Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429 www.elsevier.

com/locate/technovation

Dening and improving technology transfer business and management processes in university innovation centres
Rodney McAdama,*, William Keoghb, Brendan Galbraitha, Don Lauriec
a

School of Business, Organisation and Management, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, Belfast BT37 0QB, UK b Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK c Oyster International Venture Capital Plc, Boston, USA

Abstract The complex and dynamic behaviour associated with technology transfer business processes combined with the technological risk involved in the participating small rms, has led to a lack of business process denition and improvement in this area. Furthermore, the embryonic rms are highly individualistic with differing needs for assistance and development. There may also be a tendency to provide infrastructure and basic services with an avoidance of business process denition and hence, improvement. The aim of this paper is to investigate how potential business and management inputs can be used to dene and to suggest improvements for two key technology transfer business processes, namely the technology licensing process and the business building process. A stratied pathway process mapping approach is used. This research approach includes semi-structured interviews with University Innovation Centre small rms, focus groups with Innovation Centre stakeholders and best practice benchmarking. The ndings indicate that a modied processual approach can be adopted to dene key business processes within technology transfer. Using this approach it is possible to show where business and management interventions can most effectively be deployed in each process. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Innovation; High technology small rms; Business processes; Innovation centres; University science parks

1. Introduction Technology transfer (TT), relating to the formation of New Technology Based Firms (NTBF) in University Innovation Centres within a wider Science Park infrastructure, consists of a wide and dynamic range of activities. For example, there is idea generation (Rothwell and Segveld, 1982 from Oakey), new knowledge creation (Oakey et al., 1996), spin out and spin in companies (Muent, 1999), technology licensing (Jensen and Thursby, 1998), securing Intellectual property (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002), venture capital and funding (Murray and Marriot, 1998), technology appraisal (Mason and Harrison, 1998) and developing business plans and business growth (Keogh et al., 2001; Erikson and Gjellan, 2003). The activities are often complex, interrelated, interdependent and are characterised by being high risk and extremely dynamic in
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C44 28 90 368146. E-mail address: r.mcadam@ulster.ac.uk (R. McAdam). 0166-4972/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2004.08.002

comparison to other types of small rm formation and development. In addition, the TT stakeholders involved come from a range of differing perspectives. The NTBF founder is likely to be a scientist with an overriding interest in technology development with members of the management team being more focused on developing and growing the business (Jones-Evans et al., 1999). The University Innovation centre success measures may conict with those of venture capitalist and other funders, with differing criteria for return on investment (Laurie, 2001). The annual HEFCE (1997) survey on Higher Education-Business Interaction shows that this area is growing rapidly to become the third leg of higher education activity. There was a 25% increase in IP disclosures, a 20% rise in patents granted and a 30% increase in spin-out companies over a 12 month period. Overall, this growth and diversity prompts a number of questions. Are NTBF formations in University Innovation centres so diverse and unique that each company must be

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

1419

treated in a unique manner? Is the only commonality the Innovation Centre and Science Park infrastructure? If these questions are answered in the afrmative then those that seek to help NTBF in this context will have an inordinate drain on resources. Moreover, the NTBFs will have totally uncharted futures, adding to the inherent risks. If some denition and level of business processual clarity can be added, then there exists an opportunity to at least lower the risk to NTBFs by offering generalised progress pathways. Moreover, a more systemic targeting and allocation of business and management resources would lower the burden on the University and Government provisions. There is a paucity of research studies in this area, with many studies investigating business and management activities within this area as distinct from mapping the overall process activity (Evans et al., 2001; Dawson, 1994). The aim of this paper is to investigate how potential business and management inputs can be used to dene and to suggest improvements for two key TT business processes, namely the technology licensing process and the business building process.

2. Embryonic activities and stakeholders within NTBF in university innovation centres The literature and understanding of TT in relation to NTBFs in University Innovation centres and Science Parks continues to grow rapidly as Universities and Governments see mutual benets (Cordullo, 1999). Thus, there is a substantive literature in this area relating to economic issues such as the long term economic benets of Science Parks (Oakey and Mukhter, 1999), the role of the University in the economy through TT (Ferguson, 1995), Government involvement and funding (Westhead and Storey, 1994 from Ferguson) and venture capital funding (Murray and Marriot, 1998). Closely lined to this research are studies, which take a technology perspective to TT (Oakey and Mukhter, 1999). Key research questions in this literature include, how can technology be appraised for funding purposes and is there a method for evaluating technological risk in emerging technologies within NTBFs in University Innovation centres (Mason and Harrison, 1998). The business and management literature on TT in relation to NTBFs, in University Innovation centres and Science Parks is much less clear (Oakey and Mukhter, 1999; Muent, 1999). There are a number of key reasons. First, academics in Business and Management faculties have been marginalised in the TT process. The emphasis is on bioscientists; informatics and engineering where technology based ideas emerge with the potential for commercialisation (Chiesa and Piccaluga, 1998). Secondly, many scientists and technologists entering the eld of TT have an overly simplied view of business and management issues (Brown and Soderstrom, 2002). Thirdly, the need for physical infrastructure and services (i.e. buildings, internet,

heat and light) has obscured the need for more in-depth business and management services and interventions, such as mentoring (Blaydon et al., 1999), which is much needed by NTBFs. Oakey and Mukhter (1999) state that these NTBFs usually have poor business skills and that more training should be provided..to improve the in-house competencies of the founder. Existing literature on business and management in this area, which includes incidental business and management add ons in economics and technology based studies, can be divided into that dealing with key activities in the discourse and that which covers key stakeholders (Blaydon et al., 1999). Some of the key activities referred to, and arranged in an approximate sequential and concurrent order, are technological idea generation, technology appraisal, venture capital funding and funding in general, spin outs, spin ins, technology licensing, joint ventures and business building and growth (Siegal et al., 2002; Jensen and Thursby, 1998). The overriding emphasis on technology and science is the raison detre of TT, however, this approach has led to some of the above activities being reied in the unquestionable nature of rationale science and the assumption that NTBFs will emerge and grow in the Science Park infrastructure. Alvesson and Willmott (1996) indicate that this approach limits in depth critique, development and the infusion of business and management dimensions. Key stakeholders in the discourse are discussed by Evans et al. (2001)). They focus on the need to balance the differing objectives of the various stakeholders and refer to the stakeholders as including Universities, Councils and Government agencies, from a sponsoring perspective. These groups may have different needs based on local, national and international needs (Oakey et al., 1996). Other key stakeholders from a more operational perspective are identied as technology based academics who originate the ideas (Danson, 1996), management teams to enable growth (Atherton and hannon, 1999) and technology assessors to add credibility to funding applications (Mason and Harrison, 1998). The literature also refers to a range of supportive bodies such as knowledge clubs and Inter Organisational Relationships (IORsOakey and Mukhter, 1999; Maniukiewicz et al., 1999) in which NTBFs can also act as brokers of knowledge for each other in spreading knowledge (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997). It is suggested that the development of these literatures have reached a stage where some form of integration in relation to both activities and stakeholders can be achieved. This integration is needed to facilitate best practice benchmarking studies. Mashari and Zairi (1999) suggest that a processual approach is useful in clarifying and transferring best practice approaches. The possibility of using process management approaches for best practice in NRBF development in University Innovation centres and Science parks is further discussed as follows.

1420

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

3. Business process denition and improvement Methodologies that are used to dene and map business processes in organisations, as distinct from functional silos, have developed and matured over the past ten years (McAdam, 2002). These methodologies mainly assume that organisational activities can be discretised or seen as entities and mapped in a predominately sequential order Mashari and Zairi (1999). Moreover, the methodologies are essentially process improvement based in that incremental or radical changes (Reengineering) can be mapped as business processes. Another assumption is that the organisation involved will be a large enterprise (Raymond et al., 1996). Existing methodologies mainly assume a large organisation setting with large-scale resources dedicated to bringing about the large-scale business process changes. The literature contains many studies on process theory, applications and critical success factors, however, they are almost all based on large enterprises in either the public or private sectors. The paucity of research involving SMEs and NTBFs in Science Parks in particular can at least be partially attributed to two factors. First, business process management is still a relatively new management approach and the theory and praxis has yet to fully reach smaller rms from the initial large organisation starting point. Secondly there has been some doubt as to whether large scale Reengineering is applicable to SMEs due to resource constraints (Keogh et al., 2001). However, McAdam (2002); McAdam (2000)) conducted multiple case research into process management in SMEs and found that a more recursive and dynamic approach to business process change was applicable to the SMEs studied. The ndings were consistent with similar studies of Dale (1994); Finer and Holberton (2002), which showed that a contingent and recursive process management adaptation was found to address some of these issues. However, there is a paucity of literature on developing or applying business process management approaches to NTBFs in University Innovation centres and Science Parks. This paucity of research is based on a number of key assumptions relating to NTBFs. First, TT activity, such as the emergence of technology based ideas, technology licensing and spin outs, is assumed to be based on phenomenological perspectives rather than linear cause and effect relationships (Demarest, 1997). Hence it is deemed unsuitable to processual approaches. Second, every NTBF is so distinct that anything other than individually tailored approaches will be unsuitable (Davenport et al., 2002). Third, rapid technology developments and dependence result in business process changes being of secondary importance (Downes and Eadie, 1998). Moreover, the process management approaches considered as inappropriate for the TT process have as their core algorithm, rst, the denition and mapping of the as-is process or current business process and second, the denition and mapping of the to-be process.

This longitudinal order is ineffectual in the TT process as there is an innite range of to-be possibilities due to the variety of NTBF formations. Grint and Willcockss (1995) approach to process management offers a possible solution. In this approach utopian process denition is used rst, where a best practice or idealised business process is mapped as the initial starting point. Second, existing NTBF processes are compared against the best practice solution with a view to improvement or radical change. Thus, the need to map a large variety of as-is processes is alleviated. Grint and Willcocks also suggest that phenomena need not be excluded from process management due to cause and effect paradigms. Conventional process management contents that the constituent process activities are value added operations of a repetitive nature. Grint and Willcockss and Demarest (1997) views challenge this orthodoxy by recasting each of the process activities as key activity points, which are phenomenological as well as mechanistic. Therefore, each activity within a given process can have a degree of exibility and variability. In addition to these modications to process management approaches, a further change is suggested, adapted from Demarest (1997). Mashari and Zairi (1999) suggest that stratifying process work items as a simplifying approach. In the current approach the starting point is knowledge and ideas as opposed to work items. This change is designed to further address the variety of possible starting points for TT related process. In summary, a business process management methodology is suggested that can address the business and management issues and the variety inherent in NTBF formation and development in a University Innovation centre. The key features are: Establishment of to-be or best practice business process. Incorporation of exibility and variability in business process activities. Stratication of the knowledge and idea types and sources which start the processes. Comparison of typical as-is processes from each category against the best practice process and devise improvements or radical changes consistent with the local environment.

4. Research methodology The aim of this paper is to investigate how potential business and management inputs can be used to dene and to suggest improvements for two key TT business processes, namely the technology licensing process and the business building process. The main research questions in relation to the aims of the paper are, how can the modied best practice business

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429 Table 1 Case organisationstechnology licensing business process Company Technology domain Biosciences Biosciences Biosciences Biosciences Biosciences Biosciences Biosciences Best practice process stage Pre licensing Pre licensing Pre licensing Pre licensing Pre licensing Pre licensing Pre licensing Market attractiveness 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 Marketing Technical competence 5 3 5 4 4 4 4 Leadership

1421

Management training and development 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 1 1 1 2 1 2

2 2 1 1 2 2 3

Standard Likert scale is used where 1 is poor and 5 is excellent).

process methodology be used to identify the business and management issues within TT? In addition, what business and management improvements can result from comparing existing NTBFs in a University innovation and Science Park setting, against best practice? Based on the arguments presented in the literature critique and discussion, a two-stage research methodology was adopted. First a best practice study was conducted to identify best practice and denition in relation to key business processes in the area of TT within NTBFs in University Innovation centres. The approach used was based on that of Zairi and Whymark (2000) where a multifunctional team visits Centres of Excellence in the area of study. Visits were supported by follow up calls and emails, excellence identied in the literature and invited visiting experts. Based on this research initial best practice business processes were constructed using the more exible and adaptable approach to process management as discussed above. Secondly, the development of eighteen NTBFs in a University Innovation centre was analysed and compared against the initial best practice business processes to
Table 2 Case organisations- business building business process Company Technology domain Informatics Informatics Informatics Informatics Informatics Informatics Informatics Best practice process stage Spin out, pre business plan Spin out, post business plan Spin out, post business plan Spin out, pre business plan Spin out, post business plan Spin out, pre business plan Spin out, post business plan Market attractiveness 4 3 2 3 2 3 3

identify areas for improvement and to test and improve the exibility and robustness of the best practice processes. The research method chosen was that of an exploratory multiple case study (Yin, 1994). The exploratory case strategy was used as the study focuses on achieving insights based on what and how type questions (Yin, 1994), that can be used to develop pertinent hypotheses and propositions for further inquiry. A multiple case design was chosen, as the phenomena to be studied is likely to yield more compelling and robust evidence than a single case design. The multiple case design used is similar to that suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) where comparative case analysis and replication across the cases (or different experiments), can enable both unique and consensus ndings to be made. 4.1. NTBF cases Two groups or clusters of cases were investigated within the University Innovation centre. These were a cluster of seven bioscience NTBFs (Table 1) and a cluster of seven informatics NTBFs (Table 2).

Marketing

Technical competence 4 4 4 4 4 3 5

General management 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Management training and development 1 2 2 1 2 2 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 3 2 1 2 1 2

Standard Likert scale is used where 1 is poor and 5 is excellent).

1422

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

4.2. Data collection and preparation Based on the recommendations of Easterby-Smith et al. (1993) and Remenyi et al. (1998) data collected for each case included organisational information, archive data, artefacts and semi-structured interviews with each of the Owner/manager (or equivalent title) and the person responsible for operations (in some cases the same person). Each interview lasted around three hours with short intervening breaks. Focus groups were used in a two fold manner. First, focus groups of stakeholders (three off, with an average of eight stakeholders and two facilitators in each) were used to determine different stakeholder voices. Second, action research orientated focus groups (ve off, with an average of four stakeholders and one facilitator in each) were used to suggest potential business and management improvements. The data was then coded in relation to the initial best practice business processes using the less structured, more phenomenology and interpretist process management approach (Grint and Willcocks, 1995) after the manner of Easterby-Smith et al. (1993).

centres of excellence for TT, where best practice processes existed. From these ndings the two initial best practice or idealised processes were derived. The two processes were called the technology licensing business process and the business building business process, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. There are many other identiable business processes within TT, however, these two processes were found to be key processes (Evans et al., 2001) and within the scope of the research project. Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 show examples of key activities within each process in relation to inputs, outputs and routings, resources, events, controls and measures (a modied IDEF approach adapted from Perera and Liyanage, 2001). Thus, exibility and scope within each process activity was preserved. In the following sections the case studies are discussed in relation to the most relevant business process, namely the biosciences cases in relation to the technology licensing business process and the informatics cases in relation to the business building business process. These comparisons reected their stage of development in relation to the processes. 5.2. The technology licensing business process

5. Results and discussion 5.1. Best practice business process management Initially, the literature and visiting experts were used in the iterative construction of a rudimentary version of two key business processes within the TT discourse. Throughout this approach the modied process management approach was used. In parallel with this development the two key emerging processes were compared with those used in The comparative case analysis located all of the seven bioscience NTBFs on the Technology Licensing business process in their stage of development. Four of the seven cases were undergoing some form of technology assessment activity while the remaining three were being evaluated as potential spin outs or other alternatives, as shown in Fig. 1. The bioscience cases are someway behind the informatics cases as bioscience technology and licensing takes on average a much longer period of time than that of

Fig. 1. Technology licensing process.

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

1423

Fig. 2. Business building process.

informatics. Also, the informatics faculty and schools were involved in TT prior to the involvement of the biosciences faculty and schools. The case analysis revealed that the research grant/IP route (Fig. 1) yielded little in terms of commercial ideas that were further developed. A key issue was that the university research grants approval process and database was independent of that of the TT group. This group has similar responsibilities to that of the industrial liaison ofces described by Jones-Evans et al. (1999). Thus potential Intellectual Property agreements in research contracts were sometimes omitted or written after the event from a weak position with research partners. Moreover, some of those doing primary research in the bioscience faculty were distracted by prolonged IP negotiations. These issues

highlight the difculties of introducing commerce within an education establishment. However, research efforts in this area are simplifying this process (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002). The University used outside specialist legal help in constructing the IP agreements which increased the time and cost. However, the volume of work at the time of writing does not justify an in-house legal expert. The main development of the cases came from technology ideas from academics in the biosciences faculty (Fig. 1). Although inuenced to some degree by past experience gained from working on research grant programmes, they were mainly inuenced by the twin effects of technology discovery and awareness of TT. This awareness was created by talks and publications from the TT group. The faculty were proactive in creating conditions

Fig. 3. Technology licensing process: awareness.

1424

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

Fig. 4. Technology licensing process: decision.

and incentives for academics to become involved as suggested in the study of US research universities by Jensen and Thursby (1998). For example, academics seeking to develop their technology ideas are allocated time to do so within their existing contracts. The limited resources of the TT group has resulted in a rather blunt awareness approach without any specic targeting of stratied groups as suggested by Agarwal and Baker (1997). When technology ideas were brought to the TT group or where IP agreements had potential for further development, there was a need for technology assessment as shown in Fig. 1. Mason and Harrison (1998) and Stirling and Mayer (2000)

indicate that this assessment must be of sufcient rigour as to convince venture capatilists and other funders of the merits or otherwise of the proposed technology and the development of the ideas. The case analysis revealed a tendency for idea originators to be over optimistic about the technology development and relatively nave about market attractiveness and their reciprocal marketing efforts. Table 1 shows that while market attractiveness is generally positive to very positive, marketing efforts are on the whole negligible and ineffectual. Oakey and Mukhter (1999) state that many HTSFs perform little marketing because they spend to much of their available investment capital on Research

Fig. 5. Business building process: formation.

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

1425

Fig. 6. Business building process: business assessment.

and development. These ndings are reected in strong technical competence ratings with generally less than positive leadership ratings in relation to overall management (Table 1). In particular the 3 rating for leadership and 2 for management training and development for case 7 was largely due to one of the management team coming from a leadership role in a larger organisation (as similarly found by Bower et al., 1998, in a study of Oil and Gas NTBFs). The singular lack of any meaningful management training and development at this stage is reected in the ratings in the last column of Table 1. All of those interviewed expressed the desire for more business and management help at this stage, in line with a more rigorous stratied approach to technology assessment. These ndings agree with those of Oakey and Mukhter (1999) stated that the complexities of HTSF management suggest that relevant general management training for HTSFs would be benecial. It is suggested that the dichotomy between technical competence and lack of management training and development can be addressed to some degree through business and management mentoring and feasibility studies, described by Erikson and Gjellan (2003) in their study of management and technology idea generation, as incubation and nurturing. In this approach Innovation and Science Park mentors from an approved group of business and management faculty could offer help and advice on feasibility studies, technology assessment and funding opportunities as suggested by Kucki (1999) in relation to a faculty of management consulting group.as company doctor. The best practice technology licensing business process ends with a decision to either reject the proposal or advance it using a number of options, such as: technology licensing,

spin out company, joint venture or an assignment (sale of the IP). This decision should also be linked to a decision on funding for the next stages. The case analysis revealed difculties in harmonising funding decision timings with the technology assessments. Often there were delays, needs for further assessment and a lack of condence in taking the next steps. Furthermore, the assessment processes were somewhat ad hoc and lacked multi-level assessment panelists selected to specied criteria. A key issue at this stage was the lack of process interface between the technology licensing business process and the business building business process. When a spin out company located in the Innovation centre using the ad hoc decision approach, the Innovation centre managers rst contact with this company was being asked to locate it in a module space within the Innovation centre. Often the centre manager would nd himself giving remedial advice on decision criteria that should have been sorted prior to the decision to allocate premises. Thus, his time to help the other companies was reduced. Moreover, he was acting beyond his original role as a facilities manager. It is suggested there is a need to clearly separate the role of facilities manager and that of NTBF mentor. There is a need to involve all key stake holders in a rigorous decision making process before a spin out decision is taken. Similarly, as shown in Fig. 1, decisions on spin in companies should be taken by the same rigorous process (with specied criteria, e.g. Appendix No 2). This approach avoids potential spin ins approaching the Innovation centre manager directly and hence avoiding the rigour of the decision making process.

1426

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

None of these suggested improvements will diminish the importance of technology excellence, the innovation or the creativity involved. Rather, those with technology ideas will see clear pathways and support in commercially developing their ideas (Smailes et al., 2002). 5.3. The business building process The comparative case analysis located all of the informatics NTBFs on the Business Building business process in their stage of development. Four of the seven cases were post business plan assessment and funding (Fig. 2 and Table 2) and hence were in the growth and development phase. The remaining three were at the technology development and business plan preparation stages (pre business plan). The best practice, or idealised, process shown in Fig. 2 is initiated with the location of the spin out company at the University Innovation centre within the Science Park (Fig. 5), where space and services are allocated in return for a contract involving equity, funding and targets. The case analysis revealed that some of the spin outs were formed in the Innovation centre rather prematurely, with technology assessment and funding decisions still outstanding. While there is a need to adopt a contingent approach in what is a very uid and dynamic environment (Reid and Garnsey, 1998), lack of proper assessment can lead to problems with the centre managers time, lack of time spent, and resources allocated, for more suitable cases and prolonged uncertainty for the spin out cases. Following company formation and location in the Innovation centre the best practice process shows the need for concurrent development of technology (usually prototyping) and business plan development. The case analysis showed that, based on high market attractiveness and technical competence ratings, the companies were devoting the vast majority of their time to technology and prototype development. The emergent technology in all cases required considerable development effort as was also found by Reid and Garnsey (1998). These efforts, while contributing to the technology targets within the emerging business plans, unfortunately these efforts contributed to a reciprocal lack of effort in developing the business and management aspects of the plans. For example, Table 2 shows that a high level of market attractiveness for the three pre business plan cases contrasts with low levels of effective marketing at this stage. Similarly, high levels of technical competence contrasts with poor quality ratings for the management team. It is at this stage that University Innovation centres must offer more than premises and physical services. For example the three cases highlighted the need for help in forming management teams, basic marketing, cost control (burn rates), exploring funding opportunities and improving networking (Oakey and Mukhter, 1999). It is suggested that a more integrative package of help and assistance should be given

at this stage. It should include: Innovation centre management help, targeted Government Agency support, and university mentoring in the areas of technology, nance, accounting, marketing and general management. In this situation each new tenant could be given business and management credits which can be exchanged for consultancy help from an approved mentoring team. Further help beyond the credit scheme must be funded by the company or Government (Oakey and Mukhter, 1999). The mentors could receive payment from the tenancy arrangement. The business plan approval decision point in the business building process (Fig. 2) is critical to the success or failure of the spin out company. At this stage the Government Agency and/or other funding bodies such as venture capitalists either accept or reject the business plan or ask for further work. The case analysis revealed that anything other than an acceptance would cause major problems for the companies due to their current and anticipated burn rates. Thus technology uncertainty, lack of management training and expertise (Table 2) and costs made this part of the business building process highly uncertain despite conducive premises and services. If successful at this stage, the spin out progresses, supported by additional funding to the post business plan assessment stage of growth and development (Fig. 2). At this stage the companies have targets in relation to design development, marketing, costs and nances and management. Thus, their demands for effective business and management help are considerable increased. The case analysis of the four companies in this phase (Table 2) show that high market attractiveness is not matched by effective market activity. Although, marketing activity scores higher than for companies in previous phases, the rating are still low. Moreover, the management team effectiveness and training and development received were still rated very low at this stage. These ndings are reected in a number of case features: little market penetration, inadequate management decision making processes and ineffective use of cost and nance systems. In some cases business plan acceptance was considered to be the end of key difculties, rather than the start of more complex development. It is suggested that the range of help offered at this phase is similar in scope to that offered pre business plan. Additional requirements come in the form of the need for increased networking and inter organisational relationships (Finer and Holberton, 2002). One useful approach was found to be the knowledge club where company personnel, academic and guest speakers could exchange help and advice. However, the scale of help needed at this stage was found to have increased considerably, going beyond basic help and advice. Thus, there is a challenge to key stakeholders: how will business and management assistance be offered at this phase and how will it be funded, other than the system already suggested earlier?

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

1427

The best practice business building process shows (Fig. 2) the need for assessment for further funding and continued suitability for the Innovation centre. Although none of the cases in the study had approached this point in terms of suitability for leaving the Innovation centre it is worth noting the criteria involved. The benchmarking and literature studies indicated that an approximate spin in to spin out ratio of 8020% is a typical mix in a science park. Furthermore, the key determinants of companies leaving a University Innovation centre and Science Park are space constraints and expansion. One of the best practice examples found that found that 31% of companies expanded elsewhere on the Science Park, 38% left the Science Park and moved to the local area due to expansion, 16% moved further away and 15% failed. Moreover, the average age of companies on a Science Park are a round 56 years. While these are rough indicators, they at least provide some guidance to Science Park management in ensuring an effective pipeow within the overall Science Park.

6. Conclusions and recommendations The study has shown that TT in relation to University Innovation centres involves highly complex, recursive and dynamic activity combined with a range of diverse and often conicting stakeholders. Attempts at addressing these issues using a process management inquiry are limited by the need for multiple denitions of the as-is business processes due to the uniqueness of each case. Furthermore, rigid activity nodes based on a cause and effect rationale often fail to represent the exibility and phenomena associated with TT activity. This lack of representation has led to problems in dening the need for when, and what types of, business and management help should be given within the TT process. It is not enough to provide excellent infrastructure and physical services, there is a pressing need for systematic business and management assistance. Erikson and Gjellan (2003) state that incubation should be considered as a business and management facilitation method in addition to that of physical premises. A stratied best practice business process management approach was developed. This approach is a further modication of Grint and Willcockss (1995) methodology and McAdam (2002) methodology as applied to SMEs. Rather than produce multiple as-is processes the approach denes best practice or idealised processes. Fourteen cases were compared with the best practice processes indicating areas for improvement for each case rather than changes to an as-is process. Flexibility was included by softening the boundaries of activity nodes within the best practice processes and allowing for phenomenological in addition to cause and effect activity. Thus, a best practice business process management

approach was developed from visits to centres of excellence, the literature and visiting experts, which was used to inquire into the need for systematic business and management inputs within TT. The approach was found to useful and effective in identifying key issues within the study and therefore makes a contribution to extending the usefulness of processual models to TT. Using this approach two key processes within TT were dened, namely the technology licensing process and the business building process. From the seven biosciences cases involved in the technology licensing processes it was found that there is a need even at this technology dominated phase to improve business and management inputs. The cases all indicted the need for more help in relation to business feasibility studies involving basic marketing, costing, management and nancing. These inputs could help to address the over optimistic business projections from technology based academics with relatively little knowledge of business and management principles. In relation to the business building process the cases were found to be in two categories; pre business plan stage and post business plan stage. The pre business plan cases tended to be over occupied with technology development and prototyping to the exclusion of basic business needs. Thus, there was a need for a mentoring process to help in regard to the business and management issues associated with the business plan and how these interrelate with the technology aspects. The cases stated the need for marketing, costing (burn rate) and forming effective management teams. The post business plan decision cases were found to require more in-depth business and management help, beyond that of basic help and advice. These cases stated the need for help with market penetration and segmentation, exporting, management decision making systems and structuring. Throughout both best practice processes the analysis of the fourteen cases showed the need for much more systematic provision in relation to business and management. Thus infrastructure and physical services are not the complete answer. This study indicates the type of assistance needed and the process point at which it is required The structure, content and funding of business and a management are issues that must be addressed to increase the effectiveness of TT. It is suggested that a critical action research study involving attempts to apply such assistance with supporting best practice studies would be helpful.

References
Agrawal, A., Henderson, R., 2002. Putting Patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 (1), 4461. Alvesson, M., Willmott, H., 1996. Making Sense of Management. Sage, London.

1428

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429 marketplace, in: During, W., Oakey, R. (Eds.), New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millenium. Pergamon Press, London. Kucki, Z., 1999. University counsels small split rms in post communist country. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 6 (4), 386400. Laurie, D., 2001. Venture Catalyst. McGraw-Hill, New York. Maniukiewicz, C., Williams, S., Keogh, W., 1999. Partnerships and networks: lessons from facilitating entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 6 (1), 6879. Mashari, M., Zairi, M., 1999. BPR implementation process: an analysis of key success and failure factors. Business Process Management Journal 5 (1), 87112. Mason, C., Harrison, R., 1998. in: Oakey, R., During, W. (Eds.), Stimulating investments by business angels in technology-based ventures: the potential of an independent technology appraisal service New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s, vol. 5. Chapman, London. McAdam, R., 2000. The implementation of reengineering in SMEs: a grounded study. International Small Business Journal 18 (4(72)), 29 45. McAdam, R., 2002. Large scale innovation-reengineering methodology in SMEs: positivistic and phenomenological approaches. International Small Business Journal 20 (1), 3352. Muent, H., 1999. University spin-offs and local business support inrastructure in a post-socialist economy. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 6 (2), 128138. Murray, G., Marriot, R., 1998. in: Oakey, R., During, W. (Eds.), Modelling the economic viability of an early-stage, technology focused venture capital fund New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s, vol. 5. Chapman, London. Oakey, R., Mukhter, S., 1999. United kingdom high-technology small rms in theory and practice: a review of recent trends. International Small Business Journal 17 (1), 728. Oakey, R., Hare, P., Balazes, K., 1996. Strategies for the exploitation of intelligence capital: evidence from Hungarian research institutes. R & D Management 26 (1), 6783. Perera, T., Liyanage, K., 2001. IDEF based methodology for rapid data collection. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 12 (3). Raymond, L., Bergeron, F., Rivard, S., 1998. Determinants of business process reengineering success in small and large enterprises: an empirical study in the Canadian context. Journal of Small Business Management 36 (1), 7285. Reid, S., Garnsey, E., 1998. in: Oakey, R., During, W. (Eds.), Incubation policy and resource provision: meeting the needs of young, innovative rms New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s, vol. 5. Chapman, London. Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., Swartz, E., 1998. Research in Business and Management. Sage, London. Rothwell, R., Segveld, W., 1982. Innovation in the Small and Medium Sized Firm. Pinter, London. Siegel, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., 2002. Support for new technologybased rms: the role played by property-based science parks, in: Quadrio-Curzio, Alberto, Fortis, Marco (Eds.), Complexity and Industrial Clusters: Dynamics and Models in Theory and Practice. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 249266. Smailes, R., Cooper, S., Keogh, W., 2002. Supporting university enterprise: the Scottish and US experience. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 2 (1). Stirling, A., Mayer, S., 2000. A precautionary approach to technology appraisal?a multi criteria mapping of genetic modication in UK agriculture. TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten 3 (9), 3950. Westhead, P., Storey, D., 1994. An Assessment of Firms Located On and Off Science Parks in the United Kingdom. HMSO, London. Yin, R., 1989. Case study research-design and methods, Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5. Sage, CA. Zairi, M., Whymark, J., 2000. The transfer of best practices: how to build a culture of benchmarking and continuous learning-part 1. Benchmarking: an International Journal 7 (1), 6278.

Atherton, A, Hannon, P., (1999), The innovation process in the small business: an analysis of its structure, dynamics and constituent parts, Internal Report, International Council for Small Business, USA. Blaydon, C., Keogh, W., Evans, G., 1999. Managerial skill requirements in R & D based NTBFs. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research 5 (4), 173190. Bower, D.J., Shaw, C., Keogh, W., 1998. in: Oakey, R., During, W. (Eds.), The process of small rm innovation in the UK oil and gas-related industry New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s, vol. 5. Chapman, London. Brown, A., Soderstrom, E., 2002. Start-Up and Equity Primer. Association of University Technology Managers Publication, Yale. Chiesa, V., Piccaluga, A., 1998. in: Oakey, R., During, W. (Eds.), Transforming rather than transferring scientic and technological knowledge-the contribution of academic spin out companies: the Italian way New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s, vol. 5. Chapman, London. Cordullo, M., 1999. Technological Enterprises, Enterprise Formation and Growth. Research Studies Press, London. Dale, B., 1994. The use of the quality improvement framework in Trafford park. The TQM Magazine 6 (3), 4854. Danson, M., 1996. New rm foundation and regional economic development, in: Danson, M. (Ed.), Small Firm Foundation and Regional Economic Development. Toutledge, London. Davenport, S., Carr, A., Bibby, D., 2002. Leveraging talent: spin-off strategy at industrial research. R & D Management 32 (3), 241254. Dawson, P., 1994. Organisational Change: a Processual Approach. Chapman, London. Demarest, M., 1997. Understanding knowledge management. Journal of Long Range Planning 30 (3), 374384. Downes, R., Eadie, G., 1998. in: Oakey, R., During, W. (Eds.), The creation and support of academic spin-out companies New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s, vol. 5. Chapman, London. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., 1997. Enterprise formation and growth, in: Burgoyne, J., Reynolds, M. (Eds.), Management Learning. Sage, London. Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14, 532550. Erikson, T., Gjellan, A., 2003. Training programmes as incubators. Journal of European Industrial Training 27 (1), 3640. Evans, G., Keogh, W., Aldhous, T., 2001. the role of science parks in regional development: a case studythe aberdeen science and technology parks, Proceedings of the XV IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks, Australia 2001. Ferguson, R., 1995. Panacea or let-down? Science parks in the literature. Internal Publication, Institute for Economics, Sweden. Finer, B., Holberton, P., 2002. Incubation: There and back, ideas dont always translate into prots as the experience of for prot incubators shows. Journal of Business Strategy 23 (4), 2326. Grint, K., Willcocks, L., 1995. Business process reengineering in theory and practice: business paradise regained. New Technology, Work and Employment 10 (2), 99109. Hargadon, A., Sutton, R., 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development rm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (4), 716750. HEFCE, 2003. Higher education-business interaction survey, HEFCE publication, Paper No. 11 2003. Jensen, R., Thursby, M., 1998. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university licensing, National Bureau for Economic Research, Working Paper No 6698 1998 pp. 120. Jones-Evans, D., Klofsten, M., Andersson, E., Pandya, D., 1999. Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the industrial liaison ofce. R & D Management 29 (1), 4766. Keogh, W., Stewart, V., Taylor, J., 2001. Developing strategies for growth in HTSFs: looking beyond survival in an increasingly competitive

R. McAdam et al. / Technovation 25 (2005) 14181429

1429

Rodney McAdam (BSc, MA, PhD [Eng], PhD [B & M], MILT) is Professor in Innovation Management at the Faculty of Business and Management, University of Ulster. Rodney has recently received The Distinguished Research Fellowship Award from the University of Ulster. He has a large number of publications (130C) in the area of Knowledge, Innovation, Quality Management, and Business Improvement. He is a regular conference speaker at international conferences and supervises a number of PhD students in the area of Knowledge, Quality and organisational change management. He has extensive consulting experience in leading public and private sector organisations throughout the UK and Europe. Before joining the university he worked in the aerospace industry.

Bill Laurie is a leading Venture Capitalist in the USA. He has an international consulting reputation in the area of venture capital for science parks and SMEs. He has published several articles and a book in this area. Bill has helped the University of Ulster in setting up their science park and innovation centre structure and process.

Bill Keogh (BSc, MSc) is Professor of Entrepreneurship at Heriot Watt University. In this capacity he is also the Director of the Scottish Institute for Enterprise. Bill has published a large number of papers on innovation in science parks and innovation centres and SMEs. He is a regular conference speaker at international conferences and has extensive consulting experience.

Brendan Galbraith is a PhD student at the University of Ulster. He is researching the role of business and management innovation within University Science Parks and Innovation centres. Previously, Brendan spent a number of years working in industry.