Dr. Jan Boehm promovierte bei Prof. Dr. Malte Brettel am Lehrstuhl Wirtschaftswissenschaften für Ingenieure und Naturwissenschaftler der RWTH Aachen. Er ist als Director Financial Institutions Group bei der Deutsche Bank AG in Frankfurt tätig.

Foreword 6
Acknowledgements 8
Table of Contents 10
Exhibits 14
Tables 16
Abbreviations 18
1. Introduction 20
1.1. Background 20
1.2. Problem Statement 24
1.3. Purpose of Study and Research Gap 26
1.4. Plan of Dissertation 27
1.5. Significance of Study 28
2. Context and Definitions 30
2.1. Positioning 30
2.2. Definitions 35
2.3. Role of U.S. Universities for Technology Transfer 47
3. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 59
3.1. Overview 59
3.2. Application of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Theory to Academic Organizations 60
3.3. Literature Review 62
3.4. Requirements of a Theoretical Framework 68
3.5. Theory Alternatives 70
3.6. Evaluation of Theory Alternatives 97
3.7. Conclusion 99
4. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses 100
4.1. Overview 100
4.2. Structural Model and Derivation of Hypotheses 100
4.3. Development of Measurement Model and Operationalization of Indicators 117
4.4. Conclusion 135
5. Methodology 136
5.1. Overview 136
5.2. First-Generation Multivariate Research Techniques 137
5.3. Second-Generation Multivariate Research Techniques 139
5.4. Structural Elements of Covariance- and Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling 144
5.5. Properties of Covariance- and Variance-based SEM 148
5.6. Comparison and Discussion 152
6. Data Collection and Analysis 154
6.1. Research Design 155
6.2. Data Sample 155
6.3. Instrument Design 158
6.4. Data Analysis 171
6.5. Summary 198
7. Results and Discussion 201
7.1. Interpretation of Results 202
7.2. Implications for Research Units 212
7.3. Limitations and Future Research Aspects 213
7.4. Summary 215
8. Conclusion 216
Appendices 218
A. Survey Instrument 219
A.1. Invitation Email 219
A.2. First Reminder Email 221
A.3. Second Reminder Email 222
B. Survey 223
C. U.S. Research Universities 230
D. Bibliography 232

3.5.8. Market Orientation (S. 64-66)

The theory of market orientation has been developed over the last 15 years, based on fundamental research by Kohli and Jaworski, and Narver and Slater. In essence, market orientation describes an organization’s orientation toward the promotion and support for the collection, dissemination, and responsiveness to market intelligence to serve customer needs. Market orientation is an important antecedent of product innovation behaviors, activities, and performance.

Kohli and Jaworski claim that market orientation "provides a unifying focus for the efforts and projects of individuals and departments with in the organization, thereby leading to superior performance." Narver and Slater assert that market orientation is an "organizational culture that most effectively creates the necessary behaviors for creating superior value for buyers, and thus continuous performance." Atuahene-Gima and Ko summarize that "market orientation engenders product innovation behavior that focus on understanding the articulated needs of customers. It therefore leads to the exploitation of innovation opportunities that are associated with the current domain of the firm and that take advantage of its currently available learning and experience."

The described characteristics contain a number of elements that make them interesting for the defined problem of this dissertation. However, other elements of market orientation on a stand-alone basis contribute less to a promising application. The focus of the theory, as its name suggests, is the relationship of an organization, typically a forprofit firm, to its marketplace with respect to internal processes and resources. Interdependence between marketplace and organization requires that the organization has identified a market. In the case of a research university, this definition bears some difficulties.

One can argue that the university’s markets are students, who are provided with education, companies, who are provided with innovation and development, or the general public, who is provided with progressive research. In general, one would have difficulties assigning a concrete market to the behavior of universities. Furthermore, market orientation focused on the three components of collection, dissemination, and responsiveness to information. This relatively closed approach might exclude some of the underlying behaviors of a research organization that quite often does develop innovation very far away from potential customers. The entrepreneurial component is not explicitly mentioned in this market orientation approach. However, elements like innovativeness, competitiveness, and exchange play a role in entrepreneurial behavior. In this sense, the approaches of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation show some overlap.

3.5.9. Entrepreneurial Orientation

Entrepreneurial orientation as a theory contains promising features for bringing insight into the entrepreneurial behavior of research organizations. This section will present the antecedents of the theory of entrepreneurial orientation, describe its development and its key dimensions. It will close with a critical assessment of the benefits and disadvantages of the theory for this specific investigation. Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Orientation The theory of entrepreneurial orientation is part of the organizational branch of entrepreneurship research. Historically, scholars have developed typologies of different perspectives of entrepreneurship, typically depicting these differences as a result of various combinations of individual, organizational, and/or environmental factors. These factors determine when and why entrepreneurship occurs.

One fundamental distinction in entrepreneurship research is the distinction between content and process. In the early strategy literature, scholars focused on the strategic question which business to enter or which opportunity to pursue. This is the question for content.