Spin-out management: theory and practice

Jagersma, P.K.; Gorp, Désirée van

doi:10.1016/s0007-6813(03)00005-3

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Professional practice firms may follow this trajectory where some of the partners may establish a new start-up practice affiliated with the original firm. Jagersma and Van Gorp (2003) describe successful managed spin-out strategies by a Dutch professional service firm. In this case, the firm clusters spin-outs into a separate enterprise unit to avoid the new enterprises cannibalising the established business.…”

Section: A New Conceptual Model Of Boards In Transitioning Firmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

SME growth trajectories, transitions and board role portfolios: A critical review and integrative model

Ingley

Khlif²,

Karoui³

2016

International Small Business Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a novel framework integrating a dynamic states approach to firm growth and a portfolio perspective of board roles. In our framework we highlight four typical firm growth states aligned with primary board roles to guide firms effectively through the transitions associated with each state to reach a new equilibrium. The particular contribution of our framework is that it takes SME heterogeneity into account, while capturing the dynamic nature of these states which are reached along non-linear, non-sequential and non-deterministic transitional pathways, as well as incorporating reverse and counterintuitive trajectories between states. KeywordsTransitions, SMEs, board role portfolio, dynamic states 2 IntroductionA large and growing literature relates to the governance of small and medium firms (SMEs), with extensive debate over the value and contribution of boards of directors and their roles in this context (Boxer et al., 2016;Gnan et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2014). Much of this debate considers board value from a static perspective. However, the question of board value and contribution is more complex when considered in circumstances of dynamic change. Recent studies have attempted to address this question by researching board roles in conjunction with small firm growth paths and the changes experienced over the course of their existence (Bonn and Pettigrew, 2009;Filatotchev et al., 2006;Perrault and McHugh, 2015).Two key issues arise from this debate. The first issue relates to an almost exclusive use of life cycle models to match board roles with SME growth patterns (Bonn and Pettigrew, 2009;Lynall et al., 2003) and transitions accompanying growth (Filatotchev et al., 2006;Perrault and McHugh, 2015). The focus on growth and life cycles implies unidirectional, deterministic patterns of development and ignores the complex realities that most firms encounter, such as erratic growth, turnaround situations and reversals due to decline or other negative impacts (Perrault and McHugh, 2015). The second issue concerns the highly heterogeneous and dynamic nature of SMEs (Delmar et al., 2003;Empson, 2010;Phelps et al., 2007), making it difficult to encapsulate theoretically their governance needs in a comprehensive model. 3These issues indicate the need for a broader conceptualisation that reflects more adequately the complexities associated with small firm heterogeneity and dynamics, in addressing the question of how SME boards can add strategic value. The novel framework we develop in this paper provides a more complete specification of both board and firm characteristics associated with transitional dynamics through growth and transformation.While recognizing the overlap of board roles, as well as the need for boards to perform more than a single role, our model highlights the most valuable board role for each transition we depict. To ground our framework, we review and build on two streams of literature relating to board roles in smaller firms, and SME growth and development models.Nume...

show abstract

Section: A New Conceptual Model Of Boards In Transitioning Firmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

SME growth trajectories, transitions and board role portfolios: A critical review and integrative model

Ingley

Khlif²,

Karoui³

2016

International Small Business Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of redundant capacities or non-core activities (e.g. after a merger of two companies), a spin-out can be used to reduce capacities and costs as an alternative to closing or selling the unit (Jagersma and van Gorp, 2003;Bergh and Lim, 2008). Another reason could be the reduction of capital requirements, if R&D projects are not in the strategic focus of a company (Chemmanur and Yan, 2004).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is important as there are often innovation hurdles in companies with established structures, like Corporate research and development spin-outs bureaucratic thinking, fear of cannibalism or the well-known not-invented-here syndrome. R&D spinouts can overcome these hurdles through their different cultures (Jagersma and van Gorp, 2003) and can more easily pick up external impulses and serve as a mechanism to explore revolutionary ideas in a setting apart from mainstream business (Parhankangas and Arenius, 2003). For example, competencies from other companies or top-class scientists from universities and research institutions can be engaged to form excellent teams.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasons for corporate research and development spin‐outs – the chemical and pharmaceutical industry as example

Festel

2014

R & D Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spin‐out of research and development (R&D) activities from established companies has increased during recent years. The reasons for realising corporate spin‐outs, especially regarding the involvement of financial investors, were investigated based on 30 European case studies within the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. The reasons can be categorised into two groups: an investment and a divestment rationale. Whereas the chemical industry uses both rationales, there are only divestment cases in the pharmaceutical industry. The investment cases within the chemical industry show that R&D spin‐outs can make an important contribution towards the flexibilisation and performance improvement of a company's internal R&D. The divestment cases show that R&D spin‐outs can be a suitable possibility to continue promising R&D activities. The survival rate of the analysed spin‐outs is high and numerous new jobs have been created in the past years, especially in pharmaceutical spin‐outs.

show abstract

“…There are often innovation hurdles in companies with established structures, like bureaucratic thinking, fear of cannibalism or the well-known not invented here syndrome. R&D spin-outs can overcome these hurdles through their different cultures (Bergh and Lim 2008;Jagersma and van Grop 2003). They can more easily pick up external impulses and serve as a mechanism to explore revolutionary ideas in a setting apart from mainstream business (Jagersma and van Grop 2003;Parhankangas and Arenius 2003).…”

Section: Corporate Spin-outsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach

Festel

2012

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a rule, a technology transfer gap exists between research and development and the commercialisation of the results. This article investigates the role of new ventures for technology transfer from universities and research institutions as well as between or within companies to close this gap. Based on case studies in Germany and Switzerland, different examples of this technology transfer approach have been analysed. Academic spin-offs can help to transfer technology from universities and research institutions to industry especially if there is the need for additional funding to further develop the technology. Corporate spin-outs can be used for technology transfer between companies as an alternative to closing operations should these no longer fit into the parent organisation. Internal start-ups were identified as a new approach for company internal technology transfer from research departments to business units focused on commercial operations to overcome innovation barriers within companies.

show abstract

Spin-out management: theory and practice

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

SME growth trajectories, transitions and board role portfolios: A critical review and integrative model

SME growth trajectories, transitions and board role portfolios: A critical review and integrative model

Reasons for corporate research and development spin‐outs – the chemical and pharmaceutical industry as example

Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About