Content uploaded by Saken Kazhenov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Saken Kazhenov on Jun 14, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paper to be presented at DRUID22
Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark
June 13-15, 2022
University Business Incubators: Systematic Literature Review and Thematic Analysis.
Saken Kazhenov
Politecnico di Milano
Politecnico di Milano - Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering
saken.kazhenov@polimi.it
Cristina Rossi-lamastra
Politecnico di Milano
Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering
cristina1.rossi@polimi.it
Abstract
ABSTRACT
There is a recognized value in supporting entrepreneurs to develop regional growth. University
business incubators (UBIs), one of the main actors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, play a significant
role in this regard. A growing body of evidence suggests that the new knowledge generated in
universities positively influences innovations by promoting ideas to the market. The historiography of
the UBI model largely neglects the role of the balance between science, social impact, and business
objectives. The principal objectives of this article are to investigate the trends in UBI research and to
generate the main themes related to its phenomena. A combined qualitative (descriptive analysis) and
quantitative (thematic analysis) methodological approach is used to answer the research questions. The
study identifies the distribution of publications by year, the methods applied, and the journals that
published articles about UBIs. The principal findings are eight themes that form the basis of the
proposed conceptual framework. The findings contribute to a better understanding of how UBI
managers can balance the objectives of supporting startups, social impact, and working for the sake of
science.
1
University Business Incubators:
Systematic Literature Review and
Thematic Analysis.
ABSTRACT
There is a recognized value of entrepreneurs supporting as a
process that develops the region's growth. University Business
Incubators (UBI) - being one of the main actors in the entrepreneurial
ecosystem - play a significant role in this process. A growing body of
evidence suggests the new knowledge generated in the university
positively influences innovations by promoting ideas to the market. The
historiography of the UBI model largely neglects the role of balance
between science, social impact, and business objectives. The principal
objectives of this article are to investigate the trends in UBI research and
generate the main themes related to phenomena. A combined qualitative
(descriptive analysis) and quantitative (thematic analysis) methodological
approach are used to answer the research questions. This study
identified the distribution of the publications by year, the methods
applied, and the journals that published the articles about UBI. The
principal findings of this research are the generated eight themes that
formed the basis of the proposed conceptual framework. The results can
contribute to a better understanding of how UBI managers can balance
the objectives of supporting startups, social impact, and working for the
sake of science.
Keywords: Business Incubator, Entrepreneurship, Literature Review,
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, Resources.
INTRODUCTION
The role of entrepreneurship is a core element in growth for most
countries regardless of their differences in economic development level,
and incubators support the entrepreneurial initiatives, thereby
contributing as the drivers of the process (Carayannis & Von Zedtwitz,
2005; A. C. Cooper, 1985b; Nicholls-Nixon et al., 2021). Incubators - as
startups supporting organizations - need a clear view of their sustainable
business model (Tang et al., 2021). Depending on their objectives and
strategies, they could be classified into different archetypes (McCarthy et
al., 2018). Taking start from the 1984th, the incubators for almost four
decades attract scholars' attention (Hackett & Dilts, 2004) that, allowed
them to develop theories, including incubation models that based on
several factors such as services provided and the parent organization of
2
the incubator that might influence the incubator policies (Grimaldi &
Grandi, 2005).
Universities are one of such parent organizations for incubators.
The 'third mission" context, which highlights the place of universities in
the local economic growth, involves the universities in the
entrepreneurship supporting process, and they set the incubators on the
campus (Nicholls-Nixon et al., 2021). Therefore these incubators are in
the specific group called University business incubators (UBIs) are mainly
non-for-profit organizations (von Zedtwitz, 2003) with the objectives to
commercialize the science results (Phan et al., 2005) and developing
students' career views to be able to compete on the global job market
(Mayorga, 2019b). Such proximity to science is an advantage because
the new knowledge produced is a significant element of innovation
promotion. However, it might also cause a problem as focusing on pulling
scientific results to the market is challenging for incubator managers.
There is a risk of underestimating the company with a high potential to
grow on the global market yet having a lower level of scientific
component in the product (Grandi & Grimaldi, 2004). The UBI's
uniqueness implies the disagreement of their primary objectives and
courses the debates if they should first serve the community, work for the
sake of science, or generate revenue.
Extensive research has shown that the incubation process is a part
of an entrepreneurial ecosystem that links the stakeholders to collaborate
and support new firms in the embryonic stage. The incubators as an
organization are presented from different perspectives, and their business
model is segmented by various features that allow subdividing them into
groups according to inherent characteristics. Several attempts have been
made to expand the existing knowledge of incubation based on the
systematic literature review approach (Good et al., 2019a; Guerrero et
al., 2021; Hausberg & Korreck, 2020; Kötting, 2020). To your
knowledge, the first systematic literature review dedicated especially to
university-based incubators is written by (M. McAdam et al., 2006), which
proposes an overview of the research agendas related to the phenomena.
The most recent literature review paper is written by (Bodolica &
Spraggon, 2021), who focus mainly on incubating innovations within the
developing countries' context. All listed articles provide reliable
information and are full of insights for theory and possibly could be
applied in practice. However, there is little information on research
trends in UBI and lack of consensus on how they can keep the balance
between science, social impact, and business process.
Thus, this paper has two key aims. Firstly, this review explored the
existing literature on UBI to find the patterns and describe the research
trends. Secondly, this study tries to find a new method of organizing the
UBI in the balance between science and business. The specific questions
that drive the research are 1. How is the number of articles distributed
across the period? 2. What research methodologies are used? 3. Which
3
journals publish the articles? 4. What are key themes related to the
topic?
Data for this study were collected using data extraction form for
systematic literature review and presented in descriptive and thematic
analysis. The critical contribution of this research is the conceptual
framework of positioning the UBI within the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The following section of this paper explains the methods used and
steps applied to answer the questions of this research. Then, descriptive
analyses present the results of research trends. The main themes
overview and conceptual framework proposition are in the discussion
section. Finally, the conclusion sums up the main points of the article.
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 Systematic literature search
According to the definition proposed by Green et al., (2008), “A
systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-
specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question.” The
literature review aims twofold: first, they assess the existing body of
knowledge (Guerrero et al., 2021), revealing trends, patterns, themes,
and issues (Seuring & Müller, 2008). Second, they create the conceptual
framework (Kötting, 2020), thereby contributing to the literature (Good et
al., 2019b). In the systematic literature review generally, authors employ
scientific articles only and leave the grey literature and book chapters out
of scope, yet that is acceptable due to the number of papers analyzed and
the peer-review process supply the quality at the required level (Pittaway
& Cope, 2007). Considering the illustration of quantitative data and
descriptive analysis provides the qualitative data presented in thematic
analysis, the methodology is mixed. The reviewed articles Fig.1 were
included passing the standardized flow diagram process (Moher et al.,
2009) that consists of the following four steps:
2.1.1 Baseline.
Following the research aim and identifying the relevant publications,
the Scopus and Web of Science databases were applied. These two
databases - with a significant number of scientific publications – provide
the most detailed information about the peer-review literature required to
assess the quality of the articles and minimize research bias (Foss &
Saebi, 2017; Walker, 2010). In the quality of the search items, the
keywords "university," "business," and "incubator" were included in the
title, abstract, and keywords for the Business, Management, and
Accounting subject area (González-Pereira et al., 2010). Search “presets”
are next: English language, peer-reviewed journals articles published until
November 2021 as the search was conducted in that period. This search
4
provides 394 papers. After the detected duplicates were deleted, the 294
articles were identified.
Fig.1 Diagram flow
2.1.2 Thematic relevance.
(1) Baseline
(2) Thematicrelevance
(3) Content quality
Search presets
Document type: Peer-reviewed
journals
Language: English
Search fields: title, abstract,
keywords
Period: Up toNovember 2021
Category: Business, Management and
Accounting
Articlesexcluded
(n = 93)
Database
1. Scopus
2. Web ofscience
Search item
3. “university” and “business” and”
incubator”
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 294)
Journal Listed in Scimago Journal & Country
Rank &
Journal Citation Review
(n = 201)
Lowest quartile (SJR≤0.444) based on Scimago
Journal & Country Rank
(n = 160)
Scientific contribution
(n = 148)
Included in descriptive analysis
(n = 148)
Reviewed in the thematic analysis
(n = 148)
Articles excluded
(n = 41)
Articles excluded
(n = 12)
(4) Content relatedreview
5
For the second step, the sources of the identified articles were run
under cross-checking process. The journals of the sample needed to be
listed in both "Important technical indexes" (Mesa-Gresa et al., 2018),
such as the Journal Citation Report and the Scimago Journal & Country
Rank. This advanced the search by increasing the confidence in the
relevance of the publications - as being listed in the Journal Citation
Report as well as in the Scimago Journal & Country Rank - should be
regarded as a criterion of sufficient relevance to the journal (Kötting,
2020). As a result, 93 articles were excluded from the scope, so for the
next step, 201 articles were relocated.
2.1.3 Content quality.
For the third step, each journal was screened through the Scimago
Journal & Country Rank, namely their position in SCImago Journal Rank
Indicator. This indicator is assumed to adequately assess the correlation
between the citation and the actual contribution to the science. The
needle enables estimating the prestige or influence of a scientific journal
based on the largest specialized dataset. It was determined to consider
the journals with the minimum level of (SJR≤0,444) at the instant of the
search. Consequently, the article from the journals with an index lower
than the checkpoint was excluded. Citation is one of the indicators of the
scientific contribution in a research field (Kötting, 2020), so n=12 articles
were excluded as they were not cited before conducting this literature
search.
2.1.4 Content-related review.
For the final step, in place to evade neglecting any necessary
details, all publications n=148 were included in the descriptive and
thematic analysis. The rigor of the research process is supplied by the
data extraction form of essential information from the reviewed articles,
which permits to avoid subjective bias and applied in current the analysis
(Tranfield et al., 2003). The Nvivo software was used for the data
extraction process. The data for descriptive analysis were coded through
full article screening, and line-by-line coding of abstracts (Pittaway &
Cope, 2007) generated the themes to provide a conceptual framework.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Descriptive analysis
By year. In order to demonstrate the tendency in the research field
of University Business Incubators and provide evidence of growing
attention of academia to the phenomenon (Ali et al., 2018; Perkmann et
al., 2013).
Fig.2 shows that the number of articles increases steadily despite
the considerable fluctuation between the designated period, which can be
divided into three primary periods. First, the period up to 2001 when the
6
number did not grow beyond the two articles in scientific journals per
year. In 1996, 1997, and 1999 wherein some years - of this period - did
not have any publication.
Fig. 2. Distribution of publications per year across the period studied.
The next decade has seen a sharp growth up to n = 5 articles in
2002 and two "picks" in 2005 and 2011 with n=7 articles per each of
these years, yet in 2003 and 2007 the numbers descent to n=0 and n=1
respectively. Finally, starting from 2012, the dramatic growth takes place
from n=3 in 2002 up to n=17 articles in 2020. Each year the growth is
stable apart in 2017, when the number falls from n=10 to n=8, but then
it continues to grow by n=10 in 2016 and beyond.
By methodology. It is common practice when a systematic literature
review produces the analysis of articles that cover a range of
methodologies (Ashby et al., 2012).
7
Fig. 3 Methodology applied
Hence, the provision of the results presented in Fig. 3 illustrates the
methods applied by the authors of the articles from the bibliography of
current research (Seuring & Müller, 2008). According to (Guerrero et al.,
2014), a case study is a reasonable approach to exploring a relatively
new phenomenon. Consequently, as University Business Incubator is a
relatively new phenomenon, the majority of the methods used by the
researchers are case studies followed by surveys. Both methods, in sum,
acquire almost 3/4 of the articles that were studied. The next
methodologies are mixed n=22; performance assessment n= 16; and
conceptual papers n=6. Moreover, it should be highlighted that
systematic literature review as an approach represented on a comparably
low-level n=5 and almost close to the list leaving this position for
experiment n=1.
By journal. The analysis - of the journal's Table. I. where articles
were published - is led by two journals (Journal of Technology Transfer
and Technovation). They demonstrate a stable focus on the topic of
University Business Incubators as the articles from these journals written
in the field cover all three decades observed in this review. The Industry
and Higher Education is also steady in the numbers of publications in each
decade of the given period and share the third place in the list with
Technological Forecasting and Social Change which shows the dynamic of
growth only in the last decade.
Table. I. Reviewed journals
8
N
Journal title
SJR
Articles
published
1 Journal Of Technology Transfer 1.768 27
2 Technovation 2.3 19
4 Technological Forecasting And Social Change 2.226 9
3 Industry And Higher Education 0.444 9
5 International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 1.241 6
6 International Entrepreneurship And Management Journal 1.338 5
9 Journal Of Business Venturing 7.107 4
8 Research Policy 3.666 4
7 Journal Of Small Business Management 1.683 4
10 R And D Management 1.253 4
Next, the International Journal Of Entrepreneurial Behaviour And
Research with the International Entrepreneurship And Management
Journal likewise show the activity in the second half of the period,
whereas following four journals (namely Journal Of Small Business
Management, Research Policy, Journal Of Business Venturing, and R And
D Management) published the articles in the first two decades. For more
information, please see (Appendix. 1.)
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Regional development.
The contribution of the University business incubators to the regions
as a topic arises in the reviewed articles. The university is a core of
sustainable (Lamine et al., 2018) regional economic development (Hayter,
2016; Lalkaka, 2002; Phillips, 2002; Ratinho & Henriques, 2010) and
triggers positive effects (Jones & Parry, 2011). They support spin-offs
and provide them resources to transfer the research-based idea to the
real market and create innovative enterprises. Moreover, it is confirmed
that many highly innovative firms further an environment where co-
located organizations generate new products even without being part of
the university (Díez-Vial & Montoro-Sánchez, 2016). A better
understanding of these processes and well-established coordination of the
stakeholders could influence even the national industrial systems
(Venturini & Verbano, 2017).
Although the programs for entrepreneurs' attraction launched by
particular region administrations are pretty promising, the issue of the
entrepreneurs' mobility at the startup stage has a long history. The
9
corporation that opens the branch is usually seen as a job supplier
mechanism. UBIs, on the other hand, can fill this role as an alternative to
such an approach to the job market and innovation development (A. C.
Cooper, 1985a). (Markusen & Oden, 1996) are also concerned about the
effectiveness of the public funds' expenditure as state labs are inferior in
the number of spin-offs launched compared to universities and research-
intensive businesses. The reason for this might be an enormous number
of stakeholders and public interests involvement, which is challenging to
manage in the new firm creation process.
Government is a significant link in bridging the universities with the
industry in recruiting the talents who are concentrated in the universities.
Hence, responsible university departments organize the activities in
partnership with the student community and government representatives
(Cadorin et al., 2021). However, the fact that - universities create
knowledge and science is one of the main focuses - should also be in the
scope of the collaboration activities of the public-private initiatives of
innovation advancement (Guadix et al., 2016) (Gorączkowska, 2020).
Updates the local authorities by proposing new recommendations of how
incubators could level up the innovation of their graduate enterprises.
(Fini et al., 2011) have analyzed if there is a competition or
collaboration between University-Level Support Mechanisms (ULSMs) and
Local-Context Support Mechanisms (LCSMs) in stimulating the formation
of new academic spin-offs. The data were used to this purpose from the
404 self-driven companies that were grown in the 64 Italian Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics universities (STEM
universities). Results demonstrate that the local support mechanisms
could positively or negatively affect the correlation between these two
support mechanisms and the University spin-offs margin. This case is
one of many other analyses binding to a specific region, and further,
several examples are presented.
In this research, under a region is implied a variety of geographical
units that could be as part of Europe (Carayannis & Von Zedtwitz, 2005)
and as a separate city (Jones & Parry, 2011; Voisey et al., 2013b).
Focusing on the pilot projects of central and Eastern Europe (Carayannis
& Von Zedtwitz, 2005) presents the model that observes the best
practices of different types of incubation based on the significant scope of
geography that includes global practices and local knowledge. They
advocate that the proposed model of global and local (gloCal) incubators
network can spread the necessary knowledge required for innovation
fostering among the participants independently of the entrepreneurs'
scale and vanish the socio-cultural, political, etc., barriers. This is
supposed to support keeping the balance between venture capitalists'
interests and regional economic growth.
The smaller research scopes include only two countries (Spain and
Ireland) by comparing two entrepreneurial universities as incubators that,
through the "crash-testing" and supporting ideas, implement new projects
10
and contribute to the local social and economic initiatives. The research
was done by (Guerrero et al., 2014). It was motivated by the lack of a
comparative analysis of the incubation process in the regions with
relatively similar backgrounds and real-time conditions. Findings provide
the guideline for the universities on the way to becoming entrepreneurial.
Countries as separate cases are also observed as regions in
incubation literature. For instance, Wales was identified twice in the
reviewed first article that states the benefits of the pre-incubation process
in job creation and local economic growth (Voisey et al., 2013b). The
second article presents insights into critical areas of the technology-
oriented startup's support (Jones & Parry, 2011). With the purpose to
illustrate the value of innovation spaces in universities as a knowledge-
rich environment in supporting an entrepreneurial approach to new
product creation, the case study of South African academic startups was
explored through the lens of innovation, entrepreneurship, and
technology transfer theoretical overview. As a result, the patterns across
the research-based enterprises were identified that are common to
innovative entrepreneurs and should contribute to regional ecosystems
(Kruger & Steyn, 2020).
4.2. Science & Business.
Apart from education and research activities, the universities have a
social responsibility to positively impact the surrounding environment with
the economic and cultural direction. This responsibility is called the 'third
mission' and is supported with funds provided by the government (Warren
et al., 2009). Research organizations' suppliers of the new knowledge-
based firms generated from intellectual property developed within the
universities are assumed to be effective ways of commercialization
(Davenport et al., 2002). One of the mechanisms for commercialization
is a public scholarship provided for that academics and scientists planning
to foster high-tech firms. The support aims to strengthen the initial stage
of the new venture creation (Reitan, 1997). The initial stage requires the
foundation as scholars are not much aware of commerce, and incubators
serve them as a tool to overcome three main barriers: First, the
traditional view of a rewarding research system that is different from
commercialization; Second, recognition of the existed market demand to
their knowledge; Third, engagement of the individuals and organizations
with market knowledge into the research results (O’Gorman et al., 2008).
Therefore, the issue of science and industry collaboration is investigated
in the reviewed articles where the phenomenon is observed from various
angles and proposed diverse solutions. Commercialization is a risky
process due to uncertain expectations from the return of investment, so
University Business incubators introduce events such as the Proof-of-
Concept (POC) that attempt to reduce the risks (Mcadam et al., 2010;
Virtanen & Laukkanen, 2002).
11
The gap between academia and industry encourages (Festel, 2013)
to analyze the technology transfer approach through three types of new
venture creation when the technology transfers from the university,
between the corporations, and within them (namely academic spin-offs,
corporate spin-outs, and internal start-ups). Berbegal-Mirabent et al.
(2015) analyze three types of spin-off supporting strategies: the
university's technology transfer support office, with a license agreement,
and equity sharing with an incubator. The results demonstrate the
absence of the dominant approach, and the authors recommend applying
several combinations to achieve success for an academic spin-off.
However, Markman et al. (2005) found that new venture creation under
the licensing-for-equity strategy overcomes sponsored research licensing
strategy. The licensing-for-cash strategy is most commonly less
correlated with new firm creation. The recent articles in order to highlight
the relationship between academia and industry, the commercialization
process results call research-based spin-offs (RBSO) (Venturini &
Verbano, 2017; Verbano et al., 2020).
4.3. Performance assessment
University business incubators operate within the scope of the
hosting universities' 'third mission’ and mainly do not pursue gaining
profit as much as possible. However, like any other organization, UBIs
mean by themselves business-related concepts to realize the significance
of the work being done. Consequently, the incubation process study and
result measurement are some of the topics researched by scholars
(Fukugawa, 2018; M’Chirgui et al., 2018; Mian, 1996a). Before
measuring the results and comparing the incubators with the firms as an
analogy, it should be a clear view of whom they operate. In other words,
who is a customer of incubation? Should the state organization allocating
funds be treated as a customer or incubatees whose income does not
correlate with services? The discussion suggests that customers could be
many actors that benefit from the collaboration with the incubators or
there are no customers at all, depending on the context (Aaboen, 2009).
Next 'attribute' of the organization that influences the performance
is a manager who deals with the customers. For instance, the single case
study of the incubator at Dublin university as a client (Ahmad & Ingle,
2011) proposes considering the high-tech firm tenant firm. They study
customer relation management stages within the incubator. Findings
show that the incubator sufficiency depends on the human relationship
between manager and clients as well as among clients themselves that
occurs during the co-production. Another research about the
management as a driver of incubation is done by (Redondo & Camarero,
2017). Based on the institutional logic, they aim to compare academically
with the commercial approach in organizing the educational and
supporting practice. Results show that managers with entrepreneurial
12
backgrounds are more involved in personal support and encourage tenant
firms to engage in networking activities. In contrast, managers with a
lack of entrepreneurial experience weaken in such areas. Moreover, it is
suggested that this trend between manager profile and running activities
do not significantly relate to the university sponsor typology if it is state
or private (Mian, 1994).
This article looked at the resources in a particular theme, so a short
notice demonstrates the connection between the performance and the
resources available during incubation. For example, the different
resources are used to assist new firms with the high-tech component
(M’Chirgui et al., 2018). The environment should be seen as an external
resource that impacts the incubator's ability (Fukugawa, 2018).
According to intangible resources, the case study proposed by (Kevill et
al., 2020) is unique storytelling that illustrates the step-by-step process
of incubation and the role of the incubator in setting the entrepreneurial
mindset for female entrepreneurs.
Recent articles focus on the performance suggest benchmarking as
a ranking of the services or incubators to identify the leading unit in
similar items. Some representations of such research are ranking the
several aspects that increase the results of strategic management (Kiani
Mavi et al., 2019) that should be in focus in parallel with the daily routine
(Baraldi & Ingemansson Havenvid, 2016). The results propose some
practical advice that supposes to contribute to practitioners in decision
making (Wann et al., 2017)
4.4. Social impact
The incubation idea is not limited to high technology development
only and has a broader understanding of their zone of responsibility. The
business and social effects are indeed occupying the leading positions in
the list of purposes of the incubation models that have the potential to
spread around the world (Etzkowitz et al., 2005). Social capital as a
theme of the incubation was neglected earlier (Redondo & Camarero,
2019); with the intense focus on business success, the incubatees usually
do not pay much attention to the social input of the incubator. Yet,
results show that proactive incubator managers contribute to collective
social capital, creating conditions to develop individual social capital.
Moreover, (Sansone et al., 2020) consider the social incubator as a
separate phenomenon among 'incubators family' and defined them as an
incubator with the majority of startups focused on the social impact.
They do not look inferior to other incubators in terms of effects on
economic indicators.
Human capital and demography - in the context of socioeconomic
characteristics–also affect the incubation process within the local
innovation ecosystem (Del Bosco et al., 2021). Therefore, the
13
personalities with the tacit knowledge (Davenport et al., 2002) and the
corresponding competencies are at the same level of importance as the
physical infrastructure, policy, and environment. Hence, the personalities
with the corresponding competencies are at the same level of importance
as the physical infrastructure, policy, and overall environment. In other
words, the talents as universities' job outcomes play a significant role in
collaboration with companies and should be supported by incubator
managers through the link of stakeholders (Cadorin et al., 2021;
Fukugawa, 2018).
Women encounter specific barriers common for any entrepreneur,
yet some of these barriers might be gender-specific, including socio-
cultural peculiarity. Incubators are entrepreneurship-supporting institutes
that should help overcome such kinds of barriers. However, the research
done in the Irish campus incubator revealed an imbalance, and women
business owners’ representation among tenant firms is insufficiently high
(Treanor & Henry, 2010). However, the entrepreneurship education
program launched in the United Arab Emirates demonstrates the growing
interest to become an entrepreneur among listeners, including female
students done this program (Sowmya et al., 2010). Gender inequality
and entrepreneurship inquiries in incubation literature could be expanded
and contribute to the field.
The following social issue is that universities are in charge and are
employed, and incubators are also involved. The employees are worried
about the level of student preparedness for the workforce. The
universities provide theoretical knowledge through classes and practical
works like case studies within incubator activities - in close link with the
actual companies (Mian, 1996a) - are supposed to prepare the students
for a career after study (Mayorga, 2019a). However, the balance of the
mission is an essential part of social enterprises like UBIs. The case of (I-
BUS) - a student-driven incubator in one Brazilian private university,
illustrates that attempts to cover the niches as much as possible without
following the primary mission may lead to failure (Ometto et al., 2019).
One alternative to making a student's career choice is developing an
entrepreneurial mindset (Guerrero et al., 2020; Lee-Ross, 2015).
4.5. Incubation model
Entrepreneurship supporting organizations develop regional
economics and positively affect the social and cultural aspects of the local
community. These benefits are acceptable reasons for such organizations
to be seen as an object for investment from the government's point of
view. Therefore, they should respond to the basic requirements for funds
attraction and be assessable to provide a replicable model (Guadix et al.,
2016) capable of providing a sustainable increase in the number of new
innovative companies (Roig-Tierno et al., 2015). A clear view of such a
business model of linking research and market to create innovation-
14
oriented firms helps policymakers incorporate university outcomes
(Baglieri et al., 2018).
However, the incubation model is not static, and workflow
approaches might change and transform the model accordingly. The
research on the incubators is usually done within a short period, so the
request for an inquiry into the models' lifecycle evolution is made by
(Nicholls-Nixon et al., 2021). The holistic case study of the one leading
Canadian incubators supplies the entrepreneurship field with insights that
approve the dynamic of the university business incubators. Moreover,
other research from Greece supports this idea, showing that the
incubators shifted their model from university-based to private ownership,
and venture capital gradually replaced public funds (Sofouli & Vonortas,
2007).
The incubation model as a pipeline from idea to the market has a
broader meaning than nursing future entrepreneurs in ‘greenhouse’
conditions before they become self-sufficient organizations. Before being
accepted to the incubation, at the pre-incubation stage, future
entrepreneurs could be recommended to pass through some processes to
prove the minimum viability of the idea. This stage demonstrates the
relevance to the overall results. It receives positive feedback from the
incubation program graduates that successfully operate in the market and
contribute by job creation in an area of economic underperformance
(Voisey et al., 2013a). Moreover, post-incubation monitoring of the
graduates' performance is a good practice for assessing if the
collaboration between incubator and entrepreneurs were beneficial and
evaluating the scope of influence of the incubators and university
programs (Lasrado et al., 2016).
Reviewed literature does not provide scholarly agreement about the
definition of the incubation model and the number of types. For instance,
(Grandi & Grimaldi, 2004; Grimaldi & Grandi, 2005) distinguishes four
categories, namely: corporate, private incubators (CPIs), independent
private incubators (IPIs), business innovation centers (BICs), and
university business incubators (UBIs). These five incubation types could
be considered in the context of two models that assist the incubators in
spotting they are strategically positioning based on the relevance to one
of two models. Supporting the idea of the quantity of four types of
incubation models (Barbero et al., 2014), propose them other
classification. In order to see the relationship between the incubator
classification and the innovation produced, researchers name the
following archetypes: basic research, university, economic development,
and private incubator. Partly similar to enumerated categories
(Carayannis & Von Zedtwitz, 2005) use five types, and two types not
mentioned earlier are regional and virtual. Additionally, in the literature,
other models are presented that deserve attention: sector-specialized
business incubator (Schwartz & Hornych, 2008); three-stage model
15
(Davenport et al., 2002); Co-incubation spin-off-strategy (Cooke et al.,
2006).
4.6. Incubation & Innovation.
The core idea of the startup is to create a sustainable business
model based on emerging technology by using an entrepreneurial
approach (Emami & Dimov, 2017; Kohler, 2016). This fact drives the
regions to compete for innovations and motivates them to invest in this
sphere. This fact causes regions to compete for innovations and
encourages them to invest in this sphere. Mainly, fostering incubators in
hyperlocal areas, most effort is intended to serve the surrounding
community, positively supporting the creation of new enterprises lying on
less tested technologies that bring innovations to the industry (Donegan &
Lowe, 2020). Hence, the corporations are equivalently involved in
supporting startups as a source of external innovation and, as a rule,
have business units responsible for the developing innovation
environment (Kohler, 2016). This environment built by states and
corporations increases entrepreneurs' trust in the success of new value
creation intention (NVCI) as experienced entrepreneurs would promote
the product novelty on a higher level (Emami & Dimov, 2017).
Universities administrate the innovation centers within the campus
(A. C. Cooper, 1985b) that ought to commercialize the knowledge
generated within the walls of high educational institutions (Bodolica &
Spraggon, 2021). The authors propose the conceptual paper of their view
on setting the innovation hub and suggest applying their guidelines in
universities in regions with transitional and emerging markets as they
believe in driving the power of the entrepreneurial mindset in fostering
the diffusion of innovation.
Commercialization is connected to opportunities with higher risks
due to low recognition on the market and the demand for already well-
known products. Competing in such conditions requires specific effort,
skills, and circumstances. To evaluate the startup's potential in the early
stage, the mechanisms such as minimum vital product (MVP)
development and the proof of concept (POC) were presented in the
reviewed literature. Firstly, time can play a crucial role, and the
innovation supporting centers focusing on the (MVP) development should
expand the view to the whole startup team. Consequently, within the
available resources, the centers in order to save time and launch a new
venture quicker, contribute to the survival rate by filling the gap in lack of
entrepreneurial experience (Stayton & Mangematin, 2016). Secondly, to
deliver the value of embryonic technology, the principal investigator
leading the team can apply for the (PoC) process (Mcadam et al., 2010).
Concepts such as Technology Transfer (TT) process and Research
and Development (R&D) activities highlight the importance of the
presence of the innovating component in the new emerging firms
16
incubated in the universities. Technology transfer - the idea of delivering
the ' lab born' new technologies into the market that is likewise associated
to fourth industrial revolution (Kruger & Steyn, 2020) - operates under
certain licensing strategies (Markman et al., 2005) within the eponymous
ecosystem (Good et al., 2019b), within organizational policy and available
resources (Moray & Clarysse, 2005). Comparative analysis done in the
research of the R&D activities in different entrepreneurship supporting
organizations reveals that technology incubators produce a more
significant number but novelty on a pretty similar level of innovation with
the non incubated firms. In contrast, academic incubators increase the
chances of promoting the invention on a global scale. The correlation
between incubation environment and number of innovation was
determined by (Cravo & Marques, 2019), and it noticed that the startup's
R&D results of are mainly in the field of parent organization.
4.7. Entrepreneurial ecosystem
The incubation is not an isolated process, and occasionally the new
product development is influenced by the external environment. The
institutional theory employed in incubation process research supports the
view that external pressure stimulates startups to adapt to the incubation
location, external shareholders, and primary consumers' requests
(Davidsson et al., 2006). To overcome this issue, the environment is
mainly called an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem based on different
mechanisms that create favorable conditions for increasing the survival
rate of the startups. To promote employment and product growth
(Breznitz & Zhang, 2019), the ecosystem is diversified (Lamine et al.,
2018) and directed to motivate innovation through collaboration both
inside the incubator (Di Fatta et al., 2018) and outside with the external
stakeholders (Etzkowitz et al., 2005).
The entrepreneurial ecosystem usually operates at the expense of
the region stakeholders’ collaboration: university, government, and
industry. In other words, such collaboration is the definition of the Triple
Helix approach that is proposed as the platform for the skills brokers to
operate locally and globally within the internet-based service (Lalkaka,
2002; Papagiannidis et al., 2009). Moreover, the university-driven
ecosystem - Triple Helix model stimulates innovation (Wonglimpiyarat,
2016) and startup early internationalization (Baier-Fuentes et al., 2021)
that requires deeper integration of the incubator's internal and external
stakeholders (Allahar & Sookram, 2019). However, it should be
considered that the entrepreneurial ecosystem is not always related to
the global or regional context and could be developed even within the one
university (Hayter, 2016; Prokop, 2021).
4.8. Resources and services.
17
The catalog of the resources available during the incubation and
ranking of each resource's importance in the start-up supporting pathway
attracts researchers' attention (Fernández Fernández et al., 2015;
Lasrado et al., 2016; Löfsten, 2015; Zedtwitz & Grimaldi, 2006).
Moreover, given the limit of allocated resources (Culkin, 2013), the
incubator managers - to be more productive (Warren et al., 2009) - can
prioritize the services they provide in the new venture support and
innovation development business model. However, the effective use of
incubator resources increases during the high tech firms' advancement
and willingness to be independent of the "nurturing" organization (M.
McAdam & McAdam, 2008). Hence, to explore this part of the university
business incubation field, scholars usually apply a resource-based
approach to analyze the situation and supply the practitioners with
insights. Hence, to explore this part of the university business incubation
field, scholars usually apply a resource-based approach to analyze the
situation and supply the practitioners with insights. Conditional resources
can be divided into two types: tangible and intangible, material and
immaterial (Venturini & Verbano, 2017), or intellectual and material (C. E.
Cooper et al., 2012), which is the same.
The tangible assets include funds, advantages from pooling
resources, and sharing resources (Chan & Lau, 2005) such as university
space (Markusen & Oden, 1996), labs, and equipment (Grimaldi & Grandi,
2001; Mian, 1996b). Additionally, the funds take a special place among
tangible resources as incubation is the process of supporting ventures in
the early stage when the future is promising and uncertain at the same
time (R. McAdam et al., 2009). Preparation for investment obtain is one
of the services provided by the incubator managers looking for available
capital sources and acting as a connector between the start-up and the
funds' holders (M. McAdam & Marlow, 2011). The funds' providers could
be both public and private (Pierrakis & Saridakis, 2019) that support the
start-ups with non-refundable capitals such as subsidies (Chan & Lau,
2005) and grants that are usually allocated by states (Jones & Parry,
2011), on the other hand, with an attempt to diversify the risks
(Carayannis & Von Zedtwitz, 2005). In expectation of returns, the private
(Croce et al., 2014) budgets are provided by Seed funds (Munari et al.,
2015) and venture capitalists (Pierrakis & Saridakis, 2019).
The business incubators' intangible services list is provided below:
knowledge, education, skills, image, consulting, mentoring, and
networking. Entrepreneurial education should be a global trend (Sowmya
et al., 2010), for instance, the Italian case demonstrates the positive
effect of developing an entrepreneurial mindset among students with
different majors and backgrounds supporting interdisciplinary student
collaboration, and this helps them to see the issues from different
perspectives and search for the optimal solution (Secundo et al., 2020).
Moreover, the knowledge - especially scientific and technological
developed inside the university (Grimaldi & Grandi, 2001) - as an
18
intangible asset is also a valuable service for new ventures. Acquiring
knowledge before they become skill (Markusen & Oden, 1996; Zobnina et
al., 2019) is a long-term process that requires an appropriate period of
relationship with the university (Díez-Vial & Montoro-Sánchez, 2016).
The image (Chan & Lau, 2005; Grimaldi & Grandi, 2001) and brand
(Salvador, 2011) of the university might add the trust level to the
affiliated start-up, yet could be also treated as a disadvantage due to the
relationship of practitioners to the theory (M. McAdam & Marlow, 2008)
that sometimes does not respond to the "real-world challenges".
However, the university is a good platform for start-ups in organizing
useful activities such as networking and mentoring (Warren et al., 2009)
that aid in the development of the innovation ecosystem through a high
level of stakeholders involvement (Miller et al., 2011) who initiating,
orchestrating and partaking in start-up supporting process (Liu, 2020).
The networking relationship - formal and informal (Rothschild & Darr,
2005) - could be both internal - among incubated firms (Öberg et al.,
2020) and external (Soetanto & Jack, 2013), for instance, experts
consulting (Chan & Lau, 2005; Jones & Parry, 2011) to increase the
chances to succeed (Rubin et al., 2015).
4.9. Short summary
Based on the overview of the generated themes, the
following definition is proposed: UBIs are directed to contribute
to regional development and bring social impact by supporting
early-stage start-ups. The UBI model connects to resources
and provides services for innovative start-ups that attempt to
commercialize scientific research.
19
Fig. 4 Conceptual framework of UBI.
CONCLUSION
The aim of the present research is twofold: first, to provide an
overview of the trends in the literature related to the University Business
Incubators (Fig. 1-3, and Table I); second, to examine the evolution of
the research agenda in the last three decades and generate main themes
related to the field (Fig. 4.)
The descriptive analysis proposes the following results: first, it
confirms the trend of growing academic interest in the phenomena;
second, it demonstrates the proportions of the methods applied in the
reviewed literature; third, it proposes the ranking of the journals by a
number of published articles. The study's strength is thematic analysis,
presented in the discussion section; by open coding method, eight themes
were generated and synthesized their main ideas into blocks.
The findings of this review provide insights for the researchers
interested in the incubation field and suggest some direction for future
research; for instance, the experiment as a method is underused only
(n=1) among (n=148) screened. Practitioners are also the audience of
management research (Tranfield et al., 2003). They could benefit from
this review as an important practical implication is this concentration of
information proposed in the thematic analysis could be insightful for the
university business incubation process.
The current study is limited by the number of articles as the search
protocol created for this review set specific requirements that were helpful
for the data extraction process.
20
REFERENCES
Aaboen, L. (2009). Explaining incubators using firm analogy.
Technovation, 29(10), 657–670.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.007
Ahmad, A. J., & Ingle, S. (2011). Relationships matter: Case study of a
university campus incubator. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, 17(6), 626–644.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111174701
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Ryu, K.
(2018). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 514–538.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568
Allahar, H., & Sookram, R. (2019). Emergence of university-centred
entrepreneurial ecosystems in the Caribbean. Industry and Higher
Education, 33(4), 246–259.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219838220
Ashby, A., Leat, M., & Hudson-Smith, M. (2012). Making connections: A
review of supply chain management and sustainability literature. In
Supply Chain Management (Vol. 17, Issue 5, pp. 497–516).
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258573
Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., & Tucci, C. L. (2018). University technology transfer
office business models: One size does not fit all. Technovation, 76–
77(May), 51–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.003
Baier-Fuentes, H., Guerrero, M., & Amorós, J. E. (2021). Does triple helix
collaboration matter for the early internationalisation of technology-
based firms in emerging Economies? Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 163(November 2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120439
Baraldi, E., & Ingemansson Havenvid, M. (2016). Identifying new
dimensions of business incubation: A multi-level analysis of
Karolinska Institute’s incubation system. Technovation, 50–51, 53–
68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.08.003
Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Wright, M., & Ramos Garcia, A. (2014). Do
different types of incubators produce different types of innovations?
Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 151–168.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9308-9
21
Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E., & Sánchez García, J. L.
(2015). Can a magic recipe foster university spin-off creation? Journal
of Business Research, 68(11), 2272–2278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.010
Bodolica, V., & Spraggon, M. (2021). Incubating innovation in university
settings: building entrepreneurial mindsets in the future generation of
innovative emerging market leaders. Education and Training, 63(4),
613–631. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2020-0145
Breznitz, S. M., & Zhang, Q. (2019). Fostering the growth of student
start-ups from university accelerators: An entrepreneurial ecosystem
perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(4), 855–873.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz033
Cadorin, E., Klofsten, M., & Löfsten, H. (2021). Science Parks, talent
attraction and stakeholder involvement: an international study.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(1), 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09753-w
Carayannis, E. G., & Von Zedtwitz, M. (2005). Architecting gloCal (global-
local), real-virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and
accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing
economies: Lessons learned and best practices from current
development and business incubation . Technovation, 25(2), 95–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00072-5
Chan, K. F., & Lau, T. (2005). Assessing technology incubator programs
in the science park : the good , the bad and the ugly. Technovation,
25, 1215–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.03.010
Cooke, P., Kaufmann, D., Levin, C., & Wilson, R. (2006). The biosciences
knowledge value chain and comparative incubation models. Journal
of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 115–129.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5025-3
Cooper, A. C. (1985a). The role of incubator organizations in the
founding of growth-oriented firms. Journal of Business Venturing,
1(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(85)90008-4
Cooper, A. C. (1985b). The role of incubator organizations in the
founding of growth-oriented firms. Journal of Business Venturing,
1(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(85)90008-4
Cooper, C. E., Hamel, S. A., & Connaughton, S. L. (2012). Motivations
and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 433–453.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9189-0
22
Cravo, Jos. P. C., & Marques, J. P. C. (2019). DEVELOPMENT of
INNOVATION in COMPANIES in INCUBATION: The CASE of
PORTUGAL. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(2).
https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961950018X
Croce, A., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Venture capital enters
academia: An analysis of university-managed funds. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 39(5), 688–715.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9317-8
Culkin, N. (2013). Beyond being a student: An exploration of student and
graduate start-ups (SGSUs) operating from university incubators.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(3), 634–
649. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2013-0072
Davenport, S., Carr, A., & Bibby, D. (2002). Leveraging talent: Spin-off
strategy at Industrial Research. R and D Management, 32(3), 241–
254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00257
Davidsson, P., Hunter, E., & Klofsten, M. (2006). Institutional forces: The
invisible hand that shapes venture ideas? International Small
Business Journal, 24(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242606061834
Del Bosco, B., Mazzucchelli, A., Chierici, R., & Di Gregorio, A. (2021).
Innovative startup creation: the effect of local factors and
demographic characteristics of entrepreneurs. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(1), 145–164.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00618-0
Di Fatta, D., Caputo, F., & Dominici, G. (2018). A relational view of start-
up firms inside an incubator: the case of the ARCA consortium.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(4), 601–619.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-08-2017-0110
Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2016). How knowledge links with
universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park.
Technovation, 50–51, 41–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.001
Donegan, M., & Lowe, N. (2020). Going local: placing entrepreneurial
microgeographies in a larger regional context. Industry and
Innovation, 27(8), 871–891.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1706454
Emami, A., & Dimov, D. (2017). Degree of innovation and the
entrepreneurs’ intention to create value: a comparative study of
experienced and novice entrepreneurs. Eurasian Business Review,
7(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-016-0068-y
23
Etzkowitz, H., de Mello, J. M. C., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards “meta-
innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the
emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34(4), 411–424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.011
Fernández Fernández, M. T., Blanco Jiménez, F. J., & Cuadrado Roura, J.
R. (2015). Business incubation: innovative services in an
entrepreneurship ecosystem. Service Industries Journal, 35(14), 783–
800. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2015.1080243
Festel, G. (2013). Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company
internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 38(4), 454–470.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9256-9
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2011). Complements or
substitutes? the role of universities and local context in supporting
the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1113–
1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.013
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen Years of Research on Business
Model Innovation: How Far Have We Come, and Where Should We
Go? Journal of Management, 43(1), 200–227.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316675927
Fukugawa, N. (2018). Is the impact of incubator’s ability on incubation
performance contingent on technologies and life cycle stages of
startups?: evidence from Japan. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 14(2), 457–478.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0468-1
González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). A
new approach to the metric of journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR
indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 379–391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.002
Good, M., Knockaert, M., Soppe, B., & Wright, M. (2019a). Technovation
The technology transfer ecosystem in academia . An organizational
design. Technovation, 82–83(June 2018), 35–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.009
Good, M., Knockaert, M., Soppe, B., & Wright, M. (2019b). The
technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design
perspective. Technovation, 82–83(March 2017), 35–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.009
Gorączkowska, J. (2020). Enterprise innovation in technology incubators
and university business incubators in the context of Polish industry.
Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(4), 799–817.
24
https://doi.org/10.24136/OC.2020.032
Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2004). Evolution of Incubation Models.
Industry and Higher Education, 18(1), 23–31.
https://doi.org/10.5367/000000004773040933
Green, S., Higgins, J. P., Alderson, P., Clarke, M., Mulrow, C. D., &
Oxman, A. D. (2008). Introduction. In J. P. Higgins & S. Green
(Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions:
Cochrane Book Series (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch1
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2001). The Contribution of University Business
Incubators to New Knowledge-Based Ventures: Evidence from Italy.
Industry and Higher Education, 15(4), 239–250.
https://doi.org/10.5367/000000001101295731
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture
creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2),
111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00076-2
Guadix, J., Carrillo-Castrillo, J., Onieva, L., & Navascués, J. (2016).
Success variables in science and technology parks. Journal of
Business Research, 69(11), 4870–4875.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.045
Guerrero, M., Liñán, F., & Cáceres-Carrasco, F. R. (2021). The influence
of ecosystems on the entrepreneurship process: a comparison across
developed and developing economies. Small Business Economics,
57(4), 1733–1759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00392-2
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014).
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study
comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9287-2
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Gajón, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial university
ecosystems and graduates’ career patterns: do entrepreneurship
education programmes and university business incubators matter?
Journal of Management Development, 39(5), 753–775.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2019-0439
Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A Systematic Review of Business
Incubation Research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–
82. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011181.11952.0f
Hausberg, J. P., & Korreck, S. (2020). Business incubators and
accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature
review. Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(1), 151–176.
25
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9651-y
Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spin-off success: the
role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university
ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 633–656.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3
Jones, R., & Parry, S. (2011). Business support for new technology-
based firms: A study of entrepreneurs in north Wales. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(6), 645–662.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111174710
Kevill, A., Brooks, R., & Mallinson, K. (2020). From pipe dream , to
enterprise incubator , to award-winning business : The case of Scriba
PR. Figure 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750319884851
Kiani Mavi, R., Gheibdoust, H., Khanfar, A. A., & Kiani Mavi, N. (2019).
Ranking factors influencing strategic management of university
business incubators with ANP. Management Decision, 57(12), 3492–
3510. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2018-0688
Kohler, T. (2016). Corporate accelerators: Building bridges between
corporations and startups. Business Horizons, 59(3), 347–357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.01.008
Kötting, M. (2020). Corporate incubators as knowledge brokers between
business units and ventures: A systematic review and avenues for
future research. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3),
474–499. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2017-0201
Kruger, S., & Steyn, A. A. (2020). Enhancing technology transfer through
entrepreneurial development: practices from innovation spaces. In
Journal of Technology Transfer (Vol. 45, Issue 6). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09769-2
Lalkaka, R. (2002). Technology business incubators to help build an
innovation-based economy. Jounal Change of Management, 3, 167–
176.
Lamine, W., Mian, S., Fayolle, A., Wright, M., Klofsten, M., & Etzkowitz,
H. (2018). Technology business incubation mechanisms and
sustainable regional development. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 43(5), 1121–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-
9537-9
Lasrado, V., Sivo, S., Ford, C., O’Neal, T., & Garibay, I. (2016). Do
graduated university incubator firms benefit from their relationship
with university incubators? Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2),
205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9412-0
26
Lee-Ross, D. (2015). Personality characteristics of the self-employed: A
comparison using the World Values Survey data set. Journal of
Management Development, 34(9), 1094–1112.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-06-2014-0062
Liu, Y. (2020). The micro-foundations of global business incubation:
Stakeholder engagement and strategic entrepreneurial partnerships.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161(June), 120294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120294
Löfsten, H. (2015). CRITICAL RESOURCE DIMENSIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF PATENTS — AN ANALYSIS OF 131 NEW
TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS LOCALISED IN INCUBATORS. Journal,
International Vol, Innovation Management Management, Technology,
19(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919615500061
M’Chirgui, Z., Lamine, W., Mian, S., & Fayolle, A. (2018). University
technology commercialization through new venture projects: an
assessment of the French regional incubator program. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1142–1160.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9535-y
Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005).
Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal
of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.003
Markusen, A., & Oden, M. (1996). National laboratories as business
incubators and region builders. Journal of Technology Transfer, 21(1–
2), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02220312
Mayorga, L. K. (2019a). HEIs and workforce development : Helping
undergraduates acquire career-readiness attributes.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219875083
Mayorga, L. K. (2019b). HEIs and workforce development: Helping
undergraduates acquire career-readiness attributes. Industry and
Higher Education, 33(6), 370–380.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219875083
McAdam, M., Galbraith, B., McAdam, R., & Humphreys, P. (2006).
Business Processes and Networks in University Incubators: A Review
and Research Agendas. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 18(5), 451–472.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320601019578
McAdam, M., & Marlow, S. (2008). A preliminary investigation into
networking activities within the university incubator. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 14(4), 219–241.
27
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550810887390
McAdam, M., & Marlow, S. (2011). Sense and sensibility: The role of
business incubator client advisors in assisting high-technology
entrepreneurs to make sense of investment readiness status.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(7–8), 449–468.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903406749
McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in University
Science Park incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s
lifecycle progression and use of the incubator’s resources.
Technovation, 28(5), 277–290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.012
Mcadam, M., Mcadam, R., Galbraith, B., & Miller, K. (2010). An
exploratory study of Principal Investigator roles in UK university
Proof-of-Concept processes: An Absorptive Capacity perspective. R
and D Management, 40(5), 455–473.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00619.x
McAdam, R., McAdam, M., & Brown, V. (2009). Proof of concept
processes in UK university technology transfer: An absorptive
capacity perspective. R and D Management, 39(2), 192–210.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00549.x
McCarthy, I. P., Silvestre, B. S., von Nordenflycht, A., & Breznitz, S. M.
(2018). A typology of university research park strategies: What parks
do and why it matters. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management - JET-M, 47(February), 110–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.01.004
Mesa-Gresa, P., Gil-Gómez, H., Lozano-Quilis, J. A., & Gil-Gómez, J. A.
(2018). Effectiveness of virtual reality for children and adolescents
with autism spectrum disorder: An evidence-based systematic review.
Sensors (Switzerland), 18(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082486
Mian, S. A. (1994). US university-sponsored technology incubators: an
overview of management, policies and performance. Technovation,
14(8), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(94)90151-1
Mian, S. A. (1996a). Assessing value-added contributions of university
technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy,
25(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00828-4
Mian, S. A. (1996b). Assessing value-added contributions of university
technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00828-4
Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., & Brennan, M. (2011). An exploratory
28
study of retaining and maintaining knowledge in university technology
transfer processes. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, 17(6), 663–684.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111174729
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement. BMJ (Online), 339(7716), 332–336.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource
endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy,
34(7), 1010–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.016
Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock
market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed
funds in Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 948–975.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9385-4
Nicholls-Nixon, C. L., Valliere, D., Gedeon, S. A., & Wise, S. (2021).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems and the lifecycle of university business
incubators: An integrative case study. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 17(2), 809–837.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00622-4
O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists
commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-
006-9010-2
Öberg, C., Klinton, M., & Stockhult, H. (2020). Inside the incubator –
business relationship creations among incubated firms. Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 35(11), 1767–1784.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-2018-0391
Ometto, M. P., Gegenhuber, T., Winter, J., & Greenwood, R. (2019). From
Balancing Missions to Mission Drift: The Role of the Institutional
Context, Spaces, and Compartmentalization in the Scaling of Social
Enterprises. Business and Society, 58(5), 1003–1046.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318758329
Papagiannidis, S., Li, F., Etzkowitz, H., & Clouser, M. (2009).
Entrepreneurial networks: A triple helix approach for brokering human
and social capital. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(3),
215–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-009-0038-x
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este,
P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson,
M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic
29
engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on
university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and
incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of
Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001
Phillips, R. G. (2002). Technology business incubators : how effective as
technology transfer mechanisms ? Technology in Society, 24, 299–
316.
Pierrakis, Y., & Saridakis, G. (2019). The role of venture capitalists in the
regional innovation ecosystem: a comparison of networking patterns
between private and publicly backed venture capital funds. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 44(3), 850–873.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9622-8
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A
systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business
Journal, 25(5), 479–510.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607080656
Prokop, D. (2021). University entrepreneurial ecosystems and spin-off
companies: Configurations, developments and outcomes.
Technovation, 107(May 2020), 102286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102286
Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and
business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal.
Technovation, 30(4), 278–290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.09.002
Redondo, M., & Camarero, C. (2017). Dominant logics and the manager’s
role in university business incubators. Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 32(2), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-
01-2016-0018
Redondo, M., & Camarero, C. (2019). Social Capital in University
Business Incubators: dimensions, antecedents and outcomes.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 599–
624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0494-7
Reitan, B. (1997). Fostering technical entrepreneurship in research
communities: Granting scholarships to would-be entrepreneurs.
Technovation, 17(6), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-
4972(97)00121-1
30
Roig-Tierno, N., Alcázar, J., & Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. (2015). Use of
infrastructures to support innovative entrepreneurship and business
growth. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2290–2294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.013
Rothschild, L., & Darr, A. (2005). Technological incubators and the social
construction of innovation networks: An Israeli case study.
Technovation, 25(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-
4972(03)00064-6
Rubin, T. H., Aas, T. H., & Stead, A. (2015). Knowledge flow in
Technological Business Incubators: Evidence from Australia and
Israel. Technovation, 41, 11–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.03.002
Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good “brand
names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 36(2), 203–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-
9152-0
Sansone, G., Andreotti, P., Colombelli, A., & Landoni, P. (2020). Are
social incubators different from other incubators? Evidence from
Italy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158(June),
120132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120132
Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2008). Specialization as strategy for
business incubators: An assessment of the Central German
Multimedia Center. Technovation, 28(7), 436–449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.003
Secundo, G., Mele, G., Sansone, G., & Paolucci, E. (2020).
Entrepreneurship Education Centres in universities: evidence and
insights from Italian “Contamination Lab” cases. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 26(6), 1311–1333.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-2019-0687
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual
framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
Soetanto, D. P., & Jack, S. L. (2013). Business incubators and the
networks of technology-based firms. Journal of Technology Transfer,
38(4), 432–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9237-4
Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2007). S&T Parks and business incubators
in middle-sized countries: The case of Greece. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 32(5), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-
6031-1
31
Sowmya, D. V., Majumdar, S., & Gallant, M. (2010). Relevance of
education for potential entrepreneurs: An international investigation.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), 626–
640. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001011088769
Stayton, J., & Mangematin, V. (2016). Startup time, innovation and
organizational emergence: A study of USA-based international
technology ventures. In Journal of International Entrepreneurship
(Vol. 14, Issue 3). Journal of International Entrepreneurship.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-016-0183-y
Tang, M., Walsh, G. S., Li, C., & Baskaran, A. (2021). Exploring
technology business incubators and their business incubation models:
case studies from China. Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(1), 90–
116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09759-4
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for
Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of
Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Treanor, L., & Henry, C. (2010). Gender in campus incubation: evidence
from Ireland. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,
2(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261011051008
Venturini, K., & Verbano, C. (2017). Open innovation in the public sector:
Resources and performance of research-based spin-offs. Business
Process Management Journal, 23(6), 1337–1358.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2016-0208
Verbano, C., Crema, M., & Scuotto, V. (2020). Adding the entrepreneurial
orientation among the theoretical perspectives to analyse the
development of research-based spin-offs. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 21(2), 113–126.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750319874592
Virtanen, M., & Laukkanen, M. (2002). Towards HEI-Based New Venture
Generation. Industry and Higher Education, 16(3), 159–166.
https://doi.org/10.5367/000000002101296252
Voisey, P., Jones, P., & Thomas, B. (2013a). The pre-incubator : a
longitudinal study of 10 years of university pre-incubation in Wales.
27(5), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0168
Voisey, P., Jones, P., & Thomas, B. (2013b). The Pre-Incubator: A
Longitudinal Study of 10 Years of University Pre-Incubation in Wales.
Industry and Higher Education, 27(5), 349–363.
https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0168
32
von Zedtwitz, M. (2003). Classification and management of incubators:
aligning strategic objectives and competitive scope for new business
facilitation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, 3(1–2), 176–196.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2003.002227
Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation
literature: Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate
Reputation Review, 12(4), 357–387.
https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2009.26
Wann, J. W., Lu, T. J., Lozada, I., & Cangahuala, G. (2017). University-
based incubators’ performance evaluation: a benchmarking approach.
Benchmarking, 24(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2015-
0018
Warren, L., Patton, D., & Bream, D. (2009). Knowledge acquisition
processes during the incubation of new high technology firms.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(4), 481–
495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-009-0121-8
Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2016). The innovation incubator, University business
incubator and technology transfer strategy: The case of Thailand.
Technology in Society, 46, 18–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.04.002
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.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-0007-7
Zobnina, M., Korotkov, A., & Rozhkov, A. (2019). Structure, challenges
and opportunities for development of entrepreneurial education in
Russian universities. Foresight and STI Governance, 13(4), 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2019.4.69.81
33
Appendix. 1
N
Journal title
1985-2000
2001-2005
2006-2010
2011-2015
2016-2020
2021
1
Journal Of Technology Transfer 1
6
8
10
2
27
2
Technovation 2
4
4
1
6
2
19
3
Industry And Higher Education 1
3
1
1
2
1
9
4
Technological Forecasting And Social Change
2
6
1
9
5
International Journal Of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour And Research
1
4
1
6
6
International Entrepreneurship And
Management Journal
1
2
2
5
7
Journal Of Small Business Management 1
1
1
1
4
8
Research Policy 1
2
1
4
9
Journal Of Business Venturing 2
2
4
10
R And D Management
1
2
1
4
11
International Journal Of Entrepreneurship And
Innovation
1
2
3
12
Journal Of Business Research
2
1
3
13
Journal Of International Entrepreneurship
1
2
3
14
Journal Of Management Development
1
2
3
15
Journal Of Small Business And Enterprise
Development
2
1
3
16
Small Business Economics
3
3
17
Entrepreneurship And Regional Development 1
1
2
18
Education And Training
1
1
2
19
International Journal Of Gender And
Entrepreneurship
1
1
2
20
International Journal Of Innovation
Management
1
1
2
21
Journal Of Business And Industrial Marketing
2
2
22
Journal Of Engineering And Technology
Management - Jet-M
2
2
23
Technology Analysis And Strategic Management
1
1
2
24
Technology In Society
1
1
2
25
Cities 1
1
26
Academy Of Management Journal
1
1
27
Academy Of Management Perspectives
1
1
28
Benchmarking
1
1
29
Business & Society
1
1
30
Business Horizons
1
1
31
Business Process Management Journal
1
1
32
Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice
1
1
33
Eurasian Business Review
1
1
34
34
European Journal Of Innovation Management
1
1
35
Foresight And Sti Governance
1
1
36
Industrial And Corporate Change
1
1
37
Industry And Innovation
1
1
38
International Journal Of Management Education
1
1
39
International Small Business Journal
1
1
40
Journal Of Change Management
1
1
41
Journal Of Management Education
1
1
42
Journal Of Media Business Studies
1
1
43
Knowledge Management Research And Practice
1
1
44
Management Decision
1
1
45
Oeconomia Copernicana
1
1
46
Science And Public Policy
1
1
47
Service Industries Journal
1
1
.
