Priority Criteria and Alternatives for University Business Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process in Mexico

• Authors: Martínez Ramírez Lizbeth , Muñoz Jaime

Title variants

PL

Priorytetowe kryteria i alternatywy stosowane przez akademickie inkubatory przedsiębiorczości w procesie przedsiębiorczym w Meksyku

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

PL

Według teorii rozwoju gospodarczego Schumpetera proces innowacyjny jest czynnikiem o kluczowym znaczeniu dla przedsiębiorczości. Nie wszyscy przedsiębiorcy dokonują jednak innowacji i nie wszystkie innowacje warunkują przedsiębiorczość. Akademickie inkubatory przedsiębiorczości (AIP) zostały uznane za główny czynnik procesu przedsiębiorczego, w ramach którego – jeśli dojdzie do innowacji – otwierają się szerokie perspektywy sukcesu gospodarczego. Obecnie na świecie AIP są zaliczane do kategorii podmiotów wyznaczających kierunki w procesie przedsiębiorczym. Jednym z ich celów jest tworzenie przedsiębiorstw, które ostatecznie mogą utrwalić swoją pozycję na rynku. Artykuł ma na celu określenie za pomocą metody AHP hierarchii kryteriów wydajności AIP z wykorzystaniem wymienionych w literaturze różnych poziomów wpływu. Są to: a) działania gospodarcze, b) narodowy plan rozwoju oraz c) działania naukowe. Kryteria te wiążą się z czterema charakterystycznymi funkcjami AIP: i) dostarczanie środków produkcji, ii) rozwijanie kultury przedsiębiorczości, iii) nawiązywanie kontaktów z rynkiem w celu utworzenia bazy przyszłych przedsiębiorstw oraz iv) wywoływanie „efektu przyciągania”. Hipoteza postawiona w artykule głosi, że klasyfikacja AIP nie tylko umożliwia określenie ich głównych cech, lecz również wskazuje normatywne zastosowanie kryteriów i alternatywnych sposobów osiągnięcia wydajności w celu tworzenia i wspierania rozwoju solidnych i stabilnych przedsiębiorstw niezależnie od cech uczelni sponsorującej. Weryfikacji tej hipotezy dokonano na bazie analizy trzech najważniejszych meksykańskich AIP. Wyniki wskazują, że chociaż badane AIP stanowią specyficzny rodzaj inkubatorów przedsiębiorczości, różnią się pod względem stosowanych kryteriów i alternatywnych sposobów osiągania wydajności.

EN

The Schumpeterian theory of economic development establishes the innovation process as a key factor for entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, not every entrepreneur exercises innovation and not every innovation leads to entrepreneurship. University Business Incubators (UBIs) have been considered as the main factor for entrepreneurial process in which if innovation takes place, the perspective of economic success becomes wide open. Currently, UBIs are typified and considered around the world as guides in the process of entrepreneurship; one of their objectives is the creation of startups that can eventually consolidate in the market. The aim of this work is to identify by means of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) the priority of UBIs performance criteria on the basis of the main levels of impacts the literature remarks on: a) economic action, b) National Development Plan and/or c) scientific action. These criteria are related with four characteristic UBIs functions: i) provision of means of production, ii) strengthening entrepreneurship culture, iii) bonding with the market to generate a base of future firms, and, iv) creating pull effect. The hypothesis of this work is that UBIs classification not only allows for identifying their main characteristics but it also points toward a normative application of criteria and alternatives of performance, in order to reach the objective of creating and fostering solid and stable enterprises, no matter the sponsoring university characteristics. We tested it by analyzing the three most important Mexican UBIs. The results show that although the analyzed UBIs are a specific type of business incubators, their criteria and alternatives of performance differ among them.

Keywords

PL

AHP; inkubatory przedsiębiorczości; innowacje; przedsiębiorczość

EN

AHP; business incubators; innovation; entrepreneurship

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Studia i Materiały
• Year: 2015
• Issue: 2/2015 (19)
• Pages: 95-105

Dates

issued

2015-11-15

Contributors

author

Martínez Ramírez Lizbeth

• Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana

author

Muñoz Jaime

• Economics, Autonomous Metropolitan University

References

• Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for Entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23(2), 127–135.
• Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P. & Vandenbempt, K. (2007). Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation, 27(5), 254–267.
• Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustard, P., Siegel, D. &
• Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.
• Azevedo, S. & Chiappetta, C. (2012). Assessment of business incubators’ green performance: A framework and its application to Brazilian cases. Technovation, 32(2), 122–132.
• Barbero, J., Casillas, J., Ramos, A. & Guitar, S. (2012). Revisiting incubation performance how incubator typology affects results. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79(5), 888–902.
• Barba-Romero, S. (1996). Manual para la toma de decisiones multicriterio. Santiago de Chile: Instituto Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Planificación Económica y Social – ILPES.
• Bergerk, A. & Norrman, C. (2008). Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28(1–2), 20–28.
• Bollingtoft, A. & Ulhoi, J. (2005). The networked business incubator—leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265–290.
• Brunnel Johan, R. T. (2012). The Evolution of Business Incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110–121
• Carayannis, E. & Gonzalez, E. (2003). Creativity and Innovation = Competitiveness? When, How, and Why. In: L. Shavinina, The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 587–606). Quebec: Elsevier.
• Carayannis, E. & 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.
• Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
• Commission of the European Communities (2003). Green Paper Entrepreneurship in Europe. In: Enterprise, Enterprise Publications.
• Díaz, R. (2015). INADEM, 23 April (L. Martínez & J. Muñoz, Interviewers).
• Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper & Row.
• Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry– government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
• Evans, D. S. & Leighton, L (1989). The Determinants of Changes in U.S. Self-Employment. Small Business Economics, 1(2), 111–119.
• Freeman, C. (2000). Social inequality, technology, and economic growth. In: S. Wyatt, F. Henwood, N. Miller & P. Senker, Technology and In/equality: Questioning the Information Society (pp. 149–171). London, UK; New York, USA: Routledge.
• Grimaldi, R. & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111–121.
• Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.
• Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.
• Keizer, J. A., Dijkstra, L. & Halman, J. I. (2002). Explaining innovative efforts of SMEs. An exploratory survey among SMEs in the mechanical and electrical engineering sector in The Netherlands. Technovation, 22(1), 1–13.
• Lee, S. S. & Osteryoung, J. S. (2004). A Comparison of Critical Success Factors for Effective Operations of University Business Incubators in the United States and Korea. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(4), 418–426.
• Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B. & Park, J. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.
• Lundvall, B.A. (1992). User-producer relationships, national systems of innovation and internationalisation. In: B.A. Lundvall (ed.), National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning (pp. 45–67).
• Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying The Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 135–72.
• Mian, S. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 251–285.
• Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• OECD (1999). Business Incubation, International Case Studies. Paris: OECD.
• OECD (2004). Promoting entrepreneurship and innovative SMEs in a global economy: towards a more responsible and inclusive globalisation. Paris: OECD Publications.
• OECD (2008). Defining Entrepreneurial Activity: Definitions Supporting Frameworks for Data Collection
• OECD Statistics Working Paper. Sydney: OECD
• OECD (2010). The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. OECD.
• OECD (2013). Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013. París: OECD.
• Penrose, E T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
• Pierre-André, J. & Molina, R. (2012). Una teoría sobre el emprendimiento regional en la economía del conocimiento. Mexico: Pearson.
• Radas, S. & Bozié, L. (2009). The antecedents of SME innovativeness in an emerging transition economy. Technovation, 29(6-7), 438–450.
• Radosevic, S. & Myrzakhmet, M. (2009). Between vision and reality: Promoting innovation through technoparks in an emerging economy. Technovation, 29(10), 645–656.
• Reynolds, P. D., Storey, D. J. & Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-National Comparisons of the Variation in New Firm Formation Rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443–456.
• Sá, C. & Lee, H. (2012). Science, business, and innovation: understanding networks in technology-based incubators. R&D Management, 42(3), 243–253.
• Saaty, T. (1977). A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.
• Schumpeter, J. (1934). Teoría del desenvolvimiento económico, Una investigación sobre ganancias, capital, crédito, interés y ciclo económico. México: Fondo de cultura económica.
• Shane, S & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–26.
• Skuras, D., Tsegenidi, K. & Tsekouras, K. (2008). Product innovation and the decision to invest in fixed capital assets: Evidence from an SME survey in six European union member states. Research Policy, 37(10), 1778–1789.
• Somsuk, N. & Laosirihongthong, T. (2014). A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 85, 198–210.
• Suk, S. & Young, O. (2004). A Comparison of Critical Success Factors for Effective Operations of University Business Incubators in the United States and Korea. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(4), 418–426.
• Swann, P. G. (2009). The Economics of Innovation. An Introduction. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
• Támasy, C. (2007). Rethinking Technology-Oriented Business Incubators: Developing a Robust Policy Instrument for Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Regional Development? Growth and Change, 38(3), 460–473.
• Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.
• Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School.
• Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P. & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350.

Identifiers

ISSN

1733-9758

DOI

10.7172/1733-9758.2015.19.7