This is the second part of my studies in business incubators. The first part may be found here.
To aid in the analysis of business incubators, particularly in identifying issues related to incubator evaluation and recommended practices, a classification system needs to be adopted (Albert and Gaynor 2001). Various researchers have provided different means for categorizing business incubators. Some researchers propose to classify them according to a) their primary financial sponsors (Kuratko and LaFollette 1987; Smilor 1987b; and Temali and Campbell 1984), b) the business focus of the incubator (i.e. property development or business assistance) (Brooks 1986), c) the business focus of the incubatees (Plosila and Allen 1985; Sherman 1999), or d) whether the incubatee is a spin-off or a start-up (Plosila and Allen 1985). However, because the configuration of an incubator is highly dependent on the social, cultural, and economic environments that they are in (Albert and Gaynor 2001), using existing classification systems as a predictor of a particular incubator’s success is not advisable. Nevertheless, they remain helpful in understanding the motivations and key issues behind certain incubators. This file provides a list of some types of incubators.
An interesting proposition has been made in a paper by Hansen et al. (2000) where they depict incubators as a new organizational model that has evolved from mass production firms and multidivisional companies of the 1900s. They suggest that incubators should be seen as a means of addressing corporate rigidity caused by deep bureaucracy. What is critical, according to Hansen et al. (2000), is for incubators to own “significant but minority equity stakes [that] will ensure that the incubator and the associated investors have influence—but not authority—over companies.” Viewing the incubator as an evolved multidivisional firm also allows its management to achieve a certain focus in the types of tenants that it accepts. Just as a multidivisional firm must adopt a certain focus on the types of businesses it enters, so must an incubator. By maintaining a related set of companies, the incubator is able to optimise benefits to the incubatees and thus to itself. Hansen et al. (2000) also warn that “incubators that assemble a highly diversified portfolio of companies are likely to suffer from the same problems that traditional conglomerates do. The whole will not be greater than the sum of the parts.” However, while the proposal of Hansel et al. is compelling, much work needs to be done on their agency-based theory (For more information on agency theory, see Eisenhardt 1989) since “rather than working for the success of the principal’s firm and shareholders, the incubatees work to attain their own firm’s success” (Hackett and Dilts 2004b). That is, the principal-agent dyad that is commonplace in multidivisional firms may not be present in incubators making agency-based theory difficult to implement. Furthermore, their proposal to adopt a portfolio strategy in selecting incubatees may only be applicable to certain types of incubators.
It is worth emphasizing that while classification systems are helpful in systematically analysing the business incubation industry, they do not necessarily predict an incubator’s success rate. Researchers such as Allen and McCluskey (1990) state that, considering all other things equal, there is very little variance in the outcomes of incubators across different classifications. Peters et al. (2004), however, found in their research that non-profit incubators—those that do not take equity stakes in tenant firms and rely instead on rental payments and institutional funding—had a higher success rate than for-profit ones. They reason that because non-profit incubators did not face any pressure to make a profit, they are in a much better position to select the best incubatees. On the other hand, Hackett and Dilts (2004a; 2004b) suggest that non-profit incubators have a higher chance of selecting non-performing tenant firms since their raison d’etre would turn into ensuring full occupancy rather than ensuring the success of their tenant firms. Furthermore, Hackett and Dilts (2004a) state that non-profit incubators have a tendency to “underreport incubator-incubation failures and over-report successes” to ensure continuity of public funds. Thus, the findings of incubator configuration research are still divergent and further study may be needed to reveal conclusive evidence on a classification system’s predictive ability. At this point in time, incubator taxonomies may only be used to provide insights on how an incubator may be managed and not as a predictor of their future success.
In part three, I explore the incubation process and how it may be a better predictor of incubator success.
Albert P. and L. Gaynor 2001. Incubators – Growing Up, Moving Out: A Review of the Literature. CERAM Sophia Antipolis.
Allen Consulting Group, The 2003. Evaluation of the BITS Incubator Program and the Intelligent Island Incubator.
Allen, D. N. 1988. Business Incubator Life Cycles. Economic Development Quarterly. 2(1): 19–29.
Allen, D. N. and R. McCluskey 1990. Structure, Policy, Services, and Performance in the Business Incubator Industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 15(2):61–77.
Allen, D. N. and S. Rahman 1985. Small Business Incubators: A Positive Environment for Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management. 23(3):12–22.
Anthony, R. N., Govindarajan, V. 2000. Management Control Systems (10th Edition). Boston: McRaw-Hill Irwin.
Bøllingtoft, A. and J. P. Ulhøi 2003. The Networked Business Incubator–Leveraging Entrepreneurial Agency? Journal of Business Venturing. 20:265–290.
Brooks, O.J. 1986. Economic Development Through Entrepreneurship: Incubators and the Incubation Process. Economic Development Review. 4(2):24–29.
Campbell, C. 1989. Change Agents in the New Economy: Business Incubators and Economic Development. Economic Development Review. 7(2):56–59.
Campbell, C., R. C. Kendrick, and D. S. Samuelson 1985. Stalking the Latent Entrepreneur: Business Incubators and Economic Development. Economic Development Review 3(2):43–49.
Copeland, T. 2002. The Real-options Approach to Capital Allocation. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 30(1):82–85.
Daft, R. 1983. Organization Theory and Design. New York. NY:West.
Eisendhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review. 14(1):57–74.
Hackett, S. M. and D. M. Dilts 2004a. A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research. Journal of Technology Transfer. 29: 55–82.
Hackett, S. M. and D. M. Dilts 2004b. A Real Options-Driven Theory of Business Incubation. Journal of Technology Transfer. 29: 41–54.
Hamdani, D. 2006. Conceptualizing and Measuring Business Incubation. Statistics Canada, and Innovation and Electronic Information Division Science.
Hansen, M. T., H. W. Chesbrough, N. Nohria and D. N. Sull 2000. Networked Incubators: Hothouses of the New Economy. Harvard Business Review. September:75–83.
Kuratko, D.F. and W.R. LaFollette 1987. Small Business Incubators for Local Economic Development. Economic Development Review. 5(2): 49–55.
Markley, D. M. and K. T. McNamara 1995. Economic and Fiscal Impacts of a Business Incubator. Economic Development Quarterly. 9(3):273–278.
McGrath, R.G. 1999. Falling Forward: A Real Options Reasoning and Entrepreneurial Failure. Academy of Management Review. 24(1):13–30.
Merrifield, D. B. 1987. New Business Incubators. Journal of Business Venturing. 2:277–284.
Mian, S. A. 1996. Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy. 25: 325–335.
National Business Incubation Association (NBIA) 2006a. Tips for Developers. http://www.nbia.org/resource_center/developers_tips/index.php accessed April 9, 2007.
National Business Incubation Association (NBIA) 2006b. Principles and Best Practices of Successful Business Incubation. http://www.nbia.org/resource_center/best_practices/index.php accessed April 9, 2007.
Peters, L., M. Rice and M. Sundararajan 2004. The Role of Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process. Journal of Technology Transfer. 29:83–91.
Plosila, W. and D. N. Allen 1985. Small Business Incubators and Public Policy: Implications for States and Local Development Strategies. Policy Studies Journal. 13:729–734.
Rice, M. P. 2002. Co-production of Business Assistance in Business Incubators: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business Venturing. 17: 163–187.
Robillo, O. 2007. Manpower and Skills Survey. http://ittalks.robilloblog.com/2007/04/09/manpower-skills-survey accessed 12 April 2007.
Scott-Kemmis, D., A. J. Jones, and B. Heslop 2004. ANU Enterpreneurship Development and Enterprise Support Centre: An ACT-ANU Collaboration. Innovation Management and Policy Program, National Graduate School of Management.
Shcerer, A and McDonald D. W. 1988. A Model for the Development of Small High-Technology Businesses Based on Case Studies from an Incubator. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 5:282–295.
Sherman, H. 1999. Assessing the Intervention of Effectiveness of Business Incubation Programs on New Business Start-ups. Journal of Development Entrepreneurship. 4(2):117–133.
Sherman, H. and D.S. Chappell 1998. Methodological Challenges in Evaluating Business Incubator Outcomes. Economic Development Quarterly. 12(4):313–321.
Smilor, R.W. 1987a. Commercializing Technology Through New Business Incubators. Research Management. 30(5):36–41.
Smilor, R.W. 1987b. Managing the Incubator System: Critical Success Factors to Accelerate New Company Development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. EM-34(4):146–156.
Temali, M. and C. Campbell 1984. Business Incubator Profiles: A National Survey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Hubert H. Humphrey Institiute of Public Affairs.