Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Science & Tech Parks

Innovation Management - Free University of Bolzano, 2013
by

Daniel Russo

on 4 November 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Science & Tech Parks

Science Parks and Incubators and their impact on Innovation Processes
- Hosseini (2008) -

Science & Tech Parks
Overview
How effective is innovation support for SMEs? An analysis of the region of Upper Austria?
Which assessment
And in South Tyrol?
Among the actors that we indicate as sources of innovation there is an important role played by
Science and technology parks who are supposed to trigger, originate and support innovation.

How do they affect the innovation phenomenon?
How do they perform?
Do we need them?
Hosseini M., 2008, Science Parks and Incubators and their impact on Innovation process.
Robertson J., T. Sorbello, K. Unsworth. 2008. Innovation implementation: the role of Technology
Diffusion Agencies, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 3, 3, 1-10.
Kaufmann A., Tödtling F., 2002, How effective is innovation support for SMEs? An analysis of the
region of Upper Austria, Technovation, 22, 147-159.
Bigliardi, B., Dormio A.I., Nosella A., Petroni G., 2006. Assessing science parks’ performance:
direction from selected Italian case studies. Technovation, 26, 489-505.
The evolution of the structure and of the mission of Scientific Parks, SPs
Determinants of the performance evaluation system of PSs
Area-Scientific Park of Trieste
VEGA - Venice Gateway for science and technology
Galileo-Science Park of Padua
STAR-Science Park of Verona
Performance evaluation systems of the SP examined.
AREA Science Park: inter-functional relationships and convergence of the determining factors of the performance evaluation system.
GALILEO-SP of Padua: inter-functional relationships and convergence of the determining factors of the performance evaluation system
VEGA-SP of Venice: inter-functional relationships and convergence of the determining factors of the performance evaluation system.
Julia Moroder
Felix Hofmann
Daniel Russo

(Why) do we need a Science or Technology Park???
Mission Statements
– Arrange modes of interaction between industrial and academic research structures (R&D labs close to university departments);
– Promote the generation of academic spin-offs (through incubators, where available)
– Carry out re-industrialization programs by replacing obsolete or declining product technologies (through incubators if needed);
– Promote the founding of start ups without the collaboration of university structures (if needed through incubators);
– Carry out technology transfer programs to strengthen firms located in a particular area;
– Carry out training programs aimed at developing and managing emerging technologies;

Problem
Very generic mission statements ->
How should we identify the real "mission" of a science park?
Implementation policies and practices – They never took it up

Lack of planning
Problems to design products
Lack of equipment
Training in lean manufacturing
“Lean change”
Lack of incentives
Change effort took place at a very superficial level







Total Investments (in infrastructure) -> €62,5 mln
Any convergence possible?
Really enough?
Now split in 3 groups and:
1. Design the S&T Park of South Tyrol
2. Asses the Park according to your information, what will be the final output?
Science Parks
Organization managed by
specialized professionals
Increases the wealth of its community by promoting the
culture of innovation and competitiveness

Stimulates and manages the
flow of knowledge and technology
amongst universities, R&D institutions, companies and markets
Science Parks on NIS (II)
Leo and White
introduced 5 important factors in NIS:
Research
Implementation of research
Practicality of final result
Mediation and bridging the gap in economic conditions
Education

"Ricerca e Sviluppo (R&S) - 2010"
ASTAT
Science Parks: When? Why?
Practical
experiment
in California in the late 1950s
Idea: locate
new industrial sites close to university
3 motivations for Science Parks (Castells and Hall):
Reindustrialisation
Regional development
Creation of synergies
Different Types of Science Parks
Science parks
Technology parks
Parks based on market demand
Science and technology towns
Innovation in Science Parks and Incubators
Linear Model (1970 – 1980)
Universities provide science park with knowledge and research
Science park will work on the research and provide the industry with knowledge enabling them to produce goods and services

Non Linear Model (21st century)
Science policy is more complex and multidimensional
Closer connection and higher cooperation among all the actors in the innovation process including government, university, science park and industry increasing the elements of knowledge creation
Incubator
New technology based firms have to be in an incubator for some time to
become mature and innovative
enough to enter science parks

Tool for
economic development, innovativeness

and
emergence of new technologies


Used as
vitamin injections
for tired regions and as a construction stimulator in birth of university spin off
Design of an Incubator's Model
Porter’s 3 reasons for geographical concentration:

firms located in diffuse geographical regions are likely to maintain fewer formal ties and interact less frequently with similar than with those in close proximity
firms within clusters have better access to informal information networks
facilitates job mobility and consequently information transfer across organizational boundaries

Geographical proximity on innovation
Technology Incubator Criteria
Edquist (1997)
introduced NIS as follows: all economic, social and political organizational factors that have influence over diffusion and implementation of technology and innovation

Freeman (1987):
the performance of NIS is dependent on the interaction to develop and apply innovative technology
Science Parks on NIS (I)
Research Triangle Park - Facts and Figures
Founded in 1959 in North Carolina
137 organizations, 41.600 employees, 104 research companies, over 40.000 research employees
Located near the 3 most prestigious universities of the state
Parks
Average salary: $ 56,000 annually
Innovative companies located here
Research Triangle Park
Research Triangle Park
Research Triangle Park
Innovation Triangle
Model for Science Parks Design
SMEs innovate in specific ways
Heterogeneity prevents from simple generalizations, it comes from differences in
Technological level
Market relations
Strategies of competition
Region is important for matters of
Exchange of tactic knowledge
Spatially limited workforce

Study Region: Upper Austria
Region: wide range of competencies in economic policy
Traditional metal/steel products, today diversified
-> Transport, Mining, Chemicals
Technology and Marketing Corporation Linz: Specialized governmental organization
strengthening applied R&D, intensified collaboration in clusters, technology transfer
Six technology-centers
Two of them engaged in Research
Three technical colleges

NO:
Major contact research organizations
Technology transfer services
Innovation management consultancies

Problems in the Innovation process of SMEs
SMEs
cannot profit from high specialization as big firms do
are less often engaged in Research than large firms (13% to 31%)
have higher ressource intensity, especially in HR
Suffer from lack of
Financial resources
Small product range, no „cash cow“ to same Extend as BF
low search capabilities
Advanced technical know how
Time of the key persons

External relations in the innvoation process
Many realations within sector; customers and suppliers
Restricting innovation; any change is costly
SMEs rarely interacting with Universities, contract research centres and training institutions
Without going beyond the business sector knowledge is restricted to the well known
Not able to substitute for other products when market crumbles

Especially interaction with science leads to more advanced innovation
Not only the lack of interaktions, also the way
Few cooperative relations in joint venture projects
Mostly contracts only about use of labratory
Only few employees in SMEs can act as nodes
To dominant focus on the region limits the possible number of companies to elaborate with
Involvement in distant networks is important to avoid a paralysis

Innovation barriers
Financial barriers
Manpower
Technological know how not mentioned
Dominant entrepreneur-> narrow strategic perspective
Strategic defencies and an organisational weaknesses are central
No awareness of need to innovate and do market research

Regional technology centres in UA
2 R&D oriented technology centres
Softwarepark Hagenberg (software development and industrial mathematics)
University departments, a technical college, and firms

4 facility concentrated, mainly startups
Innovation consultancy, technical service
Predominatly software & dataprocessing, consulting services

Innovation Implementation: The role of Technology diffusion agencies (TDAs)
Direct financial innovation support
FFF concentrates on early phases of innovation
Bottom up-strategy, firms decide on projects
Mainly support targets high-tech and risky r&d
Leads to a predominant share of high-tech firms

The FFF
FFF = Forschungsförderungsfonds
Uses a mix of three instruments
Non-repayable grants
Loans with low interest
guarantees

Mistargeted innovation support
Mistargeted = insufficient effectiveness
Mismatch between offered and needed support
Support doesn‘t target the most serious problems
Mismatch between targeted firms an the firms that need support
Innovation barriers are correctly tageted but not at the SMEs where it‘s most sensefull

Company has been operating for over 50 years and employs 200 staff across three plants in South East Queensland, Australia
Core competence: designs, develops, manufactures a range of water mixing products
Rival companies: undercutting prices leading to a sharp decline in Water Co’s market share and profitability

WaterCo - Company Background
Mistargeted innovation support in UA
Methodolody
3 visits
12 semi-structured interviews
4 of this individual interviews

4 broad issues were interviewed:
staff and organizational demographics
characteristics of the specific innovation they were implementing
reasons for adoption, allocated resources, anticipated benefits
implementation process

Tech-centres are hardly used by external SMEs
Are mostly seen as facility providers
Signignificant number of SMEs indicated having received not required support
50% see their financial support as neccessary
65% in research engaged firms see support as neccessary
Support is most relevant for resource-intensive innovation, not for knowledge intensive processes

Results and Decisions
If we are not moving forward we’re not going to survive

Implementation policies and practices – They never took it up

Financial Resources – You’ve got to spend money to make money, haven’t you?




FFF tends to support
only high-tech firms
Firms that are already innovative
Support lacks strategic weaknesses
4 of 6 tech centres provide only basic service
Firms underassess their defencies

Results and Decisions
Implemenation Climate – “I think they’re interested trying to change”

Management support – "We don’t really see management from above very much"

TDA Assistance – They cannot tell us how to do our job



Direct support meets needs of SMEs innovation financing, but
Grands and loans do not cover risk capital
Latent srategic, organisational and technological defencies, aim: raise awareness
Existing instruments support high-tech firms
SMEs have a lack of interaction with knowledge providers form outside the business sector
Research oriented centres have to few interaction with external firms

Overall not reach a significant part of SME-sector
„Direct support should focus more on risk capital, longterm funding of innovation and the phase of commercialization“
„Technology centres should significantly increase their activities in the area of (...) awareness raising (...) “

Conclusion
The radical change in employees attitudes turned from initial enthusiasm to apathy and frustration

An organization seeking to implement innovation should consider their impact on innovation not only as individual factors but in combination

The role of TDA in innovation implementation is limited to that level of assistance and advice that innovations will accept

Build a greater understanding which roles TDA can have for innovative organizations.

What are TDAs?
External agencies such as TDAs have been created to
assist organizations to implement innovation successfully
There has been little empirical research investigating their roles
The paper presents a case of
failed innovation implementation
and how TDAs could prevent those failures

Klein, Conn, Sorra's (2001):
Model of innovation implementation

Innovation implementation
Conclusions
Full transcript