Interest in the role of business incubators in the development of high-technology start-up companies has increased dramatically in recent years. This interest has led to the creation of large numbers of ‘formal’ incubators, offering a wide range of business services to facilitate the development of the companies located within their walls. The authors argue that this may lead to a neglect of the role universities play in incubating high-technology start-up companies. In this paper the following question is considered: what kind of role can and should universities play in the process without being ‘formal’ incubators? In answering this question the role of the university in providing access to resources is examined. Based on a new survey and case material, the authors' contention is that universities are now performing many of the functions of an incubator. However, they differ from many ‘formal’ incubators in that they do not have clearly defined walls.
AmitR. H.ShoemakerP. J. H. (1993), ‘Strategic assets and organizational rent’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 14, No 1, pp 33–46.
2.
BarneyJ. B. (1991), ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management, Vol 17, No 1, pp 99–120.
3.
BirleyS. (2002), ‘Universities, academics, and spinout companies’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education (in press).
4.
BrushC. G.GreeneP. G.HartM. M. (2001), ‘From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base’, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol 15, No 1, pp 64–78.
5.
CoffR. W.LavertyK. J. (2001), ‘Roadblocks to competitive advantage: How organisational constraints and individual decision biases hinder investments in strategic assets’, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol 12, pp 1–24.
6.
CombsJ. G.KetchenD. J. (1999), ‘Explaining inter-firm co-operation and performance: Toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 20, pp 867–888.
7.
DeshpandeR. (1983), ‘Paradigms lost: On theory and method in research in marketing’, Journal of Marketing, Vol 46, pp 101–110.
8.
EisenhardtK. (1989), ‘Building theories from case-studies’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 14, pp 532–550.
9.
FranklinS.WrightM.LockettA. (2001), ‘Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 26, No 1/2, pp 127–141.
10.
GranstandO.SjolanderS. (1990), ‘Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations’, Research Policy, Vol 19, No 1, pp 35–60.
11.
HansenM.ChesbroughH. W.NohriaN.SullD. S. (2000), ‘Networked incubators: Hothouses of the new economy’, Harvard Business Review, September–October, pp 74–84.
12.
HendersonR.JaffeA.TrajtenbergM. (1998), ‘Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting 1965–1988’, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol 81, pp 119–127.
13.
KatzJ.GartnerW. B. (1988), ‘Properties of emerging organisations’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 13, No 3, pp 429–441.
14.
LockettA.WrightM.FranklinS. (2002), ‘Technology transfer and universities' spin-out strategies’, Small Business Economics (in press).
15.
MianS. A. (1996), ‘Assessing value-added contributions of university technology incubators to tenant firms’, Research Policy, Vol 25, pp 325–335.
16.
MillerD.ShamsieJ. (1996), ‘The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 39, pp 519–543.
17.
MurrayG. (1999), ‘Early stage venture capital funds, scale economies and public support’, Venture Capital, Vol 1, No 4, pp 351–384.
18.
NohriaN.EcclesR.G. (1992), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
19.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978), The External Control of Organzations: A Resource Dependency Perspective, Harper and Row, New York.
20.
PowellW. W.Owen-SmithJ. (1998), ‘Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol 17, No 2, pp 253–277.
21.
RadosevichR. (1995), ‘A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 10, No 7/8, pp 879–893.
22.
SahlmanW. (1990), ‘The structure and governance of venture capital organizations’, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 27, pp 473–521.
23.
SamsonK. J.GurdonM. A. (1993), ‘University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technology transfer and high technology venturing’, Technovation, Vol 13, No 2, pp 63–71.
24.
SiegelD.WaldmanD.LinkA. L. (1999), Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study, NBER Working Paper No 7256, July.
25.
SiegelD.WessnerC.BinksM.LockettA. (2002), ‘Policies promoting innovation in small firms: Evidence from the U.S. and U.K.’, Small Business Economics (in press).
26.
SiegelD.WestheadP.WrightM. (2002), ‘Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: A review of recent U.K. evidence and an agenda for future research’, Small Business Economics (in press).
27.
SiegelD.WaldmanD.LinkA.L. (2001), Improving the Effectiveness of Commercial Knowledge Transfers from Universities to Firms, working paper, University of Nottingham.
28.
ShaneS. (2001), ‘Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT’, Management Science (in press).
29.
TeeceD. J.PisanoG.ShuenA. (1997), ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 18, No 7, pp 509–533.
30.
ThursbyM.JensenR.ThursbyJ. (2000), Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing, NBER Working Paper No W7718.
WernerfeltB. (1984), ‘A resource based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 5, No 2, pp 171–180.
33.
WrightM.RobbieK. (1998), ‘Venture capital and private equity: A review and synthesis’, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol 25, No 5/6, pp 521–570.
34.
YinR. K. (1994), Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
