A Conceptual Framework of the Relationship between Institutional Framing and Innovativeness

A Conceptual Framework of the Relationship between Institutional Framing and Innovativeness

Anna Szopa (Jagiellonian University, Poland) and Justyna Bandola (Jagiellonian University, Poland)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8487-4.ch005


This chapter's objective is to analyze the institutional networks of the spin-off companies. To meet this objective cases of three universities are being evaluated and compared. The comparison of cases from the USA, Denmark and South Korea suggests that the institutional network has a significant impact on the development of the spin-off company. The role of different agents (for example universities) change with time during different stages of the development of the spin-off. The study suggests that there are certain similarities between different institutional networks, including the dependence on context, importance of intermediaries and similar roles of the institutions within the networks.
Chapter Preview


University spin-off companies are an important part of the new economy, as are the makers of the latest technologies and create new sectors of production. University spin-off company is a complex and multi-stage project aimed at transforming existing knowledge into an innovative product to meet the needs of the market, it require specific resource configuration, skills and network. The concept of university spin-offs refers to the transfer of knowledge and technology in the context of research and development projects. University Spin-Off companies (USOs). Pirnay, Surlemont, and Nlemvo (2003) define these generically as “New firms related to exploit commercially some knowledge, technology or research results developed within a university” (p. 356). University spin-off companies create knowledge -pool - provide organizational bridges between local businesses and universities. Roberts and Malone (1996) created organizational models put forward to describe spinoff formation process based on the individuals and processes involved put forward five alternative structural models involving four principal groups:

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: