This paper considers the underlying processes and contexts of incubation as critical factors in accelerated firm growth in a university-based technology incubator. At the heart of the study is a concern to understand these dynamics in the early stages of incubation, including processes of firm network formation, the capacity to access and use combinations of resources at various phases of incubation, and the ways in which the incubator, as a techno-social space, supports the connection of different resources and their relationships. Building on theoretical frameworks that draw on the conceptual work of Lachmann and Bourdieu, the authors argue that it is possible to identify ‘heterogeneous resources' as different forms of ‘capital’ at work in the incubation process. The empirical case study at a university-based technology incubator illustrates the ways in which university incubators help high-tech start-up firms to build these capabilities through network formation and a variety of types of resource mobilization.
AndersonA.JackS. (2002), ‘The articulation of social capital in entrepreneurial networks: A glue or lubricant?’Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 14, No 3, pp 193–210.
2.
AndersonA.ParkJ.JackS. (2007), ‘Entrepreneurial social capital: Conceptualizing social capital in new high-tech firms’, International Small Business Journal, Vol 25, No 3, pp 245–272.
3.
BeckerB.GassmannO. (2006), ‘Gaining leverage effects from knowledge modes within corporate incubators’, R&D Management, Vol 36, No 1, pp 1–16.
4.
BoschmaR.IammarinoS. (2009), ‘Related variety, trade linkages, and regional growth in Italy’, Economic Geography, Vol 85, No 3, pp 289–311.
5.
BourdieuP. (1986), ‘The forms of capital’, in RichardsonJ., ed, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood, New York, pp 241–258.
6.
ChilesT.BluedornA.GuptaV. (2007), ‘Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: A radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship’, Organization Studies, Vol 28, No 4, pp 467–493.
7.
ConnellD.ProbertJ. (2010), Exploding the Myths of UK Innovation Policy: How ‘Soft Companies’ and R&D Contracts for Customers Drive the Growth of the Hi-Tech Economy, Research Report, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, commissioned on behalf of the East of England Science and Industry Council, East of England Development Agency, January, website: http://ukirc.ac.uk/object/report/3341/doc/full_report.pdf.
8.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), HM Treasury and Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2002), Investing in Innovation Strategy, July, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/science_strat_sum02.pdf (accessed 25 October 2009).
9.
DruilheC.GarnseyE. (2000), ‘Emergence and growth of high-tech activity in Cambridge and Grenoble’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 12, pp 163–177.
10.
DTI (2003), Competing in the Global Economy: The Innovation Challenge, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
11.
DTI (2004), Making the UK the Best Place in the World to Start and Grow a Business. The Evidence Base, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
12.
EriksonT. (2002), ‘Entrepreneurial capital: The emerging organization's most important asset’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 17, No 3, pp 275–290.
13.
EtzkowitzH. (2002), ‘Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of university–industry–government networks’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 115–128.
14.
FossN.KleinP.KorY.MahoneyJ. (2008), ‘Entrepreneurship, subjectivism, and the resource-based view: Towards a new synthesis’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol 2, No 1, pp 73–94.
15.
FossK.FossN.KleinP.KleinS. (2007), ‘The entrepreneurial organization of heterogeneous capital’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 44, No 7, pp 1165–1186.
16.
FrenzM.OughtonC. (2005), Innovation in the UK Regions and Devolved Administrations: A Review of the Literature, May, Final Report for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
17.
Fuller-LoveN.O'GormanB. (2011), ‘Introduction to Special Issue: Networks, learning and entrepreneurship’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol 12, No 4, pp 220–226.
18.
GarnseyE.StamE.HeffernanP. (2006), ‘New firm growth: Exploring processes and paths’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 13, No 1, pp 1–20.
19.
GassmannO.BeckerB. (2006), ‘Towards a resource-based view of corporate incubators’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol 10, No 1, pp 19–45.
20.
HannonP.ChaplinP. (2003), ‘Are incubators good for business? Understanding incubation practice – the challenges for policy’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol 21, No 6, pp 861–881.
21.
HelmR.MauronerO. (2011), ‘Soft starters, research boutiques and product-oriented firms: Different business models for spin-off companies’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol 12, No 4, pp 479–498.
22.
HughesM.MorganR.IrelandR.HughesP. (2011), ‘Network behaviours, social capital and organizational learning in high-growth entrepreneurial firms’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol 12, No 3, pp 257–272.
23.
Karatas-OzkanM. (2011), ‘Understanding relational qualities of entrepreneurial learning: Towards a multi-layered approach’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol 23, Nos 9–10, pp 877–906.
24.
LachmannL.M. (1956), Capital and its Structure, Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, MO.
25.
LachmannL.M. (1977), Capital, Expectations, and the Market Process, Sheed, Andrews & McMeel, Kansas City, MO.
26.
LambertR. (2003), Lambert Review of Business–University Collaboration: Summary of Consultation Responses and Emerging Issues, July, HM Treasury, London.
MarkmanG.SiegelD.WrightM. (2008), ‘Research and technology commercialization’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 45, No 8, pp 1401–1423.
29.
MinshallT.WicksteedB. (2005), University Spin-Out Companies: Starting to Fill the Evidence Gap, a report on a pilot research project commissioned by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, St John's College Centre, Cambridge.
30.
MinshallT.WicksteedB.DruilleC.KellsA.LynskeyM.ŠiraliovaJ. (2008), ‘The role of spin-outs within university research commercialisation activities: Case studies from 10 UK universities’, in OakleyR.GroenA.van der SijdeP.CookG., eds, New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium, Vol 11, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp 185–201.
31.
NahapietJ.GhosalS. (1998), ‘Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 23, No 2, pp 242–266.
32.
PattonD.MarlowS. (2011), ‘University technology business incubators: Helping new entrepreneurial firms to learn to grow’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol 29, No 5, pp 911–926.
33.
PattonD.WarrenL.BreamD. (2009), ‘Intangible elements that underpin high-tech business incubation processes’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 34, No 6, pp 621–636.
PetersL.RiceM.SundararajanM. (2004), ‘The role of incubators in the entrepreneurial process’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 29, No 1, pp 83–91.
36.
RobertsonS.KitagawaF. (2011), University Incubators and Knowledge Mediation Strategies: Policy and Practice in Creating Competitive City-Regions, LLAKES Research Paper 28, Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies, Institute of Education, London, website: http://LLAKES.org.
37.
RothaermelF.T.AgungS.D.JiangL. (2007), ‘University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 16, No 4, pp 691–791.
StoreyD. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
40.
StringfellowL.ShawE. (2009), ‘Conceptualising entrepreneurial capital for a study of performance in small professional service firms’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol 15, No 2, pp 137–161.
41.
WarrenL.PattonD.A.BreamD. (2009), ‘Knowledge acquisition processes during the incubation of new high technology firms’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol 5, No 4, pp 481–495.
42.
WatersR.SmithLawton H. (2002), ‘RDAs and local economic development: Scale and competitiveness in high-technology Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire’, European Planning Studies, Vol 10, No 5, pp 633–649.
43.
WellingsP. (2008), Intellectual Property and Research Benefits, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
44.
WrightM.ClarysseB.LockettA.BinksM. (2006), ‘University spin-out companies and venture capital’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 4, pp 481–501.
45.
WrightM.ClarysseB.MustarP.LockettA. (2007), Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
46.
YinR.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, SAGE Publications, London.
47.
ZhangJ.WongP.-K. (2008), ‘Networks vs. market methods in high-tech venture fundraising: The impact of institutional environment’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 20, No 5, pp 409–430.
