R&D ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ of technology‐based firms located on and off Science Parks

Abstract

Science Parks (adjacent to universities) provide an important resource network for technology-based firms. To ascertain the 'added value' of a Science Park location the innovativeness (with regard to a variety of 'input' as well as 'output' measures) of independent technologybased Science Park firms are compared with the levels recorded by a comparable group of firms not located on a Park. Empirical evidence collected in 1992 93 from firms in a 'follow-on' sample (originally interviewed in 1986) as well as a 'new sample' study (independent firms that had located on a Science Park between 1986 and 1992) both revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups on a variety of innovativeness measures. Results from both samples suggest Science Park firms do not directly invest more in R&D than off-Park firms nor do they record significantly higher levels of technology diffusion. The policy implications of the research findings are discussed.

Leading the Diffusion of Intellectual Capital Management Practices in Science Parks

“…As a result, over-attributing the success of onsite firms only to the physical configuration of science parks, especially in the case of SMEs, rather than acknowledging the integrative leadership competency of science park management in brokering cooperative, collaborative and coopetitive interactions has caused much confusion. Further, by assuming a limited role of the management of science parks as a being just that of real estate agent, it then becomes the argument that the sole role of the management team is one of managing the relationships between investors, and whilst this is clearly not the case, this definition of the management team has sometimes resulted in tenant selection criteria being inappropriately relaxed, to create greater levels of income for the park (Westhead, 1997).…”

“…The evolving role of science parks, as enablers in inter-organisational relationships, is evidenced in the findings of extant research into the dynamics of interactions between tenants (Corsaro et al, 2012;Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2003;Siegel et al, 2003;Westhead, 1997). In this sense, tenants and stakeholders may be seen as partners, customers and competitors who are cooperatively, collaboratively or coopetitively linked through a nonlinear set of activities and interactions.…”

Building Effective Bridges between Science Parks and Universities

“…The influence of Science Parks on Businesses has been addressed by Löfsten and Lindelöf (2003), Monck, Porter, Quintas, Storey and Wynarczyk (1988), Westhead (1997), and Westhead and Batstone (1998). The impact of Science Parks on entrepreneurships, startups and new technology based firms has been analyzed by Ferguson and Olofsson (2004), Löfsten and Lindelöf (2002) and McAdam and McAdam (2008).…”

Inovação Colaborativa Em Ambientes De Parques Científico-Tecnológicos: Proposta De Um Esquema Teórico-Conceitual

“…Em relação a estratégias de colaboração, alguns estudos apontam que os parques fortalecem os relacionamentos entre organizações (Kai-Ying, Oerlemans, & Pretorius, 2010;Phillimore, 1999;Tan, 2006;Vedovello, 1997) enquanto outros não encontraram evidências nesse sentido (Bakouros, Mardas, & Varsakelis, 2002;Kihlgren, 2003;Malairaja & Zawdie, 2008;Radosevic & Myrzakhmet, 2009;Vedovello, 1997) 2 . As ambiguidades permanecem quando o enfoque é direcionado à geração de inovações, pois alguns trabalhos apontam contribuições significativas dos parques nesse sentido (Squicciarini, 2009;Tan, 2006;Yang, Motohashi, & Chen, 2009); outros, contudo, não confirmam essa proposição (Kai-Ying et al, 2010;Massey et al, 1992;Radosevic & Myrzakhmet, 2009;Westhead, 1997).…”