Companies as incubators try to build success by systematically creating and nurturing new firms. However, there are many elements to a business incubation policy, and the term itself is not well defined. This article first presents a framework of factors, which are then examined in a European-wide survey. The case of The Generics Group illustrates how a company can implement a comprehensive incubation policy. The results show that business incubation within companies is not very common. Most company incubation policies are half-hearted and/or inadequately integrated, although the case study reveals the potential success of business incubation for certain types of parent companies.
AnslingerP.KlepperS.SubramaniamS. (1999), ‘Breaking up is good to do’, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol 1, pp 16–27 (www.mckinseyquarterly.com).
2.
ArcianiE.ArrighettiA.VivarelliM. (1997), ‘Imprese che producono imprese. Motivazioni e fattori influenti sulla formazione di Spin-Off’ (‘Companies that produce companies. Motivations and factors influencing the creation of Spin-Offs’), IRES Lombardy, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato e Agricultura di Milano, Milan.
3.
BhideA. (1994), ‘How entrepreneurs craft strategies that work’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 72, pp 150–161.
CarayannisE.RogersE.KuriharaK.AllbrittonM. (1998), ‘High technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities’, Technovation, Vol 18, No 1, pp 1–11.
8.
ChesbroughH.SmithE. (2000), Chasing Economies of Scope: Xerox's Management of its Technology Spin-Off Organisations, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
9.
DruckerP. F. (1986), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
10.
GarvinD. (1983), ‘Spin-offs and the new firm formation process’, California Management Review, Vol 25, No 2, pp 3–20.
Lindholm-Dahlstrand (1997), ‘Growth and innovativeness in technology-based spin-off firms’, Research Policy, Vol 26, pp 331–344.
18.
MarkidesC.WilliamsonP. (1996), ‘Corporate diversification and organisational structure: A resource-based view’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 39, No 2, pp 340–367.
19.
MartreH. (1994), Intelligence Économique et Stratégie des Entreprises, Commisariat Général du Plan, Paris, (ISBN: 2-11-003102-6).
20.
MoncadaP.TübkeA.HowellsJ.CarboneM. (1999), The Impact of Corporate Spin-Offs on Competitiveness and Employment in the European Union, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Technical Report EUR-19040-EN, Seville (http://www.jrc.es/pages/projects/corporate/welcome.html).
21.
MoncadaP.TübkeA.MiègeR.BotellaT. (2001), Corporate and Research-Based Spin-Offs: Drivers for Knowledge-Based Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Technical Report EUR-19903-EN, Seville (http://www.jrc.es/pages/projects/corporate/welcome.html).
22.
MustarP. (1998), ‘Partnerships, configurations and dynamics in the creation and development of SMEs by researchers’, Industry and Higher Education, August, pp 217–221.
23.
NBIA (2001), What is Business Incubation?National Business Incubation Association, June (http://www.nbia.org).
24.
OECD (1999), Background Report for the Workshop on Research-Based Spin-Offs, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, DSTI/STP/TIP(99)10.
25.
OECD (2000), Analytic Report on Spin-Offs, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, DSTI/STP/TIP(2000)7.
RobertsE. B.MaloneD. E. (1996), ‘Policies and structures for spinning-off new companies from research and development organisations’, R&D-Management, Vol 26, No 1, pp 17–49.
30.
RumeltR. (1974), Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
31.
TeeceD. (1986), ‘Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, Vol 15, pp 285–305.
