Search results

Discusses the growth of business parks in the UK, their nature and ingredients for success. Points out some advantages, compared with town centre locations. Concludes that the concept is relatively new.

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of the failure of science parks to become a central actor in the knowledge economy and, with the help of new organizational theory, to propose new solutions.

The paper reviews a number of recent studies of science parks and their effect on innovation and economic growth, measured by revenue or survival rate of new firms, but demonstrating no positive result of the parks. The paper then introduces modern organization theory, specializing in analyzing the processes of creating, managing, organizing, and transferring knowledge distributed through a number of networks and other volatile organizations in order to investigate the set‐up of science parks in the knowledge economy.

Using Nonaka's concept of ba as a metaphor for the new tradition in organizational theory, the paper finds very few – if any – signs of these new ways of organizing in traditional science parks. The paper argues that principles from modern knowledge organizations has to be installed in science parks if the parks are to regain the initiative and become an important actor in the new regime of knowledge production. Otherwise, science parks must be viewed as an outdated institution, left over from the industrial society.

The paper proposes a system of certification and quality assessment that might speed up the change in science parks from organizations formed by the industrial society to organizations serving the needs of the knowledge society.

The paper is an original contribution to the theory of science parks and innovation policy. The use of new organizational theory on knowledge management, illustrated by Nonaka's concept of ba, presents a new solution to overcome the traditional thinking on how to organize science parks.

Reports reports the findings of a survey of science park managers and directors in the last quarter of 1994. The development of science parks in Britain has been heavily reliant on investment from public sector sources. A notable reluctance on the part of private sector investors has been a consistent feature. Science parks have, though, seen near continuous growth in their number, in total tenancies and in their rental and capital values; and have sustained relatively high average occupancy levels throughout their brief history. The findings of the survey, thus, draw attention to the various determinants of these apparent successes and highlight the manner in which these determinants may instil disquiet in private sector investors as to the prospects of science parks as investment opportunities. Finds that public sector patronage and philanthropic motives remain high on the agenda of science parks but growing recognizance of the need to secure commercial viability may expedite the improvement of their potential investment profile.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Utilizing the findings of a survey of science park managers and directors, carried out in the latter half of 1994, examines the management of property developed within science parks in the UK. Shows that, as a result of the complex motives for the development of science parks and the specialized sector they typically aim to accommodate, the management function may prove complex and consequently labour intensive and costly. Proposes that science park management, out of necessity, has to incorporate proactive and even interventionist techniques in developing an understanding of occupiers, a sophisticated understanding of whose needs are generally, and increasingly, perceived as a key determinant of successful property development and management. Concludes, however, that the increasing maturity and improving commercial profile, and hence viability, of science parks is altering the science park management role

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.