The changing activities of business incubation clients: an Irish case study

Abstract

Purpose This paper presents a conceptual framework based on a literature review and the findings from an empirical study using data collected from entrepreneurs (business incubatees) over a 15-year period (2004–2019). This paper aim is to discuss and propose areas to consider when (re)designing business incubation. Design/methodology/approach The data set is based on the experiences of five different cohorts (n = 100), each of which spent 18–24 months participating in a start-up programme sponsored by a business incubation centre (BIC) located in Ireland. To add further depth and nuance to this paper’s findings, an expert focus group was undertaken. Findings The findings highlight the importance of different activities and skills in a BIC over time and recommend the inclusion of a number of activities in a BIC framework. The activities include continued professional development (CPD), action research, participation in a simulation, development of emotional intelligence, leadership skills and mindset and critical reflection. Practical implications This paper presents an appropriate conceptual framework for the (re)design of business incubation. The framework facilitates an improved understanding of the evolution of entrepreneurial activities and outcomes associated with engagement with a BIC. Originality/value BIC 4.0, as described in this paper, proposes success as multi-faceted and including space, facilities, networks, mentors, professional development, reflective practice, emotional development and engagement with continuous professional development.

Promotion or inhibition of different incubation services? Evidence from government funding of China

“…Researchers have examined incubators from a service perspective (Imanberdiev et al , 2018; Good et al , 2019; Shokeir and Alsukaity, 2019; Stephens and Lyons, 2022). Lai and Lin (2015) argue that business incubators can help start-ups with office facilities and basic consulting services, as well as provide tenants with advanced services such as developing business plans, executing strategies and institutionalizing organizations (Chandra and Medrano Silva, 2012).…”

A comprehensive performance measurement framework for business incubation centres: Empirical evidence in an Irish context

“…There is substantial academic literature that discusses key aspects of incubation: its definition, components, inputs and outcomes (Adlešič & Slavec, 2012; Ahmad, 2014; Amezcua, 2010; Baraldi & Havenvid, 2016; Bruneel et al, 2012; Lukeš et al, 2019; Nair & Blomquist, 2021; Surana et al, 2020; Torun et al, 2018). In addition, numerous conceptual frameworks relating to the design and operation of BICs appear in the literature (Mrkajic, 2017; Sagath et al, 2019; Stephens & Lyons, 2022; Stephens & Onofrei, 2012; Theodorakopoulos et al, 2014; Voisey et al, 2006). However, differences in objectives, structures and practices remain (Albort‐Morant & Ribeiro‐Soriano, 2016).…”

“…The extant literature reflects a focus on facilities, services and activities (Bruneel et al, 2012; Ng et al, 2021; Pauwels et al, 2016; Stephens & Lyons, 2022; Torun et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2020). This focus is useful in terms of describing infrastructure but provides limited value in terms of comprehensive and rigorous performance measurement.…”

Business incubation as a community of practice: an emergent cultural web

“…BICs are primarily funded by government, they often receive grants for physical infrastructure and an annual budget for staff and events which are focused on achieving key performance indicators as specified by their sponsors (Azadnia et al 2022). Prior research suggests that government support programmes, including BICs, often do not match to the characteristics, needs and/or expectations of entrepreneurs (Ahmad, 2017;Ayaste et al, 2017;McAdam et al, 2021;Mian et al, 2021;Stephens and Lyons, 2022). Monsson and Jørgensen (2016) suggest that the design of a BIC is imperative to its success.…”