Mechanisms Linking Technology Cycles to the Entrepreneurial Performance of University Technology Commercialization

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jbm.202609102

Author(s)

Chongren Bi1, Yun Zhao2,*

Affiliation(s)

1Postdoctoral Programme of China Centre for Industrial Security Research (CCISR), Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China 2School of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Commercializing university technologies through university spin-offs is a high-uncertainty organizing process that embeds scientific knowledge into industrial and market contexts. Prior research explains heterogeneity in spin-off outcomes mainly via university entrepreneurship support infrastructures, technology transfer offices (TTOs), founding teams and networks, and institutional and regional environments, while paying less attention to the evolution stage of the underlying technology as an exogenous structural condition. Drawing on recent research on technology evolution and technology life cycles and on the idea that the emergence of dominant categories and designs opens and closes entry windows, this paper develops a stage-based theoretical chain—technology cycle stage -> reconfiguration of the constraint set -> entrepreneurial performance. We consolidate the constraint set into three mechanisms: (1) uncertainty and selection pressures, (2) appropriability and complementary-asset barriers, and (3) resource allocation and governance environments. Based on these mechanisms, we propose three core propositions regarding how technology cycles shape spin-off formation, survival and growth, value capture, and diffusion externalities. The paper offers an integrated conceptual framework and a parsimonious set of testable propositions for future research on academic entrepreneurship and university technology commercialization.

Keywords

Technology Cycles; University Spin-Offs; Academic Entrepreneurship; Dominant Design

References

[1]Civera A., De Massis A., Meoli M., Vismara S. The Goal and Performance Heterogeneity of Academic Spinoffs. Technovation, 2024, 131:102972. [2]Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1):128-152. [3]Criaco G., Hahn D., Minola T., Pittino D. The Role of Non-Economic Goals in Academic Spin-Offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2025, 50(2):668-691. [4]Fini R., Rasmussen E., Siegel D., Wiklund J. Rethinking the Commercialization of Public Science: From Entrepreneurial Outcomes to Societal Impacts. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2018, 32(1):4-20. [5]Gans J. S., Stern S. The Product Market and the Market for “Ideas”: Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 2003, 32(2):333-350. [6]Grodal S., Krabbe A. D., Chang-Zunino M. The Evolution of Technology. Academy of Management Annals, 2023, 17(1):141-180. [7]Markard J. The Life Cycle of Technological Innovation Systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020, 153:119407. [8]Mathisen M. T., Rasmussen E. The Development, Growth, and Performance of University Spin-Offs: A Critical Review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2019, 44(6):1891-1938. [9]Perez C. Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2002. [10]Perkmann M., Salandra R., Tartari V., McKelvey M., Hughes A. Academic Engagement: A Review of the Literature 2011–2019. Research Policy, 2021, 50(1):104114. [11]Prokop D. The Academic Spinoff Theory of the Firm. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2023, 24(4):233-243. [12]Suarez F. F., Grodal S., Gotsopoulos A. Perfect Timing? Dominant Category, Dominant Design, and the Window of Opportunity for Firm Entry. Strategic Management Journal, 2015, 36(3):437-448. [13]Van de Kaa G., de Vries H. J. Success Factors for Standards during the Technology Life Cycle. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 2026, 95:104043.