1. Factors Fostering Academics to Start up New Ventures: an Assessment of Italian Founders' Incentives Fini R., Grimaldi R., Sobrero M. University of Bologna, Italy

2. 2 Research focus Better understanding of the factors fostering academics to commercially exploit their knowledge through the creation of new companies

3. 3 Research objective Provide an integrative framework relating to factors fostering academics to found new companies To what extent are these factors perceived as relevant by academic founders in fostering the creation of new companies?

4. 4 Research background (1/2) a) Environmental influences Local context factors (Niosi and Bas, 2001; Beck et al., 2005; Feldman, 2001; Deeds et al., 1998); Government support mechanisms (Lerner, 1999); Industry and technology characteristics (Lowe, 2002; Hsu and Bernstein, 1997).

5. 5 Research background (2/2) b) University level support mechanisms (Colyvas et al., 2002; Grandi and Grimaldi, 2005); c) Individual level related factors (Shane, 2004; Zucker at al., 1998; Powers, 2003).

6. 6 An integrative framework

7. 7 Empirical analysis: research design Academic spin-offs: population 50, sample 47, response rate 94%; Academic founders: population 150, sample 88, response rate 58%; Data gathering: –Structured questionnaire; –face-to-face interviews with academic founders

8. 8 Methods Three stage process: –Descriptive statistics for all of the factors/incentives fostering academics to create a new venture –Respondents’ opinions were analyzed through a Principal Component Analysis (PCA). –Analysis of the sources (if any) of inter individual differences in respondents’ perceptions of incentives: ANOVA

9. 9 Empirical analysis: Environmental influences FactorsItems MeanS.d.Median Support coming from the external context Sector opportunity for commercial exploitation4,631,625 Supportive institutional context3,361,993 Supportive local context4,111,894 Supportive academic environment4,101,924 Technology commercialization potential Availability of (personal) excellent technological knowledge5,591,636 Previous investments (personal) in technology development5,101,655,5 Existence of a market demand for commercially exploiting the technology3,692,294 Contagion effect Contagion effect (imitation of others)1,571,011

10. 10 Empirical analysis: University level related factors FactorsItemsMeanS.d.Median University’s patent protection Availability of university-level patent regulation1,321,071 University patented technology1,871,701 University’s support services The university invests in equity2,711,952 Availability of university level spin-off regulation3,272,143 Availability of a Business plan competition2,1361,811 Availability of a Technology transfer office (TTO)1,961,681 Access to university infrastructures Possibility to use academic laboratories and infrastructures4,672,175 Possibility to he hosted in academic incubators or departments4,672,366

11. 11 Empirical analysis: Individual level related factors FactorsItemsMeanS.d.Median Academic status related benefits Possibility to obtain research founds3,692,194 Possibility to obtain laboratories’ equipments3,952,164 Possibility to obtain research grants4,212,195 Attracting star scientists2,051,511 Economic and technological development contribution Contribute to economic and technological growth of the country4,631,895 Contribute to employment increase4,131,965 Personal related benefits Personal earnings4,401,925 Prestige and reputation4,671,775 Knowledge exchange4,611,95 New stimuli for research4,752,055

12. 12 Empirical analysis: ANOVA Factors extracted through PCA vs. Universities of affiliation: no major significant differences among academic responses Factors extracted through PCA vs. Academic status: no major significant differences among academic responses

13. 13 Conclusions and implications Italian academics’ involvement in creating new ventures is not driven by entrepreneurial attitude, but rather by the expectation to generate outcomes for enhancing their academic position These companies show a pretty poor ‘market orientation’ and strong link with their universities of origin Additional forms of investments/incentives made available by some universities are not perceived as providing ‘additional support’. Fine tuning of existing support mechanisms?

14. 14 Discussion

15. 15 Descriptive statistics for academic spin offs (1/2) Industries Number of firms % ICT 612,7 Food 36,4 Materials and environmental services 919,2 Electronic 1225,5 Mechanics and automation 36,4 Biotechnology 1021,3 General services and consultancy 48,5 Year of establishment Number of firms Frequency (%) 2005919,1 20041123,4 20031327,7 200236,4 2001510,6 200036,4 199936,4 Incubation Incubated in a university incubator 817 Incubated in a department2451 Not incubated1532

16. 16 Descriptive statistics for academic spin offs (2/2) Output MeanS.d. Paten applications (since start up)0,71,44 Products introduced (since start up)1,93,18 Forthcoming products (in 2006)0,93,00 Process introduced (since start up)0,20,85 Forthcoming processes (in 2006)0,10,66 Commercial collaborations (since start up) 1,93,79 Technological collaborations (since start up) 1,91,92 Size Number of founders (2005)6,33,4 Number of employees (2005)0,81,9 Number of pro tempore employees (2005) 2,13,49