Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 433–453 | Cite as

Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator

  • Christine E. CooperEmail author
  • Stephanie A. Hamel
  • Stacey L. Connaughton
Article

Abstract

Business incubators strive to develop robust business and social networks to bring value to their resident companies in the form of intellectual and material resources. Yet, information about what motivates resident companies to participate in networking activities and the obstacles they face in trying to build effective networks is limited. This study employs a communication perspective to examine the process of incubation in an award-winning university business incubator. Using a combination of network analysis and in-depth interviews, the case study reveals the nature of communication in the internal network of 18 resident companies and the incubator administrators. Despite being on the cutting edge of innovations in technology use, study findings reveal face-to-face interaction in the incubator is predominant. The physical proximity of resident companies at the incubator influences who they talk to the most, suggesting incubator site design is important in creating an entrepreneurial environment. The case study also indicates resident company motivations for networking include a strong desire for social support to help manage stress, security of membership in an in-group, and increased access to material or information resources. The primary obstacles residents face to participating in networking and building relationships with each other include extreme time limitations during the early start-up phase, lack of ongoing information about other residents, and lack of trust related to keeping information about innovations and funding sources secure. Implications of these findings and recommendations for incubator managers for building successful and sustainable communication networks conclude the article.

Keywords

Business incubator Communication network Motivations to communicate Social support Trust 

JEL Classification

Y45 Y80 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Heather Osterman for her assistance with data collection as well as Craig Scott and multiple peer and journal reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

References

  1. Badaracco, J. L. (1991). The knowledge link: How firms compete through strategic alliances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baldridge, V. J., & Burnham, R. A. (1975). Organizational innovation: Individual, organizational, and environmental impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, B., & Gassmann, O. (2006). Corporate incubators: Industrial R & D and what universities can learn from them. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (1992). UCINET IV version 1.00. Columbia, SC: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  6. Bresser, R. K. (1988). Matching collective and competitive strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brittian, J., & Freeman, J. (1980). Organizational proliferation and density dependent selection. In J. R. Kimberly & R. H. Miles (Eds.), The organization life cycle (pp. 291–338). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300–314.Google Scholar
  10. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2001). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisenberg, E. M., Farace, R. V., Monge, P. V., Bettinhaus, E. P., Kurchner-Hawkins, R., Miller, K. L., et al. (1985). Communication linkages in interorganizational systems: Review and synthesis. In B. Derivn & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 231–258). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organizational Science, 7, 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17, 407–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galaskiewiez, J. (1979). Exchange networks and community politics. Newbury Part, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38, 911–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 619–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004a). A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004b). A real options-driven theory of business incubation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, R. H., Clark, J. P., Giordano, P. C., Johnson, P. V., & Van Roekel, M. (1977). Patterns of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, M. T., Chesbrough, H. W., Nohria, N., & Sull, D. N. (2000). Networked incubators: Hothouses of the new economy, Harvard Business Review, September/October, 74–84.Google Scholar
  23. Hazen, M. A. (1994). A radical humanist perspective of interoganizational relationships. Human Relations, 47, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  25. Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  26. Jick, T. D. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In John Van Maanenn (Ed.), Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Kadushin, C. (1983). Mental health and the interpersonal environment: A reexamination of some effects of social structure on mental health. American Sociological Review, 48, 188–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lichtenstein, G. A. (1992). The significance of relationships in entrepreneurship: A case study of the ecology of enterprise in two business incubators. Unpublished Dissertation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  29. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. McAdam, M., & Marlow, S. (2008). A preliminary investigation into networking activities within the university incubator. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14(4), 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mian, S. A. (1994). U.S. university-sponsored technology incubators: An overview of management, policies and performance. Technovation, 14, 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, K., Scott, C. R., Stage, C., & Birkholt, M. (1995). Communication and coordination in an interorganizational system: Service provision for the urban homeless. Communication Research, 22, 679–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Monge, P. R. (1987). The network level of analysis. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 239–270). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 440–502). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Monge, P. R., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Emergent communication networks. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 304–342). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Monge, P. R., Rothman, L. W., Eisenberg, E. M., Miller, K. I., & Kirste, K. K. (1985). The dynamics of organizational proximity. Management Science, 31, 1129–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Business Incubation Association. (2007). Business incubation FAQ. Retrieved in 1998 and June 20, 2007, http://www.nbia.org/resource_center/bus_inc_facts/index.php.
  39. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.Google Scholar
  41. Nonaka, I., Konno, N., & Toyama, R. (2001). Emergence of “Ba”: A conceptual framework for the continuous and self-transcending process of knowledge creation. In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi’s (Eds.), Knowledge emergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation (pp. 13–29). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2002). A firm as a dialectical being: Towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(5), 995–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241–265.Google Scholar
  45. Papa, M. J. (1990). Communication network patterns and employee performance with new technology. Communication Research, 17, 344–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The role of incubators in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  48. Pride Shaw, S., & Scott, C. R. (1998). The organization as a source of messages in interorganizational relations: Expanding the interorganizational linkages model. Paper presented at the meeting of Western States Communication Association Annual Convention, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  49. Provan, K. (1984). Interorganizational cooperation and decision making autonomy in a consortium multihospital system. Academy of Management Review, 9, 494–504.Google Scholar
  50. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.Google Scholar
  53. Sharfman, M. P., Gray, B., & Yan, A. (1991). The context of interorganizational collaboration in the garment industry: An institutional perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smilor, R. W., & Gill, M. D., Jr. (1986). The new business incubator: Linking talent, technology, capital, and know-how. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  55. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Tichy, N., Tushman, M., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4, 507–519.Google Scholar
  57. Udell, G. G. (1990a). Academe and the goose that lays its golden egg. Business Horizons, 33, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Udell, G. G. (1990b). Are business incubators really creating new jobs by creating new businesses and new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7, 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice, learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Whetten, D. A. (1981). Interorganizational relations: A review of the field. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wiewel, W., & Hunter, A. (1985). The interorganizational network as a resource: A comparative case study on organizational genesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 482–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yum, J. O. (1983). Social network patterns of five ethnic groups in Hawaii. In R. M. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook (7th ed., pp. 574–591). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Zeitz, G. (1980). Interorganizational dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48, 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine E. Cooper
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephanie A. Hamel
    • 2
  • Stacey L. Connaughton
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Communication Arts and SciencesMetropolitan State College of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication Arts and SciencesCalifornia State University, ChicoChicoUSA
  3. 3.Department of CommunicationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations