The Impact of Science-Based Entrepreneurial Firms - A Literature Review and Policy Synthesis
The Impact of Science-Based Entrepreneurial Firms - A Literature Review and Policy Synthesis
复制标题
基于科学的创业公司的影响——文献综述和政策综合
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Clausen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Einar Rasmussen;O. Bulanova;Are Jensen;T. Clausen
如何将公共研究机构开发的科学和技术知识转化为经济和社会影响，是研究和创新政策的一个关键问题。政策制定者和大学已经花费了大量资源来促进创建以科学为基础的创业公司（SBEFs），作为从研究投资中创造价值的工具。然而，SBEFs的影响在从业人员和研究人员之间存在很大争议。有些人认为，这些公司在收入和创造就业方面发挥着重要作用，但也是技术转让的媒介。因此，SBEFs被认为通过将科学知识转化为应用，在创新体系中发挥重要作用。其他人质疑SBEFs的影响，并认为特殊的成功故事不能一概而论，大多数SBEFs是技术生活方式公司，尽管有强大的公众支持，但规模仍然很小。
我们在高质量的国际期刊上进行了广泛的搜索，并确定了162篇关于SBEFs的科学文章。我们注意到，在过去的十年中，对SBEFs的研究数量迅速增长，有助于更好地理解这类新企业的作用和特点。这些文献主要是来自北美和西欧的研究，特别是美国和英国。14篇文章的子集明确考虑了SBEF产生的影响。可以确定两种不同的观点。一些研究探讨了小型企业环境基金的经济影响，往往是从对区域发展的贡献角度。其他研究讨论了SBEF作为技术转让媒介在将研究成果推广应用方面发挥作用的影响。大多数研究都对SBEFs产生的影响描绘了非常积极的形象。然而，文献中主要是少数成功的案例，一些作者质疑政府政策中对SBEFs的普遍重视是否合理。SBEFs似乎是一种特殊类型的公司，在技术转让和其他社会效益方面，它们的目的与其他初创公司不同。然而，许多潜在类型的影响尚未得到经验数据的充分探讨。例如，成功的采集很少包括在所使用的数据集中。在得出任何一般性结论之前，还有很多工作要做，无论SBEFs是否以及在何种条件下产生的影响超过了替代品。
另一个子集的28篇文章包括经验数据之间的联系启动条件和性能的SBEFs。很明显，与其他新企业相比，SBEFs面临着特殊的机遇和挑战，这些机遇和挑战与其学术渊源以及与商业行为者建立联系的需要有关，特别是在企业发展的最初阶段。研究发现，在不同的情境下，许多因素都会影响SBEFs的绩效，但这些因素之间的相互关系却很少被研究。毫无疑问，政策和支持可以促进SBEFs的绩效和影响，但导致成功结果的机制似乎是高度特定的。因此，政策行动需要根据特定的区域和机构背景、发展阶段、SBEFs选择的商业模式以及所寻求的影响类型而有所区别。
在上面回顾的42项考虑影响和绩效的研究中，我们观察到使用了广泛的指标。大多数研究采用生存、就业、资源获取、财务指标和增长措施等指标来考察公司一级的业绩。虽然若干研究报告讨论了衡量区域一级和技术转让方面的影响的指标，但似乎很难衡量这类成果。这些研究都没有详细探讨SBEFs产生的非经济和社会影响。
SBEFs有很长的发展道路，成功的公司通常在相当长的一段时间内保持小规模，然后才开始增长。为了能够捕捉到这一发展，有必要在比目前大多数研究所做的更长的时间内衡量其影响。在一段长时间内，考虑到不同的经济和社会结果，对一组SBEF或大学技术的发展进行研究，将产生重要的新见解。
How to convert scientific and technological knowledge developed in public research institutions into economic and societal impact is a key concern for both research and innovation policy. Policy makers and universities have spent considerable resources to promote the creation of science-based entrepreneurial firms (SBEFs) as a tool to create value from investments made in research. The impacts of SBEFs are, however, highly debated among both practitioners and researchers. Some argue that these firms play an important role in terms of revenue and job creation, but also as technology transfer agents. Thus, SBEFs are considered to have an important role in the innovation system by transforming scientific knowledge into application. Others question the impact of SBEFs and argue that exceptional success stories cannot be generalized and that most SBEFs are technology lifestyle firms that remain small, despite strong public support.
We have conducted an extensive search in high quality international journals and identified 162 scientific articles dealing with SBEFs. We observed that the number of studies on SBEFs has grown rapidly over the last decade and has contributed to a better understanding of the role and the particular characteristics of this type of new ventures. The literature is dominated by studies from North America and Western Europe, particularly the US and the UK. A subset of 14 articles explicitly considered the impacts generated by SBEFs. Two different perspectives can be identified. Some studies explored the economic impacts of SBEF, often in terms of contributions to regional development. Other studies discussed the impacts of SBEFs as technology transfer agents serving a role in the dissemination of research into application. Most studies portray a highly positive image of the impacts generated by SBEFs. However, the literature is dominated by a handful of successful case examples and some authors question whether the general prominence given to SBEFs in government policies can be justified. SBEFs seem to be a special type of firms that have other purposes than other startups in terms of technology transfer and other societal benefits. However, many potential types of impacts have not been sufficiently explored by empirical data. For instance, successful acquisitions are rarely included in the datasets used. Much work remains before any general conclusions can be made whether and under which conditions SBEFs creates an impact that exceeds the alternatives.
Another subset of 28 articles included empirical data regarding the links between the start-up conditions and the performance of SBEFs. It seems clear that SBEFs face particular opportunities and challenges compared to other new ventures related to their academic origin and their need to develop links to commercial actors, particularly in the earliest stages of venture development. The studies investigate a number of factors have been found to influence the performance of SBEFs in different contexts, but how these factors interrelates remains scarcely studied. There is no doubt that policies and support can promote the performance and impacts of SBEFs, but the mechanisms leading to successful outcomes appears to be highly context specific. Thus, policy actions need to be differentiated according to the particular regional and institutional context, the phase of development, and the business model chosen by the SBEFs, as well as the type of impacts sought.
In the 42 studies reviewed above that considered impact and performance, we observed that a broad range of indicators were used. Most studies were looking at firm level performance using indicators such as survival, employment, resource acquisition, financial indicators and growth measures. Although indicators to measure impact at regional level and in terms of technology transfer were discussed in several studies, it seems very difficult to measure these types of outcomes. None of the studies explored the non-economic and societal impacts generated by SBEFs in any detail.
SBEFs have long development paths and successful firms typically remain small for a rather long time period before they start to grow. To be able to capture this development there is a need to measure their impact over a longer period of time than most current studies have done. Studies following the development of a cohort of SBEFs or university technologies over an extensive period of time, where different economic and societal outcomes are considered, would yield important new insights.
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Jain, Sanjay;George, Gerard;Maltarich, Mark
通讯作者：
Maltarich, Mark