Article about academic entrepreneurship published

Our paper Public policy academic entrepreneurship is now published in the Journal of Technology Transfer.

Sandström, C., Wennberg, K., Wallin, M. Zherlygina, Y. (2016) Public Policy for Academic Entrepreneursip: A review and critical discussion, Journal of Technology Transfer, doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9536-x.

Abstract follows below:

“This article provides a critical review and discussion of current literature on technology transfer, incubators, and academic entrepreneurship. Drawing upon the notion of robustness in social systems and public choice theory, we review, code, and taxonomize 166 studies to assess the likelihood that these initiatives will generate innovation and economic growth. We find that academic entrepreneurship initiatives are characterized by conflicting goals, weak incentive structures for universities and academics, and are contextually dependent upon factors such as university strength. Our results suggest that there are critical boundary conditions that are unlikely to be fulfilled when universities and policymakers enact policies to support academic entrepreneurship initiatives. Policymakers therefore need to be cautious in the potential design of such initiatives. We discuss how technology transfer from universities might be better achieved through alternative mechanisms such as contract research, licensing, consulting and increased labor mobility among researchers.”

Foss and Saebi highlight our contribution to business model innovation literature

In a recent publication in Journal of Management, Foss and Saebi (2016) highlight our contribution to literature on business models, stating that we emphasize the open nature of the business model construct. The quote can be found here:

“Furthermore, as firms increasingly depend on external sources of resources and capabilities, adopting a network or open system perspective (Ber-glund & Sandström, 2013) becomes imperative. Specifically, as Berglund and Sandström (2013) point out, more research is needed not only on the intrafirm challenges to BMI (e.g., managerial cognition, experimentation) but also on the intersecting and conflicting demands in these network relationships that pose constraints on the ability of the focal firm to innovate its BM and to appropriate value from external resources.”

Intervju i DN om innovationers uppkomst

Intervjuad i Dagens Nyheter om innovationers uppkomst och skillnaden mellan forskning och innovation.

“Det finns en idé bland politikerna om att forskning på universiteten är motorerna i innovationsprocessen. Och visst, det finns exempel på sådana uppfinningar, men kanske är universitetens främsta roll att utbilda innovativa och entreprenöriella människor.”

Länk här.

Varför kan teknik slå politik?

Artikeln “Varför kan teknik slå politik?”, skriven av mig, Mirko Ernkvist, Christofer Laurell och Jan Jörnmark är nu publicerad i Ekonomisk Debatt. Vi förklarar hur och varför nya företag inte bara kan ta överhanden i ett teknikskifte, utan också varför detta sker i de fall då även existerande institutioner talar för de etablerade aktörerna. Mogna företag saknar ofta incitament att förändra institutioner då de redan är anpassade till en given ordning, nya företag har å andra sidan inget att förlora. Att den nya tekniken ibland också kräver nya kompetenser talar för att teknik kan slå politik. Det skapas en vit fläck i vilken de nya aktörerna får växa ohämmat till en början, med hjälp av Moores lag och nätverkseffekter får de nya spelarna att försprång som blir svårt att ta igen.

Artikeln kan läsas här.

Best Paper Award at ISPIM Innovation Summit in Brisbane

Together with my co-author Christofer Laurell, we recevied the Knut Holt best paper award at ISPIM for our paper about Uber and the taxi industry. The article, which is titled “Analysing Uber in Social Media – disruptive technology or institutional disruption?” will be published next year in International Journal of Innovation Management. The abstract can be found below:

“Extant literature suggests that market disruptions take place because of two main reasons: technological disruption or institutional change. In view of these two alternative explanations, this paper aims to explore how the recent rise of the collaborative consumption platform Uber is perceived by consumers and whether this platform is primarily regarded as a technological innovation or as an institutional disruption. Drawing from a dataset of more than 6500 user-generated contents in social media, our findings suggest that Uber is not primarily perceived as a technological innovation, but rather as an institutional disruption.”