This paper examines the role of university business incubators (UBIs) in supporting the creation of new knowledge-based ventures. UBIs are described as effective mechanisms for overcoming weaknesses of the more traditional public incubating institutions. They offer firms a range of university-related benefits, such as access to laboratories and equipment, to scientific and technological knowledge and to networks of key contacts, and the reputation that accrues from affiliation with a university. The empirical analysis is based on the Turin Polytechnic Incubator (TPI) and on case studies of six academic spin-offs hosted at TPI. While TPI does not effectively resolve such problems as inadequate access to funding capital and the lack of management and financial skills in its tenant companies, the networking capacity of incubating programmes is seen as a key characteristic that may help new knowledge-based ventures to overcome such difficulties.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RobertsE.B., ed, Entrepreneurs in High Technology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.
2.
CooperA.C., ‘Technical entrepreneurship: What do we know?’, R&D Management, 1973, Vol 3, No 2, pp 59–64.
3.
SmilorR.W.GibsonD.V.DietrichG.B., ‘University spin-out companies: Technology start-ups from UT-Austin’, Journal of Business Venturing, 1990, Vol 5, pp 63–76.
4.
RadosevichR., ‘A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources’, International Journal of Technology Management, 1995, Vol 10, No 7/8, pp 879–893; Jones-EvansD.KlofstenM., ‘Academic entrepreneurship in Europe: A survey’, paper presented at the 44th ICSB World Conference, ‘Innovation and Economic Development’, Naples, 20–23 June 1988; ChiesaV.PiccalugaA., ‘Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The case of academic spin-offs in Italy’, R&D Management, Vol 30, No 4, 2000, pp 329–340.
5.
MitraJ., ‘Nurturing and sustaining entrepreneurship: University, science park, business and government partnership in Australia’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 14, No 3, 2000, pp 183–190.
6.
ShermanH.D., ‘Assessing the intervention effectiveness of business incubation programs on new business start-ups’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol 4, No 2, 1999, pp 117–133.
7.
MianS. A., ‘Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms’, Research Policy, Vol 25, 1996, pp 325–335.
8.
Sherman, op cit, Ref 3.
9.
Grimaldi and Grandi distinguish between model 1 and model 2 incubators (GrimaldiR.GrandiA., ‘Business incubators and new venture creation: Assessing different incubating programmes’, paper presented at International Conference on ‘Entrepreneurship and Learning’, Naples, 21–24 June 2001). Incubators conforming to model 1 are more oriented towards the provision of tangible assets and market commodities. Their raison d‘être is their capacity, with a medium-/long-term orientation, to provide physical assets (mainly logistical services) at low prices, to help companies access funding and competencies and expertise not available in-house, to create a supportive atmosphere fostering entrepreneurial initiatives, and to offer visibility. Incubators conforming to model 2 are oriented towards the speeding up of the start-up process for very promising entrepreneurial initiatives (attractive in terms of size of investment), which are still in the business concept definition phase and need high-value services (access to technology, market, managerial competencies and day-to-day operational support) to take off. Model 2 incubators also provide their tenants with synergies through supporting strategic technological and commercial partnerships between new ventures and incubators’ networks of partners. Incubators conforming to this model can help aspiring entrepreneurs develop their ideas and flesh out the opportunities. They can also provide an injection of capital into promising and sound businesses, which have already overcome the early business development phase (recently established companies) and whose growth needs to be accelerated to exploit their potential further.
10.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL., ‘The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, 2000, pp 109–123.
11.
VargaA., ed, University Research and Regional Innovation: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Academic Technology Transfers, Kluwer, London, 1999.
12.
ChurchwellT.L., ‘The ARCH development corporation process for commercialization of technology from research institutions’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 13, No 6, 1999, pp 412–415.
13.
Roberts, op cit, Ref 1.
14.
StankiewiczR., ‘Spin-off companies from universities’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 21, No 2, 1994, pp 99–106.
15.
AndersG.C., ‘The changing role of public universities in local economic development’, Economic Development Review, Vol 10, No 4, 1992, pp 76–83.
16.
VesperK.H.GartnerW.B., ‘Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 12, No 5, 1997, pp 403–441.
17.
ValentínE.M.M., ‘University–industry cooperation: A framework of benefits and obstacles’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 14, No 3, 2000, pp 165–172.
18.
SchutteF., ‘The university–industry relations of an entrepreneurial university: The case of the University of Twente’, Higher Education in Europe, Vol 24, No 1, pp 47–65.
19.
Mian, op cit, Ref 3.
20.
ClarkR.B., ed, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation, Elsevier, London and New York, 1998.
21.
The University of Twente in The Netherlands, through its TOP (Temporary Entrepreneurial Placements) Programme, has enabled the incubation of more than 220 new companies, with a survival rate in their first five years of 89%. The university supports companies both economically (up to 15,000 ECU interest-free to be returned in five years) and logistically (space, internal infrastructure, facilities, etc), and provides access to knowledge and networks. Cambridge University is among the most famous in the UK. The clustering of a substantial number of high-tech companies around Cambridge has been triggered by informal contacts and by the trust in the university institution as a source of scientific and technological knowledge. Since 1978, on average 1.5 companies have been set up every month, with a survival rate of 93% over five years. Now there are three university incubators around Cambridge. The Universities of Oxford, Bristol, Salford, Sussex and Manchester are also very active in supporting the rise of knowledge-based ventures, particularly of academic spin-offs. In Sweden, Linköping University has been very active in supporting new high-tech companies. Since the early 1980s about 400 high-tech companies have been set up (of which 160 are academic spin-offs). The best-known programmes are ENP (Entrepreneurship and New Business Development Programme) and SMIL (Small Business Development in Linköping). The University of Chalmers is also active in this field. Since 1979, through the Chalmers Innovation Centre, it has initiated about 200 academic spin-offs. On the island of Ireland the TEP (Technology Enterprise Programme) run by the Dundalk Institute of Technology (in the Republic of Ireland) and the Belfast Northern Ireland Innovation Programme has promoted the generation of a large number of new companies. This programme is run every 15 months, during which an average of 10 new companies are set up. In Finland, the SPINNO programme was launched in 1990 with the aim of fostering economic and technological development through new high-tech spin-off companies. So far, more than 100 new companies have been established. In France, the contribution of universities to new venture creation has been increasing over the last 10 years: More than 30 UBIs have been set up, attached to different universities and interrelated through a common network. The prestigious universities involved in such developments include: Université de Nice–Sophia Antipolis, Université de Grenoble, Université Louis Pasteur, Ecole Supérieure d'Ingenieurs de Marseille, etc.
22.
CooperA. C., ‘The role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth oriented firms’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 1, 1985, pp 75–86.
23.
Mian, op cit, Ref 3.
24.
RogersE.M., ‘The role of the research university in the spin-off of high technology companies’, Technovation, Vol 4, 1986, pp 169–181.
25.
Their origin in Europe dates back to 1984, when the first Business Innovation Centres were set up on the initiative of the European Commission (DG XVI, Doc. XVI/37/84 – European Commission BIC concept).
26.
Mian, op cit, Ref 3.
27.
HeydebreckP.KlofstenM.MaierJ.C., ‘Innovation support for new technology-based firms: The Swedish technopol approach’, R&D Management, Vol 30, No 1, 2000.
28.
This definition of a spin-off is derived from Smilor, Gibson and Dietrich (op cit, Ref 1) and is similar to that used by many other scholars. See also CarayannisE. G.RogersE.M.KuriharaK.AllbrittonM.M., ‘High technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities’, Technovation, Vol 18, No 1, 1998, pp 2–11.
29.
SteffensenM.RogersE.M.SpeakmanK., ‘Spin-offs from research centers at a research university’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 15, 1999, pp 93–111.
30.
Van der SijdeP.C.RidderA., eds, Commercialising Knowledge: Examples of Entrepreneurship at the University of Twente, Twente University Press, Enschede, 2000.
31.
Stankiewicz, op cit, Ref 7.
32.
Roberts, op cit, Ref 1;
33.
Mian, op cit, Ref 3.
34.
The questionnaire was developed by Grimaldi and Sobrero at the University of Bologna (GrimaldiR.SombreroM., ‘Le strutture a supporto delle nuove imprese’, in LippariniA.LorenzoniG., eds, Imprenditori e Imprese, Il Mulino, 2000.) It was sent in January 2000 to the 33 Italian Business Innovation Centres belonging to the European BIC Network association (EBN) with the aim of assessing the contribution of BICs to new venture creation. The response rate was about 50%.
35.
The main partners include the Piemonte Region, the Turin Chamber of Commerce and Finpiemonte Spa.
36.
The Polytechnic has a long tradition of interaction with industry, ranging from FIAT and all the auto-component companies that revolve around the Italian automobile leader, to several companies in the electronic, electrical and software sectors.
37.
GrimaldiSobrero, op cit, Ref 18.
38.
AutioE.KlofstenM., ‘A comparative study of two European business incubators’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol 36, No 1, 1988, pp 30–43.
39.
GrimaldiSobrero, op cit, Ref 18.
40.
HansenM.T.ChesbroughH.W.SullD.N., ‘Networked incubators: Hothouses of the new economy’, Harvard Business Review, September–October 2000, pp 75–83.
41.
RupingK.von ZedtwitzM., ‘Risk-management in incubators’, paper presented at the IAMOT International Conference on Management of Technology, IMD, Lausanne, 19–22 March 2001.
