Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Business incubators strive to develop robust business and social networks to bring value to their resident companies in the form of intellectual and material resources. Yet, information about what motivates resident companies to participate in networking activities and the obstacles they face in trying to build effective networks is limited. This study employs a communication perspective to examine the process of incubation in an award-winning university business incubator. Using a combination of network analysis and in-depth interviews, the case study reveals the nature of communication in the internal network of 18 resident companies and the incubator administrators. Despite being on the cutting edge of innovations in technology use, study findings reveal face-to-face interaction in the incubator is predominant. The physical proximity of resident companies at the incubator influences who they talk to the most, suggesting incubator site design is important in creating an entrepreneurial environment. The case study also indicates resident company motivations for networking include a strong desire for social support to help manage stress, security of membership in an in-group, and increased access to material or information resources. The primary obstacles residents face to participating in networking and building relationships with each other include extreme time limitations during the early start-up phase, lack of ongoing information about other residents, and lack of trust related to keeping information about innovations and funding sources secure. Implications of these findings and recommendations for incubator managers for building successful and sustainable communication networks conclude the article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Badaracco, J. L. (1991). The knowledge link: How firms compete through strategic alliances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldridge, V. J., & Burnham, R. A. (1975). Organizational innovation: Individual, organizational, and environmental impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B., & Gassmann, O. (2006). Corporate incubators: Industrial R & D and what universities can learn from them. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (1992). UCINET IV version 1.00. Columbia, SC: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresser, R. K. (1988). Matching collective and competitive strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brittian, J., & Freeman, J. (1980). Organizational proliferation and density dependent selection. In J. R. Kimberly & R. H. Miles (Eds.), The organization life cycle (pp. 291–338). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2001). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, E. M., Farace, R. V., Monge, P. V., Bettinhaus, E. P., Kurchner-Hawkins, R., Miller, K. L., et al. (1985). Communication linkages in interorganizational systems: Review and synthesis. In B. Derivn & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 231–258). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organizational Science, 7, 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., & Russell, H. M. (1977). Communicating and organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17, 407–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewiez, J. (1979). Exchange networks and community politics. Newbury Part, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38, 911–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 619–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004a). A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004b). A real options-driven theory of business incubation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. H., Clark, J. P., Giordano, P. C., Johnson, P. V., & Van Roekel, M. (1977). Patterns of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 457–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T., Chesbrough, H. W., Nohria, N., & Sull, D. N. (2000). Networked incubators: Hothouses of the new economy, Harvard Business Review, September/October, 74–84.

  • Hazen, M. A. (1994). A radical humanist perspective of interoganizational relationships. Human Relations, 47, 393–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In John Van Maanenn (Ed.), Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadushin, C. (1983). Mental health and the interpersonal environment: A reexamination of some effects of social structure on mental health. American Sociological Review, 48, 188–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, G. A. (1992). The significance of relationships in entrepreneurship: A case study of the ecology of enterprise in two business incubators. Unpublished Dissertation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

  • Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, M., & Marlow, S. (2008). A preliminary investigation into networking activities within the university incubator. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14(4), 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. (1994). U.S. university-sponsored technology incubators: An overview of management, policies and performance. Technovation, 14, 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 281–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K., Scott, C. R., Stage, C., & Birkholt, M. (1995). Communication and coordination in an interorganizational system: Service provision for the urban homeless. Communication Research, 22, 679–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R. (1987). The network level of analysis. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 239–270). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 440–502). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Emergent communication networks. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 304–342). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., Rothman, L. W., Eisenberg, E. M., Miller, K. I., & Kirste, K. K. (1985). The dynamics of organizational proximity. Management Science, 31, 1129–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Business Incubation Association. (2007). Business incubation FAQ. Retrieved in 1998 and June 20, 2007, http://www.nbia.org/resource_center/bus_inc_facts/index.php.

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Konno, N., & Toyama, R. (2001). Emergence of “Ba”: A conceptual framework for the continuous and self-transcending process of knowledge creation. In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi’s (Eds.), Knowledge emergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation (pp. 13–29). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2002). A firm as a dialectical being: Towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(5), 995–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papa, M. J. (1990). Communication network patterns and employee performance with new technology. Communication Research, 17, 344–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The role of incubators in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pride Shaw, S., & Scott, C. R. (1998). The organization as a source of messages in interorganizational relations: Expanding the interorganizational linkages model. Paper presented at the meeting of Western States Communication Association Annual Convention, Denver, CO.

  • Provan, K. (1984). Interorganizational cooperation and decision making autonomy in a consortium multihospital system. Academy of Management Review, 9, 494–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34, 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., Gray, B., & Yan, A. (1991). The context of interorganizational collaboration in the garment industry: An institutional perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilor, R. W., & Gill, M. D., Jr. (1986). The new business incubator: Linking talent, technology, capital, and know-how. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tichy, N., Tushman, M., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4, 507–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Udell, G. G. (1990a). Academe and the goose that lays its golden egg. Business Horizons, 33, 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udell, G. G. (1990b). Are business incubators really creating new jobs by creating new businesses and new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7, 108–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice, learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. (1981). Interorganizational relations: A review of the field. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiewel, W., & Hunter, A. (1985). The interorganizational network as a resource: A comparative case study on organizational genesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 482–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yum, J. O. (1983). Social network patterns of five ethnic groups in Hawaii. In R. M. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook (7th ed., pp. 574–591). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeitz, G. (1980). Interorganizational dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 72–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48, 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Heather Osterman for her assistance with data collection as well as Craig Scott and multiple peer and journal reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, Metropolitan State College of Denver, Campus Box 34, P.O. Box 173362, Denver, CO, 80217-3362, USA

    Christine E. Cooper

  2. Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, California State University, Chico, Chico, CA, 95929-0502, USA

    Stephanie A. Hamel

  3. Department of Communication, Purdue University, 100 North University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2098, USA

    Stacey L. Connaughton

Authors
  1. Christine E. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie A. Hamel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stacey L. Connaughton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine E. Cooper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cooper, C.E., Hamel, S.A. & Connaughton, S.L. Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator. J Technol Transf 37, 433–453 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9189-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9189-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation