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.”