Accelerators as a Format of Collaboration with Academia
Determining the role of accelerators in the innovation ecosystem of the University. Study of key aspects of University accelerator programs. An expert view of University accelerators from the point of view of management and project participants.
| Рубрика | Педагогика |
| Вид | дипломная работа |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 10.08.2020 |
| Размер файла | 1,3 M |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
As for selection criteria and program focus, all of five experts, who lead acceleration programs name that crucial criteria is the ability to work and develop project in real circumstances. All inventors and entrepreneurs need to be able to implement their ideas, using existing resources rather thinking on enormous investments or other additional sources, which require significant time to be received. Moreover, all experts highlight that the idea itself costs and contributes nothing. That is why the majority of acceleration programs look for the projects at more developed stage MVP (minimum viable product) or even first sales. As the overall goal of AUTM is quite wide, ambitious and could be hardly measured - to change the world with their members, technology transfer professionals, by driving innovation forward and by developing academic research. This goal is clearly visible through selection process. They are open for participant, having no strict selection criteria. Their members “should fit in real business environment, working with inventors to protect, promote and commercialize their ideas” (Appendix 2). The team of Phystech Start also formulates their goal like to help all those, who want to become technology entrepreneurs to realize themselves and their project, because such technologies may be beneficial to humanity. It is important to highlight that both AUTM and Phystech Start has a kind of humanitarian goal at their goal-settings. The selection to enter Phystech Start also is not strictly regulated. There is a basic screening, aimed at identifying that the project need resources and support, which could be provided through participation in the accelerator. Such selection helps to avoid creation of long expectations among participants. However, as AUTM is targeted at tech transfer professional Phystech Start also formulate their precise focus on technological entrepreneurs, because they have accumulated all relevant knowledge, required to support such initiatives. As for the HSE Inc and Phystech Accelerator, they are more oriented at business rather than science. Thus, the goal of the HSE Inc is precisely determined and could be easily measured - to develop ten thousand new entrepreneurs. Moreover, the HSE Inc team even has a particular model of reaching this goal, covering other factors - “a tangible contribution to the country's economy and this is a good ambitious goal for us” (Appendix 3). Hence, the selection progress is very precise in order to select through three stages, which projects contributes this goal in the best way. As for Phystech Accelerator all their programs are also business oriented. They select projects with certain level of sales, who have enough money for development and are targeted at the USA market. After observing selection process of all the programs it seems that the initiatives, which are targeted at bringing benefits to society through science development, are open to various project and do not set strict entry criteria. However, the projects that are more targeted at covering certain business goals (not only of a university itself, but in wider perspective - for the whole country or even globally), they have more focused and precise selection progress with almost all parameters being measurable.
As for a goal setting, goals of accelerators, they are usually narrower than their global missions and are more concentrated on development of projects, who work inside university accelerator. The HSE Inc demonstrates the absolute freedom in goal-setting, however it structurally belongs and corresponds to the Higher School of Economics. Such level of freedom allow the accelerator team to “select projects and within the framework of short-term programs to develop them to a certain stage” (Appendix 3).However, for participants the HSE Inc helps to set goals. The team of accelerator defines the goals and objectives with participants for several periods: for acceleration iself, for half-year and for a year. AUTM being the non-profit community of technology transfer professionals does not set the goals for its members. They are expected to set their goals independently, which should correspond to a university or a research institution they are currently working for. As the goals of AUTM members vary dramatically they all should align with AUTM's global mission and contribute to its intention “to become the leading tech transfer association” (Appendix 1). In PhystechAccelerator goals for participants again vary dramatically. However, they all have common intention that drive progress through the acceleration program - to get the first orders from the USA.Phystech Start as well demonstrates flexible approach to goal-setting of its participants. The goals may varies from sales to investment, moreover, its organizers believe that “it is impossible to set wrong focus or hypothesis. No one can say and determine it until the team itself checks it out” (Appendix 4).
Another important factor that demonstrates that accelerator is the constantly developing environment for all its participants is progress tracking. The HSE Inc as well as Phystech Accelerator demonstrate standard approach to progress tracking. The HSE Inc has weekly and Phystech Accelerator once per week meetings in order to stimulate participants, discuss their progress and provide expert feedback. This is the most standard form of tracking, which is widely spread through various acceleration programs both in academic and business segments. Phystech Start has no such fixed meetings, however they have special tables for participants to fill in their data on progress. However, it seems that for the team of Phystech Start this process is quite formal. Projects, who demonstrates total indifference and fill nothing, are excluded. At the same time, they provokes projects to act as flexible as possible. VladislavZdorenko, Head of development of Phystech Start, states that they push the following idea to all the newcomers - “you do everything by yourself, this is your business and you are fully responsible for it and for its progress as well” (Appendix 4). Although AUTM got more than 3000 active members from more than 800 universities worldwide now they have quite systematized formats that allows members to report on their development and activity. For example, one of the formats are “annual meeting to track the progress, recognize contribution of our members and to stay on the same page” (Appendix 2). The other formats, which are used in the association, are several tools such as the AUTM Learning Center and Salary Survey. In seems that all organizations, which are described in the master thesis, have more or less standardized formats for tracking progress of their participants or members.
As for resource distribution among participants and the scope of these resources, AUTM demonstrates the wider scope of possibilities, since it has no link to a single organization, but unites a number of universities and research institutions. However, the majority of the resources even networking with top professionals experts are hold in online formats. Among the proposed resources for its members there are the following: networking with experts, education and development of skills, targeted at developing competencies of technology transfer professionals, for early-stage and mid-career professionals there is a special mentorship program with regular one-on-one meetings with the mentor, for more developed professional there is an option of becoming a mentor, professional certification programs, the AUTM Innovation Marketplace (AIM), which accumulates university technologies that are available for licensing.Networking is the resource, which can be received from all mentioned acceleration programs. Along with networking start-ups participants in the HSE Inc receive the support from highly professional consultants and distinctive internal community with good and relevant connections are also among top resources. As for PhystechStart the team stresses that provides its participants with the most relevant networking along with help in launching pilots of the projects. Among other opportunities that the accelerator brings there are the following: help to enter international markets, provide investment to selected projects, help to attract investment through relevant external channels.Phystech Accelerator offers unique and targeted resources that are connected directly with current partners of their acceleration programs. Consulting to enter the U.S. market and a flow of potential orders for artificial intelligence from Russian corporations are among the possible options for their participants.
The final point to be considered during analysis of expert interviews, received from accelerator organizers, is a value, which program brings. The HSE Inc increases the number of entrepreneurs and develops innovations within the university; however the mission goes beyond the borders of the Higher School of Economics. AUTM as the association forms value through actions and projects of its members by joining forces. AUTM members “transform ideas into opportunities, resulting in the creation each year of thousands of products, services and start-ups, and millions of dollars in economic development” (Appendix 3). Initial key value of Phystech Accelerator lies in contribution to MIPT's entrepreneur ecosystem. Now the focus shifts towards attraction of R&D orders in order to get additional funding in the specialized laboratory (business informatics). And for Phystech Start the team outlines that the course is very adaptive and flexible that allows to rise the new generation of technological entrepreneurs.
3.2 Insights Based on Expert Opinion of the Start-ups Participants of the University Accelerators
The next stage of analysis is targeted at defining how the start-ups participant manages to multiply their resources by passing through acceleration. In order to follow up this contribution, it is crucial to observe several stages acceleration from the point of its participants, including the following: which factors influence the most on final decision to apply for a program, how they manage to take the resources, how they prioritize them, and what they do to maximize them, how they track their own progress, what commitments they should follow and how goal setting occurs during the acceleration.
To begin with goal-setting, all the participants distinguish goals on acceleration with the goals they have on their project development. However, in some cases, these notions are interconnected. It is highly important to mention that all of the accelerators do not have enough targeted focus on projects in terms of projects' stage. Some of the programs include stage description, however, usually, it has only formal character. That is why all the expert representatives from start-ups mention that accelerators are quite wide and cannot meet all the goals of its participants, especially niche ones. Hence, the major part of all university accelerator can contribute to projects at early stages. But for mid and high-levels start-ups the resources, distributed in an accelerator, maybe a bit irrelevant. Thus, the requirements of different participants and the factors, which are crucial for them to form their decision to apply for the certain program, vary dramatically. For example, ArtemPortnov, Owner, and Founder in Seetap, defines his project as a beginner, so the team the key aim for acceleration is to learn the essential basis on project development. The other goal for his team is to promote the project, using the well-known brand of HSE Inc as well as its connections and access to top-level professionals. Almost the same motives are shared by the next team, led by Georgy Parygin, CEO of Skladobot, so they apply for the program, trying to develop the project wisely by working on it with the experts from the incubator. However, their stage of development is higher than one of Seetap's. Daria Kroshkina, CEO & Founder in StudyFree, agrees and states the same motives for their participation in Phystech Start, but the value of the program lies in its technological direction. In addition, the other participant of Phystech Start MatveyKukuy, CEO of Amixr, also outlines a prosperous environment that motivates to move forward. The most distinctive motive has AleksandrKozhevnikov, Co-Founder and CBDO in Voxi AI, because their final decision to choose Phystech Start is determined by the fact that “there is an option to cooperate with the declared partners” (Appendix 10). Although this option is not typical for all university accelerators, however, it manages to drive the attention of certain participants and creates additional value for the program.
Success factors that contribute to project development through acceleration depend on the level of preparation. For example, Daria Kroshkina and Georgy Parygin stress that in order to enlarge your resources you should be prepared well, and now all the basis of start-up management. However, ArtemPortnov, which has an entry-level project, proves that with no preparation you could also gain some contribution and advantages of the acceleration. He states that it is important to make mistakes and to understand at the early stages that ideas can be changed afterward. Daria Kroshkina also noticed that it is highly important for participants do not be afraid of pushing their own interests and goals and MatveyKukuy also agrees on that point. He stresses that constant communication can help to overcome this obstacle and makes the whole process of acceleration more valuable and open more opportunities. AleksandrKozhevnikov demonstrates a bit polar opinion apart from all other participants and states that it is important not to pay much attention to acceleration, but just develop your own project, trying to attract additional resources whether it is possible and do not distract the project from its strategic goal.
Progress tracking includes both sides: development through the accelerator and gradual development of the project itself. The second side in some cases is increased by the acceleration as well. ArtemPortnov strongly believes that tracking has crucial meaning and is applicable for all participants of the accelerator. Moreover, he highlights that to surplus the benefits of tracking it should go along with constant tracking of the overall project, managed by the founder of the project. However, not all the experts share such an approach. MatveyKukuy and AleksandrKozhevnikov believe that such tracking has formal character and could not bring the real value to the majority of projects. It happens, because originally “the practice that was taken from abroad, but it was not fully transferred to our reality and conditions” (Appendix 10). Both experts state that to be able to work on tracking in its true meaning the team should get finances. Georgy Parygin and Daria Kroshkina mention that the tracking usually motivates the team and helps to support the high levels of involvement rate. However, tracking in its current format is too vast and universal. Unless it does not cover all personalized aims of the project it is impossible to use this tool efficiently.
As a matter of fact, resources, which are distributed through acceleration, are the key factor, which lies in the basis of all goals, shared by participants. As well as organizers of university accelerators, all their participants name the networking as a crucial resource to participate for. Some experts mentioned additional opportunities, they manage to use through acceleration process. ArtemProntov mentions among them a vector for further development for his project. Both MatveyKukuy and Georgy Parygin names highly professional experts both internal and external, which bring additional value to acceleration process. AleksandrKozhevnikov again stresses on particular direction of networking - with corporate segment. Only one of experts name possible investment among top resources - MatveyKukuy. His team manage to attract investment from the accelerator team and meet their future investor during one demo day of their acceleration.
The final aspect to be considered during analysis of start-ups participants is anaccumulated value, received by participation. Both participants of the HSE IncArtemPortnov and Georgy Parygin stress its friendly and warm environment that contributes to projects constant development, to receive valuable feedback from professionals and to find powerful sources of motivation. As for Phystech Start, Dari Kroshkina and MatveyKukuy both mention that the program acts like a perfect starting point. Daria mentions that the accelerator is attractive to entry-stage projects, because of its significant levels of brand awareness and well as possible connections it may offer. Matvey claims that their team manage “to develop their unique success story” through passingPhystech Start (Appendix 9). AlexandrKozhevnikov believes that the background Phystech Start and its knowledge on technological projects make the program perfect place for engineers, who want to learn key entrepreneurial skills to being able to develop their projects.
All things considered, the carried analysis of interviews demonstrates that goals of accelerators teams are usually hardly measurable, but influence the all stages of acceleration process. And it is important to highlight that although participant are taken from the same programs their perception of acceleration, their focuses vary significantly. In addition, there are some inconsistency between the way the accelerator team position their project and the way participants perceive them. The same is for resources. Organizers highlights those opportunities that contributes the most to their mission and goals. However, the start-ups participants mention only those, which are crucial for them. Moreover, they do not even remember the resources they have not managed to receive, even then these resources are the most significant from all (as example - investments, which are mentioned by only one expert, who successful gets them).
Discussion and Conclusion
Since the initial research aim of the master thesis was to analyze key features of university accelerators by reaching the highly involved expert community, it was crucial to explore both sides of the acceleration process: organizers and participants. Several leading acceleration programs were observed, including AUTM, the HSE Inc, Phystech Accelerator and Phystech Start. The carried the analysis did not cover any comparison due to the fact that accelerators as well as incubators were not standardized formats and varied dramatically in a number of aspects: focus, linkage to university, background, mission and target, resource allocation and distribution. However, it was crucial to receiving the expert opinion on two important components of a university accelerator: goal-setting and resource distribution and usage.
To begin with, all the experts and observed literature state that goal-setting is a key stage for any acceleration program. Moreover, the program's mission and goals drive all the processes in an accelerator, having operational, functional, and management impact. In addition, the mission with goals is perceived to create a better understanding for both sides of an acceleration process to access their benefits, received during an acceleration, to adjust their products and to adapt to working process. However, after the carried literature review and the series of expert interviews it seems that organizers of accelerator could not provide full control on goal implementation, since an accelerator is far more difficult structure then it may seem. According to Baraldi and IngemanssonHavenvid (2015) an accelerator is a complicated and holistic structure, in order to measure resource flows inside the multi-dimensional unique model should be used. Although all the experts admit that goal is crucial and lies in all processes inside accelerator and goes beyond its borders, due to the highly dynamic and intensive environment, developed in accelerators, the goal subjects to changes. For example, one of the observed accelerators Phystech Start faced with an obstacle that it could not follow its intention to provide support to all projects, those “technologies are beneficial to humanity”, because of the changing context (Appendix 4). The level of applications had increased considerably, meaning that the program had to use a more selective approach, although it did not correspond to its initial goal and motives. The other example is Phystech Accelerator. After two sets of their program, the team came up to the conclusion that their program was efficient and reached its initial aim of providing participants with relevant expertise and support to launch the project in the USA market with the help from their strategic partners: consulting experts from Data Monsters and leading Russian corporation. However, the understood that “in MIPT these activities do not bring enough value”, they go far beyond the entrepreneurial capacity and ambitions of the university (Appendix 5). Thus, it seems that all acceleration programs tend to be goal-driven, however, there is a number of factors and conditions that distract the accelerator team from the following goal in order to optimize processes. Sometimes external environment and actors provoke the changes in goals by themselves and then an accelerator has to adapt to challenges. Hence, the research suggests that the goal affects all the processes in accelerators was confirmed. However, exceptions might occur due to external constantly changing environments as well as internal factors and processes.
The other aspect of the research aim was to identify how resources are allocated and distributed by a university in an accelerator and to observe, how they are used by participants. It was crucial to define how these processes were connected and if there were integral perception of resources, shared by both sides of the process. Although the majority of university acceleration programs provides access to the same resources, including networking, expertise, education, possibilities for partnerships and investments, and all of them are mentioned on open sources and all participants in most cases have team tracker specialist, who reminds them on resources and suggest the most appropriate options to use, it seems that there is no holistic perception of resource distribution. From the side of organizers among key resources networking and expertise were mentioned. Moreover, while describing distinctive features of their programs, almost all of them mention exclusive partners, including both investors and corporations. On the contrary, all participants mentioned networking as a key source, they managed to use during the acceleration. Although, the majority of them mention the lack of expertise on specific purposes of projects and one expert even claimed that “expertise is not about Phystech Start” and “for mature start-up projects this approach is not enough, maybe for beginners, it would be helpful” (Appendix 8). Moreover, possible investments were mentioned in previous researches and were highlighted by the experts from the university accelerator teams. On the contrary, participants seldom named this option. It did not reduce the value of possible investments for participants, which were extremely important, especially for projects at an early stage. However, it demonstrated that since such a resource of an accelerator as investments is limited and the majority of projects could not receive it due to strong competition with other projects. Some start-ups participants of the university accelerators named attraction of investments as their motivation for applying for the program. Later when we discussed how resource was distributed only one expert mentioned this resource, because his team managed to get it. Therefore, although the university provides a clear and transparent view on resources, provided in an accelerator, there is no integral perception of resources among its participants. Among the possible reasons, various backgrounds, unique development process, and miscommunication could be mentioned. The meaning of acceleration process for participants was precisely formulated by one of the experts, who stated that “an accelerator is a place, where you have a chance to generate your own unique story, some kind of path to your success” (Appendix 9).
Moreover, university accelerators are usually perceived as the crossing between university and business. This format of open innovation underlies in the field of academic entrepreneurship. The master thesis demonstrates that acceleration process goes far beyond this focus. Accelerators contribute significant on economic development and have societal impact. Thus, the categories for analyzing impact of ac acceleration program should not be limited with business metrics, but should cover the wider scope of influence and stakeholders, which receive benefits from acceleration.
Thus, the main answers on the research questions were found. A university acceleration program is a complex structure that cannot be covered and described in simple processes and stages. Hence, the goal-setting process drives the overall progress. At the same time, it may be transformed dramatically due to the external and internal conditions and constantly changing environment. Although the equal and transparent to resources underlies all accelerators, there is no holistic perception of value among participants. Finally, a university accelerator is a format of open innovations that widen the borders of classic academic entrepreneurship and make a significant contribution to other spheres and stakeholders.
Although the master thesis used quite a large sample in terms of a number of experts from a relative niche academic sphere, there are several limitations to be overcome in future studies. The academic entrepreneurship community is extremely united. The experts provided a number of recommended professionals, who might contribute to the research on university accelerators. However, due to their busyness in some cases, it was impossible to reach them to get their insights. In addition, some experts named the USA programs as global standards for acceleration, and the same position could be found in a number of academic papers on the selected field. It would be valuable to include the insights from pioneers that formed this format of open innovation and address not only to AUTM experts, but to Techstars and Y Combinator experts as well.
While there is a range of opportunities for future data collection and the investigation, the key aspects outlined for the following stage of investigation are: to include more programs to develop a full scope on university accelerator as a format of open innovation and to run additional longitudinal research. Longitudinal research may provide the view on how resources, accumulated during an accelerator, influence participants' research and career paths and the program impact for the university ecosystem as well. All these future initiatives require more profound data on university accelerators.
References
Books
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Triple Helix: A Manifesto for Innovation, Incubation and Growth. Stockholm: SNS Press, 2005.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard, the USA: Harvard Business Press, 2003.
Academic Journals
Aaboen, L. (2009). Explaining incubators using firm analogy. Technovation, 29.
Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for Entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics. 23.
Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., Vandenbempt, K., 2007. Critical Role and Screening Practices of European Business Incubators. Technovation, 27, p. 254-267.
Acs, Z., Desai, S., Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, Economic Development and Institutions. Small Business Economics, 31.
Albort-Morant, G., Oghazi, P. (2016). How Useful Are Incubators for New Entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Research, 69, p. 2125-2129.
Algieri, B., Aquino, A., &Succurro, M. (2011). Technology Transfer Offices and Academic Spin-off Creation: the Case of Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382-400. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9241-8
Allen, D.N., and R. McCluskey, 1990, `Structure, Policy,
Services, and Performance in the Business Incubator
Industry,' Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15 (2), 61-
77
Allen, D.N., McCluskey, R. (1990). Structure, Policy, Services, and Performance in the Business Incubator Industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(2), p. 61-77.
Avdagic Z., Bauer, S., Obwegeser, N. (2016). Corporate Accelerators: Transferring Technology Innovation to Incumbent Companies.
Baraldi, E., Ingemansson-Havenvid, M. (2015). Identifying New Dimensions of Business Incubation: A Multi-level Analysis of Karolinska Institute's Incubation System. Technovation, 10.
Bergek, A., Norrman, C. (2008). Incubator Best Practice: A Framework. Technovation. 28.
Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A., Nosella, A., Petroni, G. (2006). Assessing Science Parks' Performances: Directions from Selected Italian Case Studies. Technovation, 26, p. 489-505.
Blackburne, G.D., Buckley P.J. (2019). The international business incubator as a foreign market entry mode. Long Range Planning, 52(1), p. 32-50.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), p. 61-74.
Chan, K.F., Lau, T., 2005. Assessing Technology Incubator Programs in the Science Park: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Technovation 25, p. 1215-1228.
Chen, Y., Lawless, C., Gillespie, C.S., Wu, J., Boys, R.J., Wilkinson, D.J. (2010) CaliBayes and BASIS: Integrated Tools for the Calibration, Simulation and Storage of Biological Simulation Models. Brief Bioinform, 11(3), p. 278-89.
Chesbrough H., Crowther A.K. (2006). Beyond High Tech: Early Adopters of Open Innovaion in Other Indus-tries. R & D Management, 36(3), p. 229-236.
Clark, B.R., Pergamon, B.R., Clark, B.C. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education.
Cohen, S., Hochberg, Y. (2014). Accelerating Startups: The Seed Accelerator Phenomenon. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.
Dee, N., Gill, D., Lacher, R., Livesey, F., Minshall, Tim. (2012). A Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Business Incubation for High-growth Start-ups.
Dempwolf, C., Auer, J., Fabiani, M. (2014). Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics Among Startup Assistance Organizations.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt C., Cantisano, T.B.R. (2000). The Future of the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy 29, 313-330.
Fehder, D., Hochberg, Y. (2014). Accelerators and the Regional Supply of Venture Capital Investment. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.
Franklin, S.J., Wright, M., Lockett, A., 2001. Academic and Surrogate Entrepreneurs in University Spin-out Companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, p. 127-141.
Grimaldi, R., &Grandi, A. (2005). Business Incubators and New Venture Creation: an Assessment of Incubating Models. Technovation, 25(2), 111-121. doi: 10.1016/s0166-4972(03)00076-2
Hackett, S., Dilts, D. (2008). Inside the Black Box of Business Incubation: Study B--Scale Assessment, Model Refinement, and Incubation Outcomes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), p. 439-471.
Jackson, P., Richter, N., Schildhauer T. (2018). Entrepreneurial Innovation and Leadership: Preparing for a Digital Future.
Kalis, N. (2001). Technology Commercialization Through New Company Formation. National Business Incubation Association.
Kanbach, D., Stubner, S. Corporate Accelerators As Recent Form Of Startup Engagement: The What, The Why, And The How. Journal of Applied Business Research 32(6), 1761-1768.
Kazanjian, R. K. (1988). Relation of Dominant Problems to Stages of Growth in Technology-Based New Ventures. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), p. 257-279.
Knoben, J., Oerlemans L.A.G. (2006). Proximity and Inter-organizational Collaboration: a Literature Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89.
Kohler, T. (2016). Corporate Accelerators: Building Bridges between Corporations and Startups. Business Horizons 59(3), 347-357.
Lewis, D.A., Harper-Anderson, E., Molnar, L.A. (2011). Incubating Success: Incubation Best Practicesthat Lead to Successful New Ventures.
Liargovas, Panagiotis & Skandalis, Konstantinos. (2012). Foreign Direct Investment and Trade Openness: The Case of Developing Economies. Social Indicators Research.
Li, J. (2009). Overseas technology incubators for international entrepreneurship: A Chinese experiment. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10, p. 181-190.
Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2014). The Institutionalization of Third Stream Activities in UK Higher Education: The Role of Discourse and Metrics. BritishJournalofManagement, 26(1), 78-92. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12069
Mian, S. A. (1996). Assessing Value-added Contributions of University Technology Business Incubators to Tenant Firms. Research Policy, 25(3), 325-335. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(95)00828-4
Miller, P., Bound, K. (2011). Startup Factories: the Rise of Accelerator Programmes to Support New Technology Ventures.
Oliveira, M. R. D., &Torkomian, A. L. V. (2019). How to Stimulate an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem? Experiences of North American and European Universities. Innovar, 29(71), 11-24. doi: 10.15446/innovar.v29n71.76392
Paul, J., Voisey, P., Brychan, T. (2013). The Pre-Incubator: A Longitudinal Study of 10 Years of University Pre-Incubation in Wales. Industry & Higher Education. 27.
Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Hove, J. V. (2015). Understanding a Nnew Generation Incubation Model: The Accelerator. Technovation, 50-51, 13-24. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.003
Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. (2007). University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9.
Piccaluga, A., Cesaroni, F., Conti, G. (2005). Technology Transfer Offices (TTO) in Italian Universities: What They Do and How They Do It.
Porter, M., Kramer, M. (2011). Creating Shared Value. How to Reinvent Capitalism and Unleash the Wave of Innovation and Growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), p. 62-77.
Rothaermel, F. (2002). Technological Discontinuities and Inter?rm-cooperation: What Determines a Start-up's Attractiveness as Al-liance Partner? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49, 388-397.
Rothaermel, F., Thursby, M. (2005). University-Incubator Firm Knowledge Flows: Assessing Their Impact on Incubator Firm Performance. Research Policy, 34. 305-320.
Rubin, T., Aas, T., Stead, A. (2015). Knowledge Flow in Technological Business Incubators: Evidence from Australia and Israel. Technovation, 41(42), p. 11-24.
Shankar, R.K., Shepherd, D.A. Accelerating strategic Fit or Venture Emergence: Different Paths adopted by Corporate Accelerators. Journal of Business Venturing.
Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D., Link, A. (2003). Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27-48.
Siegel, D.S., Westhead, P., Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the Impact of Science Parks on the Research Productivity of Firms: Exploratory Evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 135-1369.
Siegel, D. S., Wright, M. (2015). Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink? British Journal of Management, 26, 582-595 (2015).
Schwartz, M., Hornych, C. (2008). Specialization as Strategy for Business Incubators: An Assessment of the Central German Multimedia Center. Technovation, 28(7), p. 436-449.
Smith, S. W., Hannigan, T., &Gasiorowski, L. L. (2013). Accelerators and Crowd-Funding: Complementarity, Competition, or Convergence in the Earliest Stages of Financing New Ventures? SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2298875
David J.S., Zhang M. (2012). Introduction: The Evolution of the Incubator Concept
Thursby, J., Thursby, M.C. (2002). Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing. Management Science, 48, 90-104.
Tushman, M.L., &Scanlan, T.J. (1981). Boundary Spanning Individuals - Their Role in Information-transfer and their Antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289-305.
Vanderstraeten, J., Matthyssens, P. (2012). Service-Based Differentiation Strategies for Business Incubators: Exploring External and Internal Alignment. Technovation. 32. p. 656-670.
Woerter, M. (2012). Technological Proximity between Firms and Universities and Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 828-866
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range Universities' Linkages with Industry: Knowledge Types and the Role of Intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205-1223.
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J.W. (2011). The Boundary Spanning Capabilities of Purchasing Agents in Buyer-Supplier Trust Development. Journal of Operation Management, 29(4), 318-328.
Reports and Analytics
AUTM (2013). The AUTM Licensing Survey, Fiscal Year 2012.Retrieved fromhttps://www.rfsuny.org/media/rfsuny/communities-of-practice/ip-toolbox/FY12-AUTM-Licensing-Survey.pdf
AUTM (2018). Technology Transfer Infographic. Retrieved fromhttps://autm.net/AUTM/media/Surveys-Tools/Documents/AUTM_FY2018_Infographic.pdf
Gensler (2018). Annual Report. One community. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gensler.com/2018-annual-report
Nesta (2017). Business Incubators and Accelerators: The National Picture. Retrieved fromhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/608409/business-incubators-accelerators-uk-report.pdf
RVC (2017). Russian National Benchmark 16/17. Retrieved fromhttps://www.rvc.ru/upload/iblock/c78/UBI_Global-Russia-Impact_Assessment_University-Linked_Business_Incubators_Accelerators_EN.pdf
Techstars (2017). Global Startup Weekend. Retrieved fromhttps://global.startupweekend.org/
The Brookings Institution (2016). United States Accelerator Pool by Year. Retrieved fromhttps://assets.entrepreneur.com/static/20160218072722-2.jpg?_ga=2.180664295.191611901.1589307059-1265802597.1589307059
UBI (2018). Best Practices at University-linked Business Incubators and Accelerators. Retrieved fromhttps://ubi-global.com/best-practices-2018/
UBI (2018). The UBI World Benchmark Study 2017 - 2018 of University-linked Business Incubators & Accelerators. Retrieved fromhttps://ubi-global.com/wbs1718/
Webinars & Corporate Websites
Official website of the Accelerator of the HSE Inc. Retrieved from https://hseinc.ru/accelerator
Official website of AUTM. Retrieved fromhttps://autm.net/
Official website of Higher School of Economics. Retrieved fromhttps://www.hse.ru/en/
Official website of the HSE Inc. Retrieved fromhttps://inc.hse.ru/
Official website of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT). Retrieved from https://mipt.ru/events/demo_day_biznes-akseleratora_fiztekh-start
Official website of Phystech Accelerator. Retrieved from https://pha.vc/
Official website of Startech.vc Ecosystem. Retrieved from https://startech.vc/
Appendix 1. Interview with Paul Stark, Marketing & Communications Director, AUTM
1)Who is the target audience of AUTM?
Tech transfer professionals are the key audience. Now AUTM unites more than 3000 tech transfer professionals from more than 800 universities worldwide.
2) Why does membership empowerment stand as the first goal in AUTM's mission?
First and foremost, AUTM is a community of tech transfer professionals. Thus, the Association empowers its members by providing tools and resources to help them succeed. Target audience is closely connected with AUTM global mission. Through academic research our community changes the world and drives innovation forward.
3) Which opportunities does AUTM offer to its members?
AUTM offers a wide range of opportunities, which are useful both for new and veteran tech transfer professionals. Among them there are the following:skills and knowledge through AUTM's professional development courses;networking through online communities and in-person meetings;one-on-one relationships with industry experts in mentorship programs; possibility of being a mentor and share their expertise; development of leadership skills by volunteering with more than 30 committees;global recognition for their expertise through professional certification programs; market technologies more successfully through tools such as the AUTM Innovation Marketplace; andthe TransACT Database of fair market value and contract terms, which allows to negotiate agreements more effectively.
4) Which is the most important resource from all, you have just mentioned?
I think every member can prioritize them by his or herself. Because all of them are valuable and the importance depends on the variety of factors including professional experience, personal goals and the university's goals.
5) How are resources distributed through members?
Transparency and equality are the key values for AUTM. That's why the AUTM website is the front door to the Association's many resources and tools - from finding jobs in the AUTM Career Center to connecting with 3,000 colleagues in the eGroup online communities. Professional development content is delivered through in-person courses and online through more than 90 webinars.
6) What are the commitments of AUTM members? How do they report on them?
More than 3000 AUTM members commit their time and energy as volunteers and subject matter experts. They help promote technology and knowledge transfer around the world, and advocate for strong, robust protection of intellectual property. So there's no some standard form of report, because our members are really unique professionals. However, AUTM is highly aware of its members projects and achievements. At the same time, we are ready to come up with support when needed.
7) How does AUTM track the progress of such a large amount of members?
Members can track their career progress through tools such as the AUTM Learning Center and Salary Survey. The Volunteer Portal provides opportunities to register interests, engage and give back to the tech transfer community. More than 15,000 members of the tech transfer community subscribe to the AUTM Insight newsletter to stay informed on the latest Association and industry news - from key policy issues on Capitol Hill to trending technologies.
Appendix 2. Interview with Sandra Elery, Professional Development Coordinator, AUTM
1) Who is the target audience of AUTM?
AUTM is the non-profit leader in efforts to educate, promote and inspire professionals to support the development of academic research. In other words AUTM is the community of technology transfer professionals, who devote significant efforts to promotion of technology and knowledge transfer around the world.
2) Why does membership empowerment stand as the first goal in AUTM's mission?
Work of our members means improved lives, every day, everywhere. They transform ideas into opportunities, resulting in the creation each year of thousands of products, services and start-ups, and millions of dollars in economic development. Hence, empowerment of all AUTM members with all the relevant resources is crucial for our community.
3) Which opportunities does AUTM offer to its members?
Networking with experts with common interests and huge potential of sharing experience. Education and development of skills, which are necessary for technology transfer professionals. All courses on AUTM platform differ dramatically from fundamentals for evaluating inventions and negotiating license agreements to government reporting within a technology transfer office; from approaches to hiring staff to building strong relationships with stakeholders and faculty. For early-stage and mid-career professionals our special mentorship program may be useful. With the help of experts its participants are going to learn how to transfer knowledge of university technology management, exchange ideas and encourage professional development. There is a regular tracking of progress by one-on-one meetings with the mentor. For more developed professional there is an option of becoming a mentor. Mentors are not just sharing their significant expertise and helping others to determine their career path, they also gain fresh ideas and new thoughts from mentee. So it is a mutually beneficial process. Moreover, AUTM offers its members three professional certification programs: Candidate RTTP for those with at least 6 months of experience in a TTO position; Registered Technology Transfer Professional (RTTP) for experienced professionals with three years or more experience in technology transfer; Certified Licensing Professional (CLP) for technology transfer professionals who are primarily focused on the multi-disciplinary aspects of licensing. I also would like to highlight the AUTM Innovation Marketplace (AIM) - really uniqueplatform. AIM accumulates university technologies that are available for licensing. The marketplace allows universities to automatically upload their available technologies, making it easy for corporations to identify potential university partners equipped with needed research capabilities.
4) Which is the most important resource from all, you have just mentioned?
It depends of the members' goals and theirs levels of expertise. But I can definitely state that AUTM has something special for every member. Thus, our community is constantly expanding with outstanding technology transfer professionals.
5) How are resources distributed through members?
Resources are free for AUTM members. They can source our website to define, which they want to use, or ask directly coordinator.
6) What are the commitments of AUTM members? How do they report on them?
It varies from one member to another. However, our members as a technology transfer professionals should fit in real business environment, working with inventors to protect, promote and commercialize their ideas. Because having an idea, even a revolutionary one, is not enough. AUTM members join forces to make the world a better place by a number of professional activities like prototyping the next life-changing innovation; developing academic-corporate alliances on ground-breaking research projects; forming, incubating, and positioning for success the start-up companies launched annually from academic research.
7) How does AUTM track the progress of such a large amount of members?
We are planning to make AUTM the leading tech transfer association. Some of the benefits like networking could not be measured directly. However, we arrange annual meeting to track the progress, recognize contribution of our members and to stay on the same page.
Appendix 3. Interview with Svetlana Aleksandrova, Head of Acceleration programs, the HSE Incubator
1) What is the target audience of the HSE Inc?
Firstly, we are a specific organization. We are a structural subdivision of HSE, as you know, and are formally called a business incubator, but due to the fact that we ourselves set the direction of our own activities, we also organize acceleration programs. Our goal is to select projects and within the framework of short-term programs to develop them to a certain stage, which is relevant for us, and accordingly, to work with these achieved results, help and lead them, provide support.
We do not focus on student start-ups, we also work with external projects. Moreover, we are open to different projects, regardless of whether they are related to HSE or not. We just have different conditions of participation for them. We do not have any priority regarding student projects. We always look at student projects and help to develop something inside HSE, but I can tell you that in the ratio of external projects to projects with students or employees are distributed like 60% to 40%.
2) How the selection process is organized? Which are the main criteria to pass?
We have formal criteria, which are stated on the website. In fact, we have a three-stage selection. First, the project submits the application itself, we evaluate it, conduct a basic scoring. Some of the employees held it, in most cases - I do it. We look at how much this team matches with the focus of our interests, how much it suits us in terms of stage, focus, level of requests, and most importantly - in terms of adequacy. There are some requests that immediately show that they are not adequate, they are strange, for example, in applications you may find almost "cosmic" ideas like “Death Star” or they are representing those industries with which we do not work for various reasons: somewhere ethical, somewhere we do not have the appropriate competence and expertise. Thus this is the basis for the primary scoring. After the initial scoring, if it seems that the team might be of our interest, we invite them to a short interview. It is conducted either by a member of the incubator team or by our colleagues and friends - our alumni or people who are connected to the HSE Inc. They are well aware of what the program is, who may enter, for who it is more suitable. In addition, they have certain instructions, appropriate competencies, they have enough free time, and our team is small enough. There are sets when you need to review and held interviews with more than 60 applicants and it is almost impossible to cover by our own efforts. Therefore, we attract competent guys, provide them with the necessary instructions, so they are absolutely ready to conduct the interview on their own. All cases are further considered by us- we look at their summaries, then agree and take the team or decline it. After that, we start the dynamic scoring stage, which looks like a program. We have a “sandbox” in our program for the first two weeks. During these two weeks, the teams and the HSE Inc look at each other and we in the dynamics really see how suitable the team is for us, how suitable we are for the team. At the end of two weeks, we decide whether to take the team in acceleration or not. Accordingly, the team for its part agrees or not. And finally, we sign all the necessary agreements with the team.
...Подобные документы
About University of Oxford. The University consists of 38 faculties and colleges, as well as the so-called six dormitories - private schools that do not have the status of college and belonging, as a rule, religious orders. Structure of the University.
презентация [2,1 M], добавлен 11.11.2014University of Cambridge is one of the world's oldest and most prestigious academic institutions. The University of Cambridge (often Cambridge University), located in Cambridge, England, is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world.
доклад [23,1 K], добавлен 05.05.2009Oxford is the oldest English-speaking university in the world and the largest research center in Oxford more than a hundred libraries and museums, its publisher. The main areas of training students. Admission to the university. Its history and structure.
презентация [1,6 M], добавлен 28.11.2012Oxford is a world-leading centre of learning, teaching and research and the oldest university in a English-speaking world. There are 38 colleges of the Oxford University and 6 Permanent Private Halls, each with its own internal structure and activities.
презентация [6,6 M], добавлен 10.09.2014Можливості використання мультимедійний технологій при викладанні фахової медичної англійської мови. Оцінка рівня забезпечення навчальних закладів обладнанням в Україні. Пакети мультимедіа-навчання Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press.
статья [26,6 K], добавлен 13.11.2017Italy - the beginner of European education. Five stages of education in Italy: kindergarten, primary school, lower secondary school, upper secondary school, university. The ceremony of dedication to students - one of the brightest celebrations in Italy.
презентация [3,8 M], добавлен 04.04.2013Study the history of opening of the first grammar and boarding-schools. Description of monitorial system of education, when teacher teaches the monitors who then pass on their knowledge to the pupils. Analysis the most famous Universities in Britain.
презентация [394,4 K], добавлен 29.11.2011The education system in the United States of America. Pre-school education. Senior high school. The best universities of national importance. Education of the last level of training within the system of higher education. System assessment of Knowledge.
презентация [1,4 M], добавлен 06.02.2014Studying the system of education in Britain and looking at from an objective point of view. Descriptions of English school syllabus, features of infant and junior schools. Analyzes the categories of comprehensive schools, private and higher education.
презентация [886,2 K], добавлен 22.02.2012Planning a research study. Explanation, as an ability to give a good theoretical background of the problem, foresee what can happen later and introduce a way of solution. Identifying a significant research problem. Conducting a pilot and the main study.
реферат [26,5 K], добавлен 01.04.2012What are the main reasons to study abroad. Advantages of studying abroad. The most popular destinations to study. Disadvantages of studying abroad. Effective way to learn a language. The opportunity to travel. Acquaintance another culture first-hand.
реферат [543,8 K], добавлен 25.12.2014Преимущества использования мультимедиа в проведении лекции, использование Power Point для её создания. Визуализация процесса обучения и особенности психологии восприятия, лекция-визуализация. Отношение студентов к проблематике обычной вузовской лекции.
курсовая работа [70,0 K], добавлен 26.08.2011Навчальні дисципліни, що складають план підготовки кваліфікованого робітника. Характеристики навчальної теми підготовки кваліфікованого робітника за спеціальністю "Робота зі шрифтами, стилями, кольором в Power Point". Зміст, методи та засоби навчання.
курсовая работа [1,6 M], добавлен 26.06.2013Контекстно-центрированный подход как один из ведущих в обучении иностранным языкам в профильных школах с экономическим направлением. Умения, формируемые на основе использования метода Case Study в процессе профессионально-ориентированного обучения.
дипломная работа [60,3 K], добавлен 26.04.2016История создания и развития программы MS Power Point. Информационные технологии на уроках. Эффективные презентации в учебном процессе. Активизация интеллектуально-информационной деятельности младшего школьника при использовании программы "Power Point".
курсовая работа [687,6 K], добавлен 13.12.2013Обоснование педагогических инновационных процессов. Качественное различие инновационного и традиционного обучения. Применение метода case-study в процессе проведения практики по дисциплине "Региональная экономика" на кафедре "Финансы и менеджмент".
дипломная работа [1,8 M], добавлен 29.05.2013Изучение основных понятий активных форм обучения. Учебное бюро как особая активная форма подготовки специалистов по специальности "Коммерция". Практическая реализация применения компьютерной программы в обучении. Последовательность освоения Sales Expert.
дипломная работа [1,2 M], добавлен 10.06.2013Психолого-педагогические основы применения технических средств при обучении химии. Методические рекомендации к проведению занятий с использованием программы Microsoft Power Point. Проведение педагогического эксперимента: констатирующий и формирующий вид.
дипломная работа [133,6 K], добавлен 17.11.2010Teaching practice is an important and exciting step in the study of language. Description of extracurricular activities. Feedback of extracurricular activity. Psychological characteristic of a group and a students. Evaluation and testing of students.
отчет по практике [87,0 K], добавлен 20.02.2013Характеристика і аналіз використання дидактичних і методичних матеріалів вчителем технології: призначення, функції та вимоги до їх створення (за допомогою засобами програми Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Power Point та графічних редакторів).
курсовая работа [2,8 M], добавлен 21.12.2010
