Search results

This chapter places previous incubator-incubation literature within a relevant geographic and policy context, and extracts the reasons for the wide-scale adoption of the incubator model as a new venture creation mechanism. Arguments developed highlight that in the flurry of political lobbying during the 1990s–2000s leading to the rapid expansion of incubators-incubation across the European Union (EU), policy makers, practitioners and researchers alike failed to focus on what is key to understanding incubators’ true impact — internal incubation processes. A review of incubator development and impact at the level of two EU member states, Germany and Italy, is presented. This allows for a clearer context-bound sense of the state-of-art in incubator-incubation research to emerge. In turn it becomes possible to clearly highlight the direction of further research in the area where there is a stalemate between two opposing camps — one which has produced evidence to suggest that incubators make a significant difference in reducing start-up risk, and the other, which believes incubators do not give tax payers value-for-money. Structured in this way, this chapter is able to draw attention to the essential ‘missing ingredient’ in previous research which is key to understanding the impact incubators can have. This ingredient is the dynamics of the internal process of incubation.

This chapter aims to explore and describe the composition of newly formed entrepreneurial teams, working relationships among their members, and perception of self-performance at each stage of the business incubation process. The research follows a qualitative approach that involves semi-structured interviews of members from entrepreneurial teams at different stages of business development. Findings show the team composition is an important element and how these changes as the team progress through business incubation stages. Relationships between members change from informal to professional with more defined roles. The perception of the business incubator's effect on the team decreases as the maturity stages advance. On the contrary, each member's perceived expectations are deemed to be higher at the beginning of the project. This research contributes to the knowledge of the dynamics of the entrepreneurial teams and their needs at each stage of business incubation.

Purpose – An investigation of how women construct their entrepreneurial identities as owners of high growth technology ventures within the context of business incubation.

Methodology/approach – A qualitative case study approach is adopted to enable the development of an in-depth and nuanced picture of high technology business incubation.

Findings – The women oscillated between trying to emulate the behaviour of their male colleagues within the incubator as the prevailing ‘entrepreneurial identity’ was embedded in masculinity; thus, to achieve credibility and legitimacy, the women attempted to deny associations with femininity by undertaking a metaphorical sex change. Once, however, the firms became successful, they again felt comfortable displaying elements of their femininity as the tensions surrounding entrepreneurial and feminine characterizations could be negated by demonstrations of business competence.

Research limitations/implications – The documented limitations of case study research are noted. There are a number of implications surrounding the utility and accessibility of incubation for female entrepreneurs and the underlying assumption that these are spaces specifically for male entrepreneurs.

Practical implications – It is essential to critically evaluate current policy initiatives and managerial strategies informing current incubation practices.

Social implications – Gender disadvantage is reproduced within business incubators.

Originality/value of chapter – There are few explorations of the accessibility of business incubators to encourage and support female entrepreneurship.

This chapter discusses the evolution of business accelerators in Egypt, as a developing country, and how they may be seen as a totally different means for promoting entrepreneurship and not just an extension of the business incubator model. Through exploring the perspectives of six entrepreneurs who were sponsored by the first business accelerator in Egypt and exploring the institutional perspectives of the CEO of the business accelerator and the chairman of a non-governmental organization that supports entrepreneurship, the author will demonstrate the advantages of the business accelerator as an entrepreneurial place. Furthermore, the author will be able to suggest recommendations for policy makers and business accelerators to further develop the model of the business accelerator.

With practical entrepreneurship capabilities becoming ever more important for all university graduates, whether they are starting their own business or adding value to an organisation by innovating, improving, and problem-solving, what role do business incubators (BIs) play in helping to develop these capabilities for students? This chapter aims to better understand the role of BIs as extra-curricular entrepreneurship activity in universities through a narrative account of business incubation practice in three institutions – two in England and one in Australia. Utilising a practice-led methodology, the study is underpinned by social capital theory and a critical realist ontological perspective on incubation’s mechanisms, processes, and structures. Across these examples, there are common underpinning principles of entrepreneurial learning and socio-economic development. However, there are differences in implementation regarding space for incubation. Where the BI is on campus and closely integrated with extra-curricular entrepreneurship activity, this results in a cohesive graduate startup community and ongoing peer support. With no BI present, the opposite is observed. The chapter argues that without the infrastructure to build and maintain a community of nascent entrepreneurs to benefit from sustained peer learning, there can be negative impacts on the entrepreneurs and a visible gap affecting the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The chapter concludes with a practice note providing practical considerations for university BIs in communicating the significance of the incubator peer group to prospective entrepreneurs to improve realistic expectations and potentially improve their reach to entrepreneurs who may be experiencing isolation during their startup journey.

Business incubators (BI) have been established worldwide as tools for company creation and small businesses support. BIs claim to help their tenants by providing them with the optimal conditions for increasing early stage survival and long-term performance. Practitioners and researchers agree that business support is a crucial feature of incubating businesses. Yet this is seldom researched. In this study we theoretically relate business support to help in solving problems and further investigate to what extent business incubators support their tenants overcome their developmental problems. Results show that tenants do not experience many problems and when they do business support is not necessarily sought. Furthermore, our data suggests that business support is not preferentially sought within incubator environments. When this happens, support provided by the BI does not contribute to problem solving. Finally, we discuss the impact of the type of BI on helping their tenants.

As a company that has continuously achieved business innovation, Apple in the United States has successfully applied strategic knowledge creation to produce a series of products that integrate various digital devices as well as diverse contents and applications, such as the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, based on a corporate vision of a digital hub concept. At the same time, the redefining of corporate boundaries that expanded Apple’s business in a horizontal direction from the Macintosh PC business to the delivery of music, smartphones, and tablets is also an indication of the evolution of a corporate vision involving Apple’s strategic transformation. This chapter presents the strategic and creative processes that enabled practitioners, including the late Steve Jobs, to demonstrate “strategic innovation capability” by “holistic leadership” at every level of management at Apple and successfully achieve a business ecosystem strategy through “creative collaboration” across diverse boundaries within and outside the company.