Universities and public research institutes disseminate their scientific insights in the form of technology licensing, research co-operations with industry partners, or through the formation of RBSOs (Landry, Amara, & Rherrad, 2006). In particular, RBSOs be- came a popular and important instrument to achieve the universities’ and public re- search institutes’ “third mission” (Munari et al., 2015). This term circumscribes the ded- ication of universities and public research institutes to entrepreneurship and business- related activities that exceed their regular mission of providing teaching and research respectively. Another factor why these institutions increase their efforts towards actively encouraging entrepreneurial activities within is given by Bray and Lee (2000) and Feld- man, Feller, Bercovitz, and Burton (2002). The authors for example argue that research organizations, both public and private, have the opportunity to increase income beyond the receipt of public funds through equity holdings from spin-offs they create. A third important aspect Bray and Lee (2000) and Feldman et al. (2002) name is that the in- stitutions can foster prestige and legitimacy through the creation of RBSOs. Beyond the advantages of RBSO creation for the institutions themselves, the development of knowledge spillovers in the form of RBSOs is also a valuable instrument to transfer technological innovations from research organizations to the private sector (Czarnitzki et al., 2014; Festel, 2013; Fryges & Wright, 2014; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013; Wright, 2014). These knowledge spillovers lead to for example the commercialization of new products or processes, an increase in innovative solutions and behavior, and ultimately job creation as a result of the new firms created (Colombo & Grilli, 2010; Criaco, Mi- nola, Migliorini, & Serarols-Tarres, 2014; Minniti, 2008; Knockaert et al., 2010).
In order to develop a better understanding of RBSOs, the discipline of entrepreneurship research provides a large array of insights on the causes and consequences for instance why and especially when academics decide to become entrepreneurs (e.g Goel, Gok- tepe-Hulten, and Ram 2015 and Guerrero, Urbano, Cunningham, and Organ 2014), or how the ecosystem surrounding the research institution influences the founding process of RBSOs (e.g McAdam and McAdam 2008). In addition, many studies also address the question which and how RBSO-specific resources influence the academic spin-offs’ sur- vival or development in terms of for example growth (e.g. Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000 and Stam, Arzlanian, and Elfring 2014). When regarding the multi-facetted liter- ature covering this specific field of entrepreneurship, a variety of overlapping defini- tions can be found. For example, common to the definitions of research-based spin-offs is that at least one founder of the RBSO is a (former) employee of the research institu- tion (Bonardo et al., 2010; Clarysse, Wright, Lockett, Mustar, & Knockaert, 2007; Co- lombo & Piva, 2012). A second criterion often applied is that the technology transferred to the newly established spin-off has to be researched and developed within the parent research organization (Carayannis, Rogers, Kurihara, & Allbritton, 1998; Steffensen, Rogers, & Speakman, 2000). Given these commonly accepted boundary conditions used to better define RBSOs, this dissertation refers to RBSOs as firms that have emerged from an academic environment which meet the major criteria just outlined. This clear definition is essential since RBSOs can be considered a subgroup of NTBFs as they are commonly prevalent in the high-tech sector. Yet, both firm-types differ. For one thing, RBSOs are primarily founded by academics that are better educated and have an in- depth technological background. For another, academic entrepreneurs possess the skills and networks relevant for their career in academia, whereas their experience from prior industrial and entrepreneurial activities is very limited or not existing at all (Agarwal & Shah, 2014; Colombo, Croce, & Murtinu, 2014; Lockett, Wright, & Franklin, 2003; Mur- ray, 2004; Wright et al., 2006). Thus, while NTBFs are normally founded by business professionals without a history of research experience, RBSOs are founded by academ- ics who are primarily science-oriented. A third criterion often named is that the tech- nology invented often follows a problem-solving research-perspective (i.e. basic or ap- plied research) whilst not being ready for commercialization or meeting the demand of customer needs at the time the RBSO is created (Clarysse, Wright, Lockett, van de
Velde, & Vohora, 2005; Colombo et al., 2014). This is in clear contrast to NTBFs as they usually commercialize a product or service that has a predefined and intended use. Based on the fact that academic entrepreneurs often lack the basic business-relevant capabilities, outside support is often named a prerequisite for their survival and growth. In line with this important basic condition and in order to smoothen the spin-off process and increase the RBSO’s chances of survival and growth, many research organizations created supporting schemes for their spin-offs as outlined in the introductory section of this dissertation. Amongst them are technology transfer offices, training programs, and other support mechanisms (Colombo et al., 2010). A clear understanding of the causes and consequences of these supporting schemes is however very important as they are costly to implement and important regarding the recipient’s development. When ac- knowledging that the majority of studies focus on NTBFs, one has to admit that simul- taneously only a small amount of scientific research is devoted towards understanding the before-mentioned peculiarities of RBSOs as a subgroup. Thus, the knowledge of factors being decisive for the survival and growth of these firms is still fragmentary or missing at all. In order to shed light on this issue, this empirical contribution provides novel insights about growth factors of RBSOs by analyzing RBSO-specific resources con- cerning the founding team or resources provided by the ecosystem. Against this back- ground, it has to be acknowledged that a firm’s resource base is crucial in developing a competitive advantage necessary to survive and grow. Another important aspect is re- lated to the fact that the available resources at firm foundation have a long-lasting effect on its development and performance (Colombo & Piva, 2012). Hence, this empirical contribution relies on the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991; Barney et al., 2001; Penrose, 1996; Wernerfelt, 1984). This framework allows to generate an under- standing how RBSO-specific resources affect the development of a competitive ad- vantage in order to survive and grow.