Start-Up Creation

The Smart Eco-efficient Built Environment

F. Pacheco-Torgal, Erik Stavnsager Rasmussen, Claes G. Granqvist, Volodymyr Ivanov, Arturas Kaklauskas, Stephen Makonin

• Publisher: Woodhead Publishing
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9780081005491
• Topic: Informatique
• Subtopic: Bio-informatique

Start-Up Creation: The Smart Eco-efficient Built Environment provides a state-of-the-art review on high-technology applications and explains how these can be applied to improve the eco-efficiency of the built environment. Divided into four main parts, the book explains the key factors behind successful startup companies that grow from university research, including the development of a business plan, the importance of intellectual property, necessary entrepreneurial skills, and innovative thinking.

Part Two presents the latest research findings on nano and bio-based technologies and their application and use to the energy efficiency of the built environment. Part Three focuses on the use of genetic algorithms, Big Data, and the Internet of Things applications. Finally, the book ends with an entire section dedicated to App development using selected case studies that illustrate their application and use for monitoring building energy-efficiency.

• Presents a definitive guide for startups that arise from college and university research, and how the application of advanced technologies can be applied to the built environment
• Includes case studies on new advanced technologies and apps development
• Links startup creation to the eco-efficient built environment through software applications

1

Introduction to start-up creation for the smart eco-efficient built environment

F. Pacheco-Torgal University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

Abstract

Start-up creation is the most distinctive feature of the entrepreneurial knowledge-based economy. It is also essential for economic growth that is needed in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis and especially important in the context of young graduates' high unemployment rates, which are expected to increase in the next decades. This chapter briefly reviews historic facts on entrepreneurship and on the evolution of the university role from the preservation and dissemination of knowledge (teaching), to knowledge generation (research), and more recently to economic and social development that categorizes the entrepreneurial university. It summarizes studies concerning the discussion on the different university technology transfer rates. Dynamics of start-up creation are briefly reviewed. The importance of start-up creation for the smart eco-efficient built environment is highlighted. An outline of the book is included.

Keywords

Biotechnology; Eco-efficiency; Entrepreneurship; Nanotechnology; Smart-built environment; Spinoff; Start-up

1.1. A brief introduction to entrepreneurship and start-up creation

The paramount importance of entrepreneurs (and entrepreneurship) for economic development is mainly associated with the theoretical work of Joseph Schumpeter (1934). According to this economist entrepreneurs are key for the process of industrial mutation “that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” For Schumpeter, innovations are disruptions that emanate from a pathological behavior, a social deviance from norms, from daring entrepreneurs (Louçã, 2014). However, and according to Leyden et al. (2014), the concept of the entrepreneur as an innovator precedes the work of Schumpeter (1934), dating back to the writings of Nicolas Baudeau in the 18th century (Baudeau, 1910) and the works of the economist Richard Cantillon as the first economist to recognize the importance of entrepreneurs to lead with uncertainty.

Kirchhoff (1989) emphasized the importance of entry and growth of new small firms as the sign of Schumpeter's “Creative Destruction” being the mark of the new entrepreneurial economy and the driving force underlying innovation and economic growth (Thurik et al., 2013). Start-up creation is especially important in the current knowledge-based economy in which knowledge production is shifting from universities to highly flexible multidisciplinary teams (Hsu et al., 2014). Despite that view, some still believe that in the next few years universities will continue to be the major sources of knowledge generation (Godin and Gingras, 2000). The truth is that its (indirect) role on the technology transfer process by providing highly qualified engineers to industry (as they did in the past) will no longer be considered enough. A European Union report (STAC, 2014) states that knowledge generation is no longer enough and emphasizes the need to translate knowledge into products and services. Universities will then have to face increased pressure to turn investigation budgets into profitable products and services (Kalar and Antoncic, 2015; Guerrero et al., 2015). According to Etzkowitz (2003) the universities' assumption of an entrepreneurial role constitutes the latest step in the evolution of a medieval institution from its original purpose of conservation of knowledge. This author points out that in US universities this evolution replaced the 19th century model of a single professor representing a discipline surrounded by a staff of assistants by a more democratic model in which, for instance, an assistant professor can set research directions if he or she can obtain outside research funding. This issue is especially important because around the world hundreds of universities still live by the outdated 19th century model. The interactions between universities, government, and industry (triple helix model) are and will be crucial for the development of the knowledge-based economy (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 2001).

The germination of biomedical research in the 1970s, the passage of the Bayh-Dole act in 1980 (Mowery et al., 2001; Mowery and Ziedonis, 2002), and the increased financing of research by industry (Mowery et al., 2004) not only explain the increased rate in university spinoffs that occurred in the last decades but are the consequence of the triple helix model. However, only recently has the scientific community tried to explain why different universities show very different spinoff creation rates. In this respect Di Gregorio and Shane (2003) studied 101 US universities. Their hypothesis for the different spinoff generations encompassed intellectual eminence, the existence equity investment policies, and a low inventor's share of royalties. O'Shea et al. (2005) also studied US university-based spinoffs. For that they analyzed the spinoffs created in the top 20 US universities for the period 1980–2001 in which the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) had a lead position. These authors showed that spinoff creation is very dependent on university resource stock availability. These authors also confirmed the importance of intellectual eminence in faculty with critical expertise to create radical innovations that are essential for spinoff creation. Landry et al. (2006) analyzed a sample of 1554 Canadian researchers in natural sciences and engineering to understand the determinants of the creation of university spinoffs by Canadian researchers. They noticed that university laboratory assets are especially important for spinoff creation. They also noticed that the existence of experienced researchers and the degree of novelty of research knowledge have the largest marginal impact on the likelihood of university spinoff creation.

Krabel and Mueller (2009) state that scientists who hold a patent are four times more likely to be nascent entrepreneurs than those scientists without a patent. Astebro et al. (2012) reviewed three case studies known for their high percentage of student alumni that start new businesses. This included the case of MIT and two others from Swedish universities (Halmstad and Chalmers). These authors state that MIT is a unique case very hard to replicate because it combines an entrepreneurial culture with cutting edge research and a research budget that exceeds one billion dollars. The MIT exceptionality for spinoff creation was also highlighted by Roberts (2014). Astebro et al. (2012) pointed out the success of the Chalmers surrogate entrepreneur concept, where a student is chosen/hired specifically to develop the new venture. The reason for that has to do with the fact that the surrogate entrepreneur not only will add new entrepreneurial competence but also new network capability. This concept is based on a three-part division ownership rights. The university is entitled to one-third, the inventor to another third, and the remaining third to the surrogate entrepreneur. Lundqvist (2014) analyzed a total of 170 ventures; 35% were surrogate-based. The results show that the surrogate ventures outperformed nonsurrogate ventures both in terms of growth and revenue. The surrogate entrepreneurship concept is therefore a virtuous one because surrogate entrepreneurs will contribute to a more balanced distribution of expertise among the start-up team members, which is known to be a start-up success factor (Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Roure and Keeley, 1990).

The lack of knowledge of the commercialization part of the entrepreneurial process is recognized as a gap in faculty (Siegel et al., 2007). And the work of Visintin and Pittino (2014) carried out on a sample of 103 Italian spinoffs confirms the importance of the surrogate entrepreneur concept and of the proper balance between scientific and commercial expertise of the team members. Those authors also mention that team members' high profile differentiation could constitute a pressure toward separation, requiring that team members must share some common characteristics to counterbalance that pressure. Other authors (de Lemos, 2014) also confirm that interpersonal relationship problems is the most critical factor that leads to the failure of technology start-ups. Using a sample of 2304 entrepreneurs who have started new businesses, Cassar (2014) investigated the role of experience on entrepreneurs' forecast performance regarding new business growth, and found that entrepreneurs with greater industry experience have more realistic expectations. Still this finding says very little about the start-up success by experienced entrepreneurs.

Ouimet and Zarutskie (2014) state that start-up creation is dependent on the availability of young workers. And Teixeira and Coimbra (2014) recently showed that younger start-up members reveal higher levels of entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial capabilities, being in a better position to internationalize earlier than older members. It is worth mentioning that the average start-up member funded by the Silicon Valley Y Combinator (YC) is around 29 years old—a typical Y-generation (millennial), known for having a high entrepreneurial spirit (Winograd and Hais, 2014). Founded by Paul Graham in March of 2005, YC was the first start-up accelerator and so far has funded over 800 start-ups with a combined value over $30 billion (YC, 2015).

Start-up accelerators are composed of four main features: a highly competitive application process (YC selects around 2% of applicant start-up (Stagars, 2014)); provision of preseed investment in exchange for equity; focus on small teams instead of individual ...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Related titles
• Copyright
• List of contributors
• Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering
• Foreword
• 1. Introduction to start-up creation for the smart eco-efficient built environment
• Part One. Business plans, start-up financing, marketing,creativity and intellectual property marketing
• Part Two. Nano and biotechnologies for eco-efficient buildings
• Part Three. Algorithms, big data and Iot for eco-efficient and smart buildings
• Index