Dip L Wma Tiki Final

+
SPIN-‐OFFS IN EU-‐FUNDED COLLABORATIVE R&D NETWORKS:

THE MICRO LEVEL
Δρ Ινώ Αγραφιώτη (Αρ. Μητρώου: 10001)
Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση (Οικονομικό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών)
Επιβλέποντες: Καθ. Γιάννης Καλογήρου, Δρ Αιμιλία Πρωτογέρου
12/10/2012
+
Motivation
Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

12/10/12
και Διοίκηση
+ 3
Framework Programmes (FPs): the EU’s

main research funding instrument
  funding distributed through thematic calls on strategic scientific areas to
collaborations composed of a large number of organisations based all
across Europe:
  public agencies,
  research centres,
  higher or secondary education institutions,
  private for profit organisations,
  etc.
2002-2006
2007-2013
2014-2020
Horizon
FP6 FP7 2020
Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

+ 4
Framework Programmes (FPs): the EU’s

main research funding instrument
  Support of multi-‐national R&D networks has taken centre stage of
science and technology policy in Europe in the last two decades, since
  research groups carrying out excellent science were scattered,
  knowledge flows have been inefficient and
  the groups’ expertise was inaccessible to firms.
  To ensure the efficient and strategically smart investment of

Horizon2020 funding it is vital to clarify, based on the experience
from previous FPs
  the role of these firms in the existing R&D collaborative networks
  the effect of the participation of these firms on EU-‐funded research
networks.
  In addition, such a study will also address concerns about the

effectiveness of these networks in creating innovation and enhancing
European competitiveness.
+ The AEGIS project (Advancing Knowledge-‐Intensive 5
Entrepreneurship & Innovation for Economic Growth and

Social Well-‐being in Europe)
  an EU funded research project (FP7) (2009-‐2012)
  Analysis of Knowledge-‐Intensive Entrepreneurship

(KIE) using a variety of research methodologies
originating from a number of different disciplines
  Why study KIE?

  a key socio-‐economic phenomenon that drives innovation
and economic growth
  at the base of the competitiveness of European countries

+ The AEGIS project (Advancing Knowledge-‐Intensive 6
Entrepreneurship & Innovation for Economic Growth and

Social Well-‐being in Europe)
  AEGIS consortium studied amongst others KIE firms
in the context of publicly funded collaborative R&D
networks.
  Deliverable D1.7.4 -‐ Protogerou et al. (2012) – what is

the potential of EU-‐funded research collaborative
networks in promoting and enhancing KIE?
  structural characteristics of these networks
  presence and network role of young firms and
  interaction patterns developed among them and other research
actors.
  Dataset: 289 KIE young firms including 41 spin-‐off companies.

THIS STUDY:
7
in depth analysis of the 41 spin-‐

offs
using the methodology developed in the context of
the AEGIS project
Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και

Διοίκηση 12/10/12
+
The dataset
What do these 41 firms have

in common?

12/10/12
+ 9
The 41 firms analysed here are first

and foremost KIE firms i.e. they are
1.  new firms (<= 10 years old)
2.  innovative in economic terms i.e. able to translate

knowledge into novel goods and services for sale.
  have gone beyond R&D
  focus on novel markets, products, services, etc.
3.  have a significant knowledge intensity in their activity

  novel applications and modifications  specific sets of skills
necessary
4.  involved in market activities to exploit innovative

opportunities in diverse sectors
(Malerba and McKelvey, 2010)
+ 10
…but also
spin-‐offs i.e. firms
that have been
founded by an
organisation with
R&D intensive
activities or
employees of such
organisations
that have
participated in
FP6 and/or FP7
collaborative R&D
projects

+
Methodology

12/10/12
+
Sources of information:
Data were collected/calculated from the following freely
and openly available online sources:
  Firms’ websites
  FP project websites
  CORDIS
  Researchranking.org
  Innovation Union Scoreboard
  European Patent Office
  Linkedin
  Business databases/online articles
 Data was also found in the

Protogerou et al. (2012)
+ Data
Thematic Thematic General type of

Year of Parent grouping of area of Website
parent organisation
primary activity
incorporation. organisation. (high tech, low primary (university, research address.
centre, etc).
tech or KIBS). activity.
Date of last Country and Number, name and

Summary of
update of country IUS information on the Awards. Funding.
Classification the company. founder(s) CV(s).
website.
General founder Short description of Role category in
category Business EU projects (title, Description of KIE EU-funded projects
Products/ time of start and end,
(professor, senior experience role in EU-funded (product provider,
Services. researcher, PhD,
summary,
projects. developer, user
etc).
of founder. participants, subject
etc).
index, etc).
Number and Whether Age at Gaps/ Number and names

Current of unique partners
description patents were participation in Continuous
first project participation in all EU-funded
of patents. granted. participation projects
(Average) Project Number of FP Number and

Number of common
names of
project size subject participations in programme Frequent
participations with
FP6 and/or FP7. Frequent Partner(s).
per firm indexes acronym. Partners.

+
Results

12/10/12
+ 15
1. origin and
inputs
2. Evolution
6. business and
model lifecycle
spin-off
3. knowledge
5. system
4. performance
and innovation
(Malerba and McKelvey, 2010)

16
+
1. Origins and inputs

+ 17
1. Origins and inputs: Country
GERMANY; 2 GREECE; 2
DENMARK; 4
ITALY; 14
SWEDEN; 7
FRANCE; 12
data source: Protogerou et al. (2012)

+ 18
1. Origins and inputs: parent organisation
18 17
16
14 13
12
Number of firms
10 9
4
2
2
0
INDUSTRY RESEARCH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
CENTRE UNIVERSITY
Parent organisation
N=41 / data source: Protogerou et al. (2012)

+ 19
1. Origins and inputs: number of founders

16
15
14
13
12
Number of firms
10
9
6 M.D.P.
MATERIALS DOSISOFT
DESIGN &
4 UJF-‐filiale
PROCESSING
SRL MICROTECH SRL 2
2
1 1
0
1 2 3-5 8 9 PARENT
N=41 / data source: firms’ websites, LinkedIn

+ 20
1. Origins and inputs: founders’ highest

professional achievement
PROFESSOR/SENIOR
RESEARCHER
UNKNOWN 3
PROFESSOR/SENIOR
RESEARCHER + PhD
PROFESSOR/ PROFESSOR/SENIOR
SENIOR 26 RESEARCHER + MANAGER
RESEARCHER
PhD
PhD 6
PhD+MANAGER
MASTERS
MASTERS 4
ENGINEER
ENGINEER 2 UNKNOWN
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
NUMBER OF FIRMS
N=41 / data source: firms’ websites, LinkedIn
+ 21
1. Origins and inputs: summary

  Spin-‐offs based in 6 EU countries
  For 65% of the spin-‐offs the parent organisation was a university (technical or
not).
  Only 2 out of 41 companies arose from R&D intensive firms
  The most common parent organisations were not hubs in the larger network
  Most spin-‐offs were founded by 1-‐5 people (a third of the spin-‐offs were founded
by 1 person) BUT
  2 spin-‐off were founded by as many as 8 and 9 people
  2 were founded by the parent organisation itself.
  For 80% (for 32 out of 40) spin-‐offs the founders’ highest academic achievement
was Professor/Senior Research or PhD-‐holder, which is a lot higher than what
was observed for the larger network
  Professors/Senior Researchers tended to found companies with people of the
same professional status, whereas PhD holders preferred to found the
company with Professors/Senior Researchers
  The founding teams of only two of the companies included someone who has
long business experience

22
+
2. Evolution and Lifecycle

+ 23
2. Evolution and lifecycle: year of

incorporation and age
14
13
12
Number of firms
10 9
8
8
6
6 5
4
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year
+ 24
2. Evolution and lifecycle: age at first

participation
14
12 12
12
Number of firms
10
10
RIBOTASK 4
4
AFFICHEM
2
2
1
0
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Age at participation
N=41 / data sources: Protogerou et al. (2012), CORDIS

+ 25
2. Evolution and lifecycle: age at first

participation vs presence of parent organisation
in the collaboration
5
4
Age at 1st participation
-1
NO YES
-2
Parent organisation in network
N=41 / data sources: Protogerou et al. (2012), CORDIS

+ 26
2. Evolution and Lifecycle: summary

  Most firms under study are between 7-‐9 years old  they have
passed the « dangerous 3-‐year anniversary »
  More than half of the firms (24/41) were 1 or 2 years old when they
participated in their first EU-‐funded project
  Average age at first participation = 2.2 i.e. a lot lower than the 3 year
average for the larger network
   Spin-‐offs join EU-‐funded collaborative research networks a lot faster
than other young KIEs
  2 of the spin-‐off were founded after the start of the first project they
participated in
  Presence of parent organisation in the collaboration does not

speed up the entry of the spin-‐off in a network
  However, for the 2 spin-‐offs mentioned above the parent was present
in the network

27
+
3. Knowledge

+ 28
3. Knowledge: thematic sector grouping
HIGH
TECH
15%
KIBS
85%
Knowledge intensive
business services: 35
High Tech: 6
+ 29
3. Knowledge: FP6/FP7 programme

participation
20
18 FP7-ICT 21
18
FP7-HEALTH 15
16
Number of firms
FP7-NMP 7
14 13
FP7-KBBE 3
12
10 FP7-TRANSPORT 2
10
FP7-REGIONS 2
8
FP7-PEOPLE 2
6
FP7-ENVIRONMENT 2
4
FP7-SME 1
2
FP7-INFRASTRUCTURES 1
0
FP6 FP6+FP7 FP7 Number of firms
N=41 / data source: CORDIS

+ 30
3. Knowledge: number of employees
unknown 18
Number of employees
50-249 2
10-49 11
5-9 9
2-4 1
0 5 10 15 20
percentage of firms
N=41 / data sources: firms’ websites, Linkedin

+ 31
3. Knowledge: founder business skills/

experience
20 19
18 17
16
Number of firms
14
12
10
8
6 5
4
2
0
NO YES UNKNOWN
N=41 / data sources: firms’ websites, Linkedin
+ 32
3. Knowledge: summary
  85% of the spin-‐offs are Knowledge-‐Intensive Business Services (KIBS) firms
  But this is a result of how the original dataset was obtained
  97 FP6/FP7 participations
  Half of the firms participated in both FP6 and FP7
  FP7 participation lower than expected given increased FP7 funding
  Most participated in thematic programmes of
  Life Sciences/Health
  ICT
  Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies
  Number of employees known for only 23 of the companies: most of them had
between 5-‐49 employees
  This is a lot higher than it was thought
  For almost half of the companies (19/41) the founder(s) had some business training/
experience
  This could explain why they did not found the company with someone
specialised in business

33
+
4. Performance

+ 34
4. Performance: survival
40 36
Number of firms
35
30
25
20
15
10
5 2 2 1
0
SUBSIDIARY BOUGHT CLOSED STILL OPEN/
ACTIVE
N=41 / data sources: firms’ websites, business databases/online articles, CORDIS

+ 35
4. Performance: awards
YES 10
NO 31 YES
24%
NO
76%
N=41 / data source: firms’ websites

+ 36
4. Performance: patent applications
YES: 22 12
NO: 19 10
Number of firms
NO
6
46%
YES
54% 4
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627
Number of patent applications
N=41 / data source: European Patent Office website N=22 / data source: European Patent Office website
+ 37
4. Performance: patent application

performance
e.g. STREAMEZZO
12
11
Number of firms
10
8
NEUROKIN,
VIRANOVA,
6
SENSIBLE
SOLUTIONS
4
3 3 3
2
2
0 0
0
0% 1-25% 25-49% 50% 51-74% 75%-99% 100%
Successful applications (% of total

applications)
N=22 / data source: European Patent Office website
+ 38
4. Performance: patent application

performance and EU project participation
10
9
Number of granted
7
patents
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of participations
N=22 / data sources: European Patent Office website, CORDIS
+ 39
4. Performance: summary
  A very high percentage (36 out of 41) of the spin-‐offs are still surviving
  2 have been bought
  2 have become subsidiaries
  1 has closed
  An impressive 10 out of 41 firms have won some kind of National award
  Half of the firms (22 out of 41) have applied for patents
  Given the high cost of patent applications, this can be considered as a high percentage
  Number of applications ranged from 1 to 27
  Only half of the firms that applied were successful in one or more of their applications
  This means that only a quarter of the firms have successfully acquired patents for
their innovations
  Patent number applications and patent number granted is independent of number of
participations in FP6/FP7 projects
  This implies that participation in R&D networks does not increase the firms’
patenting activity

40
+
5. System

+ 41
5. System: participations
16 15
14
Number of firms
12
10
10
8 7
6
6 GAP;
4
4 3
2 CON
0
TINU
OUS;
1 2 3 4 5 22
Participations
N=41 / data source: CORDIS N=26 / data source: CORDIS

+ 42
5. System: current participation
5 1
4 0
3 4
Years
YES;
20 2 6
NO;
21
1 5
less
5
than 1
year 0 2 4 6 8
Number of firms
N=41 / data source: CORDIS N=21 / data source: CORDIS
+ 43
5. System: proportion of lifespan in

participations
1,00
0,90
0,80
0,70
Proportion of lifetime
0,60
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00

+ 44
5. System: numbers of unique partners gained

through EU-‐funded project participation

+ 45
5. System: parent organisation part of the

network?
14
14 13 13
12
Number of firms
10
included in all included in some not included in

projects projects project
+ 46
5. System: frequent partners
14
13
12
Number of firms
10
6
6
2
2
1
0
2 3 4 5
Number of projects
N=26N=22/ data source: CORDIS
+ 47
5. System: summary (1)

  More than half of the firms (61%) participated in 1 or 2 projects
  An impressive 15% (6/41) of the firms participated in the maximum number of projects in this
sample i.e. 5
  this does not conform to the power-‐law distribution predicted by previous studies
  Average number of participations is 2,4 which is significantly higher than the 1,67 for the
larger sampler
   spin-‐off participation is higher than that of other firms
  Given the age range of the firms some overlap was predicted but not as great as that
observed: only 15% (4 out of the 26 firms with more than 1 participation) presented gaps in
their participation (these lasted 2-‐4 years)
  Half of the spin-‐offs are currently participating in projects
  Only for 5/41 there has been 3 or more years since their last participation
   firms seem to be highly dependent on EU-‐funding
  For only 2 of these 5 it can be suggested that they are currently independent of EU-‐
funding
  This dependency on EU funding is confirmed when one looks at the proportion
of their lifespan spent in a project (average: 58% of their lifespan, min= 25%,
max=89%, most 47%-‐73%).

+ 48
5. System: summary (2)

  Most EU-‐funded projects the companies participated in were of medium size:
they were mostly composed of between 9 and 17 participants (average: 14.6).
  Number of unique partners ranged from 6-‐130 partners (average 30) but most
acquired through their participation between 11,5 and 40 partners
  Such a high number of partners could have easily contributed to the high survival rates
of these companies
  In the case of a third of the companies the parent organisation did not
participate in any of the projects
  For another third the parent organisation participated in some of the projects and
for the last third the parent organisation participated in all of the projects
  This could have been chosen so that the same people do not participate through two
organisations or it could mean that the spin-‐off actively seeked participation
indepedently of the parent organisation.
  Out of the 22 companies that had more than 1 participation
  Only half collaborated with the same partner in more than 2 projects
  And for more than half these frequent partners did not include the parent organisation

49
+
6. Business model

+ 50
6. Business model: spin-‐off firm roles

in collaboration
  ‘product’ was used as a collective term for a product,
methodology, process or service. The five roles were:
1.  PRODUCT PROVIDER: the firm had already developed a product that
was considered to be necessary for the success of the project. Thus, in
order for the firm to provide the consortium with this ‘product’, the
firm was added as a partner to the consortium.
2.  PRODUCT DEVELOPER: the firm has skills that will allow the
development of a product aimed by the project, in collaboration with
the other partners of the network.
3.  PRODUCT USER: the consortium develops a product that needs to be
used/tested in pilot studies to discover its applicability.
4.  BRING TO MARKET: in a few cases the role of the companies in the
consortium is to take the tested product and modify it so that it can be
brought to the market as a product.
5.  COORDINATOR: management and coordination of the project.

+ 6. Business model: spin-‐off firm roles 51
in collaboration
25
20
Number of firms
15
10
0
PRODUCT PRODUCT PRODUCT USER BRING TO MARKET COORDINATOR
PROVIDER DEVELOPER
N=41 / data source: firms/EU projects’ websites

+
Number of firms
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
COORDINATOR
1
PRODUCT PROVIDER
9
PRODUCT PROVIDER
PRODUCT PROVIDER
2
PRODUCT
DEVELOPER
Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση

PRODUCT PROVIDER
5
PRODUCT USER
in collaboration
COORDINATOR
N=41 / data source: firms/EU projects’ websites

2
PRODUCT
DEVELOPER
PRODUCT
6
DEVELOPER
PRODUCT
10
DEVELOPER
PRODUCT USER
3
PRODUCT USER
PRODUCT
DEVELOPER
2
PRODUCT USER
BRING TO MARKET
1
BRING TO MARKET
6. Business model: spin-‐off firm roles
52
12/10/12
+ 53
Role example 1: coordinator

UJF Filiale
  The Verimag Laboratory of the French spin-‐off UJF Filiale develops
theory, methods and tools for embedded systems development,
contributing to scientific advancement and industrial progress
  The spin-‐off has participated in five projects, in which it played the
role of the coordinator and/or product developer.
  It has been the coordinator of
  the European Network of Excellence ARTIST and
  Of 2 concurrent EU-‐funded projects:
  ArtistDesign (Design for embedded systems; from 2008-‐01-‐01 until
2011-‐12-‐31) and
  COMBEST (Component-‐based embedded systems design techniques;
from 2008-‐01-‐01 until 2011-‐03-‐31).
data source: firms/EU projects’ websites

+ 54
Role example 2: product provider

PROMOSCIENCE
  Participated in three EU-‐funded projects
  2011-‐11-‐01 Novel biomimetic strategy for bone regeneration INNOVABONE participant 14
  2011-‐10-‐01 Atopic diseases in changing climate, land use and air quality ATOPICA participant 10
  2008-‐07-‐01 Understanding interactions between cells and nanopatterned surfaces NANOSCALE
participant 8
  Expertise in: science communication, technology transfer,

intellectual assets and project management, and ICT staff
 web-‐based tools that allow
1.  assistance to the Co-‐ordinator in preparation and possible revisions of the
Consortium Agreement;
2.  organisation of a communication plan to inform the scientific community about
project goals, development, results and sharing of important information;
3.  production of different communication tools like leaflets, brochures and animated
presentations;
4.  monitoring of deliverables, alerts for the expired ones, direct contacts with the
involved Partners and coherency control through web tools in preparing Periodic
and Final Activity, Management and Financial Report;
5.  assistance to the Co-‐ordinator in his contact with the EC Reviewers and EC Officers

Role example 3: product developer/
+ 55
user
NEUROKIN
  product developer and/or user in the two projects

  PRO-‐KINASERESEARCH (Protein kinases -‐ Novel Drug Targets of Post
Genomic Era) and
  EPICURE (Functional Genomics and Neurobiology of Epilepsy: a basis
for new therapeutic strategies).
  In fact, it seems that the firm’s current success is based on the
work carried out during the PRO-‐KINASERESEARCH project, where
it developed novel kinase inhibitors of both natural and synthetic
origin and proceeded to test them in various model systems for
their therapeutic potential against a range of diseases.

+ 56
Role example 4: bring to market

MICROTECH SRL
  participated in three projects
  INTEG-‐MICRO – New production technologies of complex 3D Micro-‐devices through
multiprocess integration of ultra precision engineering techniques
  ARAKNES – Array of robots augmenting the kinematics of endoluminal surgery
  P.CEZANNE – Development of an Implantable bio-‐sensor for continuous care and monitoring
or diabetic patients
  Participated as a product developer, product user and/or participant
responsible to bring the product to the market.
  Involved in the development of the insertion port of the ARAKNES
operative room in the gastric endoluminal site
  but was also involved in the exploitation of derivative devices i.e. to
promote the use of the surgical robotic platform and to commercially
exploit any derivative device that can outcome from the project.
  An Exploitation Agreement was issued to regulate IPRs, exploitation
rights, special use conditions and relations with third parties.

+ 57
6. Business model: summary
  Most common roles: product provider, developer and

user.
  3 firms had coordinator role despite their small size
  3 other firms were in charge of bring the product to
the market
  Those companies that have product provider role, do
not usually adopt any of the other roles
  Whereas those that are product developers seem to
be also testing the product and/or bringing it to the
market

+
Future
directions

12/10/12
+
Extension
  All 289 firms
  Low-‐tech sector firms
  IUS Modest innovator country firms

+ 60
From the horse’s mouth

a questionnaire is proposed that could be sent to the
spin-off firms with questions on
  Firm’s basic characteristics
  Origins and inputs
  Founders
  Knowledge
  Performance and innovation
  Networking (including motivations)
  Business model

+ 61

e.g.

+ 62

e.g.2

+ 63

e.g.3

+ 64

But also to the coordinators to investigate the more
general question of what exactly are the assets the
firms and the R&D collaborations gain through these
subsidised networking activities.
  What role they want the spin-‐off to play?
  What were the specific skills that they were looking for in the firm?
  Did this role change over the course of the project?
  What were the barriers in collaborating with such a spin-‐off?
  How did the firm get involved?
  Would they collaborate again with a spin-‐off firm?

+
THANK YOU!

Dip L Wma Tiki Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dip L Wma Tiki Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

+

SPIN-­‐OFFS IN EU-­‐FUNDED COLLABORATIVE R&D NETWORKS:

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

Framework Programmes (FPs): the EU’s

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Framework Programmes (FPs): the EU’s

 To ensure the eﬃcient and strategically smart investment of

 In addition, such a study will also address concerns about the

Entrepreneurship & Innovation for Economic Growth and

 an EU funded research project (FP7) (2009-­‐2012)

 Analysis of Knowledge-­‐Intensive Entrepreneurship

 Why study KIE?

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Entrepreneurship & Innovation for Economic Growth and

 Deliverable D1.7.4 -­‐ Protogerou et al. (2012) – what is

 Dataset: 289 KIE young ﬁrms including 41 spin-­‐oﬀ companies.

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

in depth analysis of the 41 spin-­‐

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και

What do these 41 ﬁrms have

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

The 41 ﬁrms analysed here are ﬁrst

2. innovative in economic terms i.e. able to translate

3. have a signiﬁcant knowledge intensity in their activity

4. involved in market activities to exploit innovative

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

 Data was also found in the

Thematic Thematic General type of

Date of last Country and Number, name and

Number and Whether Age at Gaps/ Number and names

(Average) Project Number of FP Number and

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

1. Origins and inputs: Country

data source: Protogerou et al. (2012)

1. Origins and inputs: parent organisation

N=41 / data source: Protogerou et al. (2012)

1. Origins and inputs: number of founders

N=41 / data source: firms’ websites, LinkedIn

1. Origins and inputs: founders’ highest

1. Origins and inputs: summary

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

2. Evolution and lifecycle: year of

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2. Evolution and lifecycle: age at ﬁrst

N=41 / data sources: Protogerou et al. (2012), CORDIS

2. Evolution and lifecycle: age at ﬁrst

N=41 / data sources: Protogerou et al. (2012), CORDIS

2. Evolution and Lifecycle: summary

 Presence of parent organisation in the collaboration does not

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

3. Knowledge: thematic sector grouping

3. Knowledge: FP6/FP7 programme

N=41 / data source: CORDIS

3. Knowledge: number of employees

N=41 / data sources: firms’ websites, Linkedin

3. Knowledge: founder business skills/

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -­‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

SPIN-‐OFFS IN EU-‐FUNDED COLLABORATIVE R&D NETWORKS:

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

  To ensure the eﬃcient and strategically smart investment of

  In addition, such a study will also address concerns about the

  an EU funded research project (FP7) (2009-‐2012)

  Analysis of Knowledge-‐Intensive Entrepreneurship

  Why study KIE?

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

  Deliverable D1.7.4 -‐ Protogerou et al. (2012) – what is

  Dataset: 289 KIE young ﬁrms including 41 spin-‐oﬀ companies.

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

in depth analysis of the 41 spin-‐

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

2.  innovative in economic terms i.e. able to translate

3.  have a signiﬁcant knowledge intensity in their activity

4.  involved in market activities to exploit innovative

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

 Data was also found in the

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

  Presence of parent organisation in the collaboration does not

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

6. Business model: spin-‐oﬀ ﬁrm roles

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση

  Expertise in: science communication, technology transfer,

  product developer and/or user in the two projects

  Most common roles: product provider, developer and

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική

  All 289 ﬁrms

  Low-‐tech sector ﬁrms

  IUS Modest innovator country ﬁrms

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

  Origins and inputs

  Performance and innovation

  Networking (including motivations)

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12

  What were the barriers in collaborating with such a spin-‐oﬀ?

  How did the ﬁrm get involved?

  Would they collaborate again with a spin-‐oﬀ ﬁrm?

Ινώ Αγραφιώτη -‐ MSc Δημόσια Πολιτική και Διοίκηση 12/10/12