1. YannisCaloghirou National Technical University of Athens AimiliaProtogerou National Technical University of Athens Nicholas S. Vonortas George Washington University Workshop on Academic Entrepreneurship and Economic Development Basque Institute of Competitiveness San Sebastian, Spain, September 8-9, 2011

2.  Types of academic entrepreneurship: narrow definition, broader definition  We adopt a broader definition based on company founders with prior exposure to academic research (Ph.D. holders)  Examine new ventures created by Ph.D. holders as a form of Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship.

3.  Do new ventures founded by persons who have been previously exposed to academic research differ in behaviour and structure from other KIE ventures? Our conjecture is that exposure of company founders to university research affects entrepreneurial incentives and behavior in ways that reflect higher levels of creation and use of scientific and technological knowledge and market niche specialization.

4. AEGIS survey data on :  4004 newly established firms (2001-2007)  Ten European countries - France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom - Denmark, Sweden - Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal - Croatia  18 sectors in three broad sector groups - High and medium-high tech manufacturing - Medium-low and low tech manufacturing - Knowledge-intensive services

5. Ph.DFounder (N=323)Non-Ph.DFounder (N=3681) #%#% High-tech4313%37710% Low-tech6119%154142% KIBS21968%176348% Total323100%3681100%

6. Ph.D FoundersNon-Ph.D Founders Sector group#% Mean number of university graduates per firm #% High-tech3990.7%623161.3%5.6 Low-tech5488.5%5.2780752.4%3.41 KIBS20191.8%9.48126771.9%6.21

7. Firm type Firms employing Ph.Dholders (#) Firms employing Ph.Dholders (%) Mean number of Ph.D holders per firm Ph.DFounders 22678.2% 2.17 non-Ph.D Founders 2129.6% 1.84

8. Ph.D FoundersNon-Ph.D Founders Sector group #% Mean number of Ph.D holders per firm #% High-tech3181.6%1.77219.3%2.67 Low-tech4279.2%1.67668.7%1.86 KIBS15377.3%2.3912510.3%1.69

9. Ph.D Foundersnon-PhD Founders Factors Average rating Work experience in the current activity field 4.34 4.31 Technical/engineering knowledge in the field 4.07 3.81 Designknowledge 3.03 3.04 Knowledgeofthemarket 3.98 4.06 Networks built during previous career 3.85 3.73 Availabilityoffinance 3.37 3.33 Opportunities in a public procurement initiative 1.97 2.10 Existence of a large enough customer 3.04 3.27 Opportunity deriving from technological change 3.23 2.95 Opportunity deriving from a new market need 3.42 3.26 Opportunity deriving from new regulations or institutional requirements 2.442.50

10. Ph.D FoundersNon-Ph.D Founders Funding sources Count of firms using a specific source % of firms Count of firms using a specific source % of firms Own financial resources 287 91%330392% Family member29 9%3379% Previous employer14 4%782% Venture capital35 11%1424% Bank60 19%101828% National government or local authorities 31 10%2507% EU funds9 3%1033% Other sources27 9%1504%

11. Funding sourcesAverage % fundingAverage % of funding Ownfinancialresources76.9979.49 Family member34.1043.27 Previousemployer45.3643.94 Venture capital61.1140.73 Bank45.1351.98 National government or local authorities 32.4834.36 EU funds27.7834.51 Other sources62.1157.08

12. Ph.D Founders non-Ph.D Founders FactorsAverage rating Capability to offer novel products/services 3.763.68 Capacity to adapt the products/services to the specific needs of different customers/market niches 4.234.22 Capability to offer expected products/ services at low cost 3.003.29 R&D activities 3.592.88 Establishment of alliances/partnerships with other firms 3.262.92 Capability to offer high quality product/services at a premium price 3.893.72 Networking with scientific research organizations 3.002.18 Marketing and promotion activities 3.223.23

13. Ph.D Founders (N=323)Non-Ph.D Founders (N=3681) Number of firms % of firms Number of firms % of firms Offer standardized products and services at low cost 319.6%60816.5% Offer unique products and services 19961.6%214858.4% Exploit opportunities in new market niches 9328.8%92525.1%

14. SourcesPh.D FoundersNon-Ph.D Founders Average rating Clients or customers 4.404.41 Suppliers 2.823.41 Competitors 3.223.28 Publicresearchinstitutes 2.452.07 Universities 2.672.07 External commercial labs/R&D firms/technical institutes 2.222.02 In-house (know how, R&D laboratories in your firm) 3.843.22 Trade fairs, conferences and exhibitions 3.082.94 Scientific journals and other trade or technical publications 3.212.84 Participation in nationally funded research programmes 2.271.86 Participation in EU funded research programmes 2.111.85

15. Firm typeInnovatorsNon-innovators Ph.D Founders (N=323) 75%25% non-Ph.D Founders (N=3681) 63%37%

16. Ph.D (N=241)non-Ph.D (N=2307) Sector group # of firms that innovate % of firms that innovate # of firms that innovate % of firms that innovate High-tech3786%25868% Low-tech4675%97363% KIBS15872%107661%

17. At first look, young European companies whose founders have been exposed to academic research indicate, in the aggregate, a fair degree of similarity in behaviour to those whose founders have not had the same exposure.  Important similarities between the two groups of companies include: - Market focus and offering novel products or services are the critical factors for creating and sustaining competitive advantage; - Main company strategy is to offer unique products and services followed at some distance by exploiting new market niches; - Clients are the most important source of knowledge.

18. More careful cross-examination reveals for the former group of firms (Ph.D. founders) a picture of: – Higher knowledge intensity and innovativeness, – Increased awareness of intellectual property protection, – Higher dependence on internal R&D and external networks as sources of knowledge, – Extensive dependence on university graduates and post graduates as employees – More reliance on venture capital funding (risk-taking)