Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 106, Issue 2, pp 717–750 | Cite as

Looking for best performers: a pilot study towards the evaluation of science parks

  • M. FerraraEmail author
  • F. Lamperti
  • R. Mavilia
Article

Abstract

Science Parks are complex institutions that aim at promoting innovation and entrepreneurship at local level. Their activities entertain a large set of stakeholders going from internal and external researchers to entrepreneurs, local level public administration and universities. As a consequence, their performances extends on a large set of dimensions affecting each other. This feature makes Science Parks particularly difficult to be properly compared. However, evaluating their performances in a comparable way may be important for at least three reasons: (1) to identify best practices in each activity and allow a faster diffusion of these practices, (2) to inform potential entrepreneurs about institutions better supporting start-ups birth and first stages and (3) to guide public policies in the distribution of funds and incentives. The multidimensional nature of Science Parks raises the problem of aggregating performances in simple indexes that can be accessed by stakeholders willing to compare different structures on the basis of their own preferences. This paper exploits a new dataset on Italian Science Parks to provide a pilot study towards this direction. In particular, we apply Choquet integral based Multi-Attribute Value Theory to elicit stakeholders’ preferences on different dimensions of Science Parks’ performances and construct a robust index allowing to rank them. This tool can be used to support the decision making process of multiple stakeholders looking for best (or worst) performers and allows to account both for subjective nature of the evaluation process and the interactions among decision attributes. Despite the present study employs only a limited number of respondents and performance measures, the procedure we present can be straightforwardly adapted to much richer environments.

Keywords

Performance evaluation Multi-attribute value theory  Science parks Innovation Entrepreneurship 

JEL Classfications

C44 O30 O32 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by “POLIcs - POLI di innovazione Competence building System” supported by “Istituto di Ricerca per l’Innovazione e la Tecnologia nel Mediterraneo”, Reggio Calabria (Italy). The authors would like to thank Andrea Foroni, Viviana Trimarchi, Giorgio Tripodi and, with special mention, Simona Castellini for excellent research assistantship. Moreover, they want to thank all participants to the XXXVII AMASES annual meeting for helpful suggestions and comments. All errors are the authors ones.

Supplementary material

11192_2015_1804_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 42 KB)

References

  1. ANGLE (2003). Evaluation of the past and future economic contribution of the UK science park movement. United Kingdom Science Park Association.Google Scholar
  2. Battaglia, R., Lamperti, F., & Siligato, L. (2012). AREA SP: potere alleccellenza. In M. Ferrara & R. Mavilia (Eds.), Dai distretti tecnologici ai poli di innovazione. Milan: Egea.Google Scholar
  3. Bernoulli, J. (1713). Ars conjectandi, opus posthumum. Accedit Tractatus de seriebus infinitis, et epistola gallic scripta de ludo pilae reticularis. Basel: Thurneysen Brothers.Google Scholar
  4. Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., & Reijnen, J. O. (1993). Employment growth and innovation at the firm level. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 3(2), 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choquet, G. (1953). Theory of capacities. Annales de l’Institut Furier, 5, 131–295.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from italy. Research policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dabrowska, J. (2011). Measuring the success of science parks: performance monitoring and evaluation. In Paper for the XXVIII World Conference on Science and Technology Parks. IASP.Google Scholar
  8. Debreu, G. (1960). Topological methods in cardinal utility theory. In Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Delmar, F. (2006). Measuring growth: methodological considerations and empirical results. In Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms (Vol. 1, pp. 62–84). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  10. Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks, seedbeds or enclaves of innovation. Technovation, 14, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of ntbfslocation, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrara, M., & Mavilia, R. (2012). Dai distretti industriali ai poli di innovazione : L’Italia nel Mediterraneo. Milan: Egea.Google Scholar
  13. Ferrara, M., Lamperti, F., & Mavilia, R. (2014). The impact of technopoles and science parks on the regional and local innovation systems. In Design a Pattern of Sustainable Growth. Innovation, Education, Energy and Environmnent. Asers Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Ferrara, M., Mavilia, R., & Lamperti, F. (2012). The effects of innovation poles and science parks on regional economies in italy. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on communication and management in technological innovation and academy (pp. 196–202).Google Scholar
  15. Fish, M. S. (2006). Stronger legislatures, stronger democracies. Journal of Democracy, 17(1), 5–20.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerardi, D., McLean, R., & Postlewaite, A. (2009). Aggregation of expert opinions. Games and Economic Behavior, 65(2), 339–371.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grabisch, M. (1996). The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 89(3), 445–456.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grabisch, M., Kojadinovic, I., & Meyer, P. (2008). A review of methods for capacity identification in choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the kappalab r package. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 766–785.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guy, I. (1996). A look at aston science park. Technovation, 16(5), 217–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansson, F., Husted, K., & Vestergaard, J. (2005). Second generation science parks: From structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25(9), 1039–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodgson, B. (1996). A methodological framework to analyse the impact of science and technology parks. In M. Guedes & P. Formica (Eds.), The Economics of Science Parks. : IASP and AURRP.Google Scholar
  22. Hsu, H.-M., & Chen, C.-T. (1996). Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 79(3), 279–285.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krantz, D., Luce, D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement, Vol. I: Additive and polynomial representations. : Dover Books on Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. Labreuche, C., & Grabisch, M. (2003). The choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 137, 11–16.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2015). The role of science parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–26.Google Scholar
  27. Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. (2015). Science and technology parks in italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, pp 1–36.Google Scholar
  28. Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of us science parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Us science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms-academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luger, M. I., & Goldstein, H. A. (1991). Technology in the garden: Research parks and regional economic development. Chapel Hill: Univ of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  32. Marichal, J.-L. (2000). Behavioral analysis of aggregation in multicriteria decision aid. In Preferences and decisions under incomplete knowledge (pp. 153–178). Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High-tech fantasies. Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Meyer, P., & Ponthière, G. (2011). Eliciting preferences on multiattribute societies with a choquet integral. Computational Economics, 37(2), 133–168.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities? Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities. Scientometrics, 102(1), 1057–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Minguillo, D., Tijssen, R., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics, 102(1), 701–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monck, C. (2010). Performance monitoring and evaluation. In UKSPA conference proceedings.Google Scholar
  38. Monck, C., & Peters, K. (2009). Science parks as an instrument of regional competitiveness: Measuring success and impact. In IASP 2009 annual conference proceedings.Google Scholar
  39. Moon, J. H., & Kang, C. S. (1999). Use of fuzzy set theory in the aggregation of expert judgments. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 26(6), 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murofushi, T., & Soneda, S. (1993). Techniques for reading fuzzy measures (iii): Interaction index. In Proocedings of the 9th Fuzzy System Symposium, Sapporo (Japan).Google Scholar
  41. Pinar, M., Cruciani, C., Giove, S., & Sostero, M. (2014). Constructing the feem sustainability index: A choquet integral application. Ecological Indicators, 39, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2014). Recovery from financial crises: Evidence from 100 episodes. American Economic Review, 104(5), 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saublens, C. et al. (2007). Regional research intensive clusters and science parks. European Commission, ec. europa. eu/research/regions/pdf/sc\_park. pdf.Google Scholar
  44. Shapley, L. S. (1953). Stochastic games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 39(10), 1095.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the united kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1357–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, J. H. (1973). Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp 1027–1041.Google Scholar
  47. Squicciarini, M. (2009). Science parks, knowledge spillovers, and firms innovative performance. evidence from finland. Economics Discussion Paper 2009-32, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.Google Scholar
  48. Sugeno, M. (1974). Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Tokio Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  49. Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mediterranean University of Reggio CalabriaReggio CalabriaItaly
  2. 2.Sant’Anna School of Advanced StudiesPisaItaly
  3. 3.CRIOS Bocconi UniversityMilanItaly
  4. 4.MEDAlics, University for Foreigners “Dante Alighieri” of Reggio CalabriaReggio CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations