1. May 25 – June 3, LISBON, PORTUGAL
GLOBELICS ACADEMY 2004
May 25 – June 3, LISBON, PORTUGAL
INCUBATION POLICY :
SUPPORTING THE NEEDS OF
HIGH TECHNOLOGY BASED FIRMS
Danny P. Soetanto
Faculty of Technology Policy and Management Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
2018年12月30日星期日

2. Structure of the presentation
Aim of the research
Introduction to the research problems
Problems in the study
Theoretical perspective
Literature review (S&T Parks definition and performance measurement) and empirical studies on the obstacles faced by new high technology firms.
Conclusion
2018年12月30日星期日

3. Aim of the research (preliminary)
To identify design rules of incubation policy to support the growth of new technology-based firms
under certain condition
(e.g. national innovation system, culture)
2018年12月30日星期日

4. Introduction to the problem
Competitive advantage of the region determined by their level of innovativeness.
One of the best policies adapted by many regions in the world, is endorsing the development of small high tech firms.
Why do small high-tech firms need support?
They face many obstacles compared with other types of firms
They face a high risk
They are often in the dilemma of exploring new market (innovative) or exploiting the existing market.
2018年12月30日星期日

5. Introduction to the problem
The type of support provided by incubation policy
Selection process
Supply of
Financial support
Cheap and flexible space
Shared services
Courses and training
Access to knowledge at university
Monitoring activity
2018年12月30日星期日

6. Problems in the study
Three fundamental questions in the early stage of my research (year 1):
What is the definition of incubator? S&T Park? Technology Park?
How to evaluate the performance of incubator, S&T Park, etc?
What are the major obstacles faced by new technology based firms?
Methods used to answer the question
Literature review
Experiment with Meta analysis Rough set / cluster and Survey / in depth interview
2018年12月30日星期日

7. A wide diversity of S&T Parks
Launch
Size (ha)
Academic link
Stakeholders
Supply
Innotech Budapest (Hungary)
1987
0.9
Technical university of Budapest
Collaboration of university, local and national government
Estate, maintenance, business support service (incubator)
Ideon Science Park (Sweden)
1983
14.8
Lund university
Collaboration of private, local government, university
Estate, maintenance, laboratory & workshop, commercial service
Surrey research park (United Kingdom)
1984
28.3
University of Surrey
Singapore science park (Singapore)
115
None
Owned by government but privatized in 1990
Estate, maintenance, no business support service (incubator)
Research Triangle Park (US)
1959
2712
Six universities in North Carolina region
Research triangle foundation – private, non profit
Estate (sold), maintenance
2018年12月30日星期日

8. Theoretical Perspective
Resource-based theory (Penrose, 1959)
Failure
Time
Assets
Growth
Reversal
Reinforcement
Generate
Resources
Mobilize
Access
Stability
Adapted from Reid and Garnsey (1998)
2018年12月30日星期日

9. Theoretical Perspective
Spin offs subject to incubation policy
Viable firms as output
Initial resources
Admission criteria
Additional resources
2018年12月30日星期日

10. Classification of S&T Parks
Literature study
Stakeholders
Role of real-estate development
Role of attracting outside firms
Type of linkage with university
Availability of incubation facility
Types of activities
2018年12月30日星期日

11. Classification of S&T Parks
Industrial Parks
Major actors : government and a mix of actors including real estate development agencies.
Goal : attracting firms from outside the region (often FDI).
Research Parks
Major actors : combination of actors (local government, university, real estate developers).
Goal : to attract R&D activities.
Incubation Parks
Major actors : university and local government
Goal : to provide incubation facilities to support new firms development
2018年12月30日星期日

12. Previous studies in measuring the performance of S & T Parks
Methodology :
Longitudinal approach versus one point in time approach.
Micro approach (firm) versus macro approach (regional).
Process approach (e.q. quality of the management of the parks) versus output approach (e.q. number of firms established).
Comparing with control group (on-site firms and off-site firms) versus analysis of the performance of the park itself.
Direct impact versus indirect impact (multiplier effect).
2018年12月30日星期日

13. Previous studies in measuring the performance of S & T Parks
The most common indicator : on-site job creation.
Few authors measure impact at a longer timescale in a comprehensive way.
The most common indicator : regional economic.
Few authors use specific performance indicators, like mutual links between S&T Parks residents and university and quality of the management team.
2018年12月30日星期日

14. Differences in perception of performance measurement
Performance indicators
Policymakers
Researchers
T - test
Mean
Std
Patents per 1000 habitants
1.40
0.60
0.69
0.85
0.009*
University spin off companies
1.65
0.75
1.92
0.28
0.217
Spin-off and startup growth
1.80
0.41
1.46
0.52
0.045*
PhD's working in business and industry
1.00
0.79
1.61
0.65
0.027*
R&D driven companies
1.95
0.22
1.54
0.77
0.032*
* Significant at .05 level
2018年12月30日星期日

15. Characteristics of TU Delft spin offs
Age of the firm
< 3 years (39.5 %) 3-5 year (32.5 %)  6 year (27.9 %)
Innovative level
‘New to the sector’ %
Not ‘new to the sector 54.8 %
‘Breakthrough’ %
Not a ‘breakthrough’ %
R & D activity
Firms with own R&D activity 85.4 %
Firms without R&D activity 14.6 %
2018年12月30日星期日

16. Results of Descriptive Statistics
The major obstacles to grow :
Marketing %
Uncertainty 13.8% /3
Cash flow 13.8% /3
Sales skills 12.3%
Management % 5
2018年12月30日星期日

17. Results of Regression Analysis
The factors that determine the growth of the firms (measured by the job growth) are :
Number of the founders
Age of the firms
Internal support
External support
Lack of marketing knowledge *
Dealing with uncertainty *
* Significant at .05 level
2018年12月30日星期日

18. Obstacles per age category
< 3 years
3-5 years
 6 years
Market-related 15 7 8
Financial 16 4 3
Management-related 13
Totals obstacles
(incl. others obstacles) 55 21
Total firms 17 14 12
Average number of
obstacles / firm
3.24
1.50
1.25
2018年12月30日星期日

19. Obstacles per age category
2018年12月30日星期日

20. Statistical test Result :
Age category and market related obstacles : .569
Age category and financial obstacles : .024 *
Age category and management obstacles : .046*
* Significant at .05 level
Preliminary interpretation :
The financial and management obstacles are declining over time
The market related obstacles are not declining over time
2018年12月30日星期日

21. Obstacles over time
56.9 %
93.5 %
2018年12月30日星期日

22. Preliminary Conclusion
The typology of S&T Parks (industrial parks, research parks, incubator parks)
The performance of policies to foster new technology firms through S&T Parks is difficult to measure through conventional methods. We prefer to introduce a new method using the participation of different stakeholders.
Highly innovative firms face a somewhat higher level of obstacles in the beginning compared to all spin offs.
The problem incidence among highly innovate firms, however decreases at a much higher rate (by 94%).
2018年12月30日星期日

23. Research question
What are the types of obstacles that influence the growth of new technology-based firms? In which stage of the firm’s development do the obstacles appear? And what factors cause the obstacles?
What strategies of technology incubator are effective in supporting new technology-based firms to overcome their obstacles?
In applying those strategies, what management model of technology incubators is appropriate? What requirements are needed for those strategies?
Obstacles : market related obstacles
2018年12月30日星期日

24. Research Design Phase IV Designing rules Phase II Overview Phases I
Phase V
Conclusion
Phase IV
Designing rules
Phase III
Case studies
(International
Comparison)
Phase II
Overview
Phases I
Preparation
Exploring the incubation process & incubators’ performance evaluation
Empirical analysis of incubators’ performance
Initial hypotheses
Case study Selection
Case study analysis
International comparison
Hypotheses Reformulation
Model of incubation process
Testing on expert opinion
Conclusion – Writing dissertation
Research on firm’s critical junctures
Research
Design
2018年12月30日星期日

25. Thank You
2018年12月30日星期日