Science and Technology Parks: a study of value creation for park tenants

  • Alberto Albahari
  • Magnus Klofsten
  • Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero
Article

Abstract

The literature on Science and Technology Parks (STPs) is growing rapidly and, despite the positive impact of STPs on firms found by many studies, it remains unclear how STPs create value for tenants. In this paper, we study the STP supply side through a case study in a Swedish region. We identify two components of the business support provided by parks: a configuration-oriented component, and a process-oriented component. The former refers to the static design of the business support, and the latter to the active, hands-on support provided by parks’ management. Both components must be planned carefully in order to deliver value to tenants. We also discuss some implications for policy and managers.

Keywords

Science and Technology Parks Agglomerations Added-value Entrepreneurship Innovation 

JEL Classification

O3 R1 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank all the interviewees, especially Sten Gunnar Johansson, Åke Rolf and Christian Berger for their precious time. A previous version of this paper has been presented to the Triple Helix IX International Conference at Stanford University in 2011. The authors thank the participants to the conference for their useful comments. Alberto Albahari wants to acknowledge funding from the University of Malaga for carrying out the research staying in Sweden and for attending the conference.

References

  1. Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Modrego, A. (2016). The influence of Science and Technology Park characteristics on firms’ innovation results. Papers in Regional Science.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12253.Google Scholar
  2. Albahari, A., Catalano, G., & Landoni, P. (2013). Evaluation of national Science Park systems: A theoretical framework and its application to the Italian and Spanish systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(5), 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albahari, A., Pérez-Canto, S., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2017). Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albahari, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2010). Science and Technology Parks impacts on tenant organisations: A review of literature. MPRA Paper No. 41914. University Library of Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  5. ALMI. (2013). ALMI AB. Available at http://www.almi.se. Accessed 10 June 2013.
  6. Audretsch, B. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Autio, E., & Klofsten, M. (1998). A comparative study of two European business incubators. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1), 30–43.Google Scholar
  8. Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C., & Varsakelis, N. C. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy? An analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22(2), 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beaudry, C., & Swann, P. (2009). Firm growth in industrial clusters of the United Kingdom. Small Business Economics, 32(4), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benneworth, P., de Boer, H., & Jongbloed, B. (2015). Between good intentions and urgent stakeholder pressures: Institutionalizing the universities’ third mission in the Swedish context. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cabral, R. (1998). Refining the Cabral–Dahab science park management paradigm. International Journal of Technology Management, 16(8), 813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cadorin, E., Johansson, S. G., & Klofsten, M. (2017). Future developments for science parks: Attracting and developing talent. Industry and Higher Education, 31(3), 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, K. Y. A., Oerlemans, L. A., & Pretorius, M. W. (2011). Innovation outcomes of South African new technology-based firms: A contribution to the debate on the performance of science park firms. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 14(4), 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, C. J., & Huang, C. C. (2004). A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech industries for the science-based industrial park in Taiwan. Information & Management, 41(7), 839–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, C., & Link, A. N. (2017). Employment in China’s hi-tech zones. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0486-z.Google Scholar
  17. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Durão, D., Sarmento, M., Varela, V., & Maltez, L. (2005). Virtual and real-estate science and technology parks: A case study of Taguspark. Technovation, 25(3), 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovative region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university–industry–government relations. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  21. Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks—Seedbeds or enclaves of innovation. Technovation, 14(2), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs—Location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gordon, I. R., & Mccann, P. (2005). Innovation, agglomeration, and regional development. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(5), 523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017a). Science and technology parks: An annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 957–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017b). The growth of US science and technology parks: Does proximity to a university matter? Annals of Regional Science, 59(2), 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hommen, L., Doloreux, D., & Larsson, E. (2006). Emergence and growth of Mjardevi Science Park in Linkoping, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 14(10), 1331–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howard, E. S., & Link, A. N. (2017). An Oasis of knowledge: The early history of gateway university research park. Journal of the Knowledge Economy.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-017-0513-x.Google Scholar
  29. Huang, K. F., Yu, C. M. J., & Seetoo, D. H. (2012). Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: The smaller firm the better? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 715–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Innovationsbron. (2011). Available at http://www.innovationsbron.se/en. Accessed 10 June 2011.
  31. Johansson, S. G. (2009). New challanges meet old experienceNetworking as astrategic tool. Working paper 2009-08-20/MSP. Linköping: Mjärdevi Science Park.Google Scholar
  32. Jones-Evans, D. (2007). Entrepreneurship environment and policies: Exploiting the science and technology base in the region of Halle. OECD LEED local entrepreneurship series. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  33. Jones-Evans, D., & Klofsten, M. (1997). Universities and local economic development: The case of Linköping. European Planning Studies, 5(1), 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klofsten, M., Heydebreck, P., & Jones-Evans, D. (2010). Transferring good practice beyond organizational borders: Lessons from transferring an entrepreneurship programme. Regional Studies, 44(6), 791–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klofsten, M., Jones-Evans, D., & Schärberg, C. (1999). Growing the Linköping technopole—A longitudinal study of triple helix development in Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2–3), 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (2001). Does venture capital spur innovation? In G. D. Libecap (Ed.), Entrepreneurial inputs and outcomes: New studies of entrepreneurship in the United States (pp. 1–44). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  38. Laur, I., Klofsten, M., & Bienkowska, D. (2012). Catching regional development dreams: A study of cluster initiatives as intermediaries. European Planning Studies, 20(11), 1909–1921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. LEAD. (2017). LiU entrepreneurship and development. Available at http://www.lead.se/en. Accessed 14 December 2017.
  41. Lee, W. H., & Yang, W. T. (2000). The cradle of Taiwan high technology industry development—Hsinchu Science Park (HSP). Technovation, 20(1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden—Implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics, 20(3), 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). US science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Link, A. N., & Yeong Yang, U. (2017). On the growth of Korean technoparks. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0459-2.Google Scholar
  46. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—Academic–industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation, 23(1), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Malairaja, C., & Zawdie, G. (2008). Science parks and university–industry collaboration in Malaysia. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McCann, B. T., & Folta, T. B. (2008). Location matters: Where we have been and where we might go in agglomeration research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 532–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McCann, B. T., & Folta, T. B. (2011). Performance differentials within geographic clusters. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 104–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Monck, C. S. P., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P., Storey, D., & Wynarczyk, P. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high-technology firms. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  52. NULINK. (2013). Available at http://www.nulink.se. Accessed 10 June 2013.
  53. Phillimore, J. (1999). Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation—An analysis of Western Australian Technology Park. Technovation, 19(11), 673–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic–industry links and innovation—Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ramírez-Alesón, M., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2017). Unravelling the effects of Science Parks on the innovation performance of NTBFs. The Journal of Technology Transfer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9559-y.Google Scholar
  56. Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 203–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1357–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science Parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Squicciarini, M. (2009). Science parks: Seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Storey, D. J., & Tether, B. S. (1998). New technology-based firms in the European Union: An introduction. Research Policy, 26(9), 933–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Svensson, P., Klofsten, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2012). An entrepreneurial university strategy for renewing a declining industrial city: The Norrköping way. European Planning Studies, 20(4), 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., Rico, A. M., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2014). The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4), 835–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university–industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. VINNOVA. (2018). Swedish governmental agency for innovation systems. Available at http://www.vinnova.se/en. Accessed 1 February 2018.
  66. WAINOVA. (2009). Wainova Atlas of innovation: Science/technology/research parks and business incubators in the world. Cheshire: Ten Alps Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1998). Independent technology-based firms: The perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197–2219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1999). Perceived benefits of a managed science park location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 11(2), 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1995). Links between higher-education institutions and high-technology firms. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 23(4), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yang, C. H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J. R. (2009). Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy, 38(1), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversidad de Málaga –School of Industrial EngineeringMálagaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Management and Engineering, Helix Competence Centre and PIELinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations