University-based incubators’ performance evaluation: a benchmarking approach

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the existing incubation practices and to develop suggestions for other incubations programs’ practitioners, by developing a benchmark study of outstanding Taiwanese university-based incubators (UBIs). Design/methodology/approach This research result is based on the methodology for generating a benchmarking from six outstanding Taiwanese UBIs and for other business incubators around the world. Findings According to this research result, the authors propose eight key performance indicators (KPIs): three for setting up and operating UBIs and five for incubator functions and services. Among those eight KPIs, the average set-up cost is US$595,000; the average number of incubatees is 22; the length of tenancy is four years; and the growth in incubatees’ turnover is around 15 percent. Research limitations/implications Even the samples were outstanding UBIs in Taiwan; for future research, this approach might be applied to a bigger number of incubation centers or UBIs. Practical implications Many countries or areas still lack experience in setting up and running business incubators; therefore, practical advices for the managers are crucial for the success of these business incubators, and this benchmarking methodology can be applicable in some of those cases. Originality/value The benchmarking methodology for setting up the values of each KPI and the evaluation approach.

[1]  R. Lalkaka Technology business incubators to help build an innovation-based economy , 2002 .

[2]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  University–incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance , 2005 .

[3]  Pier A. Abetti,et al.  Government-Supported Incubators in the Helsinki Region, Finland: Infrastructure, Results, and Best Practices , 2004 .

[4]  T. Laosirihongthong,et al.  A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view , 2014 .

[5]  Matthew R. Marvel Human Capital and Search–Based Discovery: A Study of High–Tech Entrepreneurship , 2013 .

[6]  Ö. Özdemir,et al.  Assessing the Impacts of Technology Business Incubators: A framework for Technology Development Centers in Turkey☆ , 2013 .

[7]  Michael Schwartz,et al.  Beyond incubation: an analysis of firm survival and exit dynamics in the post-graduation period , 2009 .

[8]  R. Duane Ireland,et al.  Screening Practices of New Business Incubators: The Evaluation of Critical Success Factors , 1988 .

[9]  Faizul Huq,et al.  Benchmarking – best practices: an integrated approach , 1999 .

[10]  Paula Kyrö,et al.  Revising the concept and forms of benchmarking , 2003 .

[11]  Alessio Tola,et al.  From the Diffusion of Innovation to Tech Parks, Business Incubators as a Model of Economic Development: The Case of “Sardegna Ricerche” , 2015 .

[12]  Sarfraz A. Mian,et al.  Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms , 1996 .

[13]  D. Urbano,et al.  The development of an entrepreneurial university , 2012 .

[14]  Anna Bergek,et al.  Incubator best practice: A framework , 2008 .

[15]  Paul Matthyssens,et al.  Service-based differentiation strategies for business incubators: Exploring external and internal alignment , 2012 .

[16]  中華經濟研究院 White paper on small and medium enterprises in Taiwan , 1998 .

[17]  J. Ulhøi,et al.  The Networked Business Incubator: Leveraging Entrepreneurial Agency , 2005 .

[18]  D. Cetindamar Benchmarking the Turkish Business Incubators: Supporting Innovation through Innovative Infrastructures , 2007, PICMET '07 - 2007 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology.

[19]  David N. Allen,et al.  Structure, Policy, Services, and Performance in the Business Incubator Industry , 1991 .

[20]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany , 2010 .