Spin-off formation across Europe
description
Transcript of Spin-off formation across Europe
-3 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
Data sources available at the European Commission
• Under the form of studies– DG Enterprise (formerly DG XIII)
• EIMS 98/176 -- Corporate Venturing in Europe
• EIMS 98/177 -- Growth paths of NTBF’s
– DG III - Industry• IPTS -- Corporate spin-offs
– DG XII - Technology• SEISTI 99/*** -- study on the quantification of
spin-offs
-4 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
• Under the form of data sources– CORDIS - AMPERE– Data on all participators in the FP’s– Problems
• definition of SME
• small part of the phenomenon
-5 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
Definitional problems
• Institutional spin-offs– Research Organisations– International Organisations
• University based spin-offs
• Corporate spin-offs– MBO’s– Research Based spin-offs
-6 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
Research based Spin-offs?
Initiative of researcher
Initiative ofentrepreneur
Student
Push spin-off Pull spin-off
A. C.
B.
Based on Surlemont et al. (1999)
-7 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
Example on Belgian data
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Number
KU
L
UL
G
RU
G
UC
L
VU
B
Imec
UL
B
LU
C
Nam
ur
VIB
Gem
blou
x
UA
University
-8 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
Why data are biased?
• Universities use “spin-off” data as negotiation/promotion material
• Overlap between cited spin-offs (eg. IMEC-KUL in Belgium)
• Complexity of the phenomenon– Longitudinal variation– Confusion about the definition (see previous)
-9 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
0
5
10
15
20
Number
University of Ghent
Total
Real spin offs
Spin-offs as promotional material
-10 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Year
Percentage
Moving average of spin-offsfounded per year
Spin-off generations in Europe
-11 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
History of spin-offs
• First generation spin-offs (till the late eighties)
– most companies follow the traditional SME model– those that do not have a direct international link– entrepreneurs are “normally” international business
people– few of these companies (10-20%) are growth oriented– they have different organisational models
• biotech companies go into diagnostics, bulk chemicals, ...
-12 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
• Second generation of spin-offs (late eighties-mid nineties)
– Legitimacy of VC backed firms as organisational form
– Publicly financed VC funds– Private/Public initiatives (electronic markets)– Science Parks– Incubator Centers– Creation of second generation start-ups– Not very much changes for the early years
-13 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
• Third generation start-ups (mid-90s - now)
– various seed capital funds are formed• France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany
– universities become interested in the phenomenon
– paradox of money
– no real coaching
-14 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
> 40 mio start capitalexperienced product managerprofessional interdisciplinary boardclear product market
5-15 mio start capitalFounder = managerNo clear product market
BIG
SMALL
Technical uncertainty prevails
Market uncertainty prevails
RESOURCE BASED THEORY
Consulting Focus
R&D Focus
Value Creation
Contract R&D
Learning driven
Sales driven
Become a big project
Become acquired
Become acquired
Become a big project
First to market
Market creation
-15 -© Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse
Conclusions
• The role of seed capital/funds?
• The role of intermediaries revisited?
• Spin-offs as a sub-population among the high tech, potentially high growth companies