SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.20 issue2Determining the most important factors for sustainable energy technology selection in AfricaThe transfer and commercialisation of technology from South Africa to foreign markets in the financial services industry author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

South African Journal of Industrial Engineering

On-line version ISSN 2224-7890
Print version ISSN 1012-277X

S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. vol.20 n.2 Pretoria  2009

 

Explaining mixed results on Science Parks performance: Bright and dark sides of the effects of inter-organisational knowledge transfer relationships

 

 

K.Y.A. ChanI; L.A.G. OerlemansII, III; M.W. PretoriusIV

IGraduate School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa alice.chan@up.ac.za
IIGraduate School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa
IIIDepartment of Organisation Studies & Center for Innovation Research, Tilburg University,The Netherlands L.A.G.Oerlemans@uvt.nl
IVGraduate School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa tinus.pretorius@up.ac.za

 

 


ABSTRACT

In the recent past, several researchers explored the added-values of Science Parks. On the basis of empirical research, some questioned the assumed benefits of the science park model, whereas others reported positive outcomes. As a result, mixed findings regarding the benefits of science parks for firms can be observed. These mixed empirical findings require a theoretical explanation. This paper argues that different levels and types of knowledge exchange behaviour of science park firms could be one of the theoretical explanations for these mixed findings. The literature on networks mainly stresses the benefits of networking in general, and networking between firms located on science parks in particular. This paper proposes that networks can have both positive (knowledge sharing) and negative effects (opportunistic behavior and knowledge spillovers) for firms located on science parks. When the latter occurs, location on a science park might produce negative effects. A conceptual model is developed that summarises our theoretical arguments.


OPSOMMING

Verskeie navorsers het in die onlangse verlede die waardetoevoeging van Wetenskapparke ondersoek. Empiriese navorsingsresultate dui enersyds daarop dat die voordele van Wetenskapparke bevraagteken moet word, maar andersyds dat daar positiewe uitkomste ook is. Dit is dus nodig dat hierdie teenstrydige resultate verder ondersoek en teoretiese verklarings daarvoor gevind moet word. In hierdie artikel word geargumenteer dat verskillende vlakke en tipes kennisuitruil gedragspatrone van firmas wat in Wetenskapparke gestasioneer is, een van die teoretiese verklarings vir bogenoemde teenstrydige bevindings is. Die algemene literatuur oor netwerke lê hoofsaaklik klem op die algemene voordele van netwerking tussen firmas binne Wetenskapparke. Hierdie artikel argumenteer dat netwerke beide positiewe (kennisdeling) en negatiewe (opportunistiese gedrag en kennisoorspoeling) effekte vir firmas binne Wetenskapparke kan inhou.


 

 

“Full text available only in PDF format” 

 

 

REFERENCES

[1] Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. I., Nosella, A. & Petroni, G. 2006. Assessing science parks' performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies, Technovation, 26(4), pp. 489-505.         [ Links ]

[2] Goldstein, H. A. & Luger, M. I. 1990. Science/technology parks and regional development theory, Economic Development Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 64-78.         [ Links ]

[3] Goldstein, H. A. & Luger, M. I. 1991. Technology in the garden: Research parks and regional economic development, University of North Carolina Press.         [ Links ]

[4] Löfsten, H. & Lindelöf, P. 2003. Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science parks and business policy in growing firms, Technovation, 23(1), pp. 51-64.         [ Links ]

[5] Westhead, P. & Batstone, S. 1999. Perceived benefits of a managed science park location, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(2), pp. 129 - 154.         [ Links ]

[6] Ferguson, R. and Olofsson, C. 2004. Science parks and the development of NTBFs - location, survival and growth, Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), pp. 5-17.         [ Links ]

[7] Fukugawa, N. 2006. Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms, International Journal of Industrial Organisation, 24(2), pp. 381-400.         [ Links ]

[8] Chan, K.F. & Lau, T. 2005. Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly, Technovation, 25(10), pp. 1215-1228.         [ Links ]

[9] Quintas, P., D. W. & Massey, D. 1992. Academic-industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model, Technovation, 12(3), pp. 161-175.         [ Links ]

[10] Westhead, P. 1997. R&D 'inputs' and 'outputs' of technology-based firms located on and off science parks, R&D Management, 27(1), pp. 45-62.         [ Links ]

[11] Alcacer, J. & Shao, M. 2007. Global competitors as next-door neighbors: Competition and geographic concentration in the semiconductor industry, Ross School of Business Paper No 1091.         [ Links ]

[12] IASP website. Abour Science and Technology Parks. Definitions. http://www.iasp.ws, accessed 17/02/2009.         [ Links ]

[13] Link, A.N. & Link, K.R. 2003. On the growth of U.S. science parks, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), pp. 81-85.         [ Links ]

[14] Löfsten, H. & Lindeldf, P. 2002. Growth, management and financing of new technology-based firms assessing value-added contributions of firms located on and off science parks, Omega, 30(3), pp. 143-154.         [ Links ]

[15] Gordon, I. R & McCann, P. 2000. Industrial clusters: Complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks? Urban Studies, 37(3), pp. 513-532.         [ Links ]

[16] Romijn, H. & Albu, M. 2002. Innovation, networking and proximity: Lessons from small high technology firms in the UK, Regional Studies, 36(1), pp. 81-86.         [ Links ]

[17] Phillimore J. 1999. Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation: An analysis of Western Australian Technology Park, Technovation, 19(11), pp. 673-680.         [ Links ]

[18] Monck, C.S.P., Porter, R.B., Quintas, P., Storey, D.J. & Wynartcsyk, P. 1988. Science parks and the growth of high technology firms, Croom Helm.         [ Links ]

[19] Westhead, P. & Batstone, S. 1998. Independent technology-based firms: The perceived benefits of a science park location, Urban Studies, 35(12), pp. 2197-2219.         [ Links ]

[20] Johannisson, B., Alexanderson, O., Nowicki K. & Senneseth, K. 1994. Beyond anarchy and organisation: Entrepreneurs in contextual networks, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 6(4), pp. 329-356.         [ Links ]

[21] Von Zedtwitz, M. & Grimaldi, R. 2006. Are service profiles incubator-specific? Results from an Empirical Investigation in Italy, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), pp. 459-468.         [ Links ]

[22] Fallah, M. H. & Ibrahim, S. 2004. Knowledge spillover and innovation in technological clusters, International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT), Washington, DC.         [ Links ]

[23] Oerlemans, L.A.G. & Meeus, M.T.H. 2005. Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance?, Regional Studies, 39(1), pp. 89-104.         [ Links ]

[24] Cross, R. & Cummings, J.N. 2004. Ties and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work, Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), pp. 928-937.         [ Links ]

[25] Mowery, D.C., Oxley J.E. & Silverman, B.S. 1996. Strategic alliance and interfirm knowledge transfer, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), pp. 77-91.         [ Links ]

[26] Arrow, K. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions, in The rate and direction of innovative activity, Nelson, R., Princeton University Press.         [ Links ]

[27] Nelson, R. 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research, Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), pp. 297-306.         [ Links ]

[28] Cowan, R. & Jonard, N. 2004. Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8), pp. 1557-1575.         [ Links ]

[29] Kingsley, G. & Malecki, E. J. 2004. Networking for Competitiveness, Small business economics, 23(1), pp. 71-84.         [ Links ]

[30] Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D. & Neely, A. 2004. Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence, International Journal of Management Reviews, 5-6 (3-4, pp. 137-168.         [ Links ]

[31] Rothwell, R. 1992. Successful industrial innovation: Critical factors for the 1990s, R&D Management, 22(3), pp. 221-240.         [ Links ]

[32] Van de Ven, A.H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation, Management Science, 32(5), pp. 590-607.         [ Links ]

[33] Bell, G.G. 2005. Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness, Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), pp. 287-295.         [ Links ]

[34] Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. & Owen-Smith, J. 1999. Network position and firm performance, in Research in the Sociology of organizations, S. Andrews and D. Knoke, JAI Press.         [ Links ]

[35] Saheer A.& Bell, G.G. 2005. Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance, Strategic Management Journal, 26(9), pp. 809-825.         [ Links ]

[36] Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), pp. 425-455.         [ Links ]

[37] Chang, Y.C. 2003. Benefits of co-operation on innovative performance: Evidence from integrated circuits and biotechnology firms in the UK and Taiwan, R&D Management, 33(4), pp. 425-437.         [ Links ]

[38] Cheuk, B. 2007. Social networking analysis: Its application to facilitate knowledge transfer, Business Information Review, 24(3), pp. 170-176.         [ Links ]

[39] Sparrowe, R.T., Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. & Kraimer, M.L. 2001. Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups, Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), pp. 316-326.         [ Links ]

[40] Granovetter, M. 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited, Sociological Theory, 1, pp. 201-233.         [ Links ]

[41] Newell, S. & Swan, J. 2000. Trust and inter-organizational networking, Human Relations, 53(10), pp. 1287-1328.         [ Links ]

[42] Lin, S. 2002. The dynamics of inter-organizational ties during crises: Empirical evidence and computational analysis, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 10(5-7), pp. 387-415.         [ Links ]

[43] Cross, R. & Sproull, L. 2004. More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge, Organisation Science, 15(4), pp. 446-462.         [ Links ]

[44] Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organisation subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), pp. 82-111.         [ Links ]

[45] Storper, M. 1997. The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy, London: Guildford Press.         [ Links ]

[46] Lorens, E. 1999. Trust, contract and economic competition, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(3), pp. 301-315.         [ Links ]

[47] Lasaric, N. & Lorens, E. 1998. The learning dynamics of trust, reputation and confidence, in Trust and economic learning, N. Lasaric & Lorens, E., Edward Elgar.         [ Links ]

[48] Gertler, M. S. 1995. Being there: Proximity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies, Economic Geography, 71(1), pp pp. 1-26.         [ Links ]

[49] Knoben, J. & Oerlemans, L.A.G. 2008. Ties that spatially bind? A relational account of the causes of spatial firm mobility, Regional Studies, 42(3), pp. 385-400.         [ Links ]

[50] Orlando, M.J. 2000. On the importance of geographic and technological proximity for R&D spillovers: An empirical investigation, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Research, Working Paper No 00-02.         [ Links ]

[51] Boschma, R. 2005. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment, Regional Studies, 39(1), pp. 61-74.         [ Links ]

[52] Cassiman, B., Colombo, M. G., Garrone, P. & de Veugelers, R. 2005. The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market-relatedness, Research Policy, 34(2), pp. 195-220.         [ Links ]

[53] Lane, P.J. & Lubatkin, M.H. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganisational learning, Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), pp. 461-477.         [ Links ]

[54] Rallet, A. & Torre, A. 1999. Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy?, GeoJournal, 49(4), pp. 373-380.         [ Links ]

[55] Soo, C.W. & Devinney, T.M. 2003. The role of knowledge quality in firm performance, in Organizations as knowledge systems: Knowledge, learning and dynamic capabilities, H. Tsoukas & N. Mylonopoulos London: Palgrave.         [ Links ]

[56] Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), pp. 240-267, 2003.         [ Links ]

[57] Audretsch, D.B. & Feldman, M.P. 2004. Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation, in Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics, Henderson J.V. & Thisse, J.F., North Holland.         [ Links ]

[58] Gulati, R. & Gargiulo, M. 1999. Where do inter-organizational networks come from?, American Journal of Sociology, 104(4), pp. 1439-1493.         [ Links ]

[59] Staber, U. 2001. The structure of networks in industrial districts, International Journal of Urban and Regional Resesarch, 25(3), pp. 538-552.         [ Links ]

[60] Ussi, B. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing, American Sociological Review, 64(4), pp. 481-505.         [ Links ]

[61] Cohendet, P. & Llerena, P. 1997. Learning, technical change and public policy: How to create and exploit diversity, in Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organisations, Cassel Pinter.         [ Links ]

[62] Howells, J. R. L. 2002. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography, Urban Studies, 39(5), pp. 871 - 884.         [ Links ]

[63] Ulrich, K. 2000. Measuring knowledge spillovers in manufacturing and services: An empirical assessment of alternative approaches, Research Policy, 31(1), pp. 125-144.         [ Links ]

[64] Jaffe, A.B., Henderson, R. & Trajtenberg, M. 1993. Geographic localisation of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), pp. 577-598.         [ Links ]

[65] Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 128-152.         [ Links ]

[66] Sahra, S. A. & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension, Academy of Management Review, 27(2), pp. 185-203.         [ Links ]

[67] Pennings, J.M. & Harianto, F. 1992. The diffusion of technological innovation in the commercial banking industry, Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), pp. 29-46.         [ Links ]

[68] Becker, W. & Peters, J. 2000. Technological opportunities, absorptive capacities, and innovation, Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe.         [ Links ]

[69] Nelson, R. & Wolff, E.N. 1997. Factors behind cross-industry differences in technological progress, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 8(2), pp. 205-220.         [ Links ]

 

 

*The author was enrolled enrolled for a PhD (Technology Management) degree in the Graduate School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria.

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License