Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Case Studies and Perspectives
Edited by Dr. Brendan Galbraith and Dr. Stephen Cross
Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Case Studies and Perspectives Copyright Š 2015 The authors First published September 2015 All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of critical review, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Applications for the copyright holder’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publishers. Disclaimer: While every effort has been made by the editor, authors and the publishers to ensure that all the material in this book is accurate and correct at the time of going to press, any error made by readers as a result of any of the material, formulae or other information in this book is the sole responsibility of the reader. Readers should be aware that the URLs quoted in the book may change or be damaged by malware between the time of publishing and accessing by readers. Note to readers: Some papers have been written by authors who use the American form of spelling and some use the British. These two different approaches have been left unchanged. ISBN:
978-1-910810-43-9 (print) 978-1-910810-44-6 (e-Pub) 978-1-910810-45-3 (Kindle)
Printed by Lightning Source POD Published by: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, Reading, RG4 9AY, United Kingdom, info@academic-publishing.org Available from www.academic-bookshop.com
Contents
About the Editors ............................................................................................ iii List of contributing authors ............................................................................. v From Linear to Quadruple-Helix Innovation Intermediary Models: An Introduction to Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Case Studies and Perspective Brendan Galbraith and Stephen Cross ........................................................... 1 Attributes of a Successful Innovation Ecosytem Stephen E. Cross .......................................................................................... 13 How to Facilitate the Emergence of French new Technology-Based Firms Emmanuel Fremiot ...................................................................................... 31 State Parenting Entrepreneurship - the Process of Seizing Opportunities – a Case of a Chinese Entrepreneur Sabrina Luthfa Karim and Hanjun Huang .................................................... 49 Incubators as Enablers for Academic Entrepreneurship Frank Gielen, Sven De Cleyn and Jan Coppens............................................. 65 Evaluation and Adoption of University Technologies by Enterprises Fernando Barbosa and Fernando Romero ................................................... 83 The Evolution of Resources in Research-Based Spinoffs: Learning from a Case Study Chiara Verbano, Karen Venturini and Avi Wasser ....................................... 99
i
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation Innovation and Entrepreneurship by Academic Spin-Offs: The UNITI Business Case Renata Paola Dameri, Federico Fontana and Roberto Garelli ................... 117 Research-Based Spin-Off Creation Models in Polish Economic Conditions Adam Mazurkiewicz, Beata Poteralska and Urszula Wnuk ....................... 133 Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Economic Development: A Configuration Approach Colin Reddy, Boris Urban and Ralph Hamann ........................................... 143 The Role of the University in the Promotion of the Entrepreneurial Culture Under the Triple Helix Mode Isidro de Pablo, Fernando Alfaro, Miriam RodrĂguez and Esperanza ValdĂŠs ...................................................................................... 169
ii
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation
About the Editors Dr Brendan Galbraith is a senior lecturer in innovation management at the Ulster University, Northern Ireland. Brendan has played a leading role in securing prestigious research and innovation projects from a variety of national and European external funding bodies totaling more than £4million. He has more than forty high quality peer reviewed publications that have appeared in a variety of outlets including two books, European Commission reports, National government policy papers, top journals such as Technovation, R&D Management, Production Planning and Control, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management and International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Brendan’s research has been presented in the European Parliament, European Commission, Committee de Regions in Brussels, Northern Ireland Parliament and numerous keynotes at industry and academic conferences. Brendan’s research has generated wide media interest from BBC News (national), BBC Ulster Radio, Channel 8 TV, Belfast Telegraph Newspaper, Londonderry Sentinel, NI Business, Sync NI as well as numerous other online media outlets. Brendan is the Book Reviews Editor at Technology Analysis and Strategic Management Journal and is a Board Member at ICE and IEEE International Technology Management Conference. He is a co-inventor for the engage eParticipation technology and toolkit that has been successfully commercialized in several European countries. Brendan is a member of the Northern Ireland European Regional Forum, a Belfast Ambassador Award Winner (2013) and advises numerous SMEs and non-profit organisations. He has served on the EC SME Experts Panel, Leadership Portfolio Group of the European Network of Living Labs and is the co-founder of two living labs in Northern Ireland. Brendan is a member of the Business and Management Research Institute and SME Development Centre at the Ulster University Business School. Brendan secured his a First Class BA (Hons), Msc Management and PhD at Ulster University. iii
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation Dr Stephen Cross is the Executive Vice-President for Research at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Steve is a professor in the H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, and also serves as an adjunct professor in the College of Computing and the Ernest J. Scheller College of Business. He was Vice President and Director of the Georgia Tech Research Institute from 2003 – 2010, a position he is currently filling as Interim Director. He also serves as the President of the Georgia Tech Research Corporation, the Georgia Applied Research Corporation, and the Georgia Technology Advanced Ventures. Previously, Steve was at Carnegie Mellon University as a research faculty member in computer science and Director and CEO of the Software Engineering Institute. Earlier, he was a program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and a faculty member at the Air Force Institute of Technology. A retired military officer, he received the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Air Force Research Award. Steve was the University System of Georgia representative to a State of Georgia strategic planning task force on science, technology, and innovation in 2011. He is a past member of the Defense Science Board and the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. During that time he led studies on system-level experimentation and adaptive organizations. He has also supported studies by the National Research Council, testified to Congress, and served as a consultant to government and industry. He has published widely on leadership, innovation, culture change, software engineering, and technology transition. Steve is a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), a former Editor-in-Chief of IEEE Intelligent Systems, and a former Associate Editor of the Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Systems Management. He received his BSEE from the University of Cincinnati, his MSEE from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and his PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has been recognized as a distinguished alumnus of the College of Engineering of the University of Cincinnati and the Air Force College of Technology. iv
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation
List of Contributing Authors Fernando Alfaro, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Fernando Barbosa, Department of Production and Systems Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Jan Coppens, iMinds, Ghent, Belgium Stephen Cross, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America Renata Paola Dameri, Department of Economics, University of Genoa, Italy Sven De Cleyn, University of Antwerp, Belgium Isidro de Pablo, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Federico Fontana, Department of Economics, University of Genoa, Italy Emmanuel Fremiot, Novancia Business School Paris, Paris, France Roberto Garelli, Department of Economics, University of Genoa, Italy Frank Gielen, Ghent University, Belgium Ralph Hamann, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, South Africa Hanjun Huang, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden Sabrina Luthfa Karim, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden Adam Mazurkiewicz, Institute for Sustainable Technologies – National Research Institute (ITeE-PIB), Radom, Poland Beata Poteralska, Institute for Sustainable Technologies – National Research Institute (ITeE-PIB), Radom, Poland Colin Reddy, University of Johannesburg, South Africa Miriam Rodríguez, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Fernando Romero, Department of Production and Systems Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Boris Urban, Wits Business School, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa Esperanza Valdés, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Karen Venturini, University of San Marino, Republic of San Marino Chiara Verbano, University of Padua, Padua, Italy Avi Wasser, Haifa University, Haifa, Israel Urszula Wnuk, Institute for Sustainable Technologies – National Research Institute (ITeE-PIB), Radom, Poland
v
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation
vi
From Linear to Quadruple-Helix Innovation Intermediary Models: An Introduction to Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Case Studies and Perspectives Regional economies across the globe, both in developed and developing nations, continually pursue more effective innovation policies with the ultimate aim of helping to shape a balanced and modern economy. A centrepiece of this drive is to nurture and develop a wave of new high-tech SMEs and develop innovative capabilities (and growth) of existing SMEs. The USA has led the way with the development of high-tech clusters, particularly in the Silicon Valley and Boston, but also accompanied with several other celebrated clusters including Georgia Tech, North Carolina Research Triangle and most recently San Diego – which is developing 300+ new high-tech start-ups per year (Sidhu et al, 2015). In Europe, the replication of North American experiences remains an aspiration for the most part (with the exception of several exemplar regions). In the UK, the Bolton Report in the 1970s was the first serious policy report that made the case for small firms to become central to UK government economic policy, especially NTSFs. This is firmly embedded in European and US economic policy, which have been eager to introduce a number of initiatives aimed at stimulating entrepreneurial growth by supporting entrepreneurial firms through the tentative stages of new venture start-up. The introduction of, what are now seen as ‘traditional innovation intermediaries’, Science Parks (SPs) and incubators was one such initiative. SPs emanated in the USA and were heralded as an effective economic instrument to the creation of firms and jobs. SPs and incubators were conceived as a mechanism by which academic researchers might commercialise their outputs, or where firms might locate in order to access academic expertise and research results (Galbraith, 2014). Despite the optimism in the Europe, which, no doubt was fuelled by the knowledge that the Europe is a world 1
Dr. Brendan Galbraith and Dr. Stephen Cross leader in many keys areas of basic science, the performance of SPs has been modest. Since the early 1980s successive governments have invested heavily in the development of an influx of incubators and science parks across the Europe. Even today, science parks and incubators remain an important innovation intermediary in current regional innovation policy. In the academic literature, the science park and incubator model itself has been criticised as a mechanism to nurture innovation and create new firms. However, these criticisms are countered with the numerous examples of successful SPs and incubators such as North Carolina Research Triangle (Link and Scott, 2003), MIT, Georgia Tech, Hsinchu district in Tiawan (Xue, 1997; Lau et al., 2005), Shanghai [Chinese “Silicon Valley�] (Lai and Shyu, 2003), Cambridge (Siegal, 1986). The failure of SPs as effective innovation intermediary to continuously replicate this success has spurred a growing body of literature. This literature has been classified in several ways by different authors. For example: studies are either descriptive, prescriptive, or evaluative (Albert and Gaynor, 2001); configuration-orientated and process-orientated studies (Autio and Klofsten, 1998; Lyons et al., 1996; Galbraith, 2014); studies occurring at several levels - systems or national innovation level, the SPs and incubators themselves, the firms located on the SPs and incubators and the entrepreneurs and team of entrepreneurs involved on the SPs (Phan, 2004). Studies at a regional/system level are most frequent and an outcome of this has been a general consensus that SPs models must be tailored in a way that it best interacts with its local environment (Autio, 1997; Galbraith et al., 2006; Galbraith, 2014). At the SP level researchers lament the disproportionate levels of funds and time allocated for brokering in business expertise. Also, at entrepreneur level, there is widespread criticism directed at the lack of commercial expertise of academic entrepreneurs and their unwillingness to seek or invest in business aspects of the commercialisation process. Many researchers agree that too much emphasis is placed on technical aspects and not enough resources are put into business aspects. This suggests that the linear technological innovation model is practiced by academic entrepreneurs and in turn is assumed by government development agencies and SPs and incubator programs. Put simply, the linear model holds that technological excellence leads to commercialisation. However, for more than thirty years this traditional innovation in-
2
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation termediary model has been heavily criticised by researchers as it fails to capture the dynamism and complexity of innovation. In contrast, the emergence of quadruple-helix models (Galbraith et al. 2008) has gathered pace with the realization that a model that supports ‘fail-fast’ or ‘drowns poor projects in shallow water’ is required. The basic logic is to minimize risk at the earliest stages so that resources can be managed more effectively. In Europe, the European Network of Living Labs has promoted quadruple-helix regional models that harness public-private and academic perspectives with societal inputs (users and user communities). The key idea is to translate the real latent needs of the end users from the outset at problem identification and co-create new products and services hand-in-hand with users. This chimes with the important work on customer discovery by start-ups in Steve Blank’s ‘Four Paths to the Epiphany’ – that led to the foundation of the ‘Lean Start-up’ (Eric Ries, 2011) revolution. In the academic literature, a trilogy of special issues in Technology Analysis and Strategic Management Journal have explored several dimensions of innovation intermediaries: Galbraith and McAdam (2011) on ‘current and emerging innovation intermediaries in the technology transfer process’; Galbraith and McAdam (2013) on ‘the convergence of ICT, policy, intermediaries and society for technology transfer’ and Holzmann, Sailer, Galbraith and Katzy (2014) on ‘the matchmaking process in innovation intermediaries’. Moreover, as we move into the tenth year of the European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE) innovation and entrepreneurship and innovation intermediaries research is a core topic of interest to this growing academic community. Overall, the integration of society in innovation and technology transfer mechanisms is becoming increasingly important. New models are emerging such as quadruple-helix (Galbraith et al., 2008; Carayannis and Campbell, 2009; Leydesdorff, 2012) that are public-private-society-academia collaborations and other variations on this model can comprise publicprivate-society-technology or public-private-academia-local/global. Quadruple-helix models have the potential to influence the generation of new models of technology transfer, particularly with respect to how they can enable closer alignment with society (i.e. users and user communities).
3
Dr. Brendan Galbraith and Dr. Stephen Cross Increasingly, new products and services must be accurately responsive to user needs if they are to succeed. However, it is often a very costly matter for firms to understand user’s needs deeply and well (von Hippel, 2001). Need information is very complex, and conventional market research techniques only skim the surface. Deeper techniques, such as ethnographic studies, are both difficult and time-consuming. Understanding user needs is growing ever more difficult as firms increasingly strive to learn about and serve the unique needs of “markets of one”, and as the pace of change in markets and user needs grows ever faster. Customers for a given type of product or service can have needs that are quite heterogeneous. Market researchers may decide to divide a target market into several segments, each containing customers with somewhat different needs. Hence, different products for each segment are intended to address the average customer need in that segment. This approach to the problem of heterogeneity typically falls short of offering each customer a product that is a precise fit to that firm or individual’s needs. Franke and von Hippel (2003) demonstrate this with a rigorous critique of market segmentation studies that use cluster analysis. They conclude that a considerable fraction of heterogeneous customer need may be going un-served by standard commercial products on offer in the marketplace. So how are non-average user needs currently served? Some are probably not served at all, with users simply remaining dissatisfied. In other cases, there is evidence of users (firms or individuals) “serving themselves” by designing their own products from scratch or by modifying commerciallyavailable products to better serve their needs. Empirical research provides several examples in different sectors: firms using PC-CAD software to design printed circuit boards (Urban and von Hippel, 1988); computerised library systems (Morrison et al. 2000); consumer sports equipment (Lüthje, 2000; Franke and Shah, 2003); online basketball communities (Füller et al., 2007). In the case of many grand challenges including healthcare, energy efficiency, responsible use of ICT, food safety etc, there is a growing need to develop business processes and methods that capture the real latent needs of society (users and user communities). This can be a cumbersome and time-consuming process and there is an escalator of degrees of openness with the user community that can bring numerous ‘alignment issues’
4
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation (Galbraith et al., 2008 p8), for example in the area of Connected Health (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Framework of User Innovation in Connected Health Galbraith et al., (2008 p 7) argues that if the degree of openness in Connected Health is to transgress from user-centric to user-driven ‘living lab’, then there needs to be an alignment of user issues, such as ethical, reward, IP, liability and mitigation issues. A possible opportunity to do that might be to identify and harness the potential of relevant lead users (von Hippel, 1986). The lead user method (von Hippel, 1986) has highlighted the real benefits of accessing economically valuable ‘sticky knowledge’ (von Hippel, 1993) and this has positive affect on expediting innovation. Typically, lead users possess great expertise and usage experience, and they exhibit personality traits such as a high locus of control and strong innovativeness (Ozer, 2009; Schreier and Pruegl, 2008). Unlike, non-lead users, lead user possess these characteristics which enable them to provide accurate information about 5
Dr. Brendan Galbraith and Dr. Stephen Cross their needs and problems and to develop solutions to those needs (von Hippel, 2005). However, the lead user method itself has been criticized as unsustainable (Lßthje and Herstatt, 2004) and overly burdensome (Olsen and Bakke, 2001) and research on lead users largely ignores the potential influence of virtual communities (Mahr and Lievens, 2012) and enabling role of technology. A potential contribution to help address these limitations could be through the deployment of technological-based methods or toolkits. For example, in a study into virtual lead user communities, Mahr and Lievens, (2012) report that the value of the lead user contributions in virtual communities stems from their ability to suggest solutions instead of simply describing problems or stating customer needs. Interestingly, Mahr and Lievens (2012) found that the digital context favors the creation of explicit knowledge that can be easily integrated into the development of new products. In the context of developing next generation innovation intermediaries, particularly university incubators and science parks, more widespread use of a quadruple-helix model may develop and the possibility to expedite entrepreneurial networking with society (lead users and user communities) could be served with the deployment of technology. Overview of the book We begin this text with an exploration of the successful innovation ecosystem cultivated by Georgia Tech in Atlanta, Georgia (USA) and how it has extended to Europe, specifically through affiliated programmes in France (Cross). Cross charts the development the Georgia Tech innovation partnership model with its regional stakeholders and elaborates the key attributes of the successful regional innovation ecosystem, namely; ecologic, economic and societal. Cross concludes with six key lessons learned that may be transferable to other regions. This includes: (1) a systems approach for promoting discovery, application and deployment activities; (2) Alignment throughout the system in terms of vision, strategy, process, culture and outcomes; (3) Excellence in scholarly output; (4) Effective communication and trust; (5) Interdisciplinary environment for innovation and (6) Leadership and the willingness to change. The second chapter critiques France’s slow-paced path to developing new technology-based firms (NTBFs) and general low-levels of R&D by domestic firms (Fremiot). Poor appreciation of the new international competitive conditions, minimization of the fundamental role of NTBFs, a lack of entre6
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation preneurial training in universities and dearth of R&D are posited as particular impediments to developing innovative NTBFs in France. Fremiot concludes with three possible explanations for France’s inability to keep apace with its competitors in cultivating the development of NTBFs. Some of the explanations given seem to align with Cross’s lessons learned at Georgia Tech in the previous chapter. After, exploring the USA and European contexts for the development of NTBFs, Karim and Huang, shed light on state-promoted entrepreneurship in China. It can be seen from this chapter that China adopts a very different approach to entrepreneurship than the aforementioned Western models. It is important to investigate the growth of NTBFs in China, given the enormous investment by the state in generating higher economic and technological value to the development of new firms in China. The changing face of the Top 100 companies in the world in the past decade has seen the entrance of numerous state-companies (including Chinese), so Karim and Huang provide us with an interesting snap-shot of this phenomenon. The focus of their case study can be framed as ‘state-parenting entrepreneurship’ – much like a type of incubator or ‘protective environment for raising children’ for their early years before they are ready to graduate and grow independently. Next Gielen et al., focus on how iMinds in Flanders acts as network integrator for research and entrepreneurship in ICT. This chapter investigates the opportunities offered by ‘learning by doing’ in an ecosystem perspective. The focus is placed on developing entrepreneurial skillsets and attitudes with students and the incubator setting in the university is presented as an important enabler for the iMinds concept. Barbosa looks at the perspective of the enterprise, and explores the motives, mechanisms, and the practice of firms that interact with universities. Specifically, Barbosa investigates: what are the main benefits, barriers and outputs perceived by firms in their interaction with universities? What are the main tools, methodologies, criteria, and relative weights with which firm evaluate their investment in new technologies? In the preliminary results of this study of 33 Portuguese firms, Barbosa finds that the criteria, tools and methodologies that are adopted by firms are not in uniform throughout the process of evaluation and adoption of the technologies. Again, this finding gives credence to the lessons learned in the opening 7
Dr. Brendan Galbraith and Dr. Stephen Cross chapter by Cross, namely ‘alignment throughout the system in terms of vision, strategy, process, culture and outcomes’. The key aim of Verbano et al. is to evaluate the evolution of a spinoff’s resources and institutional linkages over time, adopting the four stages of spinoff development identified by Djokovic and Souitaris (2008): 1) opportunity recognition, 2) entrepreneurial commitment, 3) threshold of credibility and 4) threshold of sustainability. To this extent, the Verbano et al. have extensively investigated a research-based spinoff from the Italian ICT sector in a longitudinal study. The aim of Dameri et al. research is to analyze academic spin-off companies’ capability to drive innovation and entrepreneurship and fast-track technological transfer from the academic research to the business. Dameri et al. conduct empirical research with 17 spin-off companies in the UNITI project in Genoa, Italy to better define the nature and function of academic spin-offs and their role in technological exploitation and value creation. Mazurkiewicz et al. analysed selected international case studies and examined two models of research-based spin-off ventures creation: the downstream and the upstream model and following this investigation they have developed a tailored spin-off creation model for Polish public research institutes. The model they have developed is premised on the downstream spin-off creation model, in which the innovative solution developed at the parent institution is at the core of this commercialisation undertaking. There are two sub-models of the downstream spin-off creation model and the difference between them concerns the means of financing the establishment of the spin-off enterprise. Mazurkiewicz et al. develops a model that comprises and further elaborates on both of the downstream research-based spin-off collaboration models. Reddy et al. examine the interaction between formal and informal institutions and its subsequent effect on the relationship between economic development and entrepreneurial activity. Towards this, Reddy et al. develop an integrative framework linking formal and informal institutions to entrepreneurial conditions. The authors argue that this research is among the first to use a three-way interaction in a cross-national study including both formal and informal institutions and both developed and developing na8
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation tions. The study posits that it is important to understand the relationship between economic development and national entrepreneurial activity in terms of the mechanisms of interaction between a nation’s formal and informal institutions. In addition, this framework will be valuable to theorists wishing to extend the opportunity theory of Shane and Venkataraman (2000) to cross national studies. The authors find in the testing of their hypothesis that there appears to be an ideal mix of new enterprise activity and existing corporate entrepreneurship accompanying economic development. A key policy outcome of this study is that there appears to be an absence of corporate entrepreneurial activity or intrapreneurship in economic development discussions in Poland. We conclude this book with Alfaro et al. study on the role of the university in the promotion of the entrepreneurial culture under the triple helix model. Alfaro et al, show in their research an illustrative case study in Madrid, Spain were several different entities involved in entrepreneurial programmes with the university, despite having different goals and priorities, can establish and strengthen synergies under proper coordination, rather than overlap their functions leading to the recurrence or reduction of the results achieved. We hope that readers of this book will find helpful the various international case studies on practices, policies and antecedents that harness the development of NTBFs through innovation intermediaries and regional collaboration. This book is aimed to students of innovation and entrepreneurship, policy-maker and technology transfer practitioners. This collection of papers that comprise this book have been previously presented at the European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE) in 2011-2014 and we warmly thank the authors for sharing their research insights to make this book possible. Finally, we are especially grateful for all of the dedicated help and saintly patience from our valued publisher – Academic Publishing International. Brendan Galbraith and Stephen Cross Editors September 2015
9
Dr. Brendan Galbraith and Dr. Stephen Cross
References Albert, P. and Gaynor, L. (2001) Incubators: Growing up, moving out – a Review of the Literature. Sophia Antipolis: Chair of High Tech Entrepreneurship, CERAM. Autio, E. (1997) ‘Atomistic’ and ‘Systemic’ approaches to research New, Technology-based Firms: A literature study. Small Business Economics. 9 pp 195-209. Autio, E. and Klofsten, M. (1998) A comparative study of two European Business Incubators. Journal of Small Business Management. 36 1 pp 30-43. th Blank, S. (2013) The Four Steps to the Epiphany. 5 Edition. st Carayannis, E. and Campbell, D.F.J. (2009) ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’ toward a 21 century fractal innovation system. International Journal of Technology Management. 46 3 pp 201-234. Franke, N. and Von Hippel, E. (2003) Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software. Research Policy. 32 pp 1199-1215. Franke, N. and Shah, S. (2003). How Communities Support Innovative Activities: An Exploration of Assistance and Sharing Among End-Users. Research Policy, 32, 157-178. Füller, J., Jawecki, G. and Mühlbacher, H. (2007) Innovation creation by online basketball communities. Journal of Business Research. 60 1 pp 60-71. Galbraith, B. (2014) An exploratory study of innovation intermediaries in technology transfer contexts. Doctoral Thesis. University of Ulster. Galbraith, B. and McAdam, R. (2013) The convergence of ICT, policy, intermediaries and society for technology transfer: evidence from European innovation projects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 25 3 pp 249-252. Galbraith, B. and McAdam, R. (2011) “The promise and problem of open innovation”. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 23 1 pp 1-6. Galbraith, B., Mulvenna, M., McAdam, R. and Martin, S. (2008) “Open innovation in Connected Health: An empirical study and research agenda”. In: Conference on Open Innovation: Creating Products and Services through Collaboration (ISPIM-2008), Tours, France. ISPIM. Galbraith, B., McAdam, R. and Humphreys, P. (2006) “Managing university incubators as commercial entities: facilitators, barriers and approaches”. British Academy of Management Conference, Belfast. Holzmann, T., Sailer, K., Galbraith, B. and Katzy, B. (2014) Matchmaking for open innovation – theoretical perspectives based on interaction, rather than transaction. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 26 6 pp 595-599. Lai, H. C. and Shyu, J. Z. (2005) A comparison of innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan Strait: the case of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park. Technovation. 25 pp 805-813. Lai, H-C. and Shyu, J. Z. (2003) A comparison of innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan Strait: the case of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park. Technovation. Leydesdorff, L. (2012) The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy? Journal of Knowledge Economy. 3 1 pp 25-35. Link, A. N. and Scott, J. T. (2003) The growth of Research Triangle Park. Small Business Economics. 20 pp 167-175. Lüthje, C. and Herstatt, C. (2004) The lead user method: an outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R&D Management. 34 pp 553-568.
10
Innovation Intermediaries for Entrepreneurship and Innovation Lüthje, C. (2000) Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: an empirical study of sport-related product consumers. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper. Lyons T. S., Lichtenstein, Gregg, A. and Chhatre, S. (1996) Obstacles to Minority Entrepreneurship in the Inner-City and the Role of Business Incubation Programs in th Surmounting Them. Paper to the 26 Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association (March 13 – 16) htttp://www.louisville.edu/org/sun/economic_dev/uaapa.html Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H. and von Hippel, E. (2000) Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market. Management Science. 46 12 pp 1513-1527. Mahr, D. and Lievens, A. (2012) Virtual lead user communities: Drivers of knowledge creation for innovation. Research Policy. 41 1 pp 167-177. Olson, E.L. and Bakke, G. (2001) “Implementing the lead user method in a high technology firm: A longitudinal study of intentions versus actions”. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 18 pp 388-95. Ozer, M. (2009) The roles of product lead-users and product experts in new product evaluation. Research Policy. 38 pp 1340-1349. Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S. and Wright, M. (2004) Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing. 20 2 pp 165-182. Ries, E. (2011) The Lean Start-up. Penguin Books. Schreier, M. and Pruegal, R. (2008) Extending lead-user theory: antecedents and consequences of consumers’ lead userness. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 25 pp 331-346. Segal, N. S. (1986) Universities and technological entrepreneurship in Britain: some implications of the Cambridge phenomenon. Technovation. 4 pp 189-204. Sidhu, I., Lavian, T. and Howell, V. (2015). R&D Models for Advanced Development and st Corporate Research. 21 ICE and IEEE International Technology Management Conference, th Belfast, 22-24 June. Urban, G. and von E. Hippel (1988). Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products. Management Science, 35, pp 569-582. von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. von Hippel, E. (2001) Perspective: User toolkits for innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management. 18 pp 247-257. von Hippel, E. (1993) “Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation”. Management Science. 40 pp 429-39. von Hippel, E. (1988) The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. von Hippel, E. (1986) “Lead users: A source of novel product concepts”. Management Science. 32 7 pp 547-567. Xue, L. (1997) Promoting industrial R&D and high-tech development through Science Parks: the Taiwan experience and its implications for developing countries. International Journal of Technology Management. 13 7/8 pp 744-761.
11
Dr. Brendan Galbraith and Dr. Stephen Cross
12