Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators

Aerts, Kris; Matthyssens, Paul; Vandenbempt, Koen

doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2006.12.002

Cited by 333 publications

(247 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

233

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most recently, private independent or corporate for-profit incubators emerge and usually have a focus on start-ups in the ICT and other high-tech sectors (Aerts et al 2007;Becker and Gassmann 2006;Hackett and Dilts 2004). This new breed of incubators put stronger emphasis on the provision of direct access to capital and specialized services in order to speed up the startups' time-to-market and to bring start-ups into a common network with technological and commercial big players (Grimaldi and Grandi 2005).…”

Section: Definitions and Typologies Of Incubatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lumpkin and Ireland (1988) identify three groups of screening criteria, which include the experience of the management team, financial strength as well as market and personal factors. Using this study as a basis, Aerts et al (2007) describe the screening practices of European business incubators. They distinguish between financial screeners focusing on financial rations, team screeners emphasizing personal characteristics of the management team, market screeners primarily valuing market factors, and balanced screeners.…”

Section: Search and Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aerts et al (2007) investigate the link between screening practices of incubators and performance. They find that screening based on a balanced set of factors correlates with a higher tenant survival rate.…”

Section: Incubators' Impact At the Level Of The New Firmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Business incubators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review

Hausberg

Korreck²

2018

J Technol Transf

218

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long and rich research tradition exists on the phenomenon of business incubators since this kind of venture support institution first emerged. One can observe an increasing heterogeneity of incubation beyond the traditional mainstream focus on regional development and university-based incubators. In the last decade, in particular the phenomenon of accelerators as a particular form of incubators received increasing research interest. A few literature reviews started summarizing the field, but left some important issues unanswered. This systematic review study contributes to this effort deriving current themes and a research agenda. We find that open innovation and social capital theory increasingly complement the resource-based view as frameworks to understand business incubation. Moreover, the phenomenon of private corporate incubators and accelerators gains traction, both in entrepreneurship theory and practice.

show abstract

Section: Definitions and Typologies Of Incubatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Search and Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Business incubators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review

Hausberg

Korreck²

2018

J Technol Transf

218

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this respect, patterns of evidence for university technology transfer focus on the institutions (e.g. technology transfer offices), the agents involved in technology commercialization, academic spin-offs, university-industry cooperative research centers or science parks and incubators (Bozeman, 2000;Aerts et al, 2007;Rothaermel et al, 2007). Most of the existing research puts emphasis on formal university technology transfer mechanisms (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informal University Technology Transfer: A Comparison between the United States and Germany

Grimpe

Fier

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp09033.pdf Non-technical summaryKnowledge produced in the public sector has frequently been shown to be an important ingredient of economic growth and technological change. Most of the existing research puts emphasis on formal university technology transfer mechanisms (i.e. those that embody or directly lead to a legal instrument like a patent, license or royalty agreement). Few authors have investigated informal university technology transfer mechanisms. Informal technology transfer focuses primarily on interactions of the agents involved (i.e. on university scientists and industry personnel) where property rights are of secondary importance. While formal technology transfer mechanisms frequently aim at transferring a research result like a patent or a license to use a technology, informal mechanisms do not, and there is usually no expectation that they will. In this sense, formal technology transfer is a mechanism to allocate property rights whereas informal technology transfer is much more about communication among individuals. Examples could be contacts between academics and industry personnel at conferences, joint publications, academic consulting, or other informal contacts, talks and meetings.However, existing research shows that many university scientists in the United States do not disclose their inventions to their university although prescribed by law. University administrators will therefore have an interest to better understand the determinants of informal technology transfer given their objective to create revenues for the university. In the United States, the commercialization of technology developed by university scientists had been spurred by the enactment of the BayhDole Act in 1980. In Germany, an equivalent to the Bayh-Dole Act only came into force 20 years later in 2002. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to shed light on the effects that institutional differences might have on the choice of scientists to transfer technology informally. We present comparative findings for Germany based on a recent paper by which has focused on the United States. Moreover, we extend their previous findings by focusing on two neglected factors more explicitly: the scientist's individual productivity as well as the research environment in which the informal technology transfer takes place.Based on a comprehensive sample of more than 800 German university scientists, our U....

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the overview of incubators' possible impacts on cluster dynamics is only explorative: for a more thorough, tested picture of that role, more in-depth and targeted empirical research is required. 4 SERVICES OF BUSINESS INCUBATORS Basically, business incubators provide a dedicated and supportive environment for start-up companies to be founded; to be nurtured in order survive their infancy when they are particularly vulnerable [20,21]; and to grow into a new firm that can stand on its own feet in the business world outside the incubator. As such, they span a bridge from initial ideas for an innovative product, service or concept of a would-be entrepreneur to the early steps of bringing that on the market in an elaborated form.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Business Incubators in the Development of Sustainable Clusters of Cultural and Creative Industries

Romein

Trip

2016

WIT Transactions on State-of-the-Art in Science and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clusters of cultural and creative industries are rather widespread in and surrounding inner cities. The development and dynamics of these clusters are objects of study of various conceptual approaches: some aim at their role and significance for urban development, others at their development and dynamics as such. These latter approaches focus primarily on producers or consumers of cultural or creative goods. By contrast, this paper explores the role of a particular type of secondary or ancillary activity -the business incubator -in the development of these clusters. The paper is explorative and draws no explicit conclusions. Nevertheless, the incubator appears to be an ancillary activity that contributes in various manners to sustainable cluster development, i.e. not only by their output of young, trained entrepreneurs in possession of up-to-date knowledge and skills, but also by means of, for instance, their buildings and social networks.

show abstract

Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators

Cited by 333 publications

References 35 publications

Business incubators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review

Business incubators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review

Informal University Technology Transfer: A Comparison between the United States and Germany

The Role of Business Incubators in the Development of Sustainable Clusters of Cultural and Creative Industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About