SpringerLink
Log in

Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations?

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Incubators are heterogeneous but there is a lack of understanding of the variety of innovation involved. We use four archetypes of incubator discussed in the literature (basic research, university, economic development and private incubator) and analyze their generation of different types of innovation (product, technological process and organizational innovation) during a 4 years period (2005–2008). In a sample of 80 incubators, we find that incubatees in some types of incubators are more prone to generate product and technological process innovations than those hosted in other types.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Andalusia is one of the largest regions in Spain in terms of GDP and population, and is situated in the South of Spain.

References

  • Abernathy, W., & Clark, K. (1985). Innovation: Map** the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abernathy, W., & Utterback, J. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abetti, P. (2004). Government-supported incubators in the Helsinki region, Finland: Infrastructure, results and best practices. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, M. E., Day, E., George, S., & Dougherty, D. (1998). Enhancing new product development performance: An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(5), 403–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23(2), 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. (2007). Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation, 27(5), 254–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D., & McCluskey, R. (1990). Structure, policy, services and performance in the business incubator industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(2), 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., Evangelista, R., & Simonetti, R. (1994). On the definition and measurement of product and process innovations. In Y. Shionoya & M. Perlman (Eds.), Innovation in technology, industries and institutions. studies in schumpeterian perspectives (pp. 7–24). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, R., & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27(5), 525–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Ramos, A., & Guitar, S. (2012). Revisiting incubation performance: How incubator typology affects results. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5), 888–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayona, C., García Marco, T., & Huerta, E. (2002). Collaboration in R and D with universities and research centres: an empirical study of Spanish firms. Regional and Development Management, 32, 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B., & Gassmann, O. (2006a). Corporate incubators: Industrial R and D and what universities can learn from them. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B., & Gassmann, O. (2006b). Gaining leverage effects from knowledge modes within corporate incubators. Regional and Development Management, 36(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollingtoft, A., & Ulhoi, J. (2005). The networked business incubator–leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R., Di Benedetto, C., & Meloche, M. (1988). Strategies of product and process innovation: A loglinear analysis. Regional and Development Management, 18(1), 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmen, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C., Hamel, S., & Connaughton, S. (2012). Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 433–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, S. L. (1997). Product innovation and the spatial dynamics of market intelligence: Does proximity to markets matter? Economic Geography, 73(2), 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., Szabat, K., & Evan, W. (1989). The relationship between types of innovation and organisational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6), 587–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Propis, L. (2002). Types of innovation and interfirm cooperation. Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, 14(4), 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dettwiler, P., Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2006). Utility of location: A comparative survey between small new technology-based firms located on and off science parks and-implications for facilities management. Technovation, 26(4), 506–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & McKelvey, M. (2001). Innovation and employment: Process versus product innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Escorsa, P., & Valls, J. (1996). A proposal for a typology of science parks. Brighton, Ken Guy Technopolis: The Science Park Evaluation Handbook.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Business and Innovation Centre Network (2009). BIC observatory 2009, The BIC network in 2008, facts and figures.

  • Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H., & Glaser, K. (2012). Research universities as actors in the governance of local and regional development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2012). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9287-2.

  • Hackett, S., & Dilts, D. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S., & Dilts, D. (2008). Inside the black box of business incubation: Study B-scale assessment, model refinement and incubation outcomes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 439–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidenreich, M. (2009). Innovation patterns and location of European low- and medium-technology industries. Research Policy, 38(3), 483–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M., Ireland, R. D., & Morgan, R. (2007). Stimulating dynamic value: Social capital and business incubation as a pathway to competitive success. Long Range Planning, 40(2), 154–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intarakumnerd, P., Chairatana, P., & Tagnchitpiboon, T. (2002). National innovation systems in less successful develo** countries: The case of Thailand. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1445–1457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinschmidt, E. J., & Cooper, R. G. (1991). The impact of product innovativeness on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(4), 240–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M., & Murray, J. Y. (1990). Linking product and process innovation and modes of international sourcing in global competition: A case of foreign multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(3), 383–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A., Si Ow, P., & Prietula, M. J. (1993). Organizational simulation and information systems design. An operations level example. Management Science, 39(2), 218–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, P. C. (1998). Sustaining innovation. Creating non-profit and government organizations that innovate naturally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, L. P. L., Garnsey, E., & Gregory, M. (2006). Product and process innovation in biopharmaceuticals: A new perspective on development. Regional and Development Management, 36(1), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in university science park incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s life cycle progression and the use of the incubator’s resources. Technovation, 28(5), 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melkers, J., & **ao, F. (2012). Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: Determinants of funding success for academic scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. (1994). US university-sponsored technology incubators: An overview of management, policies and performance. Technovation, 14(8), 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. (1996). Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25(3), 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 251–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monck, C. S. P., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P., Storey, D. J., & Wynarczyk, P. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Business Incubation Association. (1990). The state of the business incubation industry. Athens, OH: National Business Incubation Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1988). National systems of innovation: Preface and institutions supporting technical change in the United States. In Dosi, et al. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 309–329). Francis Pinter: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1993). National systems of innovation. A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakey, R. (2007). Clustering and the R and D management of high-technology small firms: In theory and practice. Regional and Development Management, 37(3), 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottum, B. D., & Moore, W. L. (1997). The role of market information in new product success/failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4), 258–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, D., Warren, L., & Bream, D. (2009). Elements that underpin high tech businesses incubation processes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 621–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, M. P. (2002). Co-production of business assistance in business incubators. An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(2), 163–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper, S., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2008). Innovation persistence: Survey and case-study evidence. Research Policy, 37(1), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R. (1991). External networking and innovation in small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in Europe. Regional and Development Management, 11(2), 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sammarra, A., & Biggiero, L. (2008). Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 800–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. A. (2009). Beyond incubation: An analysis of firm survival and exit dynamics in the postgraduation period. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. A. (2012). A control group study of incubators’ impact to promote firm survival. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9254-y.

  • Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technology based firms: A review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilor, R., & Gill, M. (1986). The new business incubator: Linking talent, technology and know-how. Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soetanto, D. P., & Jack, S. L. (2011). Business incubators and the networks of technology-based firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organisational determinants of innovation, types of innovations and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organizations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37, 1079–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Totterman, H., & Sten, J. (2005). Start-ups: Business incubation and social capital. International Small Business Journal, 23(5), 487–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udell, G. G. (1990). Are business incubators really creating new jobs by creating new businesses and new products? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(2), 108–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J., & Abernathy, W. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(3), 639–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. M., & Suarez, F. F. (1993). Innovation, competition and industry structure. Research Policy, 22(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Zedtwitz, M. (2003). Classification and management of incubators. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(1–2), 176–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Zedtwitz, M., & Grimaldi, R. (2006). Are service profiles incubator-specific? Results from an empirical investigation in Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. M. (2006). Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government. Public Administration, 84(2), 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. M. (2008). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organisational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 591–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P. (1997). R and D inputs and outputs of technology based firms in science parks. Regional and Development Management, 27(1), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35, 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Ctra, Utrera Km.1, 41013, Sevilla, Spain

    José L. Barbero

  2. Department of Business Administration and Marketing, University of Seville, Avda Ramón and Cajal, 41018, Sevilla, Spain

    José C. Casillas & Alicia Ramos Garcia

  3. Imperial College Business School, Imperial College, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

    Mike Wright

  4. University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    Mike Wright

Authors
  1. José L. Barbero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José C. Casillas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mike Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alicia Ramos Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José L. Barbero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barbero, J.L., Casillas, J.C., Wright, M. et al. Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations?. J Technol Transf 39, 151–168 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9308-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9308-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation