Advertisement

Operational Research

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 409–438 | Cite as

An interactive multi-objective incubatee selection model incorporating incubator manager orientation

  • R. B. Seno WulungEmail author
  • Katsuhiko Takahashi
  • Katsumi Morikawa
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper proposes an incubatee selection model as an important tool for technology incubators. Previous studies have determined that incubator managers who use multi-criterion screening or selection factors realize lower incubatee failure rates. Despite the importance of the incubatee selection process, there have been no efforts to date to formulate a mathematical model that addresses multi-criterion incubatee selection. Therefore, only a small number of incubator managers use multiple criteria to select the most promising incubatees. Our selection model uses multiple criteria in a multi-objective optimization based on the incubator’s goal. The criteria include profitability, survivability, and worker absorption. Because different ideological orientations of the incubator managers acting as decision makers (DMs) can influence the incubatee selection process, an interactive Tchebycheff method is used to provide a set of alternative solutions. Using a set of alternative solutions, we provide a degree of freedom in the analysis to accommodate DM orientation. Using the proposed model, a decision maker can optimize incubator goals, thereby ensuring the survivability of the incubatee and the success of the technology transfer process. Furthermore, the model also incorporates incubator specialization and the advantages of diversification.

Keywords

Incubatee selection Technology incubator Interactive multi-objective DM orientation 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C29 90C90 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The Authors thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments which help to improve the quality of the paper.

References

  1. Aerts K, Matthyssens P, Vandenbempt K (2007) Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation 27:254–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn BS, Cho SS, Kim CY (2000) The integrated methodology of rough set theory and artificial neural network for business failure prediction. Expert Syst Appl 18:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardic OP, Mylenko N, Saltane V (2011) Small and medium enterprise: a cross-country analysis with new data set. Policy research working paper, the World BankGoogle Scholar
  4. Aretoulis GN, Kalfakaku GP, Striagka FZ (2010) Construction material supplier selection under multiple criteria. Oper Res Int J 10:209–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayyagari, M, Beck T, Kunt AD (2003) Small and medium enterprise across the globe: a new database. Policy research working paper, the World BankGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballantine JW, Cleveland FW, Koeller TC (1993) Profitability, uncertainty, and firm size. Small Bus Econ 5:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ballestero E, Bravo B, Perez-Gladish B, Parra MA, Pla-Santamaria D (2012) Socially responsible investment: a multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives. Eur J Oper Res 216:487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrick MR, Mount MK (1993) Autonomy as moderator of the relationship between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. J Appl Psychol 78:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauer R, Koedijk K, Otten R (2005) International evidence on ethical mutual fund performance and investment style. J Bank Financ 29:1751–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bergek A, Norrman C (2008) Incubator best practice: a framework. Technovation 28:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bozeman B (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Res Policy 29:627–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan KF, Lau T (2005) Assessing technology incubator program in the science park. Technovation 25:1215–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ciavarella MA, Buckholtz AK, Riordan CM, Gatewood RD, Stokes GS (2004) The big five and venture survival: is there a linkage? J Bus Ventur 19:465–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin Sci Q 35:128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cull R, Davis LE, Lamoreaux NR, Rosenthal JL (2006) Historical financing of small and medium size enterprise. J Bank Financ 30:3017–3042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dimitras AI, Zanakis SH, Zopounidis C (1996) Theory and methodology: a survey of business failures with an emphasis on prediction methods and industrial application. Eur J Oper Res 90:487–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dimitras AI, Slowinski R, Susmaga R, Zopounidis C (1999) Business failure prediction using rough set. Eur J Oper Res 119:263–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission Eurostat (2009) http://www.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
  19. Everett J, Watson J (1998) Small business failure and external risk factor. Small Bus Econ 11:371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fairfield PM, Yohn TL (2001) Using asset turnover and profit margin to forecast changes in profitability. Rev Account Stud 6:371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gelderen M, Thurik R, Bosma N (2006) Success and risk factors in pre-startup phase. Small Bus Econ 26:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodwin P, Wright G (1994) Heuristic, biases and improvement strategies in judgmental time series forecasting. Omega 22:553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunasekaran A, Rai BK, Griffin M (2011) Resilience and competitiveness of small and medium size enterprises: an empirical research. Int J Prod Res 49:5489–5509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hackett SM, Dilts DM (2008) Inside the black box of business incubation: study B—scale assessment, model refinement, and incubation outcomes. J Technol Transf 33:439–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hallerbach W, Ning H, Soppe A, Spronk J (2004) A framework for managing a portfolio of socially responsible investments. Eur J Oper Res 153:517–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jayaraman V, Bhatti MI, Saber H (2004) Towards optimal testing of a hypothesis based on dynamic technology transfer model. Appl Math Comput 147:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khalid FA, Gilbert D, Huq A (2011) ICT incubation in Malaysia: selection performance practice. In: Proceedings of the 8th AGSE international research exchangeGoogle Scholar
  28. Löfsten H, Lindelöf P (2002) Growth, management and financing of new technology-based firms—assessing value-added contributions of firms located on and off Science Park. Omega 30:859–876Google Scholar
  29. MacMillan IC, Siegel R, Narasimha PNS (1985) Criteria used by venture capitalist to evaluate new venture proposals. J Bus Ventur 1:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26:369–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mendoza A, Ventura JA (2013) Modeling actual transportation costs in supplier selection and order quantity allocation decisions. Oper Res Int J 13:5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merrifield DB (1987) Executive forum: new business incubator. J Bus Ventur 2:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mian S (1994) US University-sponsored technology incubators: an overview of management, policies and performance. Technovation 14:515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mian S (1996) Assessing value added contribution university technology business incubator to tenant firm. Res Policy 25:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miettinen K, Ruiz F, Wierzbicki AP (2008) Introduction to multi objective optimization: interactive approach. Multi objective Optimization, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5252, Berlin, pp 27–57Google Scholar
  36. Moon J (2002) The social responsibility of business and new governance. Gov Oppos 37:385–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Philips RG (2002) Technology business incubator: how effective as technology transfer mechanism? Technol Soc 24:299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reeves GR, MacLeod KR (1999) Some experiment in Tchebycheff-based approach for interactive multiple objective decision making. Comput Oper Res 26:1311–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soylu B (2011) A multi criteria sorting procedure with Tchebycheff utility function. Comput Oper Res 38:1091–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steuer RE, Choo EU (1983) An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Math Program 26:326–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steuer RE, Silverman J, Whisman AW (1993) A combined Tchebycheff/aspiration criterion vector interactive multi-objective programming procedure. Manag Sci 39:1255–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sung TY, Gibson VG, Kang BS (2003) Characteristic of technology transfer in business venture: the case of Daejon Korea. Technol Forecast Soc 70:449–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tay AS, Wallis KF (2000) Density forecasting: a survey. J Forecast 19:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thierstein A, Wilhelm B (2001) Incubator, technology, and innovation centers in Switzerland: features and policy implication. Entrep Reg Dev 13:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. United Nations-Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (1989) Technology Atlas Project: a framework for technology based development. Bungalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Gils A (2005) Management and governance in Dutch SMEs. Eur Manag J 23:583–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Xidonas P, Askounis D, Psarras J (2009) Common stock portfolio selection: a multiple criteria decision making methodology and an application to the Athens Stock Exchange. Oper Res Int J 9:55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. B. Seno Wulung
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Katsuhiko Takahashi
    • 1
  • Katsumi Morikawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of System CyberneticsHiroshima UniversityHigashi HiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Academy of Leather TechnologyMinistry of Industry Republic of IndonesiaYogyakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations