Business Processes and Networks in University Incubators: A Review and Research Agendas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

While the technology aspects of university incubators in university science parks(USPs) receive considerable attention and development, as the primary force in the creation of incubator businesses, the business and social inputs (entrepreneurial networks) are less well defined. Anchoring to the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), it is argued that a business process perspective is useful to conceptualize the deployment of key resources in USPs—namely business support and social support (entrepreneurial networks). This paper reviews existing literature in relation to university incubator business processes and networks. In particular, the paper seeks to link the process and network concepts to define research agendas.
LanguageEnglish
Pages451-472
JournalTechnology Analysis and Strategic Management
Volume18
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2006

Fingerprint

Incubator
Business process
Business networks
Research agenda
Entrepreneurial networks
Science parks
Anchoring
Literature review
Social support
Business incubators
Business support
Resource-based view of the firm
Resources

Cite this

@article{25567bcbc9934ef59221075e33032fdb,
title = "Business Processes and Networks in University Incubators: A Review and Research Agendas",
abstract = "While the technology aspects of university incubators in university science parks(USPs) receive considerable attention and development, as the primary force in the creation of incubator businesses, the business and social inputs (entrepreneurial networks) are less well defined. Anchoring to the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), it is argued that a business process perspective is useful to conceptualize the deployment of key resources in USPs—namely business support and social support (entrepreneurial networks). This paper reviews existing literature in relation to university incubator business processes and networks. In particular, the paper seeks to link the process and network concepts to define research agendas.",
author = "Maura McAdam and Brendan Galbraith and Rodney McAdam and Paul Humphreys",
note = "Reference text: 1. Allen, D. and Bazan, E. 1990. Value-added contribution of Pennsylvania's business incubators to tenant firms and local economies, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. report prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Commerce 2. Mian, S. A. 1996. Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25: 325–335. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 3. McAdam, R., Keogh, W., Galbraith, B. and Laurie, D. 2005. Defining and improving technology transfer business and management processes in university innovation centres. Technovation, 25(12): 1418–1429. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 4. Ibid. 5. Gower, S., Harris, F. and Cooper, P. A. 1996. Assessing the management of science parks in the UK. Journal of Property Management, 14(1): 30–38. [CrossRef] 6. Stinchcombe, A. 1965. “Social structures and organisations”. In Handbook of Organisations, Edited by: March, J. Chicago: Rand McNally. 7. Singh, J., House, R. and Trucker, D. 1986. Organization legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administration Science Quarterly, 31(2): 171–193. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}], [CSA] 8. Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S. and Wright, M. 2005. Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 165–182. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 9. Ibid. 10. Roberts. 2001. Science parks in Sweden – industrial renewal and development. R & D Management, 31(3): 309–322. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 11. Mian, S. A. 1997. Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 251–285. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 12. Mian, S. A. 1994. US university-sponsored technology incubators: an overview of management, policies and performance, Technovation. 14(8): 515–528. 13. Siegel, D., Westhead, P. and 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: 177–184. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 14. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. 2001. Managing Innovation, West Sussex: Wiley. 15. Carayannis, E. G., Rogers, E. M., Kurihara, K. and Allbritton, M. M. 1998. High-Technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation, 18(1): 1–11. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}], [CSA] 16. Steffenson, M., Rogers, E. M. and Speakman, K. 1999. Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 93–111. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 17. Autio, E. and Klofsten, M. 1998. A comparative study of two European business incubators. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1): 30–43. [Web of Science {\circledR}] 18. Gibb, A. 2000. Small and medium enterprise development: Borrowing form elsewhere? A research and development agenda. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 7(3): 199–211. [CrossRef] 19. de la Ville, V. The structuration of emerging idiosyncratic technologies. The key to high tech entrepreneurship on small business, (Rent) XII Conference. November, Lyons, France. 20. Op. cit . ref. 3. 21. Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Blackwell. 22. Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 23. Op. cit . ref. 23. 24. Druilhe, C. and Garnsey, E. 2004. Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter?. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29: 269–285. [CrossRef] 25. Penrose, E. 1995. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] 26. Quintas, P., Wield, D. and Massey, D. 1992. Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3): 161–175. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 27. Woolgar, S., Vaux, J., Gomes, P., Ezingeard, J-N. and Grieve, R. 1998. Abilities and competencies required, particularly by small firms, to identify and acquire new technology. Technovation, 18(8/9): 575–584. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 28. Oakey, R. and Mukhtar, S-M. 1999. United Kingdom high-technology small firms in theory and practice: A review of recent trends. International Small Business Journal, 17(2): 48–63. [CrossRef] 29. Autio, E. and Klofsten, M. 1998. A comparative study of two European business incubators. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1): 30–43. [Web of Science {\circledR}] 30. Roberts, E. B. 1991. The technological base of the new enterprise. Research Policy, 20(4): 283–298. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 31. Op. cit . ref. 13. 32. Op. cit . ref. 29. 33. Rothwell, R. 1992. Successful Industrial Innovation: critical factors for the 1990s. R & D Management, 22(3): 221–239. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 34. Muller, E. 2001. Innovation Interactions between Knowledge-Intensive Business Services and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, New York: Physica-Verlay. [CrossRef] 35. Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N. 1986. “An overview of innovation”. In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Edited by: Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N. 275–305. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 36. Roberts, E. B. and Hauptman, O. 1986. The process of technology transfer to the new biomedical and pharmaceutical firm. Research Policy, 15: 107–119. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 37. Op. cit . ref. 29. 38. Wade, J. 1995. Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: an empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 111–133. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 39. Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. 1991. On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1: 93–118. [CrossRef] 40. Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11: 147–162. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 41. Debackere, K., Clarysse, B., Wijnberg, M. and Rappa, M. A. 1994. Science and industry: a theory of networks and paradigms. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 6: 21–37. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 42. Grandori, A. and Soda, G. 1995. Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms, and forms. Organization Studies, 16: 183–214. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 43. Pavitt, K. 1990. What we know about the strategic management of technology. California Management Review, 32(3): 17–26. [Web of Science {\circledR}], [CSA] 44. Amendola, M. and Bruno, S. 1990. The behaviour of the innovating firm: relations to the environment. Research Policy, 19: 419–433. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 45. Op. cit . ref. 29. 46. Ibid. 47. Op. cit . ref .47. 48. Phillimore, J. 1999. Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation: An analysis of Western Australian Technology Park. Technovation, 19: 673–680. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 49. Mesari, O. and Maital, S. 2001. A survey analysis of university-technology transfer in Israel: evaluation of projects and determinants of success. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2): 115–126. [CrossRef] 50. Roberts, E. B. and Wainer, H. A. 1968. New enterprises on Route 128. Science Journal, : 78–83. [Web of Science {\circledR}] 51. Op. cit . ref .50. 52. Smilor, R. W. 1987. Commercializing technology through new business incubators. Research Management, 30: 36–41. 53. Allen, D. N. and McCluskey, R. 1990. Structure, policy, services and performance in the business incubator industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(2): 61–77. 54. Op. cit . ref. 12. 55. Op. cit . ref. 11. 56. Op. cit . ref. 50. 57. Storey, D. J. and Tether, B. S. 1998. New technology-based firms in the European union: an introduction. Research Policy, 26: 933–946. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 58. Op. cit . ref. 57. 59. Monck, C. S. P., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P., Storey, D. J. and Wynarczyk, P. 1998. Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms, London: Croom Helm. 60. Kinsella, R. and McBrierty, V. 1997. Campus companies and the emerging techno-academic paradigm: the Irish experience. Technovation, 17(5): 245–251. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}], [CSA] 61. Muent, H. 1999. University spin-offs and local business support infrastructure in a post-socialist economy. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 6(2): 128–138. [CrossRef] 62. Op. cit . ref. 28. 63. Fassin, Y. 2000. The strategic role of university-industry liaison offices. Journal of Research Administration, 1(2): 31–41. 64. Op. cit . ref. 14. 65. Op. cit . ref. 63. 66. Roberts, E. B. 1990. Evolving toward product and market orientation: the early years of technology-based firms. Journal of Product and Innovation Management, 7(4): 274–287. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 67. Op. cit . ref. 63. 68. Op. cit . ref. 28. 69. Klofsten, M. and Jones-Evans, D. 1996. Stimulation of technology-based small firms – a case study of university-industry cooperation. Technovation, 16(4): 187–193. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 70. Cooper, S. Y. You take the high road and I'll take the low road: contrasting routes to entrepreneurship in high technology small firms, paper presented to IntEnt97. The 7th International Entrepreneurship Conference. June25–27, Monterey, California. 71. Op. cit . ref. 28. 72. Smailes, R., Cooper, S. Y. and Keogh, W. 2002. Supporting university enterprise: the Scottish and US experience. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 2(4/5): 354–372. [CrossRef] 73. Chan, K. F. and Lau, T. 2005. Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: the good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25(10): 1215–1228. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 74. Klofsten, M., Lindell, P., Olofsson, C. and Wahlbin, C. Internal and external resources in technology-based spin-offs: a survey. Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp.430–443. MA: Babson College Wellesley. 75. Shanklin, W. L. and Ryans, J. K. 1988. “Organising for high-tech marketing”. In Readings in the Management of Innovation, 2nd edn, Edited by: Tushman, M. L. and Moore, W. L. 487–498. New York: Harper Collins. 76. Oakey, R. P., Cooper, S. Y. and Biggar, J. 1993. “Product marketing and sales in high-technology small firms”. In New Technologies and the Firm, Edited by: Swann, P. 201–222. London: Routledge. 77. Brown, A. and Soderstrom, E. 2002. Start-Up and Equity Primer, Yale: Association of University Technology Managers Publication. 78. Daniels, G. and Hofer, C. 1993. “Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurial faculty and their innovative research teams”. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurial Research Edited by: Churchill, N., Birley, S., Bygrave, W., Doutriaux, J., Gatewood, E., Hoy, F. and Wetzel, W. 598–609. 79. Op. cit . ref. 63. 80. Franklin, S. J., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. 2001. Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2): 127–141. [CrossRef] 81. Op. cit . ref. 80. 82. Klofsten, M. and Mikaelsson, A-S. 1996. Support of small business firms: entrepreneurs' views of the demand and supply side. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 4(4): 417–432. [CrossRef] 83. Storey, D. J. 1982. Entrepreneurship and the new firm, London: Croom Helm. 84. Op. cit . ref. 82. 85. Evans, G., Keogh, W. and Blaydon, C. The role of science parks and incubators in the incubation process. The 6th Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference. pp.813–829. University of Twente. 86. Klofsten, M. Stimulating the growth and development of small technology-based firms: an entrepreneurship model that works. paper presented at the 15th Annual Entrepreneurship Research Conference (The Babson Conference) at London Business School. April9–13. 87. Op. cit . ref. 69. 88. Wright, M., Birley, S. and Mosey, S. 2004. Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29: 235–246. [CrossRef] 89. Ibid. 90. Op. cit . ref. 3. 91. Op. cit . ref. 72. 92. Op. cit . ref. 8. 93. Op. cit . ref. 17. 94. Donckels, R. and Lambrecht, J. 1995. Networks and small business growth: an explanatory model. Small Business Economics, 7(4): 273–289. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 95. Op. cit . ref. 63. 96. Malinen, P. and Sinerro, P. Growth factors of small enterprises assisted by a Technology Centre. Comparison of the experiences of Irish and Finnish enterprises, 14th Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business (RENT) Conference. November23–24. pp.165–169. Prague: Czech Republic. 97. P{\'e}rez, M. P. and S{\'a}nchez, A. M. 2003. The development of university spin-offs: early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23: 823–831. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 98. Ibid. 99. Talwar, R. 1993. Business re-engineering – a strategy-driven approach. Long Range Planning, 26(6): 22–40. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 100. Lee, R. G. and Dale, B. G. 1998. Business process management: a review and evaluation. Business Process Management, 4(3): 214–225. [CrossRef] 101. Op. cit . ref. 29. 102. Op. cit . ref. 27. 103. Vohora, A., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. 2004. Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33: 147–175. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 104. Ibid. 105. Op. cit . ref. 5. 106. Op. cit . ref. 59. 107. Op. cit . ref. 28. 108. Op. cit . ref. 5. 109. Op. cit . ref. 3. 110. Scott, W. R. 1987. Organizations: rational, natural and open systems, 2nd edn, 141Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 111. Hackett, S. M. and Dilts, D. M. 2004. A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1): 55–82. [CrossRef] 112. Op. cit . ref. 11. 113. Albert, P. and Gaynor, L. National vontexts, incubator families and trends in incubation-views from four countries. The 48th ICSB Conference Proceedings. Belfast 114. Ibid. 115. Op. cit . ref. 8. 116. Op. cit . ref. 113. 117. Campbell, C. 1989. Change agents in the new economy: business incubators and economic development. Economic Development Review, : 56–57. 118. Lyons, T. S. 1990. Birthing economic development: how effective are Michigan's business incubators?, Center for the Redevelopment of Industrialised States, Michigan State University. Social Science Research Bureau 119. Lyons, T. S., Lichtenstein, G. A. and Chhatre, S. 1996. Obstacles to minority entrepreneurship in the inner-city and the role of business incubation programs in surmounting them. 13–16 March paper to the 26th Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association Available online: htttp://www.louisville.edu/org/sun/economic_dev/uaapa.html 120. Autio, E. and Laamanen, T. 1996. Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer: review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7/8): 643–664. [Web of Science {\circledR}] 121. Op. cit . ref. 17; also pointed out by Lyons et al . 1996, Op. cit . ref. 119. 122. Op. cit ref 119. 123. Op. cit . ref. 17. 124. Op. cit ref. 111. 125. Op. cit . ref. 17. 126. Op. cit . ref. 11. 127. Op. cit . ref. 103. 128. Birley, S. 1985. The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1: 107–117. [CrossRef] 129. Aldrich, H. 1999. Organisations Evolving, London: Sage Publications. 130. Op cit . ref. 128. 131. Butler, J. and Hansen, G. 1991. Network evolution, entrepreneurial success and regional development. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3: 1–16. [Taylor & Francis Online] 132. Larson, A. and Starr, J. A. 1992. A networked model of organisation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17: 5–17. 133. Op. cit . ref. 129. 134. Shaw, E. and Conway, S. 2000. “Networking and the small firm”. In Enterprise and Small Business, Edited by: Carter, S. and Jones-Evans, D. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. 135. Hoang, H. and Antoncic, B. 2003. Network based research in entrepreneurship: a critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2): 165–187. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 136. Aldrich, H. and Zimmer, C. 1986. “Entrepreneurship through social networks”. In The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Edited by: Sexton, D. L. and Smilor, R. W. 2–23. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 137. Op. cit . ref. 134. 138. Op. cit . ref. 135. 139. Hite, J. M. and Hesterly, W. S. 2001. The evolution of firm networks: from emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 257–286. [CrossRef] 140. Neergaard, H. 2005. Networking activities in technology based entrepreneurial teams. International Small Business Journal, 23(3): 257–278. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 141. Op. cit . ref. 136. 142. Johannisson, B., Alexanderson, O., Nowicki, K. and Seneseth, K. 1994. Beyond anarchy and organisation: entrepreneurs in contextual networks. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 6(3): 329–356. [Taylor & Francis Online] 143. Op. cit . ref. 134. 144. Op. cit . ref. 135. 145. Carsrud, A. and Johnson, R. 1989. Entrepreneurship: a social perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1: 21–31. [Taylor & Francis Online] 146. Op. cit . ref. 136, p. 3. 147. Carsrud, A., Gaggle, C. and Olm, K. 1987. Entrepreneurs—mentors, networks and successful new venture development: an exploratory study. American Journal of Small Business, 12(2): 13–18. 148. Bryson, J., Woods, P. and Keeble, D. 1993. Business networks, small firm flexibility and regional development in UK business services. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5: 265–177. [Taylor & Francis Online] 149. Op. cit . ref. 136. 150. Op. cit . ref. 135. 151. Op. cit . ref. 136. 152. Johannisson, B. 1987. Anarchists and organisers: entrepreneurs in network perspective. International Studies of Management and Organisation, XVII(1): 49–63. 153. Ostgaard, T. A. and Birley, S. 1994. Personal networks and firm competitive strategy—a strategic or coincidental match?. Journal of Business Venturing, 9: 281–305. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 154. Op. cit . ref. 136. 155. Op. cit . ref. 142. 156. Birley, S., Cromie, S. and Myers, A. 1991. Entrepreneurial networks: their emergence in Ireland and overseas. International Journal of Small Business Journal, 9(4): 56–74. [CrossRef] 157. Op. cit . ref. 134. 158. O'Donnell, A., Gilmore, A., Cummins, D. and Carson, D. 2001. The network construct in entrepreneurship research: a review and critique. Management Decision, 39(9): 1–14. 159. Szarka, J. 1990. Networking and small firms. International Small Business Journal, 8(2): 10–22. [CrossRef] 160. Huggins, R. 2000. The success and failure of policy-implanted inter-firm network initiatives: motivations, processes and structure. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(2): 115–135. [Taylor & Francis Online] 161. Bruderl, J. and Prisendorfer, P. 1998. Network support and the success of newly founded business organisations. Small Business Economics, 10: 213–225. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 162. Chell, E. and Baines, S. 2000. Networking, entrepreneurship and micro business behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(2): 195–215. [Taylor & Francis Online] 163. Hills, G., Lumpkin, G. T. and Singh, R. P. 1997. “Opportunity recognition: perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs”. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 203–218. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. 164. Op. cit . ref. 128, p. 115. 165. Lender, C. Management, Professionals and Funding of University Business Incubators Worldwide. The 48th ICSB Conference Proceedings. Belfast. 166. Hansen, M. T., Chesbrough, H. W., Nohria, N. and Sull, D. 2000. Networked incubators: hothouses of the economy. Harvard Business Review, Sept/Oct [Web of Science {\circledR}] 167. Op. cit . ref. 165, p. 6. 168. Barrow, C. 2001. Incubators: A Realist's Guide to the World's Business Accelerators, Chichester: Wiley. 169. Op. cit . ref. 165, p. |p| 6. 170. Op. cit . ref. 140. 171. Johannisson, B. 1986. Network strategies: management technology for entrepreneurship and change. International Small Business Journal, 5(1): 19–36. Op. cit. ref. 152 [CrossRef] 172. Sweeney, G. P. 1987. Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 155London: Francis Pinter. 173. Ibid., p. 1343. 174. Op. cit . ref 128. 175. Op. cit . ref. 171. 176. Op. cit . ref. 172. 177. Ibid. 178. Schutjens, V. and Stam, E. 2000. The evolution and nature of young firm networks: a longitudinal perspective, a paper presented at the Uddevalla Symposium Trollhattan Sweden 179. Op. cit . ref. 172. 180. Op. cit . ref. 152. 181. Op. cit . ref. 172, p. 141. 182. Op. cit . ref. 136. 183. Op. cit . ref. 147. 184. Op. cit . ref. 152. 185. Op. cit . ref. 172. 186. Carson, D. and Cromie, S. Marketing information. it's collection and utilisation by small firms. Proceedings of the 36th ICSB World Conference. pp.51–58. Austria 187. Op. cit . ref. 178, p. 564. 188. Op. cit ref. 131. 189. Op. cit . ref. 13. 190. Op. cit . ref. 11. 191. Op. cit . ref. 113. 192. Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F. and Surlemont, B. 2002. A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22: 281–289. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 193. Op. cit . ref. 17. 194. Op. cit . ref. 119. 195. Op. cit . ref. 85. 196. Op. cit . ref. 36. 197. Op. cit . ref. 120. 198. Lambert, R. 2003. Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, London: HMSO. 199. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Els Van de Velde, E. and Vohora, A. A. 2005. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 183–216. [CrossRef], [Web of Science {\circledR}] 200. Op. cit . ref. 8.",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/09537320601019578",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "451--472",
journal = "Technology Analysis and Strategic Management",
issn = "0953-7325",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Business Processes and Networks in University Incubators: A Review and Research Agendas

AU - McAdam, Maura

AU - Galbraith, Brendan

AU - McAdam, Rodney

AU - Humphreys, Paul

N1 - Reference text: 1. Allen, D. and Bazan, E. 1990. Value-added contribution of Pennsylvania's business incubators to tenant firms and local economies, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. report prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Commerce 2. Mian, S. A. 1996. Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25: 325–335. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 3. McAdam, R., Keogh, W., Galbraith, B. and Laurie, D. 2005. Defining and improving technology transfer business and management processes in university innovation centres. Technovation, 25(12): 1418–1429. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 4. Ibid. 5. Gower, S., Harris, F. and Cooper, P. A. 1996. Assessing the management of science parks in the UK. Journal of Property Management, 14(1): 30–38. [CrossRef] 6. Stinchcombe, A. 1965. “Social structures and organisations”. In Handbook of Organisations, Edited by: March, J. Chicago: Rand McNally. 7. Singh, J., House, R. and Trucker, D. 1986. Organization legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administration Science Quarterly, 31(2): 171–193. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA] 8. Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S. and Wright, M. 2005. Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 165–182. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 9. Ibid. 10. Roberts. 2001. Science parks in Sweden – industrial renewal and development. R & D Management, 31(3): 309–322. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 11. Mian, S. A. 1997. Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 251–285. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 12. Mian, S. A. 1994. US university-sponsored technology incubators: an overview of management, policies and performance, Technovation. 14(8): 515–528. 13. Siegel, D., Westhead, P. and 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: 177–184. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 14. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. 2001. Managing Innovation, West Sussex: Wiley. 15. Carayannis, E. G., Rogers, E. M., Kurihara, K. and Allbritton, M. M. 1998. High-Technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation, 18(1): 1–11. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA] 16. Steffenson, M., Rogers, E. M. and Speakman, K. 1999. Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 93–111. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 17. Autio, E. and Klofsten, M. 1998. A comparative study of two European business incubators. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1): 30–43. [Web of Science ®] 18. Gibb, A. 2000. Small and medium enterprise development: Borrowing form elsewhere? A research and development agenda. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 7(3): 199–211. [CrossRef] 19. de la Ville, V. The structuration of emerging idiosyncratic technologies. The key to high tech entrepreneurship on small business, (Rent) XII Conference. November, Lyons, France. 20. Op. cit . ref. 3. 21. Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Blackwell. 22. Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 23. Op. cit . ref. 23. 24. Druilhe, C. and Garnsey, E. 2004. Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter?. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29: 269–285. [CrossRef] 25. Penrose, E. 1995. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] 26. Quintas, P., Wield, D. and Massey, D. 1992. Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3): 161–175. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 27. Woolgar, S., Vaux, J., Gomes, P., Ezingeard, J-N. and Grieve, R. 1998. Abilities and competencies required, particularly by small firms, to identify and acquire new technology. Technovation, 18(8/9): 575–584. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 28. Oakey, R. and Mukhtar, S-M. 1999. United Kingdom high-technology small firms in theory and practice: A review of recent trends. International Small Business Journal, 17(2): 48–63. [CrossRef] 29. Autio, E. and Klofsten, M. 1998. A comparative study of two European business incubators. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(1): 30–43. [Web of Science ®] 30. Roberts, E. B. 1991. The technological base of the new enterprise. Research Policy, 20(4): 283–298. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 31. Op. cit . ref. 13. 32. Op. cit . ref. 29. 33. Rothwell, R. 1992. Successful Industrial Innovation: critical factors for the 1990s. R & D Management, 22(3): 221–239. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 34. Muller, E. 2001. Innovation Interactions between Knowledge-Intensive Business Services and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, New York: Physica-Verlay. [CrossRef] 35. Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N. 1986. “An overview of innovation”. In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Edited by: Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N. 275–305. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 36. Roberts, E. B. and Hauptman, O. 1986. The process of technology transfer to the new biomedical and pharmaceutical firm. Research Policy, 15: 107–119. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 37. Op. cit . ref. 29. 38. Wade, J. 1995. Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: an empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 111–133. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 39. Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. 1991. On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1: 93–118. [CrossRef] 40. Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11: 147–162. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 41. Debackere, K., Clarysse, B., Wijnberg, M. and Rappa, M. A. 1994. Science and industry: a theory of networks and paradigms. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 6: 21–37. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] 42. Grandori, A. and Soda, G. 1995. Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms, and forms. Organization Studies, 16: 183–214. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 43. Pavitt, K. 1990. What we know about the strategic management of technology. California Management Review, 32(3): 17–26. [Web of Science ®], [CSA] 44. Amendola, M. and Bruno, S. 1990. The behaviour of the innovating firm: relations to the environment. Research Policy, 19: 419–433. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 45. Op. cit . ref. 29. 46. Ibid. 47. Op. cit . ref .47. 48. Phillimore, J. 1999. Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation: An analysis of Western Australian Technology Park. Technovation, 19: 673–680. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 49. Mesari, O. and Maital, S. 2001. A survey analysis of university-technology transfer in Israel: evaluation of projects and determinants of success. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2): 115–126. [CrossRef] 50. Roberts, E. B. and Wainer, H. A. 1968. New enterprises on Route 128. Science Journal, : 78–83. [Web of Science ®] 51. Op. cit . ref .50. 52. Smilor, R. W. 1987. Commercializing technology through new business incubators. Research Management, 30: 36–41. 53. Allen, D. N. and McCluskey, R. 1990. Structure, policy, services and performance in the business incubator industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(2): 61–77. 54. Op. cit . ref. 12. 55. Op. cit . ref. 11. 56. Op. cit . ref. 50. 57. Storey, D. J. and Tether, B. S. 1998. New technology-based firms in the European union: an introduction. Research Policy, 26: 933–946. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 58. Op. cit . ref. 57. 59. Monck, C. S. P., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P., Storey, D. J. and Wynarczyk, P. 1998. Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms, London: Croom Helm. 60. Kinsella, R. and McBrierty, V. 1997. Campus companies and the emerging techno-academic paradigm: the Irish experience. Technovation, 17(5): 245–251. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA] 61. Muent, H. 1999. University spin-offs and local business support infrastructure in a post-socialist economy. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 6(2): 128–138. [CrossRef] 62. Op. cit . ref. 28. 63. Fassin, Y. 2000. The strategic role of university-industry liaison offices. Journal of Research Administration, 1(2): 31–41. 64. Op. cit . ref. 14. 65. Op. cit . ref. 63. 66. Roberts, E. B. 1990. Evolving toward product and market orientation: the early years of technology-based firms. Journal of Product and Innovation Management, 7(4): 274–287. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 67. Op. cit . ref. 63. 68. Op. cit . ref. 28. 69. Klofsten, M. and Jones-Evans, D. 1996. Stimulation of technology-based small firms – a case study of university-industry cooperation. Technovation, 16(4): 187–193. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 70. Cooper, S. Y. You take the high road and I'll take the low road: contrasting routes to entrepreneurship in high technology small firms, paper presented to IntEnt97. The 7th International Entrepreneurship Conference. June25–27, Monterey, California. 71. Op. cit . ref. 28. 72. Smailes, R., Cooper, S. Y. and Keogh, W. 2002. Supporting university enterprise: the Scottish and US experience. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 2(4/5): 354–372. [CrossRef] 73. Chan, K. F. and Lau, T. 2005. Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: the good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25(10): 1215–1228. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 74. Klofsten, M., Lindell, P., Olofsson, C. and Wahlbin, C. Internal and external resources in technology-based spin-offs: a survey. Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp.430–443. MA: Babson College Wellesley. 75. Shanklin, W. L. and Ryans, J. K. 1988. “Organising for high-tech marketing”. In Readings in the Management of Innovation, 2nd edn, Edited by: Tushman, M. L. and Moore, W. L. 487–498. New York: Harper Collins. 76. Oakey, R. P., Cooper, S. Y. and Biggar, J. 1993. “Product marketing and sales in high-technology small firms”. In New Technologies and the Firm, Edited by: Swann, P. 201–222. London: Routledge. 77. Brown, A. and Soderstrom, E. 2002. Start-Up and Equity Primer, Yale: Association of University Technology Managers Publication. 78. Daniels, G. and Hofer, C. 1993. “Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurial faculty and their innovative research teams”. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurial Research Edited by: Churchill, N., Birley, S., Bygrave, W., Doutriaux, J., Gatewood, E., Hoy, F. and Wetzel, W. 598–609. 79. Op. cit . ref. 63. 80. Franklin, S. J., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. 2001. Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2): 127–141. [CrossRef] 81. Op. cit . ref. 80. 82. Klofsten, M. and Mikaelsson, A-S. 1996. Support of small business firms: entrepreneurs' views of the demand and supply side. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 4(4): 417–432. [CrossRef] 83. Storey, D. J. 1982. Entrepreneurship and the new firm, London: Croom Helm. 84. Op. cit . ref. 82. 85. Evans, G., Keogh, W. and Blaydon, C. The role of science parks and incubators in the incubation process. The 6th Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference. pp.813–829. University of Twente. 86. Klofsten, M. Stimulating the growth and development of small technology-based firms: an entrepreneurship model that works. paper presented at the 15th Annual Entrepreneurship Research Conference (The Babson Conference) at London Business School. April9–13. 87. Op. cit . ref. 69. 88. Wright, M., Birley, S. and Mosey, S. 2004. Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29: 235–246. [CrossRef] 89. Ibid. 90. Op. cit . ref. 3. 91. Op. cit . ref. 72. 92. Op. cit . ref. 8. 93. Op. cit . ref. 17. 94. Donckels, R. and Lambrecht, J. 1995. Networks and small business growth: an explanatory model. Small Business Economics, 7(4): 273–289. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 95. Op. cit . ref. 63. 96. Malinen, P. and Sinerro, P. Growth factors of small enterprises assisted by a Technology Centre. Comparison of the experiences of Irish and Finnish enterprises, 14th Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business (RENT) Conference. November23–24. pp.165–169. Prague: Czech Republic. 97. Pérez, M. P. and Sánchez, A. M. 2003. The development of university spin-offs: early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23: 823–831. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 98. Ibid. 99. Talwar, R. 1993. Business re-engineering – a strategy-driven approach. Long Range Planning, 26(6): 22–40. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 100. Lee, R. G. and Dale, B. G. 1998. Business process management: a review and evaluation. Business Process Management, 4(3): 214–225. [CrossRef] 101. Op. cit . ref. 29. 102. Op. cit . ref. 27. 103. Vohora, A., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. 2004. Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33: 147–175. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 104. Ibid. 105. Op. cit . ref. 5. 106. Op. cit . ref. 59. 107. Op. cit . ref. 28. 108. Op. cit . ref. 5. 109. Op. cit . ref. 3. 110. Scott, W. R. 1987. Organizations: rational, natural and open systems, 2nd edn, 141Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 111. Hackett, S. M. and Dilts, D. M. 2004. A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1): 55–82. [CrossRef] 112. Op. cit . ref. 11. 113. Albert, P. and Gaynor, L. National vontexts, incubator families and trends in incubation-views from four countries. The 48th ICSB Conference Proceedings. Belfast 114. Ibid. 115. Op. cit . ref. 8. 116. Op. cit . ref. 113. 117. Campbell, C. 1989. Change agents in the new economy: business incubators and economic development. Economic Development Review, : 56–57. 118. Lyons, T. S. 1990. Birthing economic development: how effective are Michigan's business incubators?, Center for the Redevelopment of Industrialised States, Michigan State University. Social Science Research Bureau 119. Lyons, T. S., Lichtenstein, G. A. and Chhatre, S. 1996. Obstacles to minority entrepreneurship in the inner-city and the role of business incubation programs in surmounting them. 13–16 March paper to the 26th Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association Available online: htttp://www.louisville.edu/org/sun/economic_dev/uaapa.html 120. Autio, E. and Laamanen, T. 1996. Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer: review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7/8): 643–664. [Web of Science ®] 121. Op. cit . ref. 17; also pointed out by Lyons et al . 1996, Op. cit . ref. 119. 122. Op. cit ref 119. 123. Op. cit . ref. 17. 124. Op. cit ref. 111. 125. Op. cit . ref. 17. 126. Op. cit . ref. 11. 127. Op. cit . ref. 103. 128. Birley, S. 1985. The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1: 107–117. [CrossRef] 129. Aldrich, H. 1999. Organisations Evolving, London: Sage Publications. 130. Op cit . ref. 128. 131. Butler, J. and Hansen, G. 1991. Network evolution, entrepreneurial success and regional development. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3: 1–16. [Taylor & Francis Online] 132. Larson, A. and Starr, J. A. 1992. A networked model of organisation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17: 5–17. 133. Op. cit . ref. 129. 134. Shaw, E. and Conway, S. 2000. “Networking and the small firm”. In Enterprise and Small Business, Edited by: Carter, S. and Jones-Evans, D. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. 135. Hoang, H. and Antoncic, B. 2003. Network based research in entrepreneurship: a critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2): 165–187. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 136. Aldrich, H. and Zimmer, C. 1986. “Entrepreneurship through social networks”. In The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Edited by: Sexton, D. L. and Smilor, R. W. 2–23. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 137. Op. cit . ref. 134. 138. Op. cit . ref. 135. 139. Hite, J. M. and Hesterly, W. S. 2001. The evolution of firm networks: from emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 257–286. [CrossRef] 140. Neergaard, H. 2005. Networking activities in technology based entrepreneurial teams. International Small Business Journal, 23(3): 257–278. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 141. Op. cit . ref. 136. 142. Johannisson, B., Alexanderson, O., Nowicki, K. and Seneseth, K. 1994. Beyond anarchy and organisation: entrepreneurs in contextual networks. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 6(3): 329–356. [Taylor & Francis Online] 143. Op. cit . ref. 134. 144. Op. cit . ref. 135. 145. Carsrud, A. and Johnson, R. 1989. Entrepreneurship: a social perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 1: 21–31. [Taylor & Francis Online] 146. Op. cit . ref. 136, p. 3. 147. Carsrud, A., Gaggle, C. and Olm, K. 1987. Entrepreneurs—mentors, networks and successful new venture development: an exploratory study. American Journal of Small Business, 12(2): 13–18. 148. Bryson, J., Woods, P. and Keeble, D. 1993. Business networks, small firm flexibility and regional development in UK business services. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5: 265–177. [Taylor & Francis Online] 149. Op. cit . ref. 136. 150. Op. cit . ref. 135. 151. Op. cit . ref. 136. 152. Johannisson, B. 1987. Anarchists and organisers: entrepreneurs in network perspective. International Studies of Management and Organisation, XVII(1): 49–63. 153. Ostgaard, T. A. and Birley, S. 1994. Personal networks and firm competitive strategy—a strategic or coincidental match?. Journal of Business Venturing, 9: 281–305. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 154. Op. cit . ref. 136. 155. Op. cit . ref. 142. 156. Birley, S., Cromie, S. and Myers, A. 1991. Entrepreneurial networks: their emergence in Ireland and overseas. International Journal of Small Business Journal, 9(4): 56–74. [CrossRef] 157. Op. cit . ref. 134. 158. O'Donnell, A., Gilmore, A., Cummins, D. and Carson, D. 2001. The network construct in entrepreneurship research: a review and critique. Management Decision, 39(9): 1–14. 159. Szarka, J. 1990. Networking and small firms. International Small Business Journal, 8(2): 10–22. [CrossRef] 160. Huggins, R. 2000. The success and failure of policy-implanted inter-firm network initiatives: motivations, processes and structure. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(2): 115–135. [Taylor & Francis Online] 161. Bruderl, J. and Prisendorfer, P. 1998. Network support and the success of newly founded business organisations. Small Business Economics, 10: 213–225. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 162. Chell, E. and Baines, S. 2000. Networking, entrepreneurship and micro business behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(2): 195–215. [Taylor & Francis Online] 163. Hills, G., Lumpkin, G. T. and Singh, R. P. 1997. “Opportunity recognition: perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs”. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 203–218. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. 164. Op. cit . ref. 128, p. 115. 165. Lender, C. Management, Professionals and Funding of University Business Incubators Worldwide. The 48th ICSB Conference Proceedings. Belfast. 166. Hansen, M. T., Chesbrough, H. W., Nohria, N. and Sull, D. 2000. Networked incubators: hothouses of the economy. Harvard Business Review, Sept/Oct [Web of Science ®] 167. Op. cit . ref. 165, p. 6. 168. Barrow, C. 2001. Incubators: A Realist's Guide to the World's Business Accelerators, Chichester: Wiley. 169. Op. cit . ref. 165, p. |p| 6. 170. Op. cit . ref. 140. 171. Johannisson, B. 1986. Network strategies: management technology for entrepreneurship and change. International Small Business Journal, 5(1): 19–36. Op. cit. ref. 152 [CrossRef] 172. Sweeney, G. P. 1987. Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 155London: Francis Pinter. 173. Ibid., p. 1343. 174. Op. cit . ref 128. 175. Op. cit . ref. 171. 176. Op. cit . ref. 172. 177. Ibid. 178. Schutjens, V. and Stam, E. 2000. The evolution and nature of young firm networks: a longitudinal perspective, a paper presented at the Uddevalla Symposium Trollhattan Sweden 179. Op. cit . ref. 172. 180. Op. cit . ref. 152. 181. Op. cit . ref. 172, p. 141. 182. Op. cit . ref. 136. 183. Op. cit . ref. 147. 184. Op. cit . ref. 152. 185. Op. cit . ref. 172. 186. Carson, D. and Cromie, S. Marketing information. it's collection and utilisation by small firms. Proceedings of the 36th ICSB World Conference. pp.51–58. Austria 187. Op. cit . ref. 178, p. 564. 188. Op. cit ref. 131. 189. Op. cit . ref. 13. 190. Op. cit . ref. 11. 191. Op. cit . ref. 113. 192. Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F. and Surlemont, B. 2002. A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22: 281–289. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 193. Op. cit . ref. 17. 194. Op. cit . ref. 119. 195. Op. cit . ref. 85. 196. Op. cit . ref. 36. 197. Op. cit . ref. 120. 198. Lambert, R. 2003. Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, London: HMSO. 199. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Els Van de Velde, E. and Vohora, A. A. 2005. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 183–216. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®] 200. Op. cit . ref. 8.

PY - 2006/12/1

Y1 - 2006/12/1

N2 - While the technology aspects of university incubators in university science parks(USPs) receive considerable attention and development, as the primary force in the creation of incubator businesses, the business and social inputs (entrepreneurial networks) are less well defined. Anchoring to the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), it is argued that a business process perspective is useful to conceptualize the deployment of key resources in USPs—namely business support and social support (entrepreneurial networks). This paper reviews existing literature in relation to university incubator business processes and networks. In particular, the paper seeks to link the process and network concepts to define research agendas.

AB - While the technology aspects of university incubators in university science parks(USPs) receive considerable attention and development, as the primary force in the creation of incubator businesses, the business and social inputs (entrepreneurial networks) are less well defined. Anchoring to the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), it is argued that a business process perspective is useful to conceptualize the deployment of key resources in USPs—namely business support and social support (entrepreneurial networks). This paper reviews existing literature in relation to university incubator business processes and networks. In particular, the paper seeks to link the process and network concepts to define research agendas.

U2 - 10.1080/09537320601019578

DO - 10.1080/09537320601019578

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 451

EP - 472

JO - Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

T2 - Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

JF - Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

SN - 0953-7325

IS - 5

ER -