Comparative Analysis of effective factors on Formation and Development of Academic Spin off in two Ministries of Science and Health

Shohoudi, M; Hassani, M; Ghalavandi, H; Abbasspour, A; Shams, Gh

doi:10.29252/rme.11.1.62

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Articles archive

For Authors

For Reviewers

Registration

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

Registered in

Open Access Policy

Volume 11, Issue 1 (2019)

RME 2019, 11(1): 62-71

Back to browse issues page

Comparative Analysis of effective factors on Formation and Development of Academic Spin off in two Ministries of Science and Health

M Shohoudi ^*

, M Hassani

, H Ghalavandi

, A Abbasspour, Gh Shams

Ph.D Student of Educational Managment, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, , m_shohoudi@yahoo.com

Abstract: (3551 Views)

Introduction: Nowadays, academic Spin off have been created as one of the entrepreneur phenomena in countries and study the factors affecting them is one of the most important priorities of universities. The purpose of this study was to compare the importance of effective factors on formation and development of these companies in Ministries of Science and Health.
Methods: This was a descriptive field study. Statistical population Were the Graduate students of Shahid Beheshti Universities, Tehran, Allameh Tabatabaei and Kharazmi, and third and fourth year students of medical faculties, paramedical, health and medical technologies of the universities of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran and Iran in academic year 2017-2018. With the Cochran formula, the sample size was 331. The research instrument was a researcher-made questionnaire. Validity and reliability of this questionnaire were confirmed using factor analysis.Data were analyzed by independent t-test through SPSS.
Results: In the phase of formation of academic spin off, the average importance of different factors were as follow: individual factors (t=-2.795), educational factors (t=-2.061), background factors (t=7.927), and institutional factors (t= 4.409). In the development phase, the average importance of organizational factors (t=2.367) was different between two groups of students. There was no significant difference in other factors (p< 05).
Conclusion: Considering that the average importance of different factors in the phase of formation including individual, educational and institutional factors as well as organizational factors in the development phase was different among groups, it is necessary, different universities use specific programs according to their Different functions in order to facilitating the formation and development of these companies and consider special criteria for evaluating and improving their performance.

Keywords: Development, university spin-offs, Academic entrepreneurship, Student

Full-Text [PDF 573 kb] (735 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: General

References

1. Bock C, Landau C, Orendt M, Schmidt M. Are public financing schemes beneficial for university spin-offs and the technology transfer of innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management 2018; 22 (6): 1- 30. [DOI:10.1142/S1363919618500524]

2. Ferretti M, Ferri S, Fiorentino R, Parmentola A, Sapio A. Neither absent nor too present: the effects of the engagement of parent universities on the performance of academic spin-offs. Small Bus Econ 2019; 52: 153- 173. [DOI:10.1007/s11187-018-0022-8]

3. Huynh T, Patton D, Arias-Aranda D, Molina-Fernandez LM. University spin-oﬀ's performance: Capabilities and networks of founding teams at creation phase. Journal of Business Research 2017; 78: 10- 22. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.015]

4. Fine M, Davidson B. The marketization of care: Global challenges and national responses in Australia. Current Sociology 2018; 66(4):503-16. [DOI:10.1177/0011392118765281]

5. Rasiah R, Tumin M, Musafar Hameed L, Ndoma I. Civil Society Organizations in Opposition to Healthcare Commercialization: Protecting Access for the Poor and Middle Class in Malaysia. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2016; 46(3):567-85. [DOI:10.1177/0899764016654571]

6. Civaner M, Balcioglu H, Vatansever K. Medical Students' Opinions about the Commercialization of Healthcare: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Bioethical Inquiry 2016; 13(2):261-270. [DOI:10.1007/s11673-016-9704-6]

7. Derrick GE. Integration versus separation: structure and strategies of the technology transfer office (TTO) in medical research organizations. J Technol Transf 2015; 40(1); 105- 122. [DOI:10.1007/s10961-014-9343-1]

8. Sapir A, Oliver AL. From academic laboratory to the market: Disclosed and undisclosed narratives of commercialization. Social Studies of Science 2016; 47(1): 33- 52. [DOI:10.1177/0306312716667647]

9. Lawton Smith H, Bagchi-Sen S, Edmunds L. Innovation cycles and geographies of innovation: A study of healthcare innovation in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 2018; 25(1):405- 422. [DOI:10.1177/0969776417716220]

10. Lindahl OA, Andersson B, Lundstrom R, Ramser K. From Biomedical Research to Spin-Off Companies for the Health Care Market. MEDICON 2010; 26: 624- 626. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-13039-7_157]

11. Hajiketabi A, Zolfaghari A, Goodarzi K, Akhondi AR. [Environmental factors and medical spin-offs: a case study]. Peace Journal 2017; 16 (5): 647-658.[Persian]

12. Zolfaghari A, Hejazi SR. Explaining Conceptual Model of Growth of Productive Companies of Jahad University. Economics and Business Research Journal 2013; 4 (5): 51- 33. [Persian]

13. Helm R, Mauroner O. Success of research-based spin-offs. State- of- the- art and guidelines for further research. RMS 2007; 1(3): 237- 270. [DOI:10.1007/s11846-007-0010-x]

14. Bieschke KJ. Research self-efficacy beliefs and research outcome expectations: implications for developing scientifically minded pcychology. Journal of career assessment 2006; 14 (1): 77- 91. [DOI:10.1177/1069072705281366]

15. Jahed HA, Arasteh HR, Jaafari P, [Explaining of Individual Factors Influencing Commercialization of Research Results; The Case of Islamic Azad University of Science and Research Branch]. Journal of Science and Technology Policy 2011; 4 (1):1- 16. [Persian]

16. Borges C, Filio LJ. Spin-off Process and the Development of Academic Entrepreneur's Social Capital. J. Technol. Manag. Innov 2013; 8 (1): 21- 34. [DOI:10.4067/S0718-27242013000100003]

17. Levie J. The university is the classroom: teaching and learning technology commercialization at a technological university. J Technol Transf 2014; 39(5): 793- 808. [DOI:10.1007/s10961-014-9342-2]

18. Nelson AJ, Monsen E. Teaching technology commercialization: introduction to the special section. J Technol Transf 2014; 39(5): 774- 779. [DOI:10.1007/s10961-014-9341-3]

19. Rasmussen E, Borch OJ. [University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin- off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy 2010; 39(5): 602- 612. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.002]

20. Jalili N, Mousakhani M, Behboudi M. Nationalized Model for Commercialization", Field Study in Iran. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business 2011; 1 (4): 118- 129.

21. Umum KK, Umam KK, Hewanto WD, Larso D. Higher education institution and technology transfer. proceedings of the 5th AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange; 2008 Feb; Australia.Melbourne: 2008.

22. O'Shea RP, Chugh H, Allen TJ. Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. J Technol Transfer 2008;33(6): 655- 666. [DOI:10.1007/s10961-007-9060-0]

23. Kang SW. An Identification of Unsuccessful, Failure Factors of Technology Innovation and Development in SMEs: A Case Study of Components and Material Industry. International Journal of Business and Management 2012; 7 (19): 16- 30. [DOI:10.5539/ijbm.v7n19p16]

24. Kimura O. Public R&D and commercialization of energy- efficient technology: A Case study of Japanese projects. Energy Policy 2010; 38(11): 7358- 7369. [DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.012]

25. Amadi-Echendu JE, Rasetlola RT. Technology Commercialization Factors, Frameworks and Models. lst Technology Management Conference 2011 Jun 27; USA. San Jose, CA; 2011. [DOI:10.1109/ITMC.2011.5995939]

26. Sakhdari J. [Academic Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Workshop. Research Deputy of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad]. 2013; [Available from: http://library.um.ac.ir/index.php?option=com_weblinks&view=category&id=128&wlang=0&itemid=587&lang=fa. [Persian]

27. Regan P. The Relationships between Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organization Structure and Ownership in the European Airport Industry [dissertation]. Dublin: Department of Management Smurfit Graduate School of business, University College Dublin, lack rock;2006

28. Mustar P, Wright M. Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer 2010; 35(1): 42- 65. [DOI:10.1007/s10961-009-9113-7]

29. Jensen PH, Webster E. Macroeconomic conditions and the determinants of commercialization. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2011; 35: 125- 143. [DOI:10.1093/cje/beq012]

30. Esmaeili M, Yamani Doozi Sorkhabi M, Haji Hosseini H, Kiamanesh A. [A Survey on Relationship between Engineering Colleges of Tehran's Public Universities and Industry, within the Framework of National Innovation System]. IRPHE. 2011; 17 (1) :27-46. [Persian]

31. Yadollahi Farsi J, Amini Z. [Identifying the institutional and environmental factors affecting the transfer of technology in the field of biotechnology].Technology growth 2011;7(28):27-33. [Persian]

32. Pourabasi R, Rudgarnejad F, Kieakajuri K. [The commercialization strategy of university research in Islamic Azad University faculties of Rasht: Measurement of effective factors]. 2nd International Technology Commerce Conference; 2015 Feb 22-23; Tehran: civilica; 2014. [Persian]

33. Van Geenhuizen M, Nijkamp P. Creative Knowledge Cities: Myths, Visions and Realities. New Horizons in Regional Science Series.1st ed. Cheltenham, UK;Edward Elgar Pub; 2012. [DOI:10.4337/9780857932853]

34. Erdos K, Varga A. The academic entrepreneur: myth or reality for increased regional growth in Europe. in Van Geenhuizen M, Nijkamp P. Creative Knowledge Cities. 1st ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2012.

35. Bertacchini EE, Bravo G, Marrelli M, Santagata W. Cultural Commons: A New Perspective on the Production and Evolution of Cultures. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2012. [DOI:10.4337/9781781000069]

36. Aghajani HA, Hosseini A, Sarvari Ashliki Z. [Identifying and Prioritizing the Factors Influencing the Commercialization of Products by Knowledge Based Companies with the Technique of FAHP , Experimental Examination: Knowledge Based Companies Based in the Growth Centers of Northern Regions of Iran]. Journal of Operational Research in its Applications 2015; 12 (3): 85- 100. [Persian]

37. Cho J, Lee J. Development of a new technology product evaluation model for assessing commercialization opportunities using Delphi method and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Systems with Applications 2013; 40(13): 5314- 5330. [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.03.038]

38. Aarikka-Stenroos L, Lehtimaki T. Commercializing a Radical Innovation: Probing the Way to the Market. Industrial Marketing Management 2014; 43(8): 1372-1384. [DOI:10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.08.004]

39. Sternberg R.Success factors of university-spin-offs: Regional government support programs versus regional environment. Technovation 2014; 34(3): 137- 148. [DOI:10.1016/j.technovation.2013.11.003]

40. Fini R, Fu K, Rasmussen E, Wright M. Institutional determinants of university spin- off quantity and quality: A longitudinal, multi-level, cross-country study. Small Bus Econ 2017; 48 (2): 361- 391. [DOI:10.1007/s11187-016-9779-9]

41. Feldman KS. The commercialization of public higher education: Balancing academic, fiscal and market values. The University of New Mexico; 2007.

42. Hashemnia SH, Emadzadeh M, Samadi S, Saketi P. [Effective Factors on Earmarked Revenues of Researches in Iranian Universities of Technology]. Higher education 2009; 15(2): 22- 31. [Persian]

43. Rasmussen E, Mosey S, Wright M. The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy 2014; 43(1):92- 106. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.007]

44. Visintin F, Pittino D. Founding team composition and early performance of University-Based spin-off companies. Technovation 2014;34(1): 31–43. [DOI:10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.004]

45. Chandra A, Silva M. Business Incubation in Chile: Development, Financing and Financial Services. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 2012; 7 (2): 1- 13. [DOI:10.4067/S0718-27242012000200001]

46. Uzunca B. Comparative Advantages of Spinoff Firms: An Evolutionary Perspective. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 2011; 6 (4): 80- 92. [DOI:10.4067/S0718-27242011000400007]

47. Muller K. Academic spin-off's transfer speed-Analyzing the time from leaving university to venture. Research Policy 2010; 39(2): 189- 199. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.001]

48. Walter A, Auer M, Ritter T. The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing 2006; 21(4): 541- 567. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005]

49. Gubeli MH, Doloreux D. An empirical study of university spin-off development. European Journal of Innovation Management 2005; 8 (3): 269- 282. [DOI:10.1108/14601060510610153]

50. Lockett A, Wright M, Franklin S. Technology transfer and universities' spin-out strategie. Small Business Economics 2003; 20(2):185- 200. [DOI:10.1023/A:1022220216972]

Send email to the article author

‎ 10.29252/rme.11.1.62

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Shohoudi M, Hassani M, Ghalavandi H, Abbasspour A, Shams G. Comparative Analysis of effective factors on Formation and Development of Academic Spin off in two Ministries of Science and Health. RME 2019; 11 (1) :62-71
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-697-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 11, Issue 1 (2019)

Back to browse issues page