The authors explore the role played by science and technology parks (STPs) as regional platforms for incubating science- and technology-based businesses. Using multiple case studies of the more established US and French STP facilities, they provide an analysis of the contributions made by STPs as regional drivers of innovative entrepreneurship. The paper concludes that successful STPs can act as platforms for incubating science and technology businesses. If modern STPs are to emerge as sustainable platforms of incubation, their business models must be responsive to changing contextual needs through the pursuit of realistic goals, providing high-quality value-added services, employing professionally competent management and maintaining financial strength.
AudretschD. (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol 23, No 1, pp 63–78.
2.
AudretschD.FeldmanM. (1996), ‘R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production’, American Economic Review, Vol 86, No 13, pp 630–640.
3.
AudretschD.LehmannE.E. (2005), ‘Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions?’Research Policy, Vol 34, No 8, pp 1191–1202.
4.
Battelle (2007), Characteristics and Trends in North American Research Parks: 21st Century Directions, Battelle Technology Partnership Report, Association of University Research Parks, Washington, DC.
5.
BearseP. (1998), ‘A question of evaluation: NBIA's impact assessment of business incubators’, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol 12, No 4, pp 322–333.
CoronaL.DoutriauxJ.MianS.A. (2006), Building Knowledge Regions in North America: Emerging Technology Innovation Poles, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
10.
DoutriauxJ. (2001), ‘Business incubators, current research activities’, presentation made at the2001 Incubation and New Ventures Conference, 24–25 January, Conference Board of Canada, Toronto.
11.
EisenhardtK.GraebnerM.E. (2007), ‘Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 30, No 1, pp 25–31.
12.
EtzkowitzH. (2002), ‘Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a Triple Helix of university–industry–government networks’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 115–128.
13.
GlasmeierA. (1991), The High-Tech Potential: Economic Development in Rural America, Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ.
14.
KoputK.W. (1997), ‘A chaotic model of innovative search: Some answers, many questions’, Organization Science, Vol 8, No 5, pp 528–542.
15.
LofstenH.LindelofP. (2002), ‘Science parks and the growth of new technology based firms – academic industry links, innovation and markets’, Research Policy, Vol 31, No 1, pp 859–876.
16.
LugerM.GoldsteinH. (1991), Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional Economic Development, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
17.
MartinS.ScottJ.T. (2000), ‘The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation’, Research Policy, Vol 29, Nos 4–5, pp 437–447.
MianS.A. (1996), ‘Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms’, Research Policy, Vol 25, No 1, pp 325–335.
20.
MianS.A. (1997), ‘Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 12, No 4, pp 251–340.
21.
MianS.A. (2011), ‘Introduction’, in MianS.A., ed, Science and Technology Based Regional Entrepreneurship: Global Experience in Policy and Program Development, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1–15.
22.
MianS.A.CoronaL.DoutriauxJ. (2010), ‘Building knowledge regions in developing nations with emerging innovation infrastructure: Evidence from Mexico and Pakistan’, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, Vol 2, No 4, pp 304–330.
23.
MoulaertF.DjellalF. (1995), ‘Information technology consultancy firms: Economics of agglomeration from a wide-area perspective’, Urban Studies, Vol 323, No 1, pp 105–122.
24.
OECD (1997), Technology Incubators, Nurturing Small Firms, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
25.
PhanP.H.SiegelD.S.WrightM. (2005), ‘Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 20, No 2, pp 165–182.
26.
PorterM. (1998), On Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp 197–288.
27.
QuéréM. (2005), ‘Le développement technopolitain en France. Quels enseignements pour l'attractivité des territoires?’Revue de l'OPCE, No 94, pp 71–96.
28.
ReamerA. (2004), ‘The geography of innovation: Implications for TBED’, paper presented at the State Science and Technology Institute Annual Conference, 15 October, Philadelphia.
29.
Retis (2010), ‘Annuaire du réseau français de l'innovation 2010–2011’, Retis, Toulon, website: www.retis-innovation.fr.
30.
RosenbergN. (1994), Exploring the Black Box. Technology, Economics, and History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
31.
SanzL. (2006), ‘Strategigram. A tool to deepen our understanding of science park strategies’, presentation given atBEI Luxembourg, 18 May.
32.
SaxenianA. (1994), Regional Advantage. Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
33.
ShermanH.ChappellD. (1998), ‘Methodological challenges in evaluating business incubator outcomes’, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol 12, No 4, pp 313–321.
34.
SiegelD.S.WestheadP.WrightM. (2003), ‘Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms’, Small Business Economics, Vol 20, No 1, pp 177–184.
35.
SmilorR.GillM.D.Jr (1986), The New Business Incubator: Linking Talent, Technology and Know-How, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
36.
SoykaP. (2012), Creating a Sustainable Organization: Approaches to Enhancing Corporate Value through Sustainability, FT Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
37.
SteadW.E.SteadJ.G. (2004), Sustainable Strategic Management, M.E. Sharpe, New York, NY.
38.
TansleyA. (1939), ‘British ecology during the past quarter century: The plant community and the ecosystem’, Journal of Ecology, Vol 27, No 2, pp 513–530.
39.
UtterbackJ.M. (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
40.
WallstenS. (2004), ‘The role of government in regional technology development: The effect of public venture capital and science parks’, in BresnahanT.GambardellaA., eds, Building High-Tech Clusters: Silicon Valley and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 229–279.
41.
WeissC. (1972), Evaluation Research, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
42.
WessnerC.W. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem’, in AudretschD.GrimmH.WessnerC., eds, Local Heroes in the Global Village: Globalization and the Entrepreneurship Policies, Springer, New York, NY.
43.
WindenW.BergL.PalP. (2007), ‘European cities in the knowledge economy: Towards a typology’, Urban Studies, Vol 44, No 3, pp 525–549.
44.
YinR.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3 ed, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
45.
ZhangY. (2004), ‘Critical factors for science park management: The North American and European experience’, International. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol 4, No 6, pp 575–586.
