Content uploaded by Daniela Di Berardino
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniela Di Berardino
Content may be subject to copyright.
Intangible assets and project management
in academic spin offs
Daniela Di Berardino
Assistant professor in Business Administration
Department of Business Administration and
management (DEA)
University of Chieti-Pescara
Pescara, Italy
daniela.diberardino@unich.it
Abstract - The paper
1
analyses the characteristics
of university and academic spin offs, the features
of their intangible resources and the project
management processes. In particular, it observes
the structure and the impact of project
management models on the business performances
as well as the skills, the leadership profile, the
relationships and the knowledge useful to
managers. The sample consists of 38 enterprises
which have been selected taking into account the
most prolific universities in Italy. The research
questions are expressed in the following way: what
role does the university spin off play within the
network of relations with external stakeholders?
What intangible resources are essential to success?
How does the project management contribute to
the efficiency of the business action? The data
useful to the empirical analysis are obtained from
questionnaires and document sources drawn from
national database, corporate, ministerial and
university sites. Social network and correlation
analyses have been carried out on the sample;
empirical evidences lead to observations which are
useful to understand excellences/critical situations
of academic spin offs, with useful implications for
the research management.
1
Although the research has been carried out jointly,
paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6.2, have been prepared by Di Berardino,
2, 3, 6.1, 7 by Corsi.
Christian Corsi
Assistant professor in Business Administration
University of Teramo
Teramo, Italy
ccorsi@unite.it
I. INTRODUCTION
University spin offs represents a very
important phenomenon for the economic
growth, in particular in those contexts where
competitiveness is based upon knowledge and
innovation and where capital markets are not
very developed and not very dynamic. In
Europe there are different levels of academic
entrepreneurship: in some cases we have a solid
experience (Germany, UK, France); in others,
such as Italy, there are different problems
related to development, unsatisfactory economic
and financial performances and an early
disappearance from the exchange markets [1]
[2]. The inner spin off critical aspects
emphasize the difference in development
between the excellence of research output, the
units of origin provides, and the economic and
financial performance resulting from its own
application as an output for the market.
Literature shows among the causes the
motivational factors driving to start a spin off,
the scholars’ business skills and the
characteristics of those who use the
technological applications spin offs execute.
However, although academic entrepreneurship
has been widely examined, literature points out
some research deficiencies which can be
expressed in the following way: university
social networks and those of the researcher-
entrepreneurs are poorly studied; it disregards
the different environmental influences as well as
the heterogeneity of the evolution processes of
those enterprises working in not very
technologically advanced contexts; the growth
and performance courses, the spin off achieves
after the end of the parent organization relation,
are not very clear. Given that the characteristics
of the economic system have a direct impact on
the functioning of the enterprises working there,
Italy is described more as a relation-oriented
system than as a market-oriented one [3], since
we notice a poor dynamism of financial markets
that obliges enterprises to make continually use
of relations with specific external stakeholders
who hold the strategic resources necessary to
their working. According to literature, this
phenomenon is explained by the resource
dependence theory [4], which, together with the
dynamic capabilities vision [5] [6], represents
the theoretical reference point for this research
that focuses on essential factors for the effective
management of research projects within spin
offs and of strategic resources for a correct
business operation. Considering that the
dependence on some resources modifies the
power relations within the context and starts
formal and stable relations, the social networks
of some enterprises are also examined in order
to understand their impact on spin off
performances.
II. UNIVERSITY SPIN-OFFS:
DISTINCTIVE FEATURES AND PROBLEMS
The economic and social developments
occurred during the last decades have altered the
relationships between science, technology, and
economy, making innovation the key to
underpinning of progress and economic wealth,
all of which called for the strengthening of
relations between the research and production
activities and services, aimed at technology
transfer and commercial exploitation of research
results [7]. Consequently, research institutions
are entrusted with the task of contributing not
only to the dissemination of knowledge and
promotion of scientific and technological
progress, but also to support economic growth
through the provision of advanced services
based on the exploitation of knowledge
developed within them.
The university spin-offs are an innovative
way of transfer of research results to a
productive activities, as, unlike the other TT
procedures, the university spin-off is
characterized by a number of factors, such as
the establishment of new distinct and
independent businesses, transfer to such
undertaking of specific technological
knowledge, developed in universities, and the
involvement in the ownership and management
of the new initiative of university personnel.
Universities have begun to play an increasingly
active role in the promotion and support of spin-
offs, as they see in them the opportunity to
develop an effective way of exploiting the
results of research, to contribute to the
diversification of production and development
of the areas where they are located, and provide
a possible source of employment to its
researchers. In the case of policy makers, the
focus on university spin-off is justified by the
need to encourage the commercial fallout of
investment in basic and applied research and in
the need to promote the development of
knowledge-based activities, more and more
regarded as essential for the competitiveness of
an area. Universities have begun to play an
increasingly active role in the promotion and
support of spin-offs, as they see in them the
opportunity to pursue multiple objectives:
develop an effective way of exploiting the
results of research (strategic logic); contribute to
the diversification of production and
development of local areas (logic of
technological innovation); and provide a
possible source of employment for its
researchers (business logic).
In Italy, university spin-offs began to play
an important role since the early years of this
decade. The regulatory changes that have
introduced the possibility, for universities, to
authorize the teaching staff to participate in
business ventures exploiting the results of
research have allowed the rapid development of
spin-offs. Suffice it to say that about 80% of the
spin-off businesses, now active in Italy, have
been actually established over the past ten years
[1].
The concept of spin-off is widely
investigated in the literature. Robert and Malone
[8] define a spin-off as a mechanism in which
efforts are made to generate economic impacts
through the transfer of technologies from the
fields of research and development to
businesses. Similarly, some authors [9] identify
a spin-off as the result of a parent organization
active in research and development, such as
Universities, University Research Centres,
laboratories and private organizations in the
field of research and development. Shane
considers a university spin-off as a high-tech
company, whose purpose is to commercially
exploit the results of its scientific and
technological research [10]. Conti defines a
university spin-off as a company that was born
from a university, where a group of researchers
form the entrepreneurial drive that aims to
broaden their skills and abilities through the
development of research within the university
environment [11].
The international literature is very rich in
analyzing the process of formation and
development of university spin-offs, in
particular: Clarysse and Moray propose the so-
called “Funnel model” of the process of
academic spin-off, divided into three steps [12]:
idea generation (phase where research activities
are carried out that generate knowledge that can
potentially be exploited in a business-oriented
perspective); idea definition (where the choice
of the ideas that are to be commercially
exploited is described); and idea implementation
(in which the spin-off is formed and production
and sale activities start). The model described is
called “Funnel model” because it starts from the
initial step in which the university carries out a
large variety of activities, then focuses more and
more towards the most attractive ideas from the
commercial point of view to try and enhance
them until a new business is established.
A different approach was adopted by others
[13] that articulate the life cycle of a university
spin-off in five steps, each having its own
objective to be pursued: research, opportunity
framing, pre-organisation, re-orientation, and
sustainable returns.
Figure 1. The five steps of the life of a university
spin-off
Source: VOHORA A. WRIGHT M., LOCKETT A., Critical
junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout
companies, in “Research Policy”, Vol. 33, 2004, p. 152.
The life cycle of an academic spin-off begins in
the context of academic research, where the
goal is to gain knowledge about the
characteristics of the market to find a business
opportunity (opportunity recognition) that can
be defined as the meeting between market
demand and potential solutions [14].
III. 3. STRATEGIC PROCESSES FOR
SUCCESSFUL SPIN OFF: NEW PROJECT
MANAGEMENT MODELS IN
UNIVERSITY SPIN-OFFS
The success of a spin-off, mainly achievable
through projects related to the development of
new products or technologies, shows that the
absence of a specific use of design methods
causes the loss of energy and resources, limiting
or delaying the achievement of specific
objectives.
An effective Project Management system
allows to accurately define the work plans and
individual activities, plan the necessary material
resources and services, manage the human
resources involved in the project, monitor the
current situation and progress of the work, and
share information by implementing a context of
mutual support.
Many authors agree that the typical activities
of university spin-offs are characterized by
creativity, innovation, and complexity, elements
that distinguish it from traditional projects to
which the classical theory of Pm is generally
applied. The projects aimed at establishing spin-
offs are characterized by a high degree of
uncertainty. Uncertainty, therefore, can have
origin of a different nature. It may arise from
the lack of the exact knowledge about costs,
duration, or quality of planned activities (think
of the uncertainty on the timing of performance
of a given activity). The uncertainty in the
design phase, in fact, can also arise as a result of
the different participants (and their features)
involved in the implementation of the project
[15]; in this sense, the determining factors are
given, among others: a) by the lack of certainty
about performance levels that will actually be
achieved; b) uncertainty about the objectives
and motivation of each stakeholder involved; c)
the lack of reliable information on the quality
and reliability of the work undertaken; d) the
possible misalignment of objectives between the
different stakeholders; e) the difficulty of
assessing the skills and abilities of the team;
also, opportunistic and moral hazard behaviours
further contribute to generate uncertainty [16].
Finally, the uncertainty can be derived from the
phase of the life cycle of the project in which
the project is at a given time [17]; for example,
in the phase of design, the uncertainties arise
from the level of project definition, the
definition of the objectives, and the difficulty to
pinpoint the expectations of stakeholders.
To better manage the particular design
processes of university spin-offs, a new and
more dynamic design pattern is necessary:
Research Project Management. Research Project
Management is indispensable to identify a
highly flexible and incremental approach, which
begins from the identification of problems and
outlines applicable solutions, allowing, by
means of dedicated analysis, to understand the
ways in which problems and solutions are
related to each other, so as to contribute to the
definition of a coordinated set of decisions in
which to account for the multiplicity of
stakeholders.
The Research Project Management is
characterized by use of soft methods, which
support a participatory and collaborative
approach, in order to collect the ideas of team
members and clients about the project: in this
way, each person/entity will be induced to
constantly increase their skills, even going
beyond their professional boundaries, through a
network of communication with all stakeholders
involved in the project [18]. While the soft
methods may require more time for their
conclusion, it is true that they are perfectly
suited to cases where it is necessary to mediate
between the projects conceived, or when the
participation of project managers is essential for
the determination of the objectives to achieve,
instead of individual team members who act in a
multi-design viewpoint. Based on these studies,
we expect that a research project management
approach promotes a good company
performance and improve the results of research
projects (Hp1).
IV. THE CRITICAL RESOURCES OF
ACADEMIC SPIN OFFS
In the economic and business management
literature, the concept of spin-off identifies the
generation of a new business formed by
individuals, organizational units, and means that
separate from the existing organization, taking
an autonomous and independent configuration
from the legal and economic point of view.
Purpose of the transfer is, therefore, the
technological knowledge produced in
laboratories, which is further developed and
refined by the new business and then applied to
marketing of goods or services. The debate on
the successful factors of spin offs is very broad.
Conventionally, knowledge is the main
resources together with financial funding and
instrumental assets. Various contributions are
focused on the performance of technology
transfer promoting agents and others focused on
the impacts of these processes in the reference
contexts. About the effectiveness of the
technology transfer processes, studies show that
they are hampered, first, by two idiosyncratic
limits of knowledge in the scope of transfer:
information asymmetries between researchers
and users, who are unlikely to understand the
full potential of scientific results due to reduced
interaction with researchers that does not
provide this information [19] [20] and partial
excludability resulting from the intangible
nature of knowledge, arising from the
complexity of the extraction process of mainly
tacit knowledge of discoveries, the
understanding of which implies for user the
possession of learning and interpretation
capacities, also facilitated in the presence of a
greater interaction with researchers [21] [22].
Most of these studies is lacking in terms of the
number of observations, often of a contingency
type, pertaining to specific scientific areas,
regions, or categories of promoting agents.
Observing the spin offs performance,
conventionally, the indicators used are divided
into input and output measures: input measures
are the funds for investments in R&D, services
and infrastructures for spin off creation, quantity
and quality of human resources and the strategy
pursued. The output measures regarding the
types and number of innovative processes
concluded, the revenue obtained from their
commercial exploitation, the income ratios, the
scientific visibility obtained by the research
unit, the collaborations started with external
users [23] [24].
Among the different branches of research
used for knowledge-based firms, in the paper
we consider the dynamic capabilities approach,
which develops the resource based view; it
states that in a dynamic or even complex
context, the primary source of survival and of
success for the enterprise is its capacity to build,
to integrate and to adapt the financial and
human resources, intangible and tangible assets,
its own ones or its partners’, in order to achieve
a dynamic consistency with the external
environment. In this perspective, the
management body of the enterprise is described
as the unit charged to allocate and to manage the
portfolio of tangible, financial and intangible
assets; among them we count the intangible
assets, which can be assimilated to
commodities, and other resources that the
enterprise cannot easily acquire and transfer by
interacting with other systems, such as business
reputation, leadership style, innovation capacity
and relations themselves. If we link this
approach to the resource dependence theory, we
emphasize the role played by the relations that
the CEO has established in order to obtain and
to strengthen the resources missing within the
firm. Consequently, the management plays the
role of coordinator of those units where the
different resources are allocated, directing them
towards a shared growth path, encouraging their
internal development and deciding to transfer
the relations with those units which are not able
to use and to increase the relevant resources.
Within spin off, both knowledge resources
typical of the organization, such as patents and
information, and above all its human resources’
skills are strategically relevant as well as the
interaction and relation dynamics with external
stakeholders; as a matter of fact, considering the
relational nature of the process to establish the
enterprise, we think that the network of relations
established from the startup phase plays an
important role to achieve a dynamic balance for
the spin off, but also to establish other social
and economic entities in the territory, such as
business incubators, consortia, technological
parks and alike. Skipping the wide framework
of intangibles, this work focuses on some
categories which are essential to the functioning
of these firms: human resources, leadership and
communication styles in the research team,
external relations. Literature underlines that the
human resource within spin offs implies a
crucial duality with an impact on its
performances: it has to fulfill a business
function together with an academic function of
research, teaching and sometimes administration
as well. On one hand, a researcher’s good
scientific performance ensures the quality of
knowledge applied to operational processes of
the spin off; on the other hand, many works
underline that the specialty of researchers’
individual knowledge requires the recruitment
of inter-disciplinary skills and knowledge, both
in the academic field and in the business and
professional sector, in order to manage the
business complexity to protect the different
stakeholders’ interests. Therefore, the previous
human resources’ skills become important as
well as their technical and scientific quality and,
overall, the level of complementarity of
knowledge the business management involves.
To appreciate the impact on the
development of these enterprises, we also have
to take into account their small sizes and their
growth rate. Literature shows that, within a
small and medium enterprise (SME), personal
and subjective events of the ownership are
absolutely essential during the establishment,
even if during the growth they are replaced by a
more managerial aspect. As for academic spin
off, this statement is fully accepted; some
doubts arose as for the strictly university setting
where researcher’s personal styles as well as
those of the involved staff are faded by the
presence of other stakeholders and by the
institutional nature itself of the university
joining the founders’ team. However, even for a
university spin off, hybrid styles take shape,
where the manager is widely affected by the
impacts of the ownership who controls and
where there are no formal structures to
distribute and to assign tasks. At the beginning,
the literature on spin offs acknowledged these
enterprises’ capability to grow quickly by virtue
of their highly technological and innovative
nature; these enterprises are subject to a quick
development in comparison with those working
in advanced sectors [10]; however, over the
time, the empirical evidences have showed
some doubts concerning this capacity to grow of
spin offs [25] which, on the contrary, have
proven to achieve weak performances and
strong financial tensions hampering growth, in
particular in Europe [26]. An additional factor
stopping the growth of university spin offs is
linked to the often hybrid nature of the founder
team, who thinks it is difficult for the human
resource to combine the entrepreneur’s role and
the scholar-researcher’s one. For this purpose, it
is essential for this enterprise’s core processes to
have a clear cut structure and a well-defined
assignment of roles, depending on acquired
skills, as well as an appropriate in-house
communication among the members, a reliable
leadership style and a cohesive organizational
culture.
Many papers on entrepreneurship and on
innovations discuss the factors determining the
individual business tendency [25] [27] [28];
among them, they mention the capacity to
acknowledge a market deficiency or a level of
suboptimal use of the existing resources, which
depends on individuals’ sensitivity and also on
individuals skills; with this regards, the branch
of study with a sociological background
ascribes among these factors the need for
achievement and the tendency to risk, the
attitude for command and the capacity to
control, the tendency to be effective and
successful, the mastery of additional
information and technical skills, the decision
making rationality but also creativity and
optimism. The Austrian school, instead,
considers the ownership of exclusive and
complete information concerning business and
market as a decisive factor to identify a business
opportunity [29] [30], both in order to establish
the enterprise and to lead it to success. Some
studies [25] show that the essential information
is obtained through the network of social
relations the entrepreneur establishes whether
he/she is an individual or a collective entity.
During the startup phase, there are three
essential cognitive and social processes
developed within a wide network: information
gathering, its processing by means of a verbal
comparison and resource check. This network
has to include long term connections with
stakeholders who are not involved in the
enterprise, subjects being contacted to obtain the
required resources to single out the opportunity,
the spin off members and a remaining group of
stakeholders to start weak relations with,
although they are necessary to obtain general
information [31]. However, we do not study
sufficiently what skills among these allow, over
the time, to manage an enterprise effectively;
likewise, a poor attention is paid to the literature
of the social network of the spin off during the
phase following the startup [32], in particular
when the parent organization is not included
into the corporate structure anymore.
We consider that it is also possible to
identify, among spin off enterprises, networks
within the research team, being characterized by
interactions based upon the level of
heterogeneity of knowledge; therefore we can
study the network of relations with external
stakeholders both taking into account the
scientific collaborations themselves and the
relations established within the management
body; the latter ones often show again the
personal relations of members set up for
scientific or professional purposes [32].
According to the studies on corporate
governance, the composition of the CEO shows
the requests of stakeholders, who are
themselves holders of interests concerning their
own asset of more or less formal relations, too.
This asset of relations is also connected to the
interlocking directories phenomenon that, in
compliance with the resource-dependency
theory, represents one of the mostly widespread
procedures to manage dependencies on external
environment as well as to manage uncertainties
and costs related to the acquisition of crucial
resources. Some studies show, in fact, that the
improvement of business performance depends
on the central position of the enterprise within a
network of managers [33]; this network results
from the capacity of the enterprise to organize
its relations according to the dependencies
started in the past. This phenomenon is,
however, examined making often reference to
the combinations between industries and credit
institutions, considering as critical the
dependency on financial resources only. For this
reason, this work aims to extend the observation
to the complex network of enterprises and
organizations holding all the strategic assets for
a spin off; in particular we take into account
that, in this field, as previously stated, the
relations established with scholars, who are
involved in the management body, show again
the previous relations set up for scientific
purposes and that they partially depend also
upon the expression of roles the founders want
in order to develop the research project in the
best way. Therefore, not only the firms in the
financial sector are essential, but also the
service enterprises in sectors connected with the
spin off and the public and private organizations
which work as facilitators of the research
applications. Often, in order to assess the
performance of a research unit we focus on the
result the process achieved, which can be
translated into the patent, without examining the
process effectiveness for the market. The patent
and the possession of unique scientific and
technical skills represent essential requirements
to attract crucial resources, such as financial
resources or other human capital, which often
determine the spin off dependency on the
context where it works. In addition to the
application of strategies concerning the
interlocking directories, holding these inimitable
resources can work as a tool to manage such a
dependence, in particular if we consider that the
governance of networks based upon knowledge
fusion concern those subjects who contribute to
the process with the main strategic assets. Given
these remarks, we can formulate some first
working hypothesis:
Hp2) the presence of multiple skills within
the spin off helps to establish strategic relations
and good economic performance
Hp3) the central positioning of the spin off
managers within its network of relations has a
positive impact on the economic performance of
the enterprise.
V. THE ROLE OF PARENT ORGANIZATION
Within the Italian scenario, the spin offs are
mainly characterized by the small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) features from the size and
management point of view. The study by
Malerba et al [34] underlines that in Italy the
main cause for the delay of academic
entrepreneurship can be partially found in the
national business structure, which is mainly
characterized by SMEs incapable to support
significant investments in medium and long
term R&D programs; at the same time, they are
not very involved by the universities themselves
who consider the cooperation with big
multinational companies as more prestigious
and effective. On one hand, the establishment
of an academic spin off is connected with the
skills of the technology transfer offices, on the
other hand we think that the presence of an
active and cooperative business culture in a
territory is very important to encourage
universities to develop research and to apply,
over the time, the technology the spin off has
developed. Likewise, the availability of
financial resources and the presence of policies
supporting business are considered as necessary
factors to establish an enterprise and to its
survival. It is not by chance whether in Italy
most university spin offs are gathered in areas
where there is a high concentration of
enterprises, which are often connected by
facilitators of development such as research
consortia, incubators, technological parks; that
leads to consider these fields as delimited
clusters we can suppose that a spin off,
established in areas with a higher business
concentration and resulting from universities
with a greater business guidance, achieves better
performances and develops a wider network of
relations. The reason for the gap among the
scientific performance of the research unit, the
spin off economic and financial performance
and the local development is poorly studied, in
particular in contexts which are less vital from
the technological and capital market points of
view. Not all academic disciplines equally
generate spin off firms; generally hard science
areas (i.e. ICT, engineering, life sciences, ecc..)
are mainly vocated to commercialize the
research though spin off ventures. Spin-off
firms tend to come from a small number of top
research universities and institution, while
generalist universities, focused on basic
research and teaching activities, are less active
in technology transfer. In fact, the support
structures on which public spin-offs rely are
expensive and not worth developing if an
institution does not generate enough intellectual
property to justify a professional technology
commercialization staff [35] (OECD, 1999).
Universities with a strong emphasis on
technology transfer in selected disciplines could
develop processes and services for a proactive
technology opportunity search of research
findings with commercial potential more than
those organizations whose research spanned a
large number of sectors. According with this,
we can suppose that the knowledge
accumulation in the process of technology
transfer and the scientific performance on these
activities influence the university’s ability to
produce new university spinoff ventures. Di
Gregorio and Shane [36], examining the spinoff
rate in the U.S. universities from 1994 to 1998,
found that the university with higher scientific
performance rate had an high level of spin offs;
in fact, Zucker et al. [37] argues that star
scientists from higher quality univeristies create
spinoff firms to capture the rents generated by
their unique intellectual capital. Hence, we put
forward the following proposition:
hp4: Universities that have a good scientific
performance on third mission are more likely to
be creators of successful spin off companies.
VI. RESEARCH MODEL: SAMPLE AND
DATA COLLECTION
The assumptions made are tested by
analysing a sample of 38 companies, taken from
the 2012 Netval database. Data has been
collected through a questionnaire,
documentation analysis and national database.
More specifically, the informations regarding
business performance and governance was
obtained from historical files gathered from the
Infocamere database and from the AidaBvdep
system, subsequently adding information on the
identity of the research-managers working in the
various universities at Miur (Italian Ministry for
Education, University and Research).
Additional information regarding project
management processes and the provision of
intangible resources was collected through a
questionnaire.
The variables affecting the performance of
spin-offs were analysed by Bivariate Correlation
Analysis using Pearson’s coefficient. The
businesses’ performance was measured through
the Return on Investments (ROI) index obtained
from 2011 official financial statements. Other
variables included several governance features
such as the level of interdisciplinary in the
knowledge and competencies of the researcher-
managers (InSSD) and the presence of
interlocking directories (Indi), all the way to the
ability to attract venture capital towards
businesses and banks (SogColl) and towards the
parent organization (Uni). With respect the
predictor variable of quality of parent
organization in technology transfer activity, we
utilize the score for third mission activities
(ITMFS) of National Research Assessment
Exercises for the period 2004-2010 (Anvur,
VQR 2013). Intangible resources are defined by
the multiple skills of management team, such as
scientific competences (CoSci), Relational
(CoRel) and marketing skills (Comkt), strategic
abilities (Costra) and financial competences
(Cofin). Others intangibles and the attributes of
project management have been measured as
follow: a cooperative leadership profile (Lead);
a flexible management style (Man); good
internal (ComIn) and external communication
(ComEx); presence of strategic planning and
objectives well defined (Pias); presence of
critical innovation (Incri); critical change in
project management (Cam); presence of
constructive differences within the project team
(Var). The relation between business
performance and the characteristics of the social
network in terms of network centrality and
cohesion was also analysed. A first comment is
provided on the results of the questionnaire.
6.1 Questionnaire results: the role of
project management approach and the
critical aspect of intangibles resources
The questionnaire distributed to the heads of
spin-offs covered by the survey, is composed of
20 questions, divided into several groups, as
described below.
a) A first set of questions was aimed at
defining the main activities carried out by the
spin-off at the planning stage; it was first asked
to respondents to express their views on major
transactions carried out during the design phase,
of what is, in their judgment, the objective of
implementing planning and control activities at
the project level, the utility covered by planning
and control instruments and finally the criterion
normally used to assess the degree of innovation
of a project.
b) A second set of questions was designed to
identify the critical aspects found within the
planning of a project; to this end, respondents
were asked to indicate what are the most
common causes of project failure, the possible
causes of a confused or unclear definition of the
objectives and methodologies and how it may
be possible to facilitate the members of the
research team in better defining the objectives
and methods; respondents were also required to
express their opinion about the fact that the
clarity or, on the contrary, the confusion in the
definition of the objectives and methods used in
the planning stage is likely to affect
significantly, or not, the probability of
completing a project successfully. The
individuals involved in the survey were also
asked to comment on the advisability of
excluding projects having not very clear and
defined objectives, emphasizing instead the
others; more specifically, it was asked whether
this might lead, or not, to exclude projects with
high potential for innovation and creativity, and
if this can act as an incentivising or deterring
factor of the success of the projects. Finally, it
was asked to evaluate, in terms of clarity in the
definition of the research objectives and
methods used for research, the projects for
which the interviewee is usually responsible.
c) A third set of questions was used to verify
the dynamism and willingness to change of the
projects implemented by the spin-off. Therefore,
respondents were first asked to describe the
frequency of the change of plans from the goals
initially set; they were then asked to express
their opinions, on one hand, about the
opportunity to use a dynamic or static
management model as compared with the initial
plan and, secondly, to express a positive or
negative opinion about the cases of change of
projects with respect to the plan.
d) A fourth group of questions was
designed to assess the requirements of the
research team considered as most relevant by
the interviewees. It was therefore required
which are the characteristic features of an ideal
research team; which are the main ways in
which communication within the team can be
improved; interviewees were also asked to
express their opinions about whether any
difference of ideas and opinions within the team
is considered as a positive element at some
stage, or vice versa none, of the project.
e) A fifth and last set of questions focused
on the composition, the role, and importance of
project managers for projects undertaken by the
academic initiative. To this end, it was asked
from which category of university staff project
managers are selected, what are the key skills
required from project managers, and which are
the management and leadership models judged
positively for the implementation of projects.
The sample examined recognizes the
strategic importance of the implementation of a
Project Manager model for the management of
research projects. In particular, 86.67%
considers as fundamental defining, in a clear
way, the goals to be achieved for a successful
research project against 2.22% who do not
follow any whatsoever planning and
organization methodology. 39.53% of the spin
offs believe that breaking the goals down into
sub-goals is fundamental, 44.44% acknowledge
that a strict planning leads to a more efficient
manner to increase the chances of achieving a
successful project. These facts are also
confirmed by part A3 of the C-P form,
highlighting the well-defined aims and methods.
Moreover, the data obtained in connection to the
variables which can be traced back to the typical
complexity and uncertainty of research projects
are clear. In fact, 39.53% of the spin-off
companies considered, blame the confusion of
defining goals and methodology on the
complexity of the research project and 25.58%
on the innovative character of the research
project, only 6.98% maintains that said
confusion depends on too ambitious goals that
the research program wants to achieve. In such
a context, the percentage obtained with
reference to the probabilities of a
successful/unsuccessful research program is
particularly significant: 97.44% of the spin offs
believe that a better definition of the goals and
methodologies during the planning stage
substantially affect the probability of achieving
a successful project respecting goals and
timings, without exceeding the budget assigned;
in effect, 66.67% of the spin offs only
concentrate on projects having clear and well
defined goals. Hopefully, the spin offs will more
and more employ a new model of project
management aiming at achieving an efficient
and successful new RPM approach. Said
assertion is confirmed by 42.11% of spin offs
that confirm they often change the goals
predetermined during the planning stage,
97.37% believe they should follow a circular
dynamic model of adaptation and review. A
particularly flexible and dynamic RPM model is
fundamental for the management of spin off
typical projects because 55.26% believe it is
more suitable to make adaptations to the project
during its development so as to better face
accidental issues, only 5.26% believes not
having to alter the original organization plan at
all. The RPM also better adapts to a strictly
democratic and participative management
model believed necessary by 94.59% of
university spin offs. The questionnaire shows
that about 40% of those interviewed
acknowledge that the relationships with the end
users and the fact of having the appropriate
information are the main factors for
guaranteeing the success of the research
projects. As far as human resources are
concerned, 50% believes the ability of
cooperating and coordinating the roles within
the team are fundamental, but in particular 64%
consider that the person in charge of the projects
must have both scientific and strictly managerial
expertise. Marketing expertise, relational skills,
strategic competences and the know-how to
increase the financial funds are considered
fundamental for successful spin off from 58,7%
of the sample. Moreover, a democratic and
cooperative leadership style, together with a
strong organizational culture and a flexible
management profile are well appreciated.
6.2. Descriptive statistics and Correlation
Analysis
The descriptive statistics of the sample
(Table 1) highlight a good average of
profitability of investments, even if the value
undergoes strong fluctuation, turning out to
have, in absolute terms, a profitability over 10%
in 42% of the sample within the clusters. About
63% of the companies studied presents
interlocking directories and multiple roles are
taken up by the managers who, in almost all the
cases, are not researchers with joint
assignments. Many of these relationships
involve companies belonging to the financial
sector, whereas involvements in research
consortiums, technological parks, research
centers or company developers are less frequent.
Moreover, many relationships with PMI’s
belonging to the manager’s family network are
developed and this confirms the repeating of
personal relationships in the spin off
collaborations. The interlocking directories are
less common among the same spin offs, even
among those of the same geographical area, and
this demonstrates the fact that it tends to
manage its dependence on the resources, both
the human ones and the financial ones, looking
for relationships outside the spin off circuits.
We consider three centrality measures of
Freeman derived by Ucinet 6.0: the Degree, the
Betweenness and the Closeness of one party to
others, which express the efficiency with which
a party reaches others in the network. The low
value of the degree (Table 1) stresses a poor
inclination of the spin off managers towards the
outside (Outdegree) and a poor popularity of the
same (Indegree). In the network the centrality
measures take on an average value of 2,3%,
revealing a poor appeal of the university spin
off managers c/o other companies. If the
centralization based on the interposition, equal
to 1.11 in the sample, is connected to the global
measure of centralization based on the degree,
we can come to the conclusion that a strong and
attractant gravity center is lacking in the group.
Coherently with the theoretical construct of the
research, this phenomenon can explain itself
with the fact that among the spin off companies
there is a good degree of diffusion of the critical
resources, such as technological knowledge and
human resources, towards which reliance from
the outside is limited even if present, whereas
financial requirement and the need to compare
one another with end users are greater.
The correlation analysis points out the
existence of important relationships between
multiple skills and economic performance (Tab.
2), in particular, the strategic, marketing and
relational competences are the most important
abilities. Strategic competences and marketing
knowledge are related to financial funding
attraction. Among the project management
attributes the critical innovation aspects,
managed during the initial phase, are correlated
to the economic performance.
In presence of researchers-managers there
are a cooperative and a participative style of
leadership. There isn’t direct connection
between the interlocking directories and the
profitability of the investments (Tab.3) . The
latter is instead strongly connected to the
centrality expressed by the Outdegree and the
Betweennes measure; we can deduce that the
opening of the spin off towards outside and the
presence of capable managers, that hold a
central role in the network of relationships,
improve the levels of profitability. Betweennes
measure is correlated to strategic competence of
manager, while Outdegree increases in presence
of collective actors (such as parent
organizations, banks, companies) among the
stockholders and, as a consequence, these
events increase the centrality of the companies
in the network of relationships with other
organizations, because the spin offs repeat the
network of technical-scientific relationships
made up in the past in their organizations of
origin; furthermore, the presence of inside
networks of knowledge, expressed by their
degree of expertise interdisciplinarity, allows
the spin off managers to hold a central role in
the network. This also suggests a spreading of
knowledge even outside. The performance of
parent organizations in promoting the
technology transfer is correlated only with the
relational competence of spin off managers
(Tab.4).
CONCLUSION AND POLICY
IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study show two main
determinants of economic performance in this
sample of Italian universities spin offs: multiple
skills of managers and centrality of a spin off in
the network (hp3), created by interlocking
directories. The interlocking directories seem
very defused within context less developed in
term of high technology, above all in the
presence of interdisciplinary expertise within
the Board of Directors; this confirms the
importance of creating external relationships to
reduce the dependency on resources. Among the
main elements capable of affecting the
development process of a spin off, great
importance is given to the strategic and
marketing competences which are capable of
supporting the financial funding management
(hp2). Clearly, the development of the
relationships towards a business world and with
industrial partners is regarded as a key variable
of success for a spin off that however requires
time to be developed, such as that it is
considered a process in continuous evolution. A
solid strategic planning activity support all the
development process of a research within the
spin and this is particularly true in the initial
stage of the process (hp1): well defined goals,
human competences, critical innovation
attributes are the factors that influence the
successful research project and are also the
factors which mainly affect its development in
time. The researchers-entrepreneurs capability
to favour relationships between universities and
industries in a dynamic way is, without doubt,
able to guarantee a profitable collaboration
relationship with the parent-organization. As a
consequence, to enable the development and
sustainable growth of a spin off in time, on one
hand it is necessary to supporting the
management expertise of academic personnel,
aiming at the management training as well as
the essentially technical one (or as an
alternative, turning to professionals), and on the
other hand, incentivize a greater integration with
the parent organization, whose competences
and relationship network at disposal play a
fundamental role. Spin off companies may
benefit from the already-existing parent
organization network, because it can be used to
create new relations or to enlarge their own
contacts. It might be reasonable, at this point, to
suggest more openess within universities,
willing to interact with external agents, industry,
public institutions, etc. The improvement of
linkages between these actors and universities
may create fertile ground for research spin-offs,
by generating a network of key relations, from
which entrepreneurial initiatives can
benefit.However, because of the limits of the
present research, in the future it is worthwhile to
lead the analysis towards other clusters with
other objective data, to carry out longitudinal
analysis and to account for the real success of
these companies.
REFERENCES
[1] Piccaluga, A., and Balderi, C., eds, Consistenza ed
Evoluzione delle Imprese Spin-off della Ricerca
Pubblica in Italia, (In Italian), (Evolution of spin off
firms in Italian Public Research), IN-SAT Lab, Scuola
Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, 2007.
[2] Netval, IX Netval Reporting on Italian Public
Research, 2012.
[3] Weimer J, and Pape J.C., “A taxonomy systems of
corporate governance”, in: Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 7, 2, pp. 152-166, 1999.
[4] Pfeffer J, and Salancik G.R., The external of
Organization. A resource-dependency Perspective.,
NY, Harper & Row,1978.
[5] Teece D.J., Pisano G., Shuen A., 1990, Firm
capabilities, resource and the concept of strategy: four
paradigms of strategic management, CCC Working
paper n. 90-8, Center for Research in Management,
University of California, Barkley.
[6] Teece D.J., Pisano G., and Shuen A, “Dynamic
capabilities and Strategic management” Strategic
Management Journal, vol. 18, n.17, pp. 509-533, 1997.
[7] Chiesa V., Piccaluga A., Exploitation and diffusion of
public research: the case of academic spin-off
companies in Italy, in “R&D Management”, vol. 30.,
No. 4, 2000, pp. 329-339.
[8] Roberts E., Malone D. E., Policies and structures for
spinning off new companies from research and
development organizations, in “R&D Management”,
Vol. 26, 1996, p. 17-48.
[9] Rogers E.M., Takegami S., Yin J., Lessons learned
about technology transfer, Technovation, Vol. 21, No.
4, 2001, p. 253-261.
[10] Shane, S., 2004. Academic Entrepreneurship:
University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation, Edward
Elgar.
[11] Conti G., Granieri M., Piccaluga A., The contribution
of university research to the growth of academic start-
ups: an empirical analysis, in “Journal of Technology
transfer”, Vol. 35, 2010, p. 1-25.
[12] Clarysse B., Moray N., A process study of
entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a
research-based spin off, in “Journal of Business
Venturing”, Vol. 19, 2004, pp. 55-79.
[13] Vohora A., Wright M., Lockett A., Critical junctures
in the development of university high-tech spinout
companies, in “Research Policy”, Vol. 33, 2004, pp.
147-175.
[14] Behave M.P., A process model for entrepreneurial
venture creation, in “Journal of Business Venturing”,
Vol. 9, No. 3, 1994, pp. 223-242.
[15] Ward S.C., Requirements for an effective risk
management process, in “Project Management
Journal”, Vol. 30, No. 3., 1999, p. 37–42.
[16] Eisenhardt K.M., Agency Theory: An Assessment and
Review, in “The Academy of Management Review”,
Vol. 14, No. 1, 1989, p. 57 – 74.
[17] Chapman C.B., Ward S.C., Project Risk Management:
Processes, Techniques and Insights. seconda ed. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 2003.
[18] Daniel D.W., Hard problems in a soft world, in
”International Journal of Project Management”, Vol. 8,
No. 2, 1990, p. 79–83.
[19] Rogers E (2002) The nature of technology transfer,
Science Communication, 23: 323–341.
[20] Landry R, Amara N, Ouimet M (2007), Determinants
of Knowledge Transfer: evidence from Canadian
University Researchers in Natural Sciences and
Engineering, Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 6:
561-592.
[21] Szulanski, Exploring internal stickiness: impediments
to the transfer of best practice within the firm, in
“Strategic management journal”, Vol. 17, pp. 27 – 43,
1996.
[22] Poyago-Theotoky J, Beath J, Siegel D (2002)
Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on
the growth of university–industry partnership, Oxford
Review of Economic Policy, 18(1): 10–21.
[23] Bozeman, B., ‘Technology transfer and public policy:
a review of research and theory’, in: Research Policy,
29, 627–655, 2000.
[24] Debackere, K, and Veugelers, D., ‘The role of
academic technology transfer organizations in
improving industry science links’, in: Research Policy,
34, 321–342; 2005.
[25] Wright M., Clarysse B., Mustar P., and Lockett A.,
Academic entrepreneurship in Europe, Cheltenham,
UK, 2007.
[26] Autio, E. and Lumme, A. Does the innovator role
affect the perceived potential for growth? Analysis of
four types of New, Technology-Based Firms, in
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol.
10, No 1, 1998, pp. 41-54.
[27] Lundström A., and Stevenson L., Entrepreneurship
Policy: Theory and Practice, Springer, 2005.
[28] Davidsson, P., Researching Entrepreneurship,
Springer, 2004.
[29] Hayek F.A., The use of Knowledge in Society, in
American economic review, XXXV, No. 4., pp. 519 –
530, 1945.
[30] Kirzner, Entrepreneurial discrovery and the
competitive market process: an Austrian approach, in
Journal of economic literature, Vol. 35, Issue 1, pp. 60
– 85, 1997.
[31] De Koning, A., Conceptualizing Opportunity
Recognition as a Socio-Cognitive Process, Centre for
Advanced Studies in Leadership, Stockholm, 1994.
[32] Grandi A., and Grimaldi R., “Exploring the
networking characteristics of new venture founding
teams: a study of Italian academic spin offs”, in: Small
Business Economics, 21, 4, pp.329-341, 2003.
[33] Zona F., and Gnan L.,“Amministratori incrociati e
performance d’impresa”, (in Italian). (Interlocking
directories and company performance) in Maggioni,
Potito, Viganò, eds, Corporate governance: governo,
controllo e struttura finanziaria, (in Italian). (Corporate
Governance: management, control and financial
structure), Il Mulino, Bologna, 2009.
[34] Malerba, F., Lissoni, F., and Campanini, L., Italy:
National policies to promote the development of
NTBFs, CESPRI, Bocconi University Eds, Milano,
Italy, 1995.
[35] OECD, 1998. Fostering Entrepreneurship. OECD,
Paris.
[36] DiGregorio, D., Shane, S., 2003. Why some
universities generate more TLO start-ups than others?
Research Policy 32 (2), pp. 209–227.
[37] Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J., 1998.
Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or
markets? Economic Inquiry 36 (1), 65–86.
TAB. I - STATISTICS: DESCRIPTIVE
N
Min
Max
Mean
Std. Dev.
PiaS
38
,00
1,00
,4737
,50601
InCri
38
,00
2,00
,7368
,50319
Cam
38
,00
1,00
,0263
,16222
Var
38
,00
1,00
,5526
,50390
Lead
38
,00
1,00
,9474
,22629
Ma
38
,00
1,00
,9737
,16222
INDIR
38
,00
1,00
,6579
,48078
SOGCOLL
38
,00
1,00
,3947
,49536
UNISO
38
,00
1,00
,5263
,50601
AMMACC
38
,00
1,00
,8421
,36954
INSDD
38
,00
1,00
,7105
,45961
OUTDEG
38
,00
10,00
2,6316
2,36439
INDEG
38
,00
12,00
1,2895
2,30050
INCLOSN
38
,00
2,08
,4639
,45371
OUTCLOS
38
,00
2,87
,5200
,55788
BETWEE
38
,00
5,09
,5868
1,11064
ROI
38
-27,17
35,73
8,8661
13,42996
CoSci
38
,00
1,00
,6842
,47107
CoRel
38
,00
1,00
,5526
,50390
Comkt
38
,00
1,00
,5000
,50671
Costra
38
,00
1,00
,3947
,49536
Cofin
38
,00
1,00
,4474
,50390
ComIn
38
,00
1,00
,7368
,44626
ComEx
38
,00
1,00
,5789
,50036
ITMFS
38
,22
13,82
2,7353
2,94943
Validi (listwise)
38
TAB. II - CORRELATION MATRIX: PERFORMANCE, PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND INTANGIBLE RESOURCES
ROI
PiaS
InCri
Cam
Var
Lead
Ma
CoSci
CoRel
Comkt
Costra
Cofin
ComIn
ComEx
ROI
Pearson
1
,117
,392(*)
,140
,007
-,191
-,196
,205
-
,391(*)
,397(*)
-
,348(*)
-,075
,192
,078
Sig. (2-
code)
,484
,015
,402
,968
,251
,238
,223
,019
,015
,025
,661
,255
,645
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
PiaS
Pearson
,117
1
-,134
,173
,218
,224
,156
-,019
,029
-,082
,188
,079
,300
,033
Sig. (2-
code)
,484
,422
,298
,189
,177
,350
,912
,863
,630
,266
,641
,071
,847
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
InCri
Pearson
,392(*)
-
1
,087
-
-,125
-,087
-,028
-,064
-,015
,006
-,044
,197
-,006
,134
,050
Sig. (2-
code)
,015
,422
,603
,763
,455
,603
,869
,705
,932
,972
,797
,243
,972
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Cam
Pearson
,140
,173
,087
1
,148
,039
,027
,115
,154
,171
,202
-,154
,094
,138
Sig. (2-
code)
,402
,298
,603
,375
,817
,872
,496
,364
,311
,231
,364
,578
,417
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Var
Pearson
,007
,218
-,050
,148
1
,262
,183
-,175
,021
,029
,209
,088
,109
,122
Sig. (2-
code)
,968
,189
,763
,375
,112
,272
,299
,904
,863
,214
,604
,520
,470
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Lead
Pearson
-,191
,224
-,125
,039
,262
1
,697(**)
-,166
,259
,233
,197
-,019
,422(**)
-,197
Sig. (2-
code)
,251
,177
,455
,817
,112
,000
,327
,121
,166
,242
,909
,009
,242
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Ma
Pearson
-,196
,156
-,087
,027
,183
,697
(**)
1
-,115
,181
,162
,138
,154
,294
-,138
Sig. (2-
code)
,238
,350
,603
,872
,272
,000
,496
,284
,337
,417
,364
,077
,417
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
CoSci
Pearson
,205
-
,019
-,028
,115
-
,175
-,166
-,115
1
-,175
,097
-,133
-,288
,145
,016
Sig. (2-
code)
,223
,912
,869
,496
,299
,327
,496
,299
,569
,431
,084
,390
,926
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
CoRel
Pearson
-
,391(*)
,029
-,064
,154
,021
,259
,181
-,175
1
,029
,209
,324(*)
,109
,233
Sig. (2-
code)
,019
,863
,705
,364
,904
,121
,284
,299
,863
,214
,048
,520
,165
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Comkt
Pearson
,397(*)
-
,082
-,015
,171
,029
,233
,162
,097
,029
1
,077
-,029
,048
,033
Sig. (2-
code)
,015
,630
,932
,311
,863
,166
,337
,569
,863
,649
,863
,779
,847
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Costra
Pearson
-
,348(*)
,188
,006
,202
,209
,197
,138
-,133
,209
,077
1
,343(*)
,083
,121
Sig. (2-
code)
,025
,266
,972
,231
,214
,242
,417
,431
,214
,649
,037
,624
,475
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Cofin
Pearson
-,075
,079
-,044
-
,154
,088
-,019
,154
-,288
,324(*)
-,029
,343(*)
1
-,236
,335(*)
Sig. (2-
code)
,661
,641
,797
,364
,604
,909
,364
,084
,048
,863
,037
,160
,040
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
ComIn
Pearson
,192
,300
,197
,094
,109
,422(**)
,294
,145
,109
,048
,083
-,236
1
-
,340(*)
Sig. (2-
code)
,255
,071
,243
,578
,520
,009
,077
,390
,520
,779
,624
,160
,040
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
ComEx
Pearson
,078
,033
-,006
,138
,122
-,197
-,138
,016
,233
,033
,121
,335(*)
-,340(*)
1
Sig. (2-
code)
,645
,847
,972
,417
,470
,242
,417
,926
,165
,847
,475
,040
,040
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
* Significance 0,05 (2-code).
** Significance 0,01 (2-code).
TAB. III - CORRELATION MATRIX: NETWORK ATTRIBUTES, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE,
PERFORMANCE
SogCol
Uni
AmmAcc
OUTD
EG
INDEG
OUT
CLOS
INCLO
SN
BETWEE
INSD
D
ROI
SogCol
Pearso
n
-
,550
(**)
-
,428
(**)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sig. (2-
code)
,000
-
,007
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Uni
Pearso
n
,550
(**)
-
-
,347(*)
-
-
-
-
,324
(*)
-
Sig. (2-
code)
,000
-
,033
-
-
-
-
,047
-
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
AmmAc
c
Pearso
n
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,519
(**)
-,072
Sig. (2-
code)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,001
,668
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
OUTDE
G
Pearso
n
,428
(**)
,347(*)
-
-
,393(*)
,544
(**)
,358(*)
,342(*)
-
,318 (*)
Sig. (2-
code)
,007
,033
-
-
,015
,000
,027
,036
-
,022
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
INDEG
Correl
azione
di
Pearso
n
-
-
-
,393(*)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sig. (2-
code)
-
-
-
,015
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
OUTCLO
S
Correl
azione
di
Pearso
n
-
-
-
,544
(**)
-
-
,729
(**)
-
-
-
Sig. (2-
code)
-
-
-
,000
-
-
,000
-
-
-
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
INCLOS
N
Correl
azione
di
Pearso
n
-
-
-
,358(*)
-
,729
(**)
-
-
-
-
Sig. (2-
code)
-
-
-
,027
-
,000
-
-
-
-
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
BETWEE
Correl
azione
di
Pearso
n
-
-
-
,342(*)
-
-
-
-
-
,386(*)
Sig. (2-
code)
-
-
-
,036
-
-
-
-
-
,032
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
INSDD
Correl
azione
di
Pearso
n
-
,324(*)
,519(**)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sig. (2-
code)
-
,047
,001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
ROI
Correl
azione
di
Pearso
n
-
-
-
,318
(*)
-
-
-
,386(*)
-
-
Sig. (2-
code)
-
-
-
,022
-
-
-
,032
-
-
N
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
* Significance 0,05 (2-code).
** Significance 0,01 (2-code).
Correlazioni
TAB. IV. - THIRD MISSION PERFORMANCE
CoRel
ITMFS
CoRel
Pearson
1
,415(*)
Sig. (2-code)
,011
N
38
37
Sig. (2-code)
,983
,636
N
38
37
ITMFS
Pearson
,415(*)
1
Sig. (2-code)
,011
N
37
37
