning pertains more to the

surface and captures only certain elements and adjustments; it is argued to correspond to

single-loop learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985, p.810). Kim (1993) also dichotomises

between two levels of learning: operational (know-how) and conceptual (know-why).

The former corresponds better to the behavioural and the latter to cognition. While

drawing on Burgoyne and Hodgson (1983), Cope and Watts (2000) slightly differently

depict learning occurring at three levels:

1 learning and change within a given cognitive frame

2 learning and change that enables a new cognitive frame

3 reflection on personal learning.

Level 3 learning encompasses a more fundamental process that is not situation specific,namely reflection on the personal learning process, which is not the topic of this paper.

Level 1 learning concerns learning within the given cognitive frame, meaning no

significant changes to the business conception. Behaviour can be altered, but it is

rather adjustment, and a typical example would be assimilation of factual information.

Another example could be change that improves the internal processes to support

customer-relations management. It could be argued that things are done right, i.e., more

efficient, whereas not more effective (i.e., doing the right things). In our setting this

means that the business model remains unchanged, even though minor business-related

changes might occur. It is analogous to single-loop learning, and it is here operationalised


7/21


so that it concerns business-related learning that does not lead to a changed business

model.Level 2 learning concerns change that enables a new cognitive frame.

The consequence of this cognitive and behavioural change is a change in ways of doing

business (business conception) being effective and doing the right things, so to speak.

It is transferable from the present situation to another, but is yet situation specific.

Keeping in mind the earlier depiction of the business model as a cognitive frame, level 2

learning is captured by a changing business model. It encompasses single-loop learning,

but also incorporates double-loop learning, due to the change in cognitive frame.

The major difference to level 1 learning is that the learning is manifested in a business

model change.

As this research aims at business-related learning that integrates both cognition and

behaviour, we need a perspective where actions and substantial change can be observed,

while simultaneously suggesting that a change in the cognitive frame has occurred.This implies that our objective is level 2 learning, and it is argued that it is captured by a

changing business model. The business model operationalises the entrepreneurial

opportunity, is a tool with which we can make mental models explicit, and is an imprint

of the business conception (Witt, 2000). The availability of learning behaviours to fuel

changes in the business model is expected to depend on the environment.

2.4 Environmental influences on learning behaviours

Clarysse et al. (2000) argue from their study of research-based spin-offs in Belgium that

the environment determines the entrepreneurs possibilities of learning. Their argument is

based on the identification of three distinctive learning environments which they term

unaware, aware and supportive (see Table 1).

Table 1 Three distinctive learning environments

Seed capital(Experience) Support services (External relations)

Unaware No No

Aware Yes No

Supportive Yes Yes

In an unaware environment there is little interest in commercialisation of research and

lack of funding for research-based spin-offs. Incubation times are long as entrepreneurs

are not able to focus on their entrepreneurial opportunities, taking on various unrelated

activities in order to survive instead. Learning through experience, which Clarysse et al.

(2000) term cumulative learning, is thus inhibited. Secondly, in an aware environment

there is an interest in the commercialisation of research, but few supportive services.

Funding for growth is available, but there are few possibilities of seed funding.

Incubation times are shorter as firms are better able to focus on their core activities and

learn through experience. Finally, in a supportive environment there is strong interest in

the commercialisation of research and there are professional services available to assist

entrepreneurs in evaluating and developing their opportunities. Seed capital is also

available. Not only have firms better possibilities for cumulative learning through

experience on the market, but they are also able to take advantage of learning through


8/21


external relations. The latter learning process, which Clarysse et al. (2000) term

complementary learning, involves learning through actors in the environment, such asfinanciers, experienced entrepreneurs, consultants and others. Clarysse et al. (2000) argue

that the combination of cumulative and complementary learning is desirable because it is

likely to speed up incubation times.

The learning processes identified by Clarysse et al. (2000) provide an additional

dimension to our previous discussion of different levels of learning, and help us

understand how the environment influences entrepreneurial learning behaviours that lead

to business model changes. In supportive environments one would expect a wider range

of possible learning behaviours that lead to changes in the business model, as compared

to less supportive environments. As learning through experience cannot be completely

substituted by learning through external relations, the latter is likely to complement

learning through experience. Learning through external relations is also likely to be

especially important in helping entrepreneurs develop viable business conceptions, thuscreating foundations for more effective experience-based learning. Hence, it could be

expected that learning behaviours involving interaction with external actors frequently

cause changes in business models within supportive environments, whereas such

behaviours are not particularly prevalent in less supportive environments.

2.5 The business model and learning in academic spin-off ventures

The frame of reference guiding the empirical investigation will now be summarised.

Academic spin-offs are new ventures meeting the following criteria:

the founding team is composed of university researchers and/or university students

the activity of the venture is based on scientific and technical knowledge generated

in the university environment

the transfer of knowledge has to be direct and not through intermediate employment.

As academic entrepreneurs are likely to have little business experience, business-related

learning is crucial for their success. We capture such learning through the business model

concept. Establishing and maintaining the credibility of the business model in a changing

environment is the central challenge to academic spin-offs (Bower, 2003).

Two dimensions have been identified as characterising the learning behaviours of

academic entrepreneurs as they develop their start-up ventures into viable businesses.

The first dimension describes three different levels of learning identified. Level 1

learning refers to day-to-day learning within a given business model. Level 2 learning

refers to learning leading to changes in business models. Level 3 learning refers to

learning about own learning processes. The focus in this paper is exclusively on level 2learning, i.e., how academic entrepreneurs learn to create and develop their businesses as

reflected by business model changes.

The second dimension makes a distinction between experience-based learning and

learning through external relations. The former is based on own experience from doing

business, while the latter refers to learning based on the experiences and knowledge of

actors external to the venture. It is argued that the environment greatly influences the

possibilities for learning through external relations. In supportive environments,

academic entrepreneurs are more likely able to complement experience-based learning


9/21


with learning through external actors, than in less supportive. The range of learning

behaviours potentially enabling business model changes is thereby increased.In the next section we describe the research settings and the empirical methods used

to analyse learning behaviours of academic entrepreneurs and how they are influenced by

the environment.

3 Method

To capture entrepreneurship and organisational learning, the empirical investigation

has been confined to start-up ventures (Gartner, 1988). Given the aim to investigate

contemporary and complex action, the case study approach has been selected

(Yin, 1994). The semi-structured interview was suitable for using the business model as a

boundary object for communication between practitioners and researchers. While thebusiness model concept helped focus the discussion, the open-endedness of the interview

situation helped the respondents to provide a richer description of changes in business

models and the associated learning behaviours, than would have been possible through

predefined answers. These types of descriptions were needed in order to understand

complex interactions between individuals as well as evolution over time. Below follows

the selection of cases, data collection, analysis and limitations of the selected approach.

3.1 Selection of cases

As the purpose of the study is to investigate learning behaviours and how they are

influenced by the environment, it is important to include sufficient variance in the

selected cases to capture the diversity that exists. As this diversity is unknown, it is

difficult to determine with certainty what variance is needed, or even in what dimensions

variance is needed. Nevertheless, in this study three dimensions were chosen. First, cases

were selected to represent different origins within the university, i.e., including both

students and researchers. In addition, researchers could either hold a permanent position

within a university, e.g., professorship, or not. Second, cases were selected to represent

differences in the degree of science-technology interaction. Some academic spin-offs,

e.g., life science start-ups, are very dependent on further developing their scientific

knowledge, while many software and mobile internet start-ups are not. Third, cases were

selected from Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden. These four Nordic countries have

many similarities, being small mixed economies with extensive social welfare systems,

but they do differ regarding degree of support for academic spin-offs (see Table 2).

Sweden and Finland both have clearly more supportive environments than Denmark

and Iceland. The former environments can thus be termed supportive, and the latteraware. But there are also differences within these two groups, which helps increase the

variance. Sweden has a longer tradition of generating and supporting academic spin-offs

than Finland, where the support system has developed relatively quickly in the last

decade. Iceland also represents a special case, being a micro-state with only 300,000

inhabitants. In addition, it was deemed important that the ventures have become viable

businesses after a series of business model changes. They should have a stable foundation

for further growth, meaning some employees and some sales, while yet in an early stage

to allow focus on early development. Table 3 lists and describes the ventures selected

according to criteria presented above.


10/21


Table 2 Relative differences in strength of environmental support for academic

entrepreneurship in the Nordic countries

Country University support system Seed financing Label

Denmark Medium Medium Aware

Iceland Weak Medium Aware

Finland Strong Strong Supportive

Sweden Strong Strong Supportive

Note that the classification is relative, i.e., only describes the relative positions of theNordic countries with respect to each other.

Source: The dimensions have been suggested by Clarysse et al. (2000), andthe evaluation is based on Johansson (2005), and Nordic IndustrialFund (2001)

Table 3 Description of case study firms in 2004

Venture Founders Technology Country Est. Stage Emp. Sales ()

3Dfacto PhD students Software Denmark 1998 Patented technology

and first major

customer. Received 1

round of VC

15 0.1 M

Chempaq PhD student Medical

equipment

Denmark 1999 Market introduction

(sales) just begun.

Received 3 rounds of

VC

17 N/A

Smartner MSc students Software Finland 1999 Market introduction

and international

expansion just begun.

Received 2 rounds of

VC

34 1.4 M

Juvantia

Pharma

PhD students Biotechnology Finland 1997 Product in phase 2 of

clinical development.

Received several

smaller VC injections

24 0.1 M

Lyfjathroun University

professor

Biotechnology Iceland 1991 Several major research

contracts and own

product pipeline.

Private, corporate, and

VC investors

32 N/A

Trackwell Researchers/

Engineers

Software Iceland 1996 Products and services

on the market.

Corporate and VC

investors

19 N/A

Icomera MSc students Mobile internet Sweden 1999 Second major

customer. Received

capital from private

investors. Much

accumulated losses

16 1.7 M

Q-Sense University

professor/MSc

students

Instrumentation Sweden 1996 Viable product and

ongoing sales. Making

a small profit, but lack

of growth. Purchased

by listed company

Biolin AB

10 1.6 M


11/21


3.2 Data collection and analysis

Data were collected in 2004 through semi-structured interviews with founders/managing

directors. A prerequisite was that these founders were inexperienced businessmen, which

was also verified during the interviews. The interviews were structured using the business

model concept, focusing on its development over time. A chronology of the business

model development was constructed and key events were verified with internal

documents, where possible, as well as publicly available information on the internet.

Particular focus was devoted to changes in the dimensions of the business model and the

learning processes related to these changes. We for example asked the respondents what

learning formed the basis for taking a particular step. Different groups of researchers

interviewed the firms in each country. A standardised interview guide was used but

questions were asked open ended, i.e., no predefined categories of change or learning

behaviours were displayed. Each group customised the follow-up questions needed.In total 16 persons were interviewed, each interview lasting 12 hours. The interviews

were transcribed into protocols that were analysed using content analysis (Weber, 1985),

in order to extract learning behaviours related to changes in business models.

The transcribed text was classified into a smaller set of content categories and

while the recording units are sometimes larger than words, the basic procedurein content analysis is to design categories that are relevant to the research purpose and to sort all occurrences of relevant words or other recording unitsinto these categories. (Tesch, 1990, p.79)

The resulting learning behaviours leading to changes in the individual cases were used to

create categories of learning behaviours. Hence, all categories were not pre-defined, but

some were generated from the empirical data in the process. The influence of the

environment was evaluated by comparing learning behaviours in the different countries.

3.3 Limitations

There are three important limitations to the empirical analyses of this study, which are all

related to how general the conclusions are. First, it is unlikely that all possible learning

behaviours have been captured in the study. The study does not claim to cover all

possible variations of the entrepreneurial process in academic spin-offs and learning may

also be unconscious and difficult to communicate to the researcher. The study thus only

provides a partial picture of how academic entrepreneurs learn to create and develop

viable businesses. Second, the relative importance of different learning behaviours is

unknown. Combined, these two limitations require extreme care in interpreting the results

from the study. Third, as the case firms need not be a representative sample of academic

spin-offs in the selected countries, the results on the influence of the environment aretentative. Despite these limitations the study provides preliminary results and a basis for

further investigation of learning behaviours in academic spin-offs using the business

model concept.


12/21


4 Research findings and discussion

First, the nine different learning behaviours identified as leading to business model

changes are addressed. The characteristics of these behaviours are described as well as

how they relate to business model changes. Second, the characteristics of the

environment in each Nordic country are described and related to the learning behaviours

observed in each country.

4.1 Learning behaviours leading to business model changes

During their development all of the case ventures have made important changes to their

business models, within and across firms, for various reasons. Collectively, nine different

learning behaviours have been observed as driving these changes to the cognitive frames.

These behaviours are listed in Table 4 and classified as either learning throughexperience or through external relations. There are six learning behaviours pertaining to

experience: market scanning, virtual market experimentation, interaction with existing

customers, interaction with new customers with new requirements, imitation, and

responding to external changes. There are three learning behaviours pertaining to external

relations: adding new employees, obtaining external expert advice, and participation in

entrepreneurial education programmes. The characteristics of all these behaviours are

further explained and exemplified below. It is important to note that these learning

behaviours do not exclusively lead to level 2 learning, but are also used for day-to-day

learning within a given cognitive frame, i.e., level 1 learning. This paper is however

primarily concerned with these behaviours relation to level 2 learning.

Table 4 Observed learning behaviours classified in two categories

Learning based on experience Learning based on external relations

Market scanning Adding new employees

Virtual market experimentation Obtaining external expert advice

Interaction with existing customers Participation in entrepreneurialeducation programmes

Interaction with new customers with new requirements

Imitation

Responding to external changes

Market scanning

Scanning the market is a behaviour that involves information collection regardingpotential customers. This information collection may be systematic or ad-hoc, containing

varying degrees of personal interaction with potential customers. In the case firms,

entrepreneurs used scanning to learn who their customers were and what would be a

valuable offer to them. The learning is often indirect and incomplete as in the case of

Icomera in Sweden, which learned through market scanning that its original offer and

customer conception was not viable, and therefore had to be changed. In this instance the

learning behaviour simply falsifies hypotheses about offering and customers, but does not

generate ideas on how to proceed:


13/21


The original idea was to automate the monitoring of power lines. After

collecting information and interviewing potential customers it became obviousthat they did not have a case. There was no need for this automation, and evenif there was, the business would not be profitable.

Virtual market experimentation

A central element of virtual market experimentation is the demo, or the prototype, which

is presented to a potential customer for evaluation or feedback. A demo or prototype

provides a powerful representation of the potential product or service, addressing more

senses than written or verbal communication. In the case firms the entrepreneurs used

virtual market experimentation to learn who the customers were, and what offer would be

valuable to them. In the case of the Danish firm 3Dfacto the entrepreneurs built

prototypes for experimenting with different customer groups:

We made some prototypes, then we took a customer segment: It must beuseful in the kitchen industry [they thought their offer would be useful in thekitchen industry*]. And then we made a kitchen demonstration. But then, okay,they [the kitchen industry*] were not mature enough, and then anothercustomer [from the playground industry*] showed up with an interest in thekitchen industry: to build a playground is like building a kitchen.

*Authors comments.

The difference to scanning is that virtual market experimentation is more likely to help

you generate ideas, going from one customer segment to the next through new knowledge

of possible functions of the product/service:

it is an advantage to concentrate on one segment at the time. When youcome to the next customers you can say that you also know about that kind ofproblem. That was why we originally started with the kitchen industry, since

once you have been with the first, then you could confront the next with aquestion, for example: Is it not hard always getting those battens equal? Andthen the customer says: Thats right!

Interaction with existing customers

After completing a sale to a customer, there is often considerable interaction between the

venture and the customer. This is especially common in the early phases of venturing

when the product or service is in its infancy and needs to be improved through use, which

may then lead to considerable changes in the product or service. In the case of Smartner

in Finland the entrepreneurs learned that their customers would prefer a service instead of

a product:

At the beginning we were selling to companies. Then we realised that manycompanies dont want to buy these kinds of solutions themselves but would

prefer a service instead. The reason that they prefer the service is that thesystem is actually quite difficult to understand many companies can managetheir e-mail systems alone but mobile e-mail is more challenging and they donthave required expertise. Therefore we started to create service that would addmobility to their data base systems.

In the cases, the interaction with existing customers was usually a more direct learning

experience, i.e., giving concrete direction, than interaction with potential customers,

which rather generated ideas for change.


14/21


Interaction with new customers with new requirements

Facing new requirements, especially through the addition of new customers having

different preferences from existing ones, is a learning behaviour that can drive changes in

the business model. In most cases these changes were related to ambitions of increasing

the scope of the ventures businesses, following the identification of new customer

groups. In the Trackwell case from Iceland the interaction with new customers with new

requirements influenced both the offering and the revenue model:

Trackwell started out by doing consultancy work in a large governmentsponsored project related to location-based services, being paid by the hour.After being involved in a couple of such projects the firm offered atechnology-independent platform solution for location-based tracking, gettingpaid through a more complex revenue model, including licensing, a consultingfee and revenue sharing.

Interacting with new customers with new requirements was also found to changeconceptions about distribution. In the case of Smartner in Finland, moving into new

geographical markets required new forms of distribution due to new requirements:

There are countries where customers dont trust operators as suppliers of thesesystems. Therefore, we also need different retailers. Operators can be in it, ifthey wish, they can buy our software, or components of it, and offer theservice like Radiolinja does in Finland. We also have retailers who knowthe companies, can provide software and services for them, and do morethan operators. Operators dont always have competence to provide andinstall software and provide the service they are more specialized indelivering SIM-cards and selling data transmission.

Imitation

Imitation pertains to observation and replication of other firms behaviours,e.g., competitors or partners, possibly with minor adjustments. Whereas Smartner

explicitly stated that its competitor used an inefficient revenue model to be avoided,

many of the case firms were found to imitate their competitors revenue models.

Lyfjathroun in Iceland used publicly available information on contracts in the biotech

industry as a model for own revenue models.

We have access to a database in the US where you can look at the basicstructure of all contracts in the US. All big contracts in the US are entered inthe database, you dont get to see the amounts involved, but the database holdinformation on what type of contracts are being made, with whom etc. We readthrough it and try to understand it.

Responding to external change

This learning behaviour is distinct from the other ones mentioned above. Whereas the

other learning behaviours pertain to the current state of things, this one is rather a reaction

to information about changes in the current state. In the case studies, responding to

external change could lead to profound changes in the business model. In the case of

Lyfjathroun in Iceland almost all dimensions of the business model changed in response

to changes in the biotech industry at the turn of the century:


15/21


The business opportunity has changed. For many years we built our

opportunity on platform technologies where we had built solutions which couldbe used for a number of drugs and vaccines. We signed a partnership contractalong these lines in 2001, but then the environment changes. NASDAQ meltsdown in year 2000, then everything starts to change. Everybody starts to thinkabout products. One year ago we stopped developing our platform technologiesand decided to work on four products we had been working on and push themthrough clinical trials. Today our business opportunity is based on those fourproducts and additional five products we have in the pipeline.

Adding new employees

Adding new employees brings along the knowledge and experience of those individuals.

While the effect may be similar to external advice, it is likely to be more influential

considering that a new employee is a permanent addition to the organisation. It is thus

likely to have a greater learning influence on the entrepreneurs through continuous

interaction. In the cases new employees were found to lead to changes in the offer and in

the customers served. Q-Sense initially lacked market knowledge, but as a new managing

director was recruited, important changes followed:

Over time, Q-Sense created a scientific network. This was not an idea from thebeginning but was primarily driven by the new managing director. She camefrom another player in the life science industry where this was alreadyestablished. The idea is that participants receive discounts and better service inexchange for promoting Q-Sense and generating customer leads. The customeroffer has been significantly developed, for example due to the scientificnetwork. During the new managing directors tenure, sales agents were alsobrought on board.

Obtaining external expert advice

Obtaining external expert advice pertains to a learning behaviour not involvingcustomers, but rather the temporary involvement of experts outside the firm, such as

consultants, investors, experienced entrepreneurs or other expert networks. Advice can be

purchased or simply given for free. The entrepreneurs in the case firms used external

advice to help develop offer and customer focus. Q-Sense of Sweden used a scientific

network, and in Juvantia Pharma of Finland a scientific advisory board influenced the

firms offering:

The most important source for this type of knowledge what to offer is thescientific advisory board. It is an expert panel, where we have the worlds sixleading scientists who are working as experts in drug development inpharmaceutical companies. This panel gives us insights and knowledge.

In the case of Chempaq in Denmark investors have advised (or required) the firm to

maintain focus on a narrow customer segment until obtaining a proof of principle for theoriginal product idea:

That we have done because the investors want to secure our focus since ouroriginal business plan was developed on the oncology segment. If we had saidthat we also wanted to focus on the general practice at that time, they would beafraid of us shifting focus, meaning that the business idea wasnt as weoriginally had told them. So they wanted to secure that before we reached thenext stage, until we were in the stage where we had developed our productproperly, that there was a market potential. Before that stage they would notlisten to anything else. And after that we have expanded it.


16/21


Participation in entrepreneurship education programmes

Engaging in entrepreneurship education, before or during venture creation, includes

participation in a structured programme aiming at coaching entrepreneurs through the

creation of a viable business plan. This involves articulation of the business plan, which

may help clarify latent ideas about the business model. Only two of the case ventures

were involved in such programmes, but they had a broad influence on the business model

of those ventures. For example, the founders of Icomera in Sweden were strongly

influenced by two entrepreneurship education programmes:

One of the founders was a student of Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship,which was a Masters programme where the students actually founded aventure during studies. He initially teamed up with the other founder, and athird person who was an intern at McKinsey, within the frame of Venture Cup a business plan competition for start-up ventures. In this environment, they

also met the third person to enter the venture. The founders continuallyreceived feedback during the competition, and it also spurred them to advancethe business model creation in order to meet deadlines.

4.2 The influence of the environment on learning behaviours

We now turn to the national environments conditioning the nine learning behaviours

outlined above. As previously argued, access to external actors that can provide support

in the development of a viable business model is likely to be more prevalent in supportive

environments as compared to less supportive environments. Consequently, academic

entrepreneurs in less supportive environments are probably more dependent on learning

through trial-and-error for changing their business models as compared to academic

entrepreneurs in more supportive environments.

In Table 2, we noted that the environments for academic entrepreneurs are moresupportive in Finland and Sweden than they are in Denmark and Iceland. We would

therefore expect academic entrepreneurs in Finland and Sweden to be more likely to

complement their experience-based learning with learning through external actors, while

we would expect entrepreneurs in Denmark and Iceland to be more likely to depend on

their own trial-and-error learning. Interestingly, the case studies support this picture.

Only in one case outside Sweden and Finland were external actors found to influence

changes in business models. Despite being involved in the ventures, e.g., as financiers,

and influencing day-to-day learning, external actors were not reported as involved in

learning behaviours leading to changes in business models. In contrast, all the spin-off

ventures in Finland and Sweden were found to have changed their business model

following learning through external relations.

5 Conclusions and implications

The purpose of this paper is to improve our understanding of how academic

entrepreneurs learn to develop a viable business, and how this learning is influenced by

the nature of the environment. The business model concept has been applied in this

empirical investigation of Nordic academic spin-offs to delineate important aspects of

venturing, also serving as a boundary object for communication between researchers and

practitioners. The findings will now be discussed in relation to the two research questions


17/21


initially posed, as well as their implications for academic entrepreneurs, policy, venture

capital and future research.The process of changing the business model involves changing the cognitive

frame, i.e., how business is done, which requires a type of learning that is distinct from

day-to-day learning. The latter is related to adjustments within an already defined

cognitive frame, and is here termed level 1 learning. To change the cognitive frame of the

business model, and potentially modify the business conception, is termed level 2

learning. Both types of learning are important for developing the venture, but as the

academic entrepreneurs are unlikely to have a clear conception of the business at start-up,

it is impossible to develop a viable business without succeeding in level 2 learning.

In the study nine learning behaviours, which were summarised in Table 4, have been

identified as leading to changes in business models. Some involve varying degrees of

customer interaction, and others involve learning through external actors other than

customers and suppliers. There is also imitation of competitors as well as responses toexternal changes in the business environment. These occurrences provide different

possibilities for academic entrepreneurs to engage in level 2 learning, which eventually

support them in arriving at a viable business model.

In addition it seems that the environment influences the availability of certain

learning behaviours. In more supportive environments, such as Sweden and Finland,

external actors were found to be involved in learning behaviours leading to changes in

business models. In less supportive environments, such as Denmark and Iceland, this

involvement was scarcely found. It therefore appears that learning from experience is

more likely to be complemented by learning through external relations in supportive

environments, as compared to less supportive ones. Academic entrepreneurs in

supportive environments were thus found to have access to a richer set of learning

behaviours leading to needed changes in their business models.

When observing the learning behaviours reported by the entrepreneurs as leading to

changes in business models, it is important to note the absence of influence from venture

capital investors and conventional university support services, such as incubator services

or technology transfer offices. While these actors are visible in the cases and support the

development of the ventures, they are not reported to be involved in learning processes

leading to changes in business models. This is an interesting finding considering previous

studies on the important role of these actors in the development of academic spin-offs

(Bygrave and Timmons, 1992). There are three possible explanations for these findings.

First, the entrepreneurs may be unaware of the influence of these actors or not willing to

acknowledge their contribution. This could be related to strained relationships with these

actors, as they likely have the ambition to closely monitor and control the ventures

(Sapienza and de Clercq, 2000). Second, the influence of these actors might be

cumulative and not captured by our method, i.e., their involvement in day-to-day learningmight be an important precondition for learning behaviours leading to changes in

business models. Third, even if these external actors are involved in the ventures, they

might lack the experience and expertise needed in order to contribute to level 2 learning.

Previous studies on incubators and the venture capital industry in Sweden

(Karamerlioglu and Jacobsson, 2000; Deiaco et al., 2002), which are indeed critical

about the expertise of these actors, indicate that this might be a plausible explanation.

While the influence of conventional university support services is absent, it is interesting

to note the influence of unconventional support measures such as entrepreneurship

education programmes and business plan competitions. As these support measures are


18/21


directed towards the development of entrepreneurial opportunities, it might not be

surprising that they influence learning behaviours leading to level 2 learning.The main implication of the study for academic entrepreneurs is the importance of

level 2 learning leading to changes in business models and the awareness of the different

learning behaviours that are available. The different learning behaviours may be

seen as possibilities to learn how to build a viable business. It is also important for

academic entrepreneurs to understand the distinction between level 1 and level 2 learning

and the complementary roles of learning through experience and learning through

external relations. In this respect it is important for academic entrepreneurs to be

able to understand if external actors are able to contribute to level 2 learning, or if their

contribution is limited to level 1 learning. Contributing to level 2 learning is especially

important in early stages when a viable business model is lacking. Failure to accomplish

this may greatly influence the likelihood of survival.

The main implication for policy-makers is the need to provide academicentrepreneurs with opportunities for both level 1 and level 2 learning. When constructing

policies and support systems for assisting academic entrepreneurs, it is important to note

the distinction between the two learning levels and to make sure that possibilities for both

are provided. Considering the copious means of uncoordinated venture creation support

existing today, it is plausible to suggest that policy-makers are not particularly aware of

the distinction between level 1 and level 2 learning of this paper. More research is needed

in order to better understand how this can be provided, e.g., possible division of labour

between different actors in the support system. For example, is it viable that venture

capital investors and entrepreneurship education support specialise in providing level 2

learning support, while actors such as incubator services and technology transfer offices

specialise in level 1 support?

This study has focused on level 2 learning and related it to level 1 learning.

No attention has been paid to level 3 learning, concerned with increased ability to learn.

Engaging in level 3 learning is however important for academic entrepreneurs for more

effective level 2 and level 1 learning. More research is needed on how these three

learning processes are interrelated and how they can be supported. More research is also

needed on the nature and dynamics of the learning behaviours identified in this study.

How and where does the learning take place? Do these learning behaviours differ in their

effectiveness and if they do, why? While this study only provides an important first

step in better understanding of academic entrepreneurs learning, it has hopefully

demonstrated the usefulness of the business model concept for investigating the relation

between entrepreneurial opportunity development and learning in ventures.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Nordic Innovation Centre in

conducting the research for this paper, and want to thank Mats Magnusson and two

anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments which improved the paper.


19/21


References

Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2002) Value drivers of e-commerce business models, in Hitt, M.A.,Amit, R., Lucier, C. and Nixon, R.D. (Eds.): Creating Value: Winners in the New BusinessEnvironment, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.1547.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) A theory of entrepreneurial opportunityidentification and development,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp.105123.

Argyris, C. and Schn, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective ,Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.

Boland, R.J. and Tenkasi, R.V. (1995) Perspective making and perspective taking in communitiesof knowing, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.350372.

Bower, J. (2002) Matching technology push to market pull: strategic choices and the academicspinout firm,International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 2,Nos. 45, pp.339353.

Bower, J. (2003) Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm, R&D Management,Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.97106.

Burgoyne, J.G. and Hodgson, V.E. (1983) Natural learning and managerial action:a phenomenological study in the field setting, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 20,No. 3, pp.387399.

Bygrave, W.D. and Timmons, J.A. (1992) Venture Capital at the Crossroads, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA.

Chandler, G.N. and Jansen, E. (1992) The founders self-assessed competence and ventureperformance, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, pp.223236.

Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002) The role of the business model in capturing valuefrom innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporations technology spin-off companies,Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.529555.

Clarysse, B., Heirman, A. and Degroof, J-J. (2000) An institutional and resource-basedexplanation of growth patterns of research-based spin-offs in Europe, in Reynolds, P.,

Autio, E., Brush, C., Bygrave, W.D., Amigart, S., Sapienza, H.J. and Shaver, K.G. (Eds.):Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA, pp.545559.

Cooper, A.C. (1986) Entrepreneurship and high technology, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilor, R.W.(Eds.): The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp.153168.

Cooper, A.C. and Daily, C.M. (1997) Entrepreneurial teams, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilor, R.W.(Eds.):Entrepreneurship 2000, Upstart, Chicago, IL, pp.127150.

Cope, J. and Watts, G. (2000) Learning by doing an exploration of experience, critical incidentsand reflection in entrepreneurial learning,International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviourand Research, Vol. 6, pp.104124.

Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R. (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuitionto institution,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp.522537.

Daft, R. and Weick, K. (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.284295.

Davidsson, P. (2005)Researching Entrepreneurship, Springer-Verlag, New York.Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (1998) Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs,

The Learning Organization, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.144155.

Deiaco, E., Giertz, E. and Reitberger, G. (2002) Teknikparkens Roll i det SvenskaInnovationssystemet, VINNOVA, Stockholm, Sweden.

Dutta, D.K. and Crossan, M.M. (2005) The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: understandingthe process using the 4I organizational learning framework, Entrepreneurship: Theory andPractice, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.425449.

Edmondson, A.C. (2002) The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations:a group-level perspective, Organization Science, Vol. 13, pp.128146.


20/21


Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B.R.C. (2000) The future of the university

and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm,Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp.313330.

Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985) Organizational learning, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 10, pp.803813.

Gartner, W.B. (1988) Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question,American Journal of SmallBusiness, Spring, pp.1132.

Gartner, W.B., Carter, N.M. and Hills, G.E. (2003) The language of opportunity, in Steyaert, C.and Hjorth, D. (Eds.): New Movements in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, London,pp.103124.

Grandi, A. and Grimaldi, R. (2005) Academics organizational characteristics and the generationof successful business ideas,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.821845.

Hill, R.C. and Levenhagen, M. (1995) Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking andsensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities, Journal of Management, Vol. 21,

No. 6, pp.10571074.Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (2002) Strategic entrepreneurship:

integrating entrepreneurial and strategic management perspectives, in Hitt, M.A.,Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds.): Strategic Entrepreneurship Creating aNew Mindset, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.116.

Johansson, M. (2005) Barriers and facilitators to entrepreneurial learning at universities: the caseof the Nordic countries, Mimeo, Department of Innovation Engineering, Chalmers Universityof Technology, Gteborg, Sweden.

Karamerlioglu, D.C. and Jacobsson, S. (2000) The Swedish venture capital industry an infant,adolescent or grown-up?, Venture Capital, Vol. 2, pp.6188.

Kim, D. (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning, Sloan ManagementReview, Vol. 35, No. 1, Fall, pp.3750.

Lumpkin, G.T. and Lichtenstein, B.B. (2005) The role of organizational learning in theopportunity-recognition process, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 4,

pp.451472.

Magretta, J. (2002) Why business models matter, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, No. 5,pp.8692.

Markides, C. and Charitou, C.D. (2004) Competing with dual business models: a contingencyapproach,Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, pp.2236.

McQueen, D.H. and Wallmark, J.T. (1982) Spin-off companies from Chalmers University ofTechnology, Technovation, Vol. 1, pp.305315.

Minniti, M. and Bygrave, W.D. (2001) A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning,Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.516.

Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. (1982) Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 25, pp.465499.

Mitchell, D.W. and Coles, C.B. (2004) Business model innovation breakthrough moves,Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.1626.

Murray, F. (2002) Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networking:exploring tissue engineering,Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp.13891403.

Nicholls-Nixon, C., Cooper, A.C. and Woo, C.Y. (2000) Strategic experimentation: understandingchange and performance in new ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15,pp.493521.

Nordic Industrial Fund (2001) Seed Capital in the Nordic Countries: Best Practices,Nordic Industrial Fund, Oslo, Norway.

Normann, R. (1977) Management for Growth, Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B. and Nlemvo, F. (2003) Toward a typology of university spin-offs,Small Business Economics, Vol. 21, pp.355369.


21/21


Powers, J.B. and McDougall, P.P. (2005) University start-up formation and technology licensing

with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship, Journal ofBusiness Venturing, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.291311.

Rae, D. (2000) Understanding entrepreneurial learning: a question of how?,International Journalof Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.145159.

Ravasi, D. and Turati, C. (2005) Exploring entrepreneurial learning: a comparative study oftechnology development projects,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.137164.

Roberts, E.B. (1991)Entrepreneurs in High Technology Lessons from MIT and Beyond, OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

Sanz-Velasco, S.A. (2004) The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Opportunities A PragmaticApproach, Licentiate Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg, Sweden.

Sapienza, H.J. and de Clercq, D. (2000) Venture capitalist-entrepreneur relationship intechnology-based ventures, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1,pp.5771.

Shane, S. (2004) Academic Entrepreneurship. University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation, EdwardElgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.217226.

Shaver, K. and Scott, L. (1991) Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation,Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.2345.

Sjlander, S. and Magnusson, M. (2002) Entrepreneurial discovery, resource transformation andthe growth of the firm, Presentation atBKERC, University of Colorado, Boulder, June 68.

Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989) Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects:amateurs and professionals in Berkeleys museum of vertebrate zoology, 190739, SocialStudies of Science, Vol. 19, pp.387420.

Starkey, K. (1996) Introduction, in Starkey, K. (Ed.): How Organizations Learn,Thomson Business Press, London, pp.717.

Tesch, R. (1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools, Falmer, NY.Weber, R.P. (1985)Basic Content Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Weick, K. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Witt, U. (2000) Changing cognitive frames changing organizational forms: an entrepreneurialtheory of organizational development, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 9, No. 4,pp.733755.

Woo, C., Daellenbach, U. and Nicholls-Nixon, C. (1994) Theory building in the presence ofrandomness: the case of venture creation and performance, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.507524.

Yin, R. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Young, J. and Sexton, D.L. (1997) Entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework,Journal ofEnterprising Culture, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.223248.

Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R. and Brewer, M.B. (1998) Intellectual human capital and the birth of US

biotechnology enterprises, American Economic Review, Vol. 88, pp.290306.

entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs:a business model perspective

Documents