The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 205–219 | Cite as

Do graduated university incubator firms benefit from their relationship with university incubators?

  • Vernet LasradoEmail author
  • Stephen Sivo
  • Cameron Ford
  • Thomas O’Neal
  • Ivan Garibay


Business incubators have become a popular policy option and economic development intervention tool. However, recent research shows that incubated firms may not benefit significantly from their incubator relationships, and may even be more vulnerable to failure post departure (graduation) from an incubator. These findings suggest that the impact of business incubation on new venture viability may be contingent on the type of support offered by an incubator and attributes of business environments within which incubation services are provided. Incubation services that protect and isolate ventures from key resource dependencies may hinder venture development and increase subsequent vulnerability to environmental demands. Alternatively, incubation services that help ventures connect and align with key resource dependencies are likely to promote firm survival. We propose that incubators vary in the services and resources they offer, and that university incubators typically provide greater connectivity and legitimacy with respect to important contingencies associated with key industry and community stakeholders. This leads us to propose that university affiliation is an important contingency that affects the relationship between firms’ participation in incubators and their subsequent performance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate this contingency by examining whether firms graduating from university incubators attain higher levels of post-incubation performance than firms participating in non-university affiliated incubators. We test this by evaluating the performance of a sample of graduated firms associated with the population of university-based incubators in the US contrasted against the performance of a matched cohort of non-incubated firms. The analysis uses an enhanced dataset that tracks the number of employees, sales, and the entry and graduation (departure) points of incubated firms from a university incubation program, so as to delineate the scope of influence of the incubator.


Resource endowments Economic development Regional development Entrepreneur support organizations Business incubation University based business incubators Graduate firms 

JEL Classification

L21 L25 L26 O33 O44 


  1. Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23(2), 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert, P., & Gaynor, L. (2001). Incubators-growing up, moving out, a review of the literature. In ARPENT: Annual review of progress in entrepreneurship (Vol. 1, pp. 158).Google Scholar
  3. Amezcua, A. (2010). Boon or Boondoggle? Business incubation as entrepreneurship policy. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. Amezcua, A., & Ratinho, T. (2012). Entrepreneurial strategic groups: How clustering helps nascent firms. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  5. Amezcua, A., Bradley, S., & Wiklund, J. (2011). Cutting the apron string of BUSINESS INCUBATION Firms: Is the Liability of Newness. A liability? Presented at the 2011 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, USA: Academy of Management.Google Scholar
  6. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baum, J., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeVol, R., Klowden, K., Bedroussian, A., & Yeo, B. (2009). North America’s high-tech economy: The geography of knowledge-based industries. Milken Institute Research Reports.Google Scholar
  10. Douglas, P. (1976). The Cobb–Douglas production function once again: Its history, its testing, and some new empirical values. The Journal of Political Economy, 84(5), 903–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 509–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuratko, D., & LaFollette, W. (1987). Small business incubators for local economic development. Economic Development Review, 5(2), 49–55.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D., & Edward, J. (2001). Does technology incubation work?: A critical review. USA: Economic Development Administration, US Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  14. Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource based and dynamic capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milanov, H., & Fernhaber, S. (2009). The impact of early imprinting on the evolution of new venture networks. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1), 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Patton, D. (2013). Realising potential: The impact of business incubation on the absorptive capacity of new technology-based firms. International Small Business Journal, 32(8), 1–21.Google Scholar
  17. Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The role of incubators in the entrepreneurial process. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Roberts, M., & Russo, R. (1999). A student’s guide to analysis of variance (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scillitoe, J., & Chakrabarti, A. (2010). The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation, 30(3), 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shane, S. (2008). The handbook of technology and innovation management. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: a review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Singh, J., Tucker, D., & House, R. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sivo, S., Fan, X., & Witta, L. (2005). The biasing effects of unmodeled ARMA time series processes on latent growth curve model estimates. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(2), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The search for“optimal” cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Organizations and social structure. Handbook of Organizations, 44(2), 142–193.Google Scholar
  28. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  29. Walls, D. (2013). National establishment time-series (NETS) database: 2012 database description. Oakland: Walls & Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Westhead, P. (1997). R&D “inputs” and “outputs” of technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Westhead, P., Storey, D. J., & Britain, G. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. London, UK: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  32. Winer, B. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vernet Lasrado
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephen Sivo
    • 3
  • Cameron Ford
    • 2
  • Thomas O’Neal
    • 1
  • Ivan Garibay
    • 1
  1. 1.Office of Research and CommercializationUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.UCF College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.UCF College of Education and Human SciencesUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations