Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No.

1, 2008 15

Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs:

a business model perspective

Stefan A. Sanz-Velasco*
School of Technology Management and Economics,
Chalmers University of Technology,
Vera Sandbergs Allé 8, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden – Suède
Fax: +46-31-772 1917 E-mail: stesav@mot.chalmers.se
*Corresponding author

Rögnvaldur Saemundsson
Reykjavik University,
Ofanleiti 2, 103 Reykjavik, Iceland – Icelande
Fax: +354-510 6201
E-mail: rjs@ru.is

Abstract: This paper investigates how academic entrepreneurs learn to

develop their start-up ventures into viable businesses, and how the environment
influences this learning. Inexperienced academic entrepreneurs likely
need to adjust their business conceptions before these become viable. These
adjustments and the associated learning are captured in an innovative way by
following the changes in business models of eight Nordic academic spin-offs in
both supportive and less supportive environments. The results help
entrepreneurs and policy-makers to identify which learning behaviours may
lead to essential business model changes, and should clarify the complementary
role of learning through experience and through external relations.

Keywords: entrepreneurial learning; academic spin-offs; business model;

learning behaviour; environment.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sanz-Velasco, S.A. and

Saemundsson, R. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs: a
business model perspective’, Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.15–35.

Biographical notes: Stefan A. Sanz-Velasco is a researcher at Chalmers

University of Technology. His research pertains to entrepreneurial learning
within technology-based entrepreneurship. He has mainly attended to the
mobile internet industry and seeks to correlate entrepreneurial learning with
performance, e.g., applying the business model concept.

Rögnvaldur Saemundsson is an Associate Professor at Reykjavik University.

His research is focused on technology-based entrepreneurship, especially on
opportunity and knowledge development in relation to early growth processes
in new technology-based firms.

Copyright © 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

16 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

1 Introduction

Observations have been made on the changing role of universities in society

(e.g., Etzkowitz et al., 2000). In addition to the traditional roles of knowledge production
and diffusion through research and teaching, universities have become more actively
involved in the commercialisation of knowledge. While licensing might be the most
common means of commercialisation for universities, the creation of academic spin-off
ventures has received increased attention lately (Shane, 2004; Powers and McDougall,
2005). Academic spin-offs are seen as important means for enhancing local economic
development, generating income to support research, and encouraging inventor
involvement (Shane, 2004, pp.17–39).
In parallel with the changing role of universities, the role of academics in academic
spin-offs has also changed. From being more likely to have the role of advisors,
facilitating the transfer of knowledge to the new venture, they are today more likely
to be members of the entrepreneurial team; thus playing a greater role in identifying
and developing the entrepreneurial opportunity, acquiring resources, and organising
the venture (Zucker et al., 1998; Murray, 2002). Being able to accomplish this
requires knowledge of industry conditions as well as business and managerial
competencies (e.g., Chandler and Jansen, 1992), which academics and their students are
unlikely to have in the start-up phase (Roberts, 1991; Cooper and Daily, 1997; Bower,
2002; Grandi and Grimaldi, 2005).
To build up the necessary business-related knowledge and competence
requires learning. Clarysse et al. (2000) found that the early stage of development
in research-based spin-off ventures is characterised by this learning, both through
trial-and-error (i.e., experience) and interaction with external actors. They also provide
some evidence that the relative importance of each learning process is dependent on the
nature of the environment. For example ventures without access to external actors with
entrepreneurial experience are more likely to rely on learning through trial-and-error.
Despite the recognition of the importance of academic spin-offs, little attention has
been given to the process through which these ventures are created (Grandi and
Grimaldi, 2005). In particular we lack systematic knowledge of how academic
entrepreneurs learn different aspects of developing a viable business and how their
learning behaviours are influenced by the nature of the environment. The purpose of this
paper is to address these issues by answering two research questions:
• What learning behaviours do academic entrepreneurs apply as they learn to develop
their start-up ventures into viable businesses?
• How are the learning behaviours of academic entrepreneurs influenced by the nature
of the environment?
The research questions are answered through empirical investigation of academic
spin-offs in the Nordic countries. The empirical work is guided by the business model
concept, which is used for delineating various aspects of developing a viable business.
Drawing on ideas about business conceptions, the business model is used as a means to
discriminate between learning within a given cognitive frame, and learning leading to
changes in the cognitive frame. The latter, which is the focus of this paper, is especially
important when entrepreneurs are inexperienced and hence are unlikely to have clear or
viable conceptions of their businesses at start-up.
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 17

The paper is structured as follows. First, a frame of reference is constructed for the
empirical analysis. Academic spin-off ventures will be briefly touched upon before
discussing the business model concept. Thereafter, learning will be elaborated upon,
followed by a discussion of environmental influences on learning behaviours, before
presenting a summary to guide empirical work. The methodology then explained pertains
to a case study approach where data are collected from academic spin-offs in Sweden,
Denmark, Finland and Iceland. While these countries have many political and cultural
similarities, there are important differences regarding entrepreneurial activities, as well as
the direct and indirect mechanisms supporting academic spin-offs; examples are
university support services, seed financing and entrepreneurship policy. Thereafter, data
are presented on learning behaviours leading to changes in business models, and how
these are moderated by the national environment. Finally, conclusions are drawn and
implications presented for academic entrepreneurs and policy-makers.

2 Frame of reference

2.1 Academic spin-off ventures

Academic spin-off venture are new firms originating in universities or other research
settings. There exist a number of concepts and definitions describing the academic
spin-off venture that differ in their scope regarding possible parent organisation, the
origin of the entrepreneurial team and the degree of knowledge transfer from the
parent organisation to the spin-off ventures (see Pirnay et al. (2003) for an overview).
For example, Clarysse et al. (2000) define research-based spin-offs as new companies set
up by a university, technical school or a research institution to commercialise results from
Research and Development (R&D), irrespective of the origins of the individuals founding
the venture. On the other hand, Roberts (1991) defines new technology-based firms as
new companies established by individuals currently, or formerly, associated with a
university or a university research laboratory, irrespective of the degree of knowledge
transfer involved.
This paper focuses on entrepreneurial learning by academic entrepreneurs in
engineering and the natural sciences who have little business experience. The focus is
therefore on researchers and students in universities that are actively engaged in the
creation and development of a new firm based on scientific or technical knowledge
originating within the university. Based on McQueen and Wallmark (1982) we thus
define academic spin-offs as new ventures meeting the following criteria:
• the founding team is composed of university researchers and/or university students
• the activity of the venture is based on scientific and technical knowledge generated
in the university environment
• the transfer of knowledge has to be direct and not through intermediate employment.
Since it is intended to address business-related learning among these ventures, there is a
need for a concept that can capture core business activities, i.e., a focusing device that
allows us to study how the original business conception is developed into a viable
business idea. It is argued that the business model is such a concept.
18 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

2.2 The business model

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) have broadly described the entrepreneurship field
as the nexus of opportunities and the entrepreneurial individuals who pursue these.
A number of authors closely relate opportunities and business models (Hitt et al., 2002;
Ardichvili et al., 2003; Markides and Charitou, 2004). Davidsson (2005) argues that an
elaborated opportunity may qualify as a business model; the latter is also said to create
value through the exploitation of (technological) opportunities (Amit and Zott, 2002,
p.20; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002). It is therefore suggested that entrepreneurs
apply the business model, as a way of operationalising the entrepreneurial opportunity
that is guided by the business conception (Witt, 2000; Sanz-Velasco, 2004). The business
conception pertains to what business to do, how to do it, under what constraints, and how
to work on those constraints over time (Witt, 2000, p.739). The business model
is a boundary object (Star and Griesemer, 1989) that is characterised by linking
together actors from diverse areas, and it has been credited as a useful tool for learning
(Boland and Tenkasi, 1995, p.362). Analogous to Witt (2000), Chesbrough and
Rosenbloom (2002) argue that a venture’s business model plays an important cognitive
role, which also means that it can constrain the venture. The ability to develop the
business model is therefore difficult, but crucial for success. Let us turn to a business
model definition that operationalises the opportunity.
To begin with, a business model definition suggested by Sjölander and Magnusson
comprises the interrelated insights responding at least to the following set of questions:
“Who shall the firm supply with what, and how is this done; how is value
created by the customer and user while the product and/or service of the firm
are being used; how and by what mechanisms shall the firm, in competition,
secure a sustainable and fair share of that value in a way that allows it to
keep cash above zero, eventually make a satisfying profit, in order to satisfy
critical stakeholders and increase its resources and value so that lasting
longevity is secured and its investors’ expectations of return on their
investment are being met?” (Sjölander and Magnusson, 2002, p.5)
To put it simply, it consists of five questions and three prerequisites. As we want to
capture business-related learning, we have been inspired by the definition above. But we
also try to keep our business model definition as simple as possible to allow for
understanding among practitioners (i.e., a boundary object). The best sign of a good
definition would be if it could serve as a practitioner tool, which points to that it could be
suitable to formulate the business model in terms of questions. Following other authors
(e.g., Magretta, 2002; Mitchell and Coles, 2004), we therefore consider the definition as
the set of answers to the following five questions:
• What is the offer to the customer?
• Who is the customer?
• What is the value thereby created for the customer?
• What is the revenue model?
• How is that offer conveyed to the customer, e.g., sourcing, development,
distribution, and technology?
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 19

Except for the revenue model, this resembles Normann’s (1977) definition of a business
idea. As we have now confined our framework to commercial activities for academic
entrepreneurs, let us address the related learning.

2.3 A model of entrepreneurial learning

Even though “research on learning processes in entrepreneurial ventures is still in an
early stage” (Ravasi and Turati, 2005, p.139), entrepreneurship, and thereby venturing,
has been described as a learning process (Woo et al., 1994, p.509; Hill and Levenhagen,
1995; Minniti and Bygrave, 2001, p.7). There is also the widespread assumption of the
positive effects of learning, e.g., that learning increases the capacity to take effective
action (Kim, 1993, p.43). Entrepreneurs’ learning activities are said to emerge from the
reactive or proactive responses to opportunities (Young and Sexton, 1997). Recognising
and acting on opportunities, as important parts of entrepreneurial learning, have
consequently been underlined (Deakins and Freel, 1998, p.150; Rae, 2000, p.151).
Recognising and acting on opportunities has been depicted as incorporating cognitive and
behavioural learning on behalf of the organisation (Lumpkin and Lichtenstein, 2005,
p.460). The entrepreneur tries to coordinate the venture members in this learning process
through the business conception (Witt, 2000), which can be captured by the business
model. In fact, the organisation can be seen as the means to accomplish the business
conception through applying the business model.
It is common to differentiate between individual and organisation level learning
(Shaver and Scott, 1991; Kim, 1993; Crossan et al., 1999). Organisational learning is
envisaged in this paper, while acknowledging that organisations can only learn through
their members. However, it should be emphasised that entrepreneurship almost always
pertains to small organisations, in terms of employees, which is also the case for the
ventures in this paper. In particular it has been pointed out that technology-based
entrepreneurship is mostly undertaken by a team of founders (Cooper, 1986), which can
often equal the entire organisation. Since learning about entrepreneurial opportunities in
practice involves shared processes at group and organisational level (Dutta and Crossan,
2005, p.441), our approach is to extend entrepreneurial learning to encompass the entire
organisation. Thus, organisational learning is our focal interest point.
The two most common approaches to organisational learning are cognitive and
behavioural (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Lumpkin and Lichtenstein,
2005, p.38). It has been argued that organisational learning concerns putting cognitive
theories into action (Argyris and Schön, 1978). The cognitive aspects of organisational
learning are usually discussed in terms of shared mental models or cognitive frames
(Argyris and Schön, 1978; Kim, 1993), which are necessary for organisational
interpretation (Daft and Weick, 1984). Mental models play an active role in what
can be seen and done, making sense of the world, but can also restrict our understanding
(Kim, 1993). Entrepreneurs are said to build mental models (i.e., cognitive frames) as
part of their experimental learning in the venturing process (Nicholls-Nixon et al., 2000).
Organisational learning has consequently been exemplified as the process by which
management teams reshape their shared cognitive maps of the firm, its markets and
competitors (Dutta and Crossan, 2005, p.433). Despite the importance of cognition here
described, it has been remarked that without entrepreneurial behaviour there will be no
new companies created in the first place (Shaver and Scott, 1991), which means that we
need to address behaviour, action and change.
20 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

Change does not necessarily imply learning, but it is noted that the two are frequently
used interchangeably (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). For example Mintzberg and Waters (1982)
argue that organisational learning equals change, and Edmondson (2002) treats the two
concepts as almost inseparable, arguing that “a useful conception of organisational
learning must include change, and thereby action” (p.128). Hill and Levenhagen (1995,
pp.1067, 1071) argue that action is particularly important in entrepreneurship, and
Gartner et al. (2003, p.124) argue that “without action there is no insight”, as a corollary
of stating that “in entrepreneurship, it is entrepreneurial activity that matters”. As a
consequence, entrepreneurial organisations frequently apply enactment (Weick, 1979)
and act intrusively. The entrepreneurial learning generated by this action reduces the
uncertainty present in entrepreneurship (Starkey, 1996, p.1).
Cognition and behaviour are often combined, since “learning is knowledge about
the interrelationship between the organisation’s actions and the environment, as well
as the actions that are taken based on such knowledge” (Kim, 1993, p.42). There is
“an inalienable … interactive relationship between cognition and action” (Dutta and
Crossan, 2005, p.435), which means that “understanding guides action, but action also
informs understanding” (Crossan et al., 1999, p.524). In sum, to be sure to have captured
learning, we want there to be both cognitive and behavioural changes involved.
A common way to approach this is to address different levels of learning.
When shared mental models are developed to potentially affect organisational action,
it is called double-loop learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978), which e.g., pertains
to questioning whether the right actions are pursued in order to achieve the goal
(e.g., the business conception). Single-loop learning on the other hand implies
incremental modifications that improve the efficiency of organising. Fiol and Lyles
(1985) also address different levels of learning, i.e., higher and lower level. Higher level
learning concerns new actions, corresponding to double-loop learning, and a typically
desired consequence is a new cognitive frame. Lower level learning pertains more to the
surface and captures only certain elements and adjustments; it is argued to correspond to
single-loop learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985, p.810). Kim (1993) also dichotomises
between two levels of learning: operational (know-how) and conceptual (know-why).
The former corresponds better to the behavioural and the latter to cognition. While
drawing on Burgoyne and Hodgson (1983), Cope and Watts (2000) slightly differently
depict learning occurring at three levels:
1 learning and change within a given cognitive frame
2 learning and change that enables a new cognitive frame
3 reflection on personal learning.
Level 3 learning encompasses a more fundamental process that is not situation specific,
namely reflection on the personal learning process, which is not the topic of this paper.
Level 1 learning concerns learning within the given cognitive frame, meaning no
significant changes to the business conception. Behaviour can be altered, but it is
rather adjustment, and a typical example would be assimilation of factual information.
Another example could be change that improves the internal processes to support
customer-relations management. It could be argued that “things are done right”, i.e., more
efficient, whereas not more effective (i.e., “doing the right things”). In our setting this
means that the business model remains unchanged, even though minor business-related
changes might occur. It is analogous to single-loop learning, and it is here operationalised
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 21

so that it concerns business-related learning that does not lead to a changed business
model.
Level 2 learning concerns change that enables a new cognitive frame.
The consequence of this cognitive and behavioural change is a change in ways of doing
business (business conception) – being effective and doing the right things, so to speak.
It is transferable from the present situation to another, but is yet situation specific.
Keeping in mind the earlier depiction of the business model as a cognitive frame, level 2
learning is captured by a changing business model. It encompasses single-loop learning,
but also incorporates double-loop learning, due to the change in cognitive frame.
The major difference to level 1 learning is that the learning is manifested in a business
model change.
As this research aims at business-related learning that integrates both cognition and
behaviour, we need a perspective where actions and substantial change can be observed,
while simultaneously suggesting that a change in the cognitive frame has occurred.
This implies that our objective is level 2 learning, and it is argued that it is captured by a
changing business model. The business model operationalises the entrepreneurial
opportunity, is a tool with which we can make mental models explicit, and is an imprint
of the business conception (Witt, 2000). The availability of learning behaviours to fuel
changes in the business model is expected to depend on the environment.

2.4 Environmental influences on learning behaviours

Clarysse et al. (2000) argue from their study of research-based spin-offs in Belgium that
the environment determines the entrepreneurs’ possibilities of learning. Their argument is
based on the identification of three distinctive learning environments which they term
unaware, aware and supportive (see Table 1).

Table 1 Three distinctive learning environments

Seed capital (Experience) Support services (External relations)

Unaware No No
Aware Yes No
Supportive Yes Yes

In an unaware environment there is little interest in commercialisation of research and

lack of funding for research-based spin-offs. Incubation times are long as entrepreneurs
are not able to focus on their entrepreneurial opportunities, taking on various unrelated
activities in order to survive instead. Learning through experience, which Clarysse et al.
(2000) term cumulative learning, is thus inhibited. Secondly, in an aware environment
there is an interest in the commercialisation of research, but few supportive services.
Funding for growth is available, but there are few possibilities of seed funding.
Incubation times are shorter as firms are better able to focus on their core activities and
learn through experience. Finally, in a supportive environment there is strong interest in
the commercialisation of research and there are professional services available to assist
entrepreneurs in evaluating and developing their opportunities. Seed capital is also
available. Not only have firms better possibilities for cumulative learning through
experience on the market, but they are also able to take advantage of learning through
22 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

external relations. The latter learning process, which Clarysse et al. (2000) term
complementary learning, involves learning through actors in the environment, such as
financiers, experienced entrepreneurs, consultants and others. Clarysse et al. (2000) argue
that the combination of cumulative and complementary learning is desirable because it is
likely to speed up incubation times.
The learning processes identified by Clarysse et al. (2000) provide an additional
dimension to our previous discussion of different levels of learning, and help us
understand how the environment influences entrepreneurial learning behaviours that lead
to business model changes. In supportive environments one would expect a wider range
of possible learning behaviours that lead to changes in the business model, as compared
to less supportive environments. As learning through experience cannot be completely
substituted by learning through external relations, the latter is likely to complement
learning through experience. Learning through external relations is also likely to be
especially important in helping entrepreneurs develop viable business conceptions, thus
creating foundations for more effective experience-based learning. Hence, it could be
expected that learning behaviours involving interaction with external actors frequently
cause changes in business models within supportive environments, whereas such
behaviours are not particularly prevalent in less supportive environments.

2.5 The business model and learning in academic spin-off ventures

The frame of reference guiding the empirical investigation will now be summarised.
Academic spin-offs are new ventures meeting the following criteria:
• the founding team is composed of university researchers and/or university students
• the activity of the venture is based on scientific and technical knowledge generated
in the university environment
• the transfer of knowledge has to be direct and not through intermediate employment.
As academic entrepreneurs are likely to have little business experience, business-related
learning is crucial for their success. We capture such learning through the business model
concept. Establishing and maintaining the credibility of the business model in a changing
environment is the central challenge to academic spin-offs (Bower, 2003).
Two dimensions have been identified as characterising the learning behaviours of
academic entrepreneurs as they develop their start-up ventures into viable businesses.
The first dimension describes three different levels of learning identified. Level 1
learning refers to day-to-day learning within a given business model. Level 2 learning
refers to learning leading to changes in business models. Level 3 learning refers to
learning about own learning processes. The focus in this paper is exclusively on level 2
learning, i.e., how academic entrepreneurs learn to create and develop their businesses as
reflected by business model changes.
The second dimension makes a distinction between experience-based learning and
learning through external relations. The former is based on own experience from doing
business, while the latter refers to learning based on the experiences and knowledge of
actors external to the venture. It is argued that the environment greatly influences the
possibilities for learning through external relations. In supportive environments,
academic entrepreneurs are more likely able to complement experience-based learning
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 23

with learning through external actors, than in less supportive. The range of learning
behaviours potentially enabling business model changes is thereby increased.
In the next section we describe the research settings and the empirical methods used
to analyse learning behaviours of academic entrepreneurs and how they are influenced by
the environment.

3 Method

To capture entrepreneurship and organisational learning, the empirical investigation

has been confined to start-up ventures (Gartner, 1988). Given the aim to investigate
contemporary and complex action, the case study approach has been selected
(Yin, 1994). The semi-structured interview was suitable for using the business model as a
boundary object for communication between practitioners and researchers. While the
business model concept helped focus the discussion, the open-endedness of the interview
situation helped the respondents to provide a richer description of changes in business
models and the associated learning behaviours, than would have been possible through
predefined answers. These types of descriptions were needed in order to understand
complex interactions between individuals as well as evolution over time. Below follows
the selection of cases, data collection, analysis and limitations of the selected approach.

3.1 Selection of cases

As the purpose of the study is to investigate learning behaviours and how they are
influenced by the environment, it is important to include sufficient variance in the
selected cases to capture the diversity that exists. As this diversity is unknown, it is
difficult to determine with certainty what variance is needed, or even in what dimensions
variance is needed. Nevertheless, in this study three dimensions were chosen. First, cases
were selected to represent different origins within the university, i.e., including both
students and researchers. In addition, researchers could either hold a permanent position
within a university, e.g., professorship, or not. Second, cases were selected to represent
differences in the degree of science-technology interaction. Some academic spin-offs,
e.g., life science start-ups, are very dependent on further developing their scientific
knowledge, while many software and mobile internet start-ups are not. Third, cases were
selected from Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden. These four Nordic countries have
many similarities, being small mixed economies with extensive social welfare systems,
but they do differ regarding degree of support for academic spin-offs (see Table 2).
Sweden and Finland both have clearly more supportive environments than Denmark
and Iceland. The former environments can thus be termed supportive, and the latter
aware. But there are also differences within these two groups, which helps increase the
variance. Sweden has a longer tradition of generating and supporting academic spin-offs
than Finland, where the support system has developed relatively quickly in the last
decade. Iceland also represents a special case, being a micro-state with only 300,000
inhabitants. In addition, it was deemed important that the ventures have become viable
businesses after a series of business model changes. They should have a stable foundation
for further growth, meaning some employees and some sales, while yet in an early stage
to allow focus on early development. Table 3 lists and describes the ventures selected
according to criteria presented above.
24 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

Table 2 Relative differences in strength of environmental support for academic

entrepreneurship in the Nordic countries

Country University support system Seed financing Label

Denmark Medium Medium Aware
Iceland Weak Medium Aware
Finland Strong Strong Supportive
Sweden Strong Strong Supportive
Note that the classification is relative, i.e., only describes the relative positions of the
Nordic countries with respect to each other.
Source: The dimensions have been suggested by Clarysse et al. (2000), and
the evaluation is based on Johansson (2005), and Nordic Industrial
Fund (2001)

Table 3 Description of case study firms in 2004

Venture Founders Technology Country Est. Stage Emp. Sales (€)

3Dfacto PhD students Software Denmark 1998 Patented technology 15 0.1 M
and first major
customer. Received 1
round of VC
Chempaq PhD student Medical Denmark 1999 Market introduction 17 N/A
equipment (sales) just begun.
Received 3 rounds of
VC
Smartner MSc students Software Finland 1999 Market introduction 34 1.4 M
and international
expansion just begun.
Received 2 rounds of
VC
Juvantia PhD students Biotechnology Finland 1997 Product in phase 2 of 24 0.1 M
Pharma clinical development.
Received several
smaller VC injections
Lyfjathroun University Biotechnology Iceland 1991 Several major research 32 N/A
professor contracts and own
product pipeline.
Private, corporate, and
VC investors
Trackwell Researchers/ Software Iceland 1996 Products and services 19 N/A
Engineers on the market.
Corporate and VC
investors
Icomera MSc students Mobile internet Sweden 1999 Second major 16 1.7 M
customer. Received
capital from private
investors. Much
accumulated losses
Q-Sense University Instrumentation Sweden 1996 Viable product and 10 1.6 M
professor/MSc ongoing sales. Making
students a small profit, but lack
of growth. Purchased
by listed company –
Biolin AB
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 25

3.2 Data collection and analysis

Data were collected in 2004 through semi-structured interviews with founders/managing
directors. A prerequisite was that these founders were inexperienced businessmen, which
was also verified during the interviews. The interviews were structured using the business
model concept, focusing on its development over time. A chronology of the business
model development was constructed and key events were verified with internal
documents, where possible, as well as publicly available information on the internet.
Particular focus was devoted to changes in the dimensions of the business model and the
learning processes related to these changes. We for example asked the respondents what
learning formed the basis for taking a particular step. Different groups of researchers
interviewed the firms in each country. A standardised interview guide was used but
questions were asked open ended, i.e., no predefined categories of change or learning
behaviours were displayed. Each group customised the follow-up questions needed.
In total 16 persons were interviewed, each interview lasting 1–2 hours. The interviews
were transcribed into protocols that were analysed using content analysis (Weber, 1985),
in order to extract learning behaviours related to changes in business models.
The transcribed text was classified into a smaller set of content categories and
“while the recording units are sometimes larger than words, the basic procedure
in content analysis is to design categories that are relevant to the research
purpose and to sort all occurrences of relevant words or other recording units
into these categories.” (Tesch, 1990, p.79)
The resulting learning behaviours leading to changes in the individual cases were used to
create categories of learning behaviours. Hence, all categories were not pre-defined, but
some were generated from the empirical data in the process. The influence of the
environment was evaluated by comparing learning behaviours in the different countries.

3.3 Limitations
There are three important limitations to the empirical analyses of this study, which are all
related to how general the conclusions are. First, it is unlikely that all possible learning
behaviours have been captured in the study. The study does not claim to cover all
possible variations of the entrepreneurial process in academic spin-offs and learning may
also be unconscious and difficult to communicate to the researcher. The study thus only
provides a partial picture of how academic entrepreneurs learn to create and develop
viable businesses. Second, the relative importance of different learning behaviours is
unknown. Combined, these two limitations require extreme care in interpreting the results
from the study. Third, as the case firms need not be a representative sample of academic
spin-offs in the selected countries, the results on the influence of the environment are
tentative. Despite these limitations the study provides preliminary results and a basis for
further investigation of learning behaviours in academic spin-offs using the business
model concept.
26 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

4 Research findings and discussion

First, the nine different learning behaviours identified as leading to business model
changes are addressed. The characteristics of these behaviours are described as well as
how they relate to business model changes. Second, the characteristics of the
environment in each Nordic country are described and related to the learning behaviours
observed in each country.

4.1 Learning behaviours leading to business model changes

During their development all of the case ventures have made important changes to their
business models, within and across firms, for various reasons. Collectively, nine different
learning behaviours have been observed as driving these changes to the cognitive frames.
These behaviours are listed in Table 4 and classified as either learning through
experience or through external relations. There are six learning behaviours pertaining to
experience: market scanning, virtual market experimentation, interaction with existing
customers, interaction with new customers with new requirements, imitation, and
responding to external changes. There are three learning behaviours pertaining to external
relations: adding new employees, obtaining external expert advice, and participation in
entrepreneurial education programmes. The characteristics of all these behaviours are
further explained and exemplified below. It is important to note that these learning
behaviours do not exclusively lead to level 2 learning, but are also used for day-to-day
learning within a given cognitive frame, i.e., level 1 learning. This paper is however
primarily concerned with these behaviours’ relation to level 2 learning.

Table 4 Observed learning behaviours classified in two categories

Learning based on experience Learning based on external relations

Market scanning Adding new employees
Virtual market experimentation Obtaining external expert advice
Interaction with existing customers Participation in entrepreneurial
education programmes
Interaction with new customers with new requirements –
Imitation –
Responding to external changes –

Market scanning
Scanning the market is a behaviour that involves information collection regarding
potential customers. This information collection may be systematic or ad-hoc, containing
varying degrees of personal interaction with potential customers. In the case firms,
entrepreneurs used scanning to learn who their customers were and what would be a
valuable offer to them. The learning is often indirect and incomplete as in the case of
Icomera in Sweden, which learned through market scanning that its original offer and
customer conception was not viable, and therefore had to be changed. In this instance the
learning behaviour simply falsifies hypotheses about offering and customers, but does not
generate ideas on how to proceed:
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 27

The original idea was to automate the monitoring of power lines. After
collecting information and interviewing potential customers it became obvious
that they did not have a case. There was no need for this automation, and even
if there was, the business would not be profitable.
Virtual market experimentation
A central element of virtual market experimentation is the demo, or the prototype, which
is presented to a potential customer for evaluation or feedback. A demo or prototype
provides a powerful representation of the potential product or service, addressing more
senses than written or verbal communication. In the case firms the entrepreneurs used
virtual market experimentation to learn who the customers were, and what offer would be
valuable to them. In the case of the Danish firm 3Dfacto the entrepreneurs built
prototypes for experimenting with different customer groups:
“We made some prototypes, then we took a customer segment: It must be
useful in the kitchen industry [they thought their offer would be useful in the
kitchen industry*]. And then we made a kitchen demonstration. But then, okay,
‘they’ [the kitchen industry*] were not mature enough, and then another
customer [from the playground industry*] showed up … with an interest in the
kitchen industry: to build a playground is like building a kitchen.”
*Author’s comments.
The difference to scanning is that virtual market experimentation is more likely to help
you generate ideas, going from one customer segment to the next through new knowledge
of possible functions of the product/service:
“… it is an advantage to concentrate on one segment at the time. When you
come to the next customers you can say that you also know about that kind of
problem. That was why we originally started with the kitchen industry, since
once you have been with the first, then you could confront the next with a
question, for example: ‘Is it not hard always getting those battens equal?’ And
then the customer says: ‘That’s right!’”
Interaction with existing customers
After completing a sale to a customer, there is often considerable interaction between the
venture and the customer. This is especially common in the early phases of venturing
when the product or service is in its infancy and needs to be improved through use, which
may then lead to considerable changes in the product or service. In the case of Smartner
in Finland the entrepreneurs learned that their customers would prefer a service instead of
a product:
“At the beginning we were selling to companies. Then we realised that many
companies don’t want to buy these kinds of solutions themselves but would
prefer a service instead. The reason that they prefer the service is that the
system is actually quite difficult to understand – many companies can manage
their e-mail systems alone but mobile e-mail is more challenging and they don’t
have required expertise. Therefore we started to create service that would add
mobility to their data base systems.”
In the cases, the interaction with existing customers was usually a more direct learning
experience, i.e., giving concrete direction, than interaction with potential customers,
which rather generated ideas for change.
28 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

Interaction with new customers with new requirements

Facing new requirements, especially through the addition of new customers having
different preferences from existing ones, is a learning behaviour that can drive changes in
the business model. In most cases these changes were related to ambitions of increasing
the scope of the ventures’ businesses, following the identification of new customer
groups. In the Trackwell case from Iceland the interaction with new customers with new
requirements influenced both the offering and the revenue model:
Trackwell started out by doing consultancy work in a large government
sponsored project related to location-based services, being paid by the hour.
After being involved in a couple of such projects the firm offered a
technology-independent platform solution for location-based tracking, getting
paid through a more complex revenue model, including licensing, a consulting
fee and revenue sharing.
Interacting with new customers with new requirements was also found to change
conceptions about distribution. In the case of Smartner in Finland, moving into new
geographical markets required new forms of distribution due to new requirements:
“There are countries where customers don’t trust operators as suppliers of these
systems. Therefore, we also need different retailers. Operators can be in it, if
they wish, they can buy our software, or components of it, and offer the
service like Radiolinja does in Finland. We also have retailers who know
the companies, can provide software and services for them, and do more
than operators. Operators don’t always have competence to provide and
install software and provide the service – they are more specialized in
delivering SIM-cards and selling data transmission.”
Imitation
Imitation pertains to observation and replication of other firms’ behaviours,
e.g., competitors or partners, possibly with minor adjustments. Whereas Smartner
explicitly stated that its competitor used an inefficient revenue model to be avoided,
many of the case firms were found to imitate their competitors’ revenue models.
Lyfjathroun in Iceland used publicly available information on contracts in the biotech
industry as a model for own revenue models.
“We have access to a database in the US where you can look at the basic
structure of all contracts in the US. All big contracts in the US are entered in
the database, you don’t get to see the amounts involved, but the database hold
information on what type of contracts are being made, with whom etc. We read
through it and try to understand it.”
Responding to external change
This learning behaviour is distinct from the other ones mentioned above. Whereas the
other learning behaviours pertain to the current state of things, this one is rather a reaction
to information about changes in the current state. In the case studies, responding to
external change could lead to profound changes in the business model. In the case of
Lyfjathroun in Iceland almost all dimensions of the business model changed in response
to changes in the biotech industry at the turn of the century:
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 29

“The business opportunity has changed. For many years we built our
opportunity on platform technologies where we had built solutions which could
be used for a number of drugs and vaccines. We signed a partnership contract
along these lines in 2001, but then the environment changes. NASDAQ melts
down in year 2000, then everything starts to change. Everybody starts to think
about products. One year ago we stopped developing our platform technologies
and decided to work on four products we had been working on and push them
through clinical trials. Today our business opportunity is based on those four
products and additional five products we have in the pipeline.”
Adding new employees
Adding new employees brings along the knowledge and experience of those individuals.
While the effect may be similar to external advice, it is likely to be more influential
considering that a new employee is a permanent addition to the organisation. It is thus
likely to have a greater learning influence on the entrepreneurs through continuous
interaction. In the cases new employees were found to lead to changes in the offer and in
the customers served. Q-Sense initially lacked market knowledge, but as a new managing
director was recruited, important changes followed:
Over time, Q-Sense created a scientific network. This was not an idea from the
beginning … but was primarily driven by the new managing director. She came
from another player in the life science industry where this was already
established. The idea is that participants receive discounts and better service in
exchange for promoting Q-Sense and generating customer leads. The customer
offer has been significantly developed, for example due to the scientific
network. During the new managing director’s tenure, sales agents were also
brought on board.
Obtaining external expert advice
Obtaining external expert advice pertains to a learning behaviour not involving
customers, but rather the temporary involvement of experts outside the firm, such as
consultants, investors, experienced entrepreneurs or other expert networks. Advice can be
purchased or simply given for free. The entrepreneurs in the case firms used external
advice to help develop offer and customer focus. Q-Sense of Sweden used a scientific
network, and in Juvantia Pharma of Finland a scientific advisory board influenced the
firm’s offering:
The most important source for this type of knowledge – what to offer – is the
scientific advisory board. “It is an expert panel, where we have the world’s six
leading scientists who are working as experts in drug development in
pharmaceutical companies. This panel gives us insights and knowledge.”
In the case of Chempaq in Denmark investors have advised (or required) the firm to
maintain focus on a narrow customer segment until obtaining a proof of principle for the
original product idea:
“That we have done because the investors want to secure our focus since our
original business plan was ‘developed’ on the oncology segment. If we had said
that we also wanted to focus on the general practice at that time, they would be
afraid of us shifting focus, meaning that the business idea wasn’t as we
originally had told them. So they wanted to secure that before we reached the
next stage, until we were in the stage where we had developed our product
properly, that there was a market potential. Before that stage they would not
listen to anything else. And after that we have expanded it.”
30 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

Participation in entrepreneurship education programmes

Engaging in entrepreneurship education, before or during venture creation, includes
participation in a structured programme aiming at coaching entrepreneurs through the
creation of a viable business plan. This involves articulation of the business plan, which
may help clarify latent ideas about the business model. Only two of the case ventures
were involved in such programmes, but they had a broad influence on the business model
of those ventures. For example, the founders of Icomera in Sweden were strongly
influenced by two entrepreneurship education programmes:
One of the founders was a student of Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship,
which was a Master’s programme where the students actually founded a
venture during studies. He initially teamed up with the other founder, and a
third person who was an intern at McKinsey, within the frame of Venture Cup
– a business plan competition for start-up ventures. In this environment, they
also met the third person to enter the venture. The founders continually
received feedback during the competition, and it also spurred them to advance
the business model creation in order to meet deadlines.

4.2 The influence of the environment on learning behaviours

We now turn to the national environments conditioning the nine learning behaviours
outlined above. As previously argued, access to external actors that can provide support
in the development of a viable business model is likely to be more prevalent in supportive
environments as compared to less supportive environments. Consequently, academic
entrepreneurs in less supportive environments are probably more dependent on learning
through trial-and-error for changing their business models as compared to academic
entrepreneurs in more supportive environments.
In Table 2, we noted that the environments for academic entrepreneurs are more
supportive in Finland and Sweden than they are in Denmark and Iceland. We would
therefore expect academic entrepreneurs in Finland and Sweden to be more likely to
complement their experience-based learning with learning through external actors, while
we would expect entrepreneurs in Denmark and Iceland to be more likely to depend on
their own trial-and-error learning. Interestingly, the case studies support this picture.
Only in one case outside Sweden and Finland were external actors found to influence
changes in business models. Despite being involved in the ventures, e.g., as financiers,
and influencing day-to-day learning, external actors were not reported as involved in
learning behaviours leading to changes in business models. In contrast, all the spin-off
ventures in Finland and Sweden were found to have changed their business model
following learning through external relations.

5 Conclusions and implications

The purpose of this paper is to improve our understanding of how academic

entrepreneurs learn to develop a viable business, and how this learning is influenced by
the nature of the environment. The business model concept has been applied in this
empirical investigation of Nordic academic spin-offs to delineate important aspects of
venturing, also serving as a boundary object for communication between researchers and
practitioners. The findings will now be discussed in relation to the two research questions
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 31

initially posed, as well as their implications for academic entrepreneurs, policy, venture
capital and future research.
The process of changing the business model involves changing the cognitive
frame, i.e., how business is done, which requires a type of learning that is distinct from
day-to-day learning. The latter is related to adjustments within an already defined
cognitive frame, and is here termed level 1 learning. To change the cognitive frame of the
business model, and potentially modify the business conception, is termed level 2
learning. Both types of learning are important for developing the venture, but as the
academic entrepreneurs are unlikely to have a clear conception of the business at start-up,
it is impossible to develop a viable business without succeeding in level 2 learning.
In the study nine learning behaviours, which were summarised in Table 4, have been
identified as leading to changes in business models. Some involve varying degrees of
customer interaction, and others involve learning through external actors other than
customers and suppliers. There is also imitation of competitors as well as responses to
external changes in the business environment. These occurrences provide different
possibilities for academic entrepreneurs to engage in level 2 learning, which eventually
support them in arriving at a viable business model.
In addition it seems that the environment influences the availability of certain
learning behaviours. In more supportive environments, such as Sweden and Finland,
external actors were found to be involved in learning behaviours leading to changes in
business models. In less supportive environments, such as Denmark and Iceland, this
involvement was scarcely found. It therefore appears that learning from experience is
more likely to be complemented by learning through external relations in supportive
environments, as compared to less supportive ones. Academic entrepreneurs in
supportive environments were thus found to have access to a richer set of learning
behaviours leading to needed changes in their business models.
When observing the learning behaviours reported by the entrepreneurs as leading to
changes in business models, it is important to note the absence of influence from venture
capital investors and conventional university support services, such as incubator services
or technology transfer offices. While these actors are visible in the cases and support the
development of the ventures, they are not reported to be involved in learning processes
leading to changes in business models. This is an interesting finding considering previous
studies on the important role of these actors in the development of academic spin-offs
(Bygrave and Timmons, 1992). There are three possible explanations for these findings.
First, the entrepreneurs may be unaware of the influence of these actors or not willing to
acknowledge their contribution. This could be related to strained relationships with these
actors, as they likely have the ambition to closely monitor and control the ventures
(Sapienza and de Clercq, 2000). Second, the influence of these actors might be
cumulative and not captured by our method, i.e., their involvement in day-to-day learning
might be an important precondition for learning behaviours leading to changes in
business models. Third, even if these external actors are involved in the ventures, they
might lack the experience and expertise needed in order to contribute to level 2 learning.
Previous studies on incubators and the venture capital industry in Sweden
(Karaömerlioglu and Jacobsson, 2000; Deiaco et al., 2002), which are indeed critical
about the expertise of these actors, indicate that this might be a plausible explanation.
While the influence of conventional university support services is absent, it is interesting
to note the influence of unconventional support measures such as entrepreneurship
education programmes and business plan competitions. As these support measures are
32 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

directed towards the development of entrepreneurial opportunities, it might not be

surprising that they influence learning behaviours leading to level 2 learning.
The main implication of the study for academic entrepreneurs is the importance of
level 2 learning leading to changes in business models and the awareness of the different
learning behaviours that are available. The different learning behaviours may be
seen as possibilities to learn how to build a viable business. It is also important for
academic entrepreneurs to understand the distinction between level 1 and level 2 learning
and the complementary roles of learning through experience and learning through
external relations. In this respect it is important for academic entrepreneurs to be
able to understand if external actors are able to contribute to level 2 learning, or if their
contribution is limited to level 1 learning. Contributing to level 2 learning is especially
important in early stages when a viable business model is lacking. Failure to accomplish
this may greatly influence the likelihood of survival.
The main implication for policy-makers is the need to provide academic
entrepreneurs with opportunities for both level 1 and level 2 learning. When constructing
policies and support systems for assisting academic entrepreneurs, it is important to note
the distinction between the two learning levels and to make sure that possibilities for both
are provided. Considering the copious means of uncoordinated venture creation support
existing today, it is plausible to suggest that policy-makers are not particularly aware of
the distinction between level 1 and level 2 learning of this paper. More research is needed
in order to better understand how this can be provided, e.g., possible division of labour
between different actors in the support system. For example, is it viable that venture
capital investors and entrepreneurship education support specialise in providing level 2
learning support, while actors such as incubator services and technology transfer offices
specialise in level 1 support?
This study has focused on level 2 learning and related it to level 1 learning.
No attention has been paid to level 3 learning, concerned with increased ability to learn.
Engaging in level 3 learning is however important for academic entrepreneurs for more
effective level 2 and level 1 learning. More research is needed on how these three
learning processes are interrelated and how they can be supported. More research is also
needed on the nature and dynamics of the learning behaviours identified in this study.
How and where does the learning take place? Do these learning behaviours differ in their
effectiveness and if they do, why? While this study only provides an important first
step in better understanding of academic entrepreneurs’ learning, it has hopefully
demonstrated the usefulness of the business model concept for investigating the relation
between entrepreneurial opportunity development and learning in ventures.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Nordic Innovation Centre in

conducting the research for this paper, and want to thank Mats Magnusson and two
anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments which improved the paper.
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 33

References
Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2002) ‘Value drivers of e-commerce business models’, in Hitt, M.A.,
Amit, R., Lucier, C. and Nixon, R.D. (Eds.): Creating Value: Winners in the New Business
Environment, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.15–47.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) ‘A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp.105–123.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Boland, R.J. and Tenkasi, R.V. (1995) ‘Perspective making and perspective taking in communities
of knowing’, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.350–372.
Bower, J. (2002) ‘Matching technology push to market pull: strategic choices and the academic
spinout firm’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 2,
Nos. 4–5, pp.339–353.
Bower, J. (2003) ‘Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm’, R&D Management,
Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.97–106.
Burgoyne, J.G. and Hodgson, V.E. (1983) ‘Natural learning and managerial action:
a phenomenological study in the field setting’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 20,
No. 3, pp.387–399.
Bygrave, W.D. and Timmons, J.A. (1992) Venture Capital at the Crossroads, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Chandler, G.N. and Jansen, E. (1992) ‘The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture
performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, pp.223–236.
Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002) ‘The role of the business model in capturing value
from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies’,
Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.529–555.
Clarysse, B., Heirman, A. and Degroof, J-J. (2000) ‘An institutional and resource-based
explanation of growth patterns of research-based spin-offs in Europe’, in Reynolds, P.,
Autio, E., Brush, C., Bygrave, W.D., Amigart, S., Sapienza, H.J. and Shaver, K.G. (Eds.):
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA, pp.545–559.
Cooper, A.C. (1986) ‘Entrepreneurship and high technology’, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilor, R.W.
(Eds.): The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp.153–168.
Cooper, A.C. and Daily, C.M. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurial teams’, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilor, R.W.
(Eds.): Entrepreneurship 2000, Upstart, Chicago, IL, pp.127–150.
Cope, J. and Watts, G. (2000) ‘Learning by doing – an exploration of experience, critical incidents
and reflection in entrepreneurial learning’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, Vol. 6, pp.104–124.
Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R. (1999) ‘An organizational learning framework: from intuition
to institution’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp.522–537.
Daft, R. and Weick, K. (1984) ‘Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.284–295.
Davidsson, P. (2005) Researching Entrepreneurship, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (1998) ‘Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs’,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.144–155.
Deiaco, E., Giertz, E. and Reitberger, G. (2002) Teknikparkens Roll i det Svenska
Innovationssystemet, VINNOVA, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dutta, D.K. and Crossan, M.M. (2005) ‘The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: understanding
the process using the 4I organizational learning framework’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.425–449.
Edmondson, A.C. (2002) ‘The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations:
a group-level perspective’, Organization Science, Vol. 13, pp.128–146.
34 S.A. Sanz-Velasco and R. Saemundsson

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B.R.C. (2000) ‘The future of the university
and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm’,
Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp.313–330.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985) ‘Organizational learning’, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10, pp.803–813.
Gartner, W.B. (1988) ‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ is the wrong question’, American Journal of Small
Business, Spring, pp.11–32.
Gartner, W.B., Carter, N.M. and Hills, G.E. (2003) ‘The language of opportunity’, in Steyaert, C.
and Hjorth, D. (Eds.): New Movements in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, London,
pp.103–124.
Grandi, A. and Grimaldi, R. (2005) ‘Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation
of successful business ideas’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.821–845.
Hill, R.C. and Levenhagen, M. (1995) ‘Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and
sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities’, Journal of Management, Vol. 21,
No. 6, pp.1057–1074.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (2002) ‘Strategic entrepreneurship:
integrating entrepreneurial and strategic management perspectives’, in Hitt, M.A.,
Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds.): Strategic Entrepreneurship – Creating a
New Mindset, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.1–16.
Johansson, M. (2005) ‘Barriers and facilitators to entrepreneurial learning at universities: the case
of the Nordic countries’, Mimeo, Department of Innovation Engineering, Chalmers University
of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Karaömerlioglu, D.C. and Jacobsson, S. (2000) ‘The Swedish venture capital industry – an infant,
adolescent or grown-up?’, Venture Capital, Vol. 2, pp.61–88.
Kim, D. (1993) ‘The link between individual and organizational learning’, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, Fall, pp.37–50.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Lichtenstein, B.B. (2005) ‘The role of organizational learning in the
opportunity-recognition process’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 4,
pp.451–472.
Magretta, J. (2002) ‘Why business models matter’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, No. 5,
pp.86–92.
Markides, C. and Charitou, C.D. (2004) ‘Competing with dual business models: a contingency
approach’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, pp.22–36.
McQueen, D.H. and Wallmark, J.T. (1982) ‘Spin-off companies from Chalmers University of
Technology’, Technovation, Vol. 1, pp.305–315.
Minniti, M. and Bygrave, W.D. (2001) ‘A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning’,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.5–16.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. (1982) ‘Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 25, pp.465–499.
Mitchell, D.W. and Coles, C.B. (2004) ‘Business model innovation breakthrough moves’,
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.16–26.
Murray, F. (2002) ‘Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networking:
exploring tissue engineering’, Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp.1389–1403.
Nicholls-Nixon, C., Cooper, A.C. and Woo, C.Y. (2000) ‘Strategic experimentation: understanding
change and performance in new ventures’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15,
pp.493–521.
Nordic Industrial Fund (2001) Seed Capital in the Nordic Countries: Best Practices,
Nordic Industrial Fund, Oslo, Norway.
Normann, R. (1977) Management for Growth, Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B. and Nlemvo, F. (2003) ‘Toward a typology of university spin-offs’,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 21, pp.355–369.
 Entrepreneurial learning in academic spin-offs 35

Powers, J.B. and McDougall, P.P. (2005) ‘University start-up formation and technology licensing
with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship’, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.291–311.
Rae, D. (2000) ‘Understanding entrepreneurial learning: a question of how?’, International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.145–159.
Ravasi, D. and Turati, C. (2005) ‘Exploring entrepreneurial learning: a comparative study of
technology development projects’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.137–164.
Roberts, E.B. (1991) Entrepreneurs in High Technology – Lessons from MIT and Beyond, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Sanz-Velasco, S.A. (2004) The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Opportunities – A Pragmatic
Approach, Licentiate Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Sapienza, H.J. and de Clercq, D. (2000) ‘Venture capitalist-entrepreneur relationship in
technology-based ventures’, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1,
pp.57–71.
Shane, S. (2004) Academic Entrepreneurship. University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation, Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.217–226.
Shaver, K. and Scott, L. (1991) ‘Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation’,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.23–45.
Sjölander, S. and Magnusson, M. (2002) ‘Entrepreneurial discovery, resource transformation and
the growth of the firm’, Presentation at BKERC, University of Colorado, Boulder, June 6–8.
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989) ‘Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects:
amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39’, Social
Studies of Science, Vol. 19, pp.387–420.
Starkey, K. (1996) ‘Introduction’, in Starkey, K. (Ed.): How Organizations Learn,
Thomson Business Press, London, pp.7–17.
Tesch, R. (1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools, Falmer, NY.
Weber, R.P. (1985) Basic Content Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Weick, K. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Witt, U. (2000) ‘Changing cognitive frames – changing organizational forms: an entrepreneurial
theory of organizational development’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp.733–755.
Woo, C., Daellenbach, U. and Nicholls-Nixon, C. (1994) ‘Theory building in the presence of
randomness: the case of venture creation and performance’, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.507–524.
Yin, R. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Young, J. and Sexton, D.L. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework’, Journal of
Enterprising Culture, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.223–248.
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R. and Brewer, M.B. (1998) ‘Intellectual human capital and the birth of US
biotechnology enterprises’, American Economic Review, Vol. 88, pp.290–306.