University Business Incubators: An Institutional Demand Side Perspective on Value Adding Features
Objective: The purpose of this article is to investigate differing demands for university business incubatorâ€™s value adding features. It introduces an institution based perspective to guide the argumentation. A framework has been developed, which is grounded in recent entrepreneurship theory and studies related to business incubator development.
Research Design & Methods: An exploratory empirical study has been conducted to test the framework using participants from the United Arab Emirates and Thailand. The survey questionnaire was developed and tested before applying to the empirical study.
Findings: The findings indicate variation in demands for incubator features in particular related to infrastructure and networking services. In line with the expectations, no differences have been found for the business support services. We also found that a more general strategy and goals seem to be preferred over a more narrow industry focus.
Implications & Recommendations: The framework and our empirical findings suggest that university business incubators should take into consideration institutional differences between the countries in order to increase acceptance of the incubator concept,especially in developing countries.
Contribution & Value Added: The study addresses a research gap, identifying crosscountry differences in the demand of potential entrepreneurs for value adding features provided in University Business Incubators (UBI).
University Business Incubator; institution; developing countries; demand side; value adding features
AkÃ§omak, I.S. (2009). Incubators as tools for Entrepreneurship Promotion in Developing countries (No. 2009.52). Research paper/UNU-WIDER.
Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. (2007). Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation, 27(5), 254-267.
Barbero, J.L., Casillas, J.C., Ramos, A., & Guitar, S. (2012). Revisiting incubation performance: How incubator typology affects results. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5), 888-902.
Baumol, W.J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893â€“921.
Bowen, H.P., & De Clercq, D. (2008). Institutional context and the allocation of entrepreneurial effort. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 747-767.
Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The Evolution of Business Incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110-121.
Chan, K.F., & Lau, T., (2005). Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: the good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25(10), 1215â€“1228.
De Clercq, D., Lim, D.S., & Oh, C.H. (2011). Individual-Level Resources and New Business Activity: The Contingent Role of Institutional Context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 303-330.
Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2013). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations?. Journal of business venturing, 28(4), 564-580.
EC (2002). Benchmarking of business incubators. Brussels: European Commission.
Fitzsimmons, J.R., & Douglas E.J. (2011). Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 431-440.
Friedrich, F., Harley, B., & Langbein, J. (2010). Development guidelines for technology business incubators. Bonn: InWEnt â€“ Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH.
GEM (2012). The global entrepreneurship monitor. Retrieved on 10 April, 2016 from www.gemconsortium.org/docs/ download,2409
GEM (2011). Entrepreneurship in the United Arab Emirates. Retrieved on 10 April, 2016 from www.gemconsortium. org/docs/download,2409
GEM Thailand (2012). Thailand Report. Retrieved on 10 April, 2016 from www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download, 2409
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111-121.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Salamzadeh, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial transformation in the Middle East: experiences from Tehran Universities. Technics Technologies Education Management, 10(4), 533-537.
Harzing, A.W., Baldueza, J., Barner-Rasmussen, W., Barzantny, C., Canabal, A., Davila, A. et al. (2009). Rating versus ranking: What is the best way to reduce response and language bias in cross-national research? International Business Review, 18(4), 417-432.
Hult, G.T., Ketchen, D.J., Griffith, D.A., Finnegan, C.A., Gonzalez-Padron, T., Harmancioglu, N., Huang, Y., Talay, M.B., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2008). Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 1027-1044.
Labovitz, S. (1970). The Assignment of Numbers to Rank Order Categories. American Sociological Review, 35(3), 515-524.
Lalkaka, R. (2002). Technology business incubators to help build an innovation-based economy. Journal of Change Management, 3(2), 167-176.
Lalkaka, R. (2003). Business incubators in developing countries: characteristics and performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(1-2), 31-55.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R.W. (1998). Law and Finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113-1155.
Lee, S.S., & Osteryoung, J.S. (2004). A comparison of critical success factors for effective operations of university business incubators in the United States and Korea. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(4), 418-426.
Mian, S.A. (1996). Assessing value added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25(3), 325â€“335.
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. London: McGraw-Hill.
Ratinho, T., Harms, R., & Groen, A. (2013). Business Incubators: (How) Do They Help Their Tenants? New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium, 10, 161-182.
Robinson, P.B., Huefner, J.C., & Hunt, K.H. (1991). Entrepreneurial research on student subjects does not generalize to real world entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(2), 42â€“50.
Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and corporate change, 16(4), 691-791.
Scaramuzzi, E. (2002). Incubators in developing countries: Status and development perspectives. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2010). Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation, 30(9), 485-495.
Scillitoe, J.L., & Chakrabarti, A.K. (2010). The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation, 30(3), 155â€“167.
Shepherd, D., & DeTienne, D. (2005). Prior Knowledge, Potential Financial Reward, and Opportunity Identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practise, 29(1), 91-112.
Todorovic, Z.W., & Suntornpithug, N. (2008). The multi-dimensional nature of university incubators: capability/resource emphasis phases. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16(4), 385-410.
Tsai, F.S., Hsieh, L.H., Fang, S.C., & Lin, J.L. (2009). The co-evolution of business incubation and national innovation systems in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 629-643.
Vanderstraeten, J., & Matthyssens, P. (2012). Service-based differentiation strategies for business incubators: Exploring external and internal alignment. Technovation, 32(12), 656-670.
Zablocki, E.M. (2007). Formation of a Business Incubator. In A. Krattiger, R.T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, J.A. Thomson, A.B. Bennett, & S.P. Kowalski (Eds.), Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices (pp. 1305-1314). Oxford, UK:MIHR and Davis, USA: PIPRA.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-ND licence that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are asked to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). We advise to use any of the following reserach society portals: