Factors Influencing Spin-off
Activities at Universities:
Empirical Evidence from the
United Kingdom
Samuel Odei Amponsah & Jan Stejskal
University of Pardubice
Czech Republic
Outline
• Motivation and objectives
• Theoretical background
• Data and research methodology
• Results
• Conclusions and practical implications
Motivation
• Universities contribute to regional development
(spin offs).
• Spinoffs medium to expedite technology transfer
from universities to firms (Rasmussen &
Wright, 2015).
• spin-offs connect industries with academia.
• Many universities use TTOs, incubators and
science parks to support technology transfers.
Theoretical background
• Spin-offs (Bellini et al, 1990; Conti et al, 2011; Furrer &
Skinner, 2003).
• Support infrastructure promote spin-offs (science parks,
laboratories, incubation facilities, TTO, venture capital (Lockett
and Wright, 2005, Fini et al. 2009; Salvador, 2011).
• Funding influence university spin-off activities (Van Looy et al,
2011; Rasmussen et al, 2014).
• Institutional support (incentives) promotes spinoff activities
(Fini et al, 2009; D’este & Perkmann, 2011).
Objectives
To examine:
the various factors that contribute to
universities technology transfer activities.
(What factors influence universities
technology transfer activities?).
Data and Research Methodology
• Data was from the Higher Education Business and
Community Interaction Survey (HE-BCI) for the
2015/16 academic year.
• The HE-BCI Survey is compulsory for all higher
education providers in Wales and England.
• The PLS Structural Equation Model (SEM) to
analyze and test the hypothesis.
Hypothesis
• H1: Universities that have supporting
infrastructure will generate more spin off firms.
• H2: The availability of research funding supports
universities spin off support infrastructure.
• H3: Incentives support provided to faculty
supports their spin off activities.
• H4: Effective governance contributes to university
knowledge transfer support activities.
Constructs reliability tests
PAT FUN SUP INCEN GOV
Composite reliability 0.954 0.839 0.772 1.000 1.000
Cronbach's alpha 0.927 0.742 0.556 1.000 1.000
AVE 0.873 0.569 0.530 1.000 1.000
Full collinearity VIFs 1.852 1.906 1.295 1.266 1.040
Table 3: Path Estimates and Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis Regression
weights
P values Remarks
H1 SUP>PAT 0.24 0.001*** Supported
H2 FUN>SUP 0.29 0.001*** Supported
H3 INCEN>SUP 0.31 0.001*** Supported
H4 GOV>SUP -0.08 0.16 Rejected
Results of hypothesis testing
Conclusions and practical implications
• The study found out that support infrastructure
contributes to patent acquisition which was used
to measure spin offs activity. It had a coefficient
of (β=0.24). This supports H1.
• H2 is also supported. This study found out that
funding support from the public, EU, universities
and other sources significantly contributes to the
support mechanism and infrastructure (β=0.29).
Conclusions and practical implications
• The study also supported H3. The study found a
significant and a positive effect of incentive
support on spinoff activities (β=0.31).
• The H4 is not supported. The study found that the
number of people that manage or govern spin off
activities does not necessary influence spin off
activities.
Conclusions and practical implications
• Universities can increase their knowledge transfer
activities and spin off creation when they are
provided with the necessary support
infrastructure, financial support, incentives to
support and entice faculty members that intend to
venture into research commercialization as
evidenced in the literature will increase their spin
off activities
Thank you for your attention
ODEI Amponsah Samuel
samuelamponsah.odei@upce.cz
STEJSKAL Jan
jan.stejskal@upce.cz