Evaluating the Success of Companies at University Science Parks: Key Performance and Innovation Indicators

  • Claudia OlveraEmail author
  • Josep M. Piqué
  • Ulises Cortés
  • Mario Nemirovsky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 43)


Science and Technology Parks (STPs) facilitate the flow of knowledge and technology among universities, R&D institutions, companies and markets, and foster the creation and growth of innovation-based companies. Among the diversity of STPs, it is possible to identify two types: Science Parks (SPs), which involves university shareholding and Technology Parks (TPs), which are not owned by universities. This study will take into account just SPs due they are closely linked to the university, and they are the bridge between University and companies in the process of Knowledge and Technology Transfer (KTT). The evaluation of the firm’s performance in SPs results in determinant to identify the needs of the companies and the feasibility of the University-Business Collaboration (UBC). Firm’s real needs also are of interest of Universities, since they face the challenge of designing strategies that best help them to transfer the knowledge more effectively. While previous studies have been focused on tenants’ innovation performance on-Park and off-Park, very little research has taken into account the Parks heterogeneity that may affect the firm’s performance. This research focuses on SPs in Spain and México due to data availability. This paper (1) aims to identify the Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) used by Companies co-located at SPs, and (2) explore the performance measure and critical success factors of SPs. For this study, data was collected through 71 online company surveys in Spain and 19 online company surveys in México. This empirical analysis uses ten semi-structured interviews to explore (KPI’s) and success factors of SPs in both countries.


University business collaboration Open innovation Evaluation metrics Key performance indicators (KPIs) Science parks 



This work has been partially funded by The National Council of Science and Technology of México, (CONACyT). We thank, Sara Ortiz from ITESO University, México. Victor Muntes, Dorica Munell, and, David Sanchez from CA Technologies Company, and, Soraya Hidalgo from TTO of Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, for their insights on KPIs work and survey validation. Also we acknowledge the IASP and APTE Science Parks associations for allowing access to the data and support in the Science Parks Directors’ interviews. Prof. Cortés is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores CONACyT-México.


  1. 1.
    Abdi H, Williams LJ (2010) Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2(4):433–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawal A, Henderson R (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Manage Sci 48(1):44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 25(5):599–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albahari A, Pérez-Canto S, Barge-Gil A, Modrego A (2017) Technology parks versus science parks: does the university make the difference? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 116:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bardin L (1991) Análisis de contenido, vol 89. Ediciones AkalGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnes T, Pashby I, Gibbons A (2002) Effective university–industry interaction: a multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. Eur Manag J 20(3):272–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caldera A, Debande O (2010) Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: an empirical analysis. Res Policy 39(9):1160–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charmaz K (2007) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D. Econ J 99(397):569–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colombo MG, Delmastro M (2002) How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Res Policy 31(7):1103–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Este P, Patel P (2007) University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Res Policy 36(9):1295–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davey T, Baaken T, Galan Muros V, Meerman A (2011) The state of European University-business cooperation. Part of the DG Education and Culture Study on the cooperation between higher education institutions and public and private organisations in EuropeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Díez-Vial I, Montoro-Sánchez Á (2016) How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: the case of a science park. Technovation 50:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Terra BRC (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res Policy 29(2):313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferguson R, Olofsson C (2004) Science parks and the development of NTBFs—location, survival and growth. J Technol Transf 29(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fernández F, María A (2013) Análisis de componentes principalesGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedman J, Silberman J (2003) University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter? J Technol Transf 28(1):17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fukugawa N (2006) Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. Int J Ind Organ 24(2):381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris RG (2001) The knowledge-based economy: intellectual origins and new economic perspectives. Int J Manag Rev 3(1):21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Lee HU (2000) Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth and performance: an introductory essay. J Eng Tech Manage 17(3–4):231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    IASP (2002) IASP International Board, 6 Feb 2002. IASP, MalagaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iqbal AM, Khan AS, Iqbal S, Senin AA (2011) Designing of success criteria-based evaluation model for assessing the research collaboration between university and industry. Int J Bus Res Manag 2(2):59–73Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Langford CH, Hall J, Josty P, Matos S, Jacobson A (2006) Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: proxies becoming goals? Res Policy 35(10):1586–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lofland J, Lofland L (1995) Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis, 3rd edn. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manual O (2005) Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. OECD/Eurostat, Paris and LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perkmann M, Neely A, Walsh K (2011) How should firms evaluate success in university–industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Manag 41(2):202–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Porter ME, Van Opstal D (2001) US competitiveness 2001: strengths, vulnerabilities and long-term policies. Council on CompetitivenessGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sanz L (2006) Estrategigrama: Un Método de Análisis y de ”Benchmarking” de las Tipologías de Parques Científicos y Tecnológicos a Partir de Sus Posicionamientos Estratégicos. III Encuentro especializado Parques Científicos y Tecnológicos. Recoletos. Madrid, 21–22 Febrero 2006Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schartinger D, Rammer C, Fröhlich J (2002) Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Res Policy 31(3):303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seppo M, Lilles A (2012) Indicators measuring university-industry cooperation. Discuss Estonian Econ Policy 20(1):204Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Siegel DS, Westhead P, Wright M (2003) Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. Int J Ind Organ 21(9):1357–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Squicciarini M (2009) Science parks, knowledge spillovers, and firms’ innovative performance: evidence from Finland. Economics/Discussion papers, vol 32, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tijssen RJ, Van Leeuwen TN, Van Wijk E (2009) Benchmarking university-industry research cooperation worldwide: performance measurements and indicators based on co-authorship data for the world’s largest universities. Res Eval 18(1):13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vásquez-Urriago ÁR, Barge-Gil A, Rico AM, Paraskevopoulou E (2014) The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain. J Evol Econ 24(4):835–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vásquez-Urriago ÁR, Barge-Gil A, Rico AM (2016) Which firms benefit more from being located in a Science and Technology Park? Empirical evidence for Spain. Res Eval 25(1):107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. European J Inf Syst 15(3):320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang WT, Lee WH (2000) A study on management performance of Taiwan high technology industry–the Hsinchu Science Park experience. J Inf Optim Sci 21(1):19–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Olvera
    • 1
    Email author
  • Josep M. Piqué
    • 2
  • Ulises Cortés
    • 3
    • 4
  • Mario Nemirovsky
    • 4
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya—BarcelonaTechBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.La Salle—Universidad Ramón Llull—La Salle Technova BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Barcelona Supercomputing CenterBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations