Journal of Small Business Management 2006 44(3), pp. 386–406
Environmental Hostility and Firm Behavior—
An Empirical Examination of New TechnologyBased Firms on Science Parks
by Peter Lindelöf and Hans Löfsten
Firms often respond to challenging environmental conditions, such as those in
high-technology environments. Thus, in a hostile environment, the intensity of competition exerts more pressure on the firm and also a greater necessity for firm behavior.
This study was conducted with empirical data collected in 1999 from 134 small firms
on science parks in Sweden. The discussion in this paper is focused at the firm level.
Analysis of firm behavior was conducted using a multivariate approach. The content
of firm-level behavior is defined in terms of the firm’s overall collection of business
practices and competitive tactics. The investigation of customer preferences and competitors are the manifestations of the firm’s more basic strategic direction and how the
firm will reach the markets. Two different types of firms were analyzed: university spinoffs (USOs) and corporate spin-offs (CSOs). The importance of the science park was
included in the study as a control variable. The variable showed whether the firms had
received support from a science park. This study indicated that the relations between
change of marketing activities and long-term forecasting are strongest for both USOs
and CSOs. The long-term forecasting, technology–importance of science park, was
another key factor. This is exemplified by the two samples used in this study.
Introduction
Entrepreneurial orientation is often
conceptualized as a latent construct composed of three dimensions: innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness.
These three components of entrepreneurship are argued by Miller (1983) to
comprise a basic, undimensional strategic orientation. Innovativeness involves
seeking creative or unusual solutions to
Peter Lindelöf is associate professor in enterprise and innovation, Nottingham University,
Business School.
Hans Löfsten is professor in technology management, School of Technology Management
and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology (Göteborg, Sweden), and research fellow,
Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology.
Address correspondence to: Hans Löfsten. Tel: +46(0)31-772-1230. Fax: +46(0)31-772-1237.
E-mail: [email protected].
©2006, International Council for Small Business
386
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
problems and needs. In entrepreneurship research and economic studies,
innovativeness is often viewed as a surrogate measurement for entrepreneurship (Miller and Friesen 1982). The
risk-taking dimension refers to the willingness of management to commit significant resources to opportunities in the
face of uncertainty. Proactiveness is
defined in terms of the firm’s propensity,
aggressively and proactively, to compete
with its rivals.
On the basis of this three-dimensional
construct of entrepreneurial orientation,
a firm’s strategic posture can be established along a variant ranging from conservative to entrepreneurial (Covin and
Slevin 1989; Miller and Friesen 1983).
Conservative firms tend to be riskadverse, noninnovative, and reactive.
Entrepreneurial firms tend to be risktakers, innovative, and proactive. The
conservative–entrepreneurial dichotomy
also shares similarities with some of
the dichotomies developed in the new
technology-based firm (NTBF) literature. Findings demonstrate that small
firms are generally expected to favor
differentiation strategies, because they
will only rarely will be able to utilize
economies of scale. Small firms may
possess various bundles of resources that
serve as the foundations for development. According to the resource-based
view (Penrose 1959), differences in
resources should be utilized and lead to
differences in sustainable competitive
advantage.
According to Borch, Huse, and Senneseth (1999), entrepreneurial firms will
have strategies related to innovation
and growth characterized by risk-taking.
Innovation may be defined as the willingness to place strong emphasis on
technological development (Slevin and
Covin 1994). The advantages of studying
entrepreneurship and small business
management from a firm behavior perspective are that (Slevin and Covin 1994):
(1) firm behavior, as strategy, structure,
and performance, are more clearly
understood than when only studying
characteristics of individual entrepreneurs; (2) firm behavior is more easily
measured than at the individual level;
and (3) firm behavior is more manageable. A firm-level behavior can be
managed by the creation of particular
resources and strategies and may
thus allow considerable managerial
intervention.
In this paper, we extend the literature
by exploring how NTBFs can link elements of customer preferences, marketing activities, long-term forecasting of
markets, and technology in an entrepreneurial environment (science parks)
regarding the background of the firm:
university spin-offs (USOs) or corporate
spin-offs (CSOs). We seek to contribute to
further convergence between firm strategies, firm background, and the environment, by highlighting these important
links. The importance of NTBFs on
science parks is related to their performance: they are expected to “perform
better” than the average firm. The attitudes and motivation of the firm
founders and managers is a key factor in
the ability to raise funds and achieve
high growth and profitability.
The question for this research is: Do
new academic technology-based firms
(USOs) benefit from the science park
location differently than NTBFs from the
private sector (CSOs)?
The variables used in our study relate
to several basic dimensions of a firm’s
external environment. These dimensions include environmental hostility:
customer
preferences,
competitors,
marketing activities and long-term forecasting of markets, and technologyforecasting
activities. The
control
variables and the questions asked were
measures of satisfaction regarding what
the science park environment had contributed to the firms. We seek to contribute to further convergence between
entrepreneurship, firm behavior and
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
387
background by highlighting these important links.
Hostile Environments,
NTBFs, and Science
Parks
Hostile Environments and Markets
The literature on the entrepreneurship–environment fit suggests that conservative and entrepreneurial firms
manifest quite different characteristics
in coping with their environments.
Dynamic environments, which often
typify high-technology industries, were
found to encourage entrepreneurial
firm-level behavior (Miller, Droge, and
Toulouse 1988; Khandwalla 1987).
Higher levels of innovative, risk-taking
behavior are also associated with uncertain environments (Pierce and Delbecq
1977). When firms are faced with hostile
environments, as in the high-technology
sector, an entrepreneurial strategic
orientation contributes to greater performance. According to Yeoh and Jeong
(1995), a more conservative strategic orientation appears to promote performance among small firms (Covin and
Slevin 1989), in benign environments.
Yeoh and Jeong (1995) say that in conceptualizing the external environment in
terms of environmental hostility (Covin
and Slevin 1989), an entrepreneurial orientation may be of particular interest to
small exporting firms in hostile environments. The markets in which small hightech firms operate are competitive.
Marketing is often especially difficult for
technologically innovative firms, particularly when they are addressing new
needs and markets. Independent technology firms have a much wider market
distribution throughout the United
Kingdom and abroad than is typical of
other small firms (Monck et al. 1988).
The “typical” pattern of heavy dependence on a limited number of customers
or geographical markets was not demonstrated in Löfsten and Lindelöf (2001).
388
Almost 65 percent of the NTBFs customers were “other markets.”
Information on the location of customers shows whether firms are linked to
local, national, or international markets,
and thereby their potential for growth.
Market research and market planning are
important. Given the short product life
cycle of many technology-based products
and services, there is a requirement to
reach a large international market quickly
to exploit the profit potential of the product. Löfsten and Lindelöf (2001) showed
some differences between the experience
of firms on-park and off-park in respect
of innovation and marketing/market
research issues. On-park firms clearly
place a greater emphasis on market
research. Ackroyd (1995) identified 11
distinguishing characteristics of small
high-technology firms, such as lack of
hierarchy and boundaries, high mobility
including growth and replication, and an
impressive ability to respond quickly to
technological and market developments.
These firms are also very customer-oriented, and innovative: their growth is
often constrained by skills shortage.
Miller (1987) means that there should
be some common relationships between
environmental dimensions and those of
strategy. The dimensions of dynamism,
hostility, and heterogeneity have often
been used to characterize the environment. These are representative of key
challenges facing firms and are summarized in Table 1. The marketing differentiation strategy will typically be used in
response to intense hostility.
Certain environmental characteristics
may elicit entrepreneurial behavior on
the part of organizations (Covin and
Slevin 1991). Dynamic environments
have been found to encourage entrepreneurial firm-level behavior (Miller,
Droge, Toulouse 1988). Organizations
often respond to challenging environmental conditions, such as those in
high-technology environments. Several
studies indicate that the relationship
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Table 1
Environmental Classes and Variablesa
Change Variables (Questionnaire Data)
Static Variables (Published Data)
I.
1.
2.
3.
Dynamism
Growth opportunities
Change in production/service technology
Rate of innovation in industry products,
services, and processes
4. R&D in industry
1. Dynamism
II. Heterogeneity
5. Needed diversity in production and
marketing and methods to cater to
different customers
2. Heterogeneity
III. Hostility
6. Hostility of key competitor’s market
activities
7. Number of areas in which there is a
competition
8. Unpredictability of competitor market
activities
9. Legal, political, or economic constraints
3. Hostility
a
Source: Miller (1987, p. 62).
between entrepreneurial posture and
firm performance is moderated by environmental conditions.
According to Covin and Slevin (1991),
an entrepreneurial posture is reflected in
three types of organizational-level behaviors: (1) top management risk-taking
with regard to investment decisions, and
strategic actions in the face of uncertainty; (2) the extensiveness and frequency of product innovation and the
related tendency toward technological
leadership; and (3) the pioneering nature
of the firm as evident in the firm’s
propensity to compete aggressively and
proactively with industrial rivals. The
relationship between the type and/or
amount of risk perceived and the strategies used to reduce the risk and environmental hostility could prove to be
highly significant in attempting to untangle the problem of the risk-reducing
strategies that should be used in a particular circumstance. Perhaps some initial
correlation analysis of various risks
(environmental) and risk-reducing strategies would be useful. A generic approach
to risk reduction can be studied under
the heading of information gathering
(Mitchell 1995). Some studies have
shown that at least a third of the riskreducing strategies examined involved
information gathering (Hawes and
Barnhouse 1987; Sweeney, Mathews, and
Wilson 1973).
Most of the risk literature focuses on
information search as the major risk
reducer. Several studies, when examining
risk reduction, have focused solely on
information acquisition, dividing the
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
389
sources of information into two categories: personal and nonpersonal. This
has led to undue importance being given
to the information sought rather than to
how it is used to reduce risk (Mitchell
1995). Evidence to support the widening
of risk-reducing strategies beyond information search comes from a meta-analysis of 100 empirical findings. The analysis
revealed that 51 of the 100 case increases
in perceived risk were not linked to
increases in information search (Gemunden 1985). Gemunden explains his findings by suggesting that in many cases the
risk remains below a tolerated threshold
above which search is stimulated. When
risk does rise above the threshold, it is
reduced by means other than information search.
However, Perren and Grant (2000),
and Perren, Berry, and Partridge (1998)
identified that research into management
information, control, and decisionmaking in small firms appears on the
surface to be contradictory. Some
research suggests that small firms have
little management information, poor
control, and that the decision-making
is ad hoc (Nasyak and Greenfield
1994).
Science Parks and
Academic NTBFs
Oakey (1995) criticizes the assumption that all NTBFs are alike, and he has
recognized the difference between
categories of firms. Oakey claims that
there are only two types of high-technology small firm entrepreneurs, the first
being spin-offs from higher-education
centers (USOs) and the second being
spin-offs from corporations (CSOs).
These two categories of firms are
assumed to need and acquire different
types of resources because of their different backgrounds.
Kelly (1987) shows that out of the 78
firms founded in Cambridgeshire, 24
were set up by individuals with a pri-
390
marily academic background. Out of the
37 firms founded in Hertfordshire, 26
were initiated by individuals with a background in the computing industry, and
only two were started by individuals
with a primarily academic background.
According to Monck et al. (1988), it
seems reasonable to believe that firms
established by those with an academic
background might be expected both to
perform differently and to respond to different incentives from those founded by
personnel from the computer industry.
This perspective should then be put into
a particular context, that is, the purpose
of a science park, where the aims and
goals of the science park are to support
the NTBFs’ ability to perform. Science
parks have the aim of developing various
support functions. Depending on the
origin of the NTBFs, different prerequisites arise. USOs are assumed to use the
facility for advice and management
support. These additional resources are
assumed to support the USOs’ ability to
perform. CSOs are assumed to use the
facility for technology transfer, between
the firm and the nearby university
(Tesfaye 1993).
Monck et al. (1988) argue that funding
for science parks has come from five
sources: (1) universities (including bank
borrowings); (2) local authorities; (3)
government development agencies; (4)
private sector institutions; and (5) tenant
firms themselves. Amirahmadi and Saff
(1993) point out six factors that were
important in Silicon Valley’s success: (1)
availability of technical expertise; (2)
availability of preexisting infrastructure;
(3) availability of venture capital; (4) job
mobility; (5) information-exchange networks; and (6) spin-offs from existing
firms. The extent to which science parks
can help NTBFs to overcome these constraints depends partly on the quality of
the on-site management resources and
partly on access to appropriate sources
of equity and loan funds. Klofsten,
Jonsson, and Simón (1998) identified a
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
number of resources that a small NTBF
will most likely have to acquire: (1)
capital, (2) personnel, (3) space, (4)
product equipment, (5) financial and
accounting knowledge, (6) marketing
knowledge, (7) product knowledge, (8)
personal management knowledge, and
(9) general management knowledge.
According to Monck et al. (1988), the
classic study of high-technology entrepreneurs in Europe and the United States
was undertaken by Little (1979). The
study made recommendations about how
the number of NTBFs in Europe could be
increased and how growth in this sector
could be promoted: (1) provision of
financial assistance to such firms; (2)
changing cultural attitudes to give
greater encouragement to entrepreneurs
to make money out of a business; (3)
changing the behavioral constraints
which inhibit the willingness of Europeans to start businesses; and (4) changing patent laws giving individuals the
right to exploit patents which their
employers refuse or fail to export.
The incubator is an organization,
private or public, which provides
resources that enhance the founding of
new small business, and are assumed,
directly or indirectly, to support spinoffs, such as NTBFs (Löfsten and Lindelöf
2001). As depicted in Figure 1, the proposed model for the incubation process
is based on management policies and
their effectiveness. The key elements
include (1) services provided; (2) financing; goals and structure; (3) resources
and support to NTBFs; and (4) creation
of an entrepreneurial milieu.
Figure 1
Science Parks and the Creation of an
Entrepreneurial Environment
New firm creation
- Universities
- Firms
Transfer of resources
for new firm creation
Spin-offs
Possible
location
Incubator
- Science parks
- Firms (cluster)
- Universities
- Financing
- Management
support
Creation of resources for development
and support of
new technology-based
firms
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
Creation of an entrepreneurial environment (1–5)
391
Mian (1994) focused on a sample comprising three state university-sponsored
and three private university-sponsored
facilities that are generally viewed as being successful. The university-sponsored
technology incubator practices and performance were explored using several
key dimensions: organizational design,
tenant performance review, funding
sources, targeted technologies, strategic
operational policies, services and their
value-added component and the growth
of client firms. A comparative review of
these dimensions reveals that there are
no significant differences based on the
type of sponsorship—state or private.
It is concluded that given the fuller utilization of university resources by the
application of sound policies and business-management practices, the university-sponsored technology incubators
appear to provide an environment conducive to the development of NTBFs.
Mian (1997) provides a conceptual
framework for assessing and managing
the university technology-based incubator as a tool for new venture creation.
The paper concludes with a set of elements identified for evaluating university
technology-based incubators under three
performance dimensions (program sustainability and growth, tenant firm’s survival and growth, and contributions to
the sponsoring university’s mission) providing measurement indicators. Monck et
al. (1988) claim that in order to understand the “added value” of a science park
location there is need for detailed
research investigating the characteristics
and performance of firms located on a
variety of science parks. Mian (1996) says
that the term value-added has become a
part of the lexicon of the technology
business incubation industry, which corresponds to the provision of the three
major groups of elements (business,
technical, and social inputs).
The Advisory Council for Applied
Research and Development (ACARD
1983) argues that the time devoted to
392
commercial activities means that less is
available for producing publications, and
so there was a clear choice facing the
academic between career advancement
and financial return. By their choice of
profession, academics place a high
premium on job satisfaction, and it can
be difficult for commercial organizations
to ensure that only the most intellectually satisfying tasks are undertaken by
academics. The period since 1980 has
seen a major growth in links between
universities and industry—and most
notably with high-technology firms
(Monck et al. 1988).
Gregory and Sheahen (1991) argue
that scientists can be excellent in their
field of research, but that they often lack
the knowledge of how to develop their
research into commercial business,
hence they cannot handle the transition
from the academic environment to
private business. Freel (1998) argues that
because of path-dependency and accumulating learning, technological entrepreneurs apply too much focus to
technical aspects of innovation at the
expense of developing skills that are
necessary for commercialization. Academics often lack knowledge of how to
market their innovation and how to
build an organization. Lack of competence tends to lead to an ad hoc situation
with no structure (Oakey 1991). When
the firm is established, USOs often use
the university as a base for recruitment,
new ideas, and use of experts. LU 92
(1992) states that firms from the academic
environment had a high rate of survival
compared with other groups of firms, but
that they also experienced a modest
growth rate. As previously mentioned,
the conditions originated not only from
the lack of business experience, but also
from low risk propensity (Tesfaye 1993).
Jones-Evans (1996) found that British
firms where the management was of a
technological nature had a higher tendency to sell the firm than firms with a
mixed management structure.
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Research Propositions
and Methodology
Formulation of Research Problem
Johannisson (1998) analyzes the
science park village as divided between
two parallel existing norms which cause
the building of networks. The first ones
were related to the academy, and the
second were related to integration and
acceptance of how to conduct business.
Studies carried out by Sahlin-Andersson
(1990), Quintas, Wield, and Massey
(1992), and Johannisson (1998) show
that cooperation between firms was less
than one might expect. Sahlin-Andersson
argues that the reason for locating in a
science park was not to establish new
contacts but to preserve old ones.
Löwegren-Williams (2000) argues that
the lack of cooperation and networking
is due to the heterogeneity of the located
firms. Because of the different structures
there is no basis for cooperation, hence
there is a need for a “critical mass” to
develop. Johannisson (1998) continues to
argue that the cooperation within the
science park was between the firms in
the nearby academy and not to develop
relations with other firms.
Assessments of the technical and commercial success uncertainties provide the
basis for deciding whether or not the
organization can afford the risks of failure
and how these risks will be handled. Yap
and Souder (1993) claim that an organization with a long history of research
commitments and successes will generally have a better chance of attracting talented researchers than its less committed
rivals. According to Doz (1988), partnerships usually offer large firms a channel
to tap into the innovative and entrepreneurial potential of smaller firms. Segers
(1993) claims that NTBFs often enjoy the
advantage of dynamic, entrepreneurial
management embodied in a system that
is flexible and highly responsive to
change, and that is willing to accept financial, technological, and marketing risk.
One of the major elements in estimating the added economic value of a
science park is that it gives the academic
a clear opportunity to start a business to
commercialize his/her research. It seems
reasonable to assume that without the
science park, most of the academicowned businesses would not have been
established in the first place (Monck
et al. 1988). According to Williams
(1985), there are five main ways in which
universities may contribute to the development of NTBFs: (1) by providing
opportunities for students to acquire
skills and attitudes that could be used to
create and promote the success of
NTBFs; (2) by promoting research in
high technology that may create opportunities for innovation by small firms; (3)
by encouraging staff to provide advice
and consultancy services in the field of
high technology; (4) by allowing staff to
create or take part in the creation of
firms to exploit high technology; and (5)
by creating firms to exploit the research
and development activities of staff in
fields of high technology.
We suggest the following propositions:
P1: The importance of science parks is
higher for USOs’ ability to manage
customer preferences, competitors,
and marketing activities.
P2: The importance of science parks is
higher for USOs’ ability to manage
long-term forecasting of markets and
technology.
Earlier studies showed some differences between the experience of firms
on-park and off-park in respect of
management and financial issues,
academic–industry links, innovation,
markets, and strategy (Löfsten and
Lindelöf 2003, 2002; Lindelöf 2002). Consequently, the next section reports the
responses of firms to questions about the
factors that may explain any differences
in contribution. We are interested in
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
393
finding differences between USOs and
CSO regarding their use of location
(science park).
Sampling—Science Parks
and NTBFs in Sweden
Local authorities in Sweden have
developed a range of local economic initiatives designed to create new employment opportunities. One element has
been the encouragement of small high
technology-based firms to achieve high
rates of growth. However, there is no uniformly accepted definition of a science
park, and there are several similar terms
used to describe similar developments,
such as research park, technology park,
business park, and innovation center
(Monck et al. 1988). Currie (1985) and Eul
(1985) have attempted to distinguish between innovation centers, science parks,
and research parks. MacDonald (1987)
says that each of these terms are used
interchangeably to describe the following
package: (1) a property-based initiative
close to a place of learning, and (2) one
which provides high-quality units in a
pleasant environment. Westhead (1997)
claims that science parks reflect an
assumption that technological innovation
stems from scientific research, and that
science parks can provide the catalytic
incubator environment for the transformation of “pure” research into production.
Local authorities have also played a
key role in encouraging universities to
take a more active role in the revival
of local economies. Several financial institutions have made commitments to
Swedish science parks. The total number
of “science parks” in Sweden, in 1999, was
23 (see Swedepark; the Swedish Science
Park Association). We initially chose to
limit our study to 10 science parks. The
main participants establishing science
parks in Sweden, such as universities,
local authorities, and development agencies, have encouraged the formation of
a heterogeneous group of parks. We
excluded 13 of the parks in this study
394
because the parks were brand new
or acting as a “firm hotel.” U.K. Science
Park Association (UKSPA) distinguishes
between managed and nonmanaged
science parks. Siegel, Westhead, and
Wright (2003) also underline that it may
be important to distinguish between
managed and nonmanaged parks. A
managed science park has a full-time onsite manager (Westhead and Storey 1994).
This was the primary selection criterion
for incorporating or excluding science
parks. Those science parks that where
nonmanaged were excluded and regarded
as more of a “business hotel” than a facility that could provide assistance and
resources for located NTBFs (Ambrosio
1991). The total number of firms with a
technological base in the 10 parks was
477. However, defining what is, and what
is not, high technology is problematic.
Based on the selection criteria, the
following 13 science parks were
excluded: Atrium 21 (Kalmar), Berzelius
Science Park (Linköping), Centek
(Luleå), Chalmers innovation (Göteborg),
Sahlgrenska Biomedicinska (Göteborg),
Innova (Karlstad), Creative Center
Skaraborg (Skövde), Sundsvalls Utvecklingscentrum, Teknikbyn (Västerås),
Teknikdalen (Borlänge), and Videum
(Växjö). The remaining 10 science parks
were: Aurorum (Luleå), Electrum/Kista
(Stockholm), Ideon (Lund), Mjärdevi
(Linköping),
Novum
(Stockholm),
Ronneby Softcenter (Ronneby), Stuns/
Uppsala (Uppsala), Teknocenter (Halmstad), Teknikhöjden (Stockholm), and
Uminova (Umeå). Science parks contain
not only independent, entrepreneurially
managed firms but also firms which
may be part of a group and where the
ultimate ownership is outside the park.
The independence criterion ensures that
effects of key customer relationships are
not mixed with those of firm parents. In
order to make valid comparisons with
both this study and other studies, only
single-plant independent firms are
included (joint-stock firms, trading com-
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
panies, limited partnership companies
etc.). As expected, the new and emerging technologies, such as information
and software technology and electronics,
dominated the population.
A questionnaire was sent to the managing directors of these firms in January
1999 (response rate: ca 50 percent). The
questionnaire was developed from previous studies regarding science parks,
entrepreneurship, and small business, as
well as measures developed from our
case studies. For example, measures
about resources have been constructed
from Cooper (1984) and Miller (1987).
Risk from Miller (1987, 1983), Innovation
from Roper (1997), and Strategy from
Miller (1987), Miller and Friesen (1978),
and Russo and Fouts (1997). The specific
science park effects are measures developed by the researcher from case studies
to detect specific effects. The questionnaire had been thoroughly pretested and
modified as a result of discussions with
six firms. Questionnaire responses were
collected from independent organizations (respondent: manager/director)
during early 1999 and in the middle of
1999. After two reminders (and one
reminder by telephone) in springtime,
134 firms had responded to the survey.
The response rate of 50 percent compares favorably with similar mail surveys
of entrepreneurial firms (Yli-Renko,
Autio, Sapienza 2001, 24 percent),
(McDougall et al. 1994, 11 percent), and
(Chandler and Hanks 1994, 19 percent).
Of the firms that did not respond to the
survey, some could not be localized or
had no activity, and some said they did
not have time to answer the questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions about strategies, importance of
location, cooperation with other firms,
networks, business advice, financing, etc.
Characteristics of the
Surveyed Firms
This section is devoted to a description of the broad characteristics of the
firms involved. A total of 134 NTBFs
responded, of which 74 were USOs and
60 were CSOs (see Table 2).
A USO was defined based on where
the founders of the firms come from: (1)
graduate school, (2) postgraduate school,
(3) employment within the university,
and (4) government research institution.
A CSO was defined based on where the
founders of the firms come from: (1)
research unit within a firm, (2) other unit
within a firm, and (3) other.
All founders of CSOs have a university
degree, but their base is not at the university. The founders of CSOs are individuals who have left a private or public
sector organization to set up their own
business with no equity stake in the business owned by their former employer. It
will be recalled that the objective of the
sample was to identify primarily hightech independent firms. It is necessary to
subdivide the firms not only between
those of an USO and a CSO origin, but
also in a number of other ways, such as
branch and age. The branches are software/information technology, technology consultants, electronics/electrical,
pharmacology
and
pharmaceutical
preparation, mechanics, and industrial
chemistry/plastics industry. There is
quite a substantial proportion of NTBFs
placed in the “other category,” that is,
USOs (ca 55 percent). These are primarily businesses established by academics.
The low proportion of NTBFs making
profits (profitability USOs: 1.3 percent
and CSOs: 6.0 percent, see Table 2) in
their early years of life is attributable to
the fact that many actually start without
any product to sell.
At the end of 1998, there were 477
businesses located on science parks in
Sweden, of which 265 were included in
this study. The science park sample (N =
265 NTBFs) is a random sample of 477
independent NTBFs located on science
parks in Sweden, which were drawn on
a stratified basis from the total number
of on-park locations. The park random
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
395
Table 2
Means and Frequencies of Surveyed High
Technology-Based Firms
1. Response Rate:
N
n
Response Rate
265
134
50.6 percent
2. Variables—Means and Frequencies:
USOs
Mean
S.D.
Growth (percent)a
Sales
37.1
47.38
Profitability
1.3
25.6
Start
11030
19347
Salesb
Employment
8.2
13.3
3.2
2.0
Branchc
Age
7.2
3.0
Start-Up Propensity
Start-Up on Science
Parks (%)
Importance (%) of
Science Parks for
the Decision to
Start the Firm
(Scale 3–5, somewhat important to
very important)
CSOs
Mean
S.D.
No-Response
Mean
S.D.
41.2
6.0
79.8
16.3
0.72
0.23
31.31
1.56
43.35
24.85
19663
14.4
3.2
7.8
37520
27.4
2.0
2.4
0.08
0.10
0.91
0.87
10650
10.35
3.31
8.37
165.40
13.96
2.00
2.19
USOs
55.2
CSOs
44.8
66.7
52.9
3. Branch—Frequencies (percent)
Software/Information Technology
Electronics
Technology Consultants
Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical
Preparation
Mechanics
Industrial Chemistry/Plastics
Industry
Sum
t-teste
p-Valued
USOs
32.9
12.9
24.3
15.7
CSOs
35.1
12.3
26.3
14.0
No-Response
30.0
16.4
23.6
15.5
11.4
2.9
7.0
5.3
10.9
3.6
10.0
5.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
a
Population
32.0
14.0
25.0
14.0
See Appendix A for measurement procedures.
Sales (1,000 SEK).
c
Branch (six branches), different weightings. Branches, according to weightings from science
park firms, step by step.
d
Significance at the 5 percent level (p < .05).
e
Mean differences university spin-off (USO)/corporate spin-off (CSO).
b
396
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
sample was drawn on a stratified basis
(branches, according to weightings from
science park firms, step by step). Table 2
shows that these NTBFs provided
employment (arithmetic mean) for 8.2
(USOs) and 14.4 (CSOs). The CSOs are
considerably larger than the USOs, in
terms of employment. The table also
shows the importance (percent) of
science parks for the decision to start
the firm (scale 3–5, somewhat important
to very important). Table 2 shows the
employment data, branch, and age of the
firms of all independent businesses in
the survey established by academics and
professional businessmen. Table 2 shows
that there is no support for the view
that the businesses established by academics are less likely to grow (sales)
than others.
The sample of NTBFs is a subsample
obtained from a database, which purposed to analyze NTBFs that were
located on-park and NTBFs located offpark. This creates some difficulties when
justifying if the current division of the
on-park sample in USOs and CSOs is
correct. In a report by Lindholm
Dahlstrand and Wikström (1998), the
division between USOs and CSOs located
on science parks in Sweden is shown:
53.8 percent and 46.2 percent, respectively. However, in the sample used in
this paper, the division is 55.2 percent for
USOs versus 44.8 percent for USOs. One
might argue from Lindholm Dahlstrand
and Wikström’s (1998) findings that the
sample in this study is representative of
the population. Davidsson et al. (2002)
uses Swedish data to replicate previous
research while using a different definition of business to enhance the study
of effects from industry, international
versus domestic businesses, and domestic versus foreign ownership. Results
show that business age, beginning size,
ownership form, industrial sector, and
legal form are the most important factors
related to growth. Although business
growth differs among industrial sectors,
youth, ownership independence, and
small size are major factors that underlie
growth across all industries.
The method of analysis contains two
steps. The first step is a comparison of
variables (two independent t-tests) between the two types of firms—USO and
CSO (for an overview of all variables,
see Appendix A). The findings are that
there was one significant difference
between the two types of firms. The next
step of the analysis reports correlation
analyses which present the relationships
among the location-specific variables
(use of the location) and the variables
(Pearson’s correlation). The Pearson’s
correlation is used to predict the initial
factorability using visual examination,
identifying those variables that are statistically significant. The correlation
analyses present the simple relationships
among variables (Pearson’s correlation,
−1 −1). In this analysis, we found that
there is a difference between the two
types of firms, USO and CSO. Tables 3
and 4 report significant correlations
between location-specific variables used
in the study.
McMullan, Chrisman, and Vesper
(2001) argue that assistance programs
can be evaluated by measures such as
start-up propensity, growth, and profitability. All these measures are indicators
of performance, but not necessarily the
same performance. Control variables
were created in our study, in order to be
able to separate the performance due to
the firm’s capability and the impact of
the environment. The control variables
and the questions asked were subjective
measures of satisfaction regarding what
the science park environment had contributed to the firm’s ability to obtain
resources, ability to innovate, and ability
to monitor the environment. In this
paper the control variables are used to
detect differences in the science park
contribution to the USOs and CSOs.
The next section reports correlation
analyses which present the relationships
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
397
Table 3
Correlation Matrix: Firm Behavior (USOs)a
Firm Behavior
1
1. Investigation of Customer
Preferences—Importance
of Science Parkb
2. Investigation of Customer
Preferences
3. Investigation of
Competitors—Importance of
Science Parkb
4. Investigation of Competitors
5. Change of Marketing
Activities—Importance of
Science Parkb
6. Change of Marketing
Activities
7. Marketing Cooperation with
Other Firms in Science Parkb
8. Marketing Cooperation with
Other Firms
9. Long-Term Forecasting,
Marketing—Importance of
Science Parkb
10. Long-Term Forecasting,
Marketing
11. Long-Term Forecasting,
Technology—Importance of
Science Parkb
12. Long-Term Forecasting,
Technology
3
5
7
9
11
0.243*
0.313*
0.399**
—
0.437**
0.443**
a
USOs: university spin-offs.
Control variables.
*Correlation is significant (0.05 level), two-tailed.
**Correlation is significant (0.01 level), two-tailed.
b
among the factors and variables
(Pearson’s correlation). Tables 3 and 4
report correlations between variables
used in the study. (For an overview of all
variables, see Appendix B). We are interested in finding differences between
USOs and CSOs regarding their use of
location (P1 and P2).
398
Empirical Results—
Correlation Analysis
Control variables are commonly used
to identify underlying structures that
affect a dependent variable. Examples of
control variables are gender, economic
activity, age, and region. The control vari-
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Table 4
Correlation Matrix: Firm Behavior (CSOs)a
Firm Behavior
1
1. Investigation of Customer
Preferences—Importance
of Science Parkb
2. Investigation of Customer
Preferences
3. Investigation of Competitors
—Importance of Science
Parkb
4. Investigation of Competitors
5. Change of Marketing
Activities—Importance of
Science Parkb
6. Change of Marketing
Activities
7. Marketing Cooperation with
Other Firms in Science
Parkb
8. Marketing Cooperation with
Other Firms
9. Long-Term Forecasting,
Marketing—Importance of
Science Parkb
10. Long-Term Forecasting,
Marketing
11. Long-Term Forecasting,
Technology—Importance
of Science Parkb
12. Long-Term Forecasting,
Technology
3
5
7
9
11
0.554**
0.249*
0.267**
0.201*
0.187*
0.550**
a
CSOs: corporate spin-offs.
Control variables.
*Correlation is significant (0.05 level), two-tailed.
**Correlation is significant (0.01 level), two-tailed.
b
ables in this study and the questions
asked were the subjective measures of
satisfaction with regard to what the
science park environment had contributed to the firm’s ability to obtain
resources, ability to innovate, and ability
to monitor the environment. In this paper
the control variables were used to detect
differences in satisfaction of the science
park environment contribution between
USOs and CSOs as well as effects that are
independent of the science park environment. The control variables were
developed based on a five-point Likert
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
399
scale ranging from 1 = no influential
effect on firm behavior from the science
park environment to 5 = substantial influential effect on firm behavior from the
science park environment. The variables
used in our study relate to several basic
dimensions of a firm’s external environment. These dimensions include environmental hostility: customer preferences,
competitors and marketing activities, and
long-term forecasting of markets and
technology. The concept of external environment is intended to include those
elements external to the NTBFs’ boundaries that are affected by a firm’s actions
as well as more general technological
forces that provide the broader context
of the NTBFs’ operations. The content of
firm-level behavior is defined in terms of
the firm’s overall collection of business
practices and competitive tactics. Investigation of customer preferences and competitors (see Tables 3 and 4) are the
manifestations of the firm’s more basic
strategic direction and how the firm will
reach it.
Tables 3 and 4 present a comparison
between firm behavior of the two
samples (USOs and CSOs). Several
dimensions of firm behavior were developed based on responses from the
managers of the 134 NTBFs on a fivepoint Likert scale (see Appendix B).
The highest correlations in the sample
were between change of marketing
activities–importance of science park
and long-term forecasting, technology–
importance of science park (correlation
is significant at the 0.01 level).
Several interesting features are
revealed in the correlation analysis. The
tables show that the same general patterns occur across the various types of
firms regarding the investigation of competitors–importance of science park (correlation is significant at the 0.05 level).
No relationship was found between
marketing cooperation with other firms
in science park in the group of firms
(USOs). The control variable importance
400
of science park was significantly related
to investigation of customer preferences
and long-term forecasting, marketing–
importance of science park (USOs at the
1 percent level and CSOs at the 5 percent
level). These relationships indicate that
firms that use resources and networks
will tend to apply market and technology strategies.
P1 (The importance of science park is
higher for USOs’ ability to manage customer preferences, competitors, and marketing activities) cannot be supported.
P2 (The importance of science park is
higher for USOs’ ability to manage longterm forecasting of markets and technology activities) can be partially supported,
because there was a stronger correlation
between long-term forecasting, marketing–importance of science park (USOs at
the 1 percent level and CSOs at the 5
percent level). The results of the exploration of the propositions are interesting
because the differences that occurred
were significant. CSOs tend to favor marketing cooperation with other firms in
science parks and the investigation of
customer preferences. Marketing strategies among CSOs are of particular interest in trade, as the firms in trade
emphasize market strategies significantly
more than USOs.
Conclusions
The study was conducted with empirical data collected in 1999 from small
firms in Sweden (on science parks). Variables such as firm growth and profitability may reflect an environment with
a diminishing capacity to support business operations. In terms of employment, the CSOs are considerably larger
than the USOs (however, no significant
differences). The study also shows the
importance (percent) of science parks for
the decision to start the firm (scale 3–5,
somewhat important to very important).
Science parks probably attract a motivated group of entrepreneurs. This study
shows a general trend in sales growth
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
(NTBFs on science parks, yearly averages
1996–1998: 37.1 percent (USOs) and
41.2 percent (CSOs), and profitability: 1.3
percent (USOs) and CSOs (6.0 percent).
The collected data cover all three years
of the NTBF’s operational life. Low
industry growth will often discourage
innovation to existing businesses, and
declining profit margins can force managers to explore alternative areas for
capital investments. Environmental context must be regarded by managers and
scholars alike as a variable that may
either enhance or stifle the impact of firm
behavior on performance.
These small firms do not plan as formally as a typical “planning firm,” but the
NTBF does not plan as intuitively as the
simple firm either. The NTBF context is
normally characterized by a complex and
dynamic or hostile environment, including high technology and product/service
change due to intense competition. The
findings from this study confirm that the
external environment (competitiveness)
faced by the NTBFs has an impact on the
importance of firm behavior. The firm’s
need of management increases when
technology and environments have
changed, and they may also have external demands for change.
Analysis of firm behavior was conducted using a multivariate approach.
The importance of the science park was
included in the study as a control variable. The variable showed whether the
firms had received support from a
science park. The study indicated that
the relations between the change of marketing activities and long-term forecasting are strongest for both USOs and
CSOs. This is exemplified by the two
samples used in this study. Change of
marketing activities strives to create customer loyalty by uniquely meeting a
particular need. The marketing effort is
aggressive. The firm does not produce a
higher quality of products and/or services; the firm may just sell harder.
The long-term forecasting, technology–
importance of science park is another
key factor, and the complexities of the
innovations are such that engineering
and research and development personnel
will often play a major role in their conception and development. Firms clearly
place a great emphasis on market and
technology research.
The environment has long been considered as one of the critical contingencies in strategic management. Our
research used one environmental construct: the hostile environment. The
intensity of competition exerts more
pressure on the firm, and thus a greater
need for firm behavior is necessary in
a hostile environment. Less slack for
experimenting with new strategies is
available because such environments
force firms to be more oriented toward
markets and competitors. All the
factors—innovativeness, risk-taking, and
competitive aggressiveness—may be
present when a firm engages in new
entry. The discussion in this paper was
focused at the firm level. This firm-level
approach is consistent with classical
economics in which the individual entrepreneur is regarded as a firm.
The study’s findings should be interpreted in the light of several limitations.
In addition to generally acknowledged
limitations of survey research is the
incompleteness of the set of variables—
firm behavior—considered (only six variables). Small firms are usually associated
with simple processes and management
systems. However, these variables may
be associated more with the planning
philosophy than with firm size and small
NTBFs are not typically simple. This
study identifies some core areas of
importance for firm behavior and the
impact of these. Future research should
focus on the accuracy and experience of
costing information.
References
Advisory Council for Applied Research
and Development (ACARD) (1983).
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
401
Improving Research Links between
Higher Education and Industry.
London: HMSO.
Ackroyd, S. (1995). “On the Structure and
Dynamics of Some Small, UK-Based
Information
Technology
Firms,”
Journal of Management Studies 2,
141–161.
Ambrosio, J. (1991). “Incubators Nurture
Start-Up Firms: Do Incubators Really
Work?” Computerworld 25(5), 105–
106.
Amirahmadi, H., and G. Saff (1993).
“Science Parks: A Critical Assessment,”
Journal of Planning Literature 8(2),
107–123.
Borch, O. J., M. Huse, and K. Senneseth
(1999). “Resource Configuration, Competitive Strategies and Corporate
Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Examination of Small Firms,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24(1),
49–70.
Chandler, G. N., and S. H. Hanks (1994).
“Market Attractiveness, ResourceBased Capabilities, Venture Strategies
and Venture Performance,” Journal of
Business Venturing 9, 331–349.
Cooper, A. C. (1984). “Contrasts in the
Role of Incubator Organisations in
the Founding of Growth-Oriented
Firms,” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research.
Covin, J. G., and D. P. Slevin (1989).
“Strategic Management of Small Firms
in Hostile and Benign Environment,”
Strategic Management Journal 10(1),
75–87.
——— (1991). “A Conceptual Model of
Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior,”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(1) (Fall), 7–25.
Currie, J. (1985). Science Parks in
Britain—Their Role for the Late
1980s.
Cardiff:
CSP
Economic
Publications.
Davidsson, P., B. Kirchoff, H.-J. Abdulnasser, and H. Gustavsson (2002).
“Empirical Analysis of Business
Growth Factors Using Swedish Data,”
402
Journal of Small Business Management 40(4), 332–349.
Doz, Y. L. (1988). “Technology Partnerships between Larger and Smaller
Firms: Some Critical Issues,” in Cooperative Strategies in International
Business: Joint Ventures and Technology Partnerships Between Firms, ed. F.
J. Contractor and P. Lorange. Boston,
MA: Lexington Books, 31–57.
Eul, F. M. (1985). “Science Parks and
Innovation Centres—Property, the
Unconsidered Element.” In: Science
Parks and Innovation Centres: Their
Economic and Social Impact, ed. J. M.
Gibb. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Freel, M. S. (1998). “Evolution, Innovation
and Learning. Evidence from Case
Studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional,” Development 10(2), 137–149.
Gemunden, H. G. (1985). “Perceived
Risk and Information Search. A Systematic Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” International Journal
of Research in Marketing 2(2), 79–
100.
Gregory, W. D., and T. P. Sheahen (1991).
“Technology Transfer by Spin-Off
Companies versus Licensing,” in
University Spin-Offs Companies—
Economic
Development,
Faculty
Entrepreneurs,
and
Technology
Transfer, eds. A. M. Brett, D. V.
Gibson, and R. W. Smilor. Baltimore,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 133–151.
Hawes, J. M., and S. H. Barnhouse (1987).
“How Purchasing Agents Handle Personal Risk,” Industrial Marketing
Management 16, 287–293.
Johannisson, B. (1998). “Personal Networks in Emerging Knowledge-Based
Firms: Spatial and Functional Patterns,” Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development 10, 297–312.
Jones-Evans, D. (1996). “Technical Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Experience,” International Small-Business
Journal 14(3), 15–39.
Kelly, T. (1987). The UK Computer Industry. London: Croom Helm.
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Khandwalla, P. N. (1987). “Generators of
Pioneering-Innovative Management:
Some Indian Evidence,” Organization
Studies 8(1), 35–59.
Klofsten, M., M. Jonsson, and J. Simón
(1998). “Supporting the Pre-Commercialization Stages of TechnologyBased
Firms: The
Effects
of
Small-Scale Venture Capital,” Venture
Capital 1, 83–93.
Lindelöf, P. (2002). “Science Parks as an
Entrepreneurial Milieu,” Ph.D. diss.
in Swedish, School of Economics
and Commercial Law, University of
Göteborg.
Lindholm-Dahlstrand,
Å.,
and
A.
Wikström (1998). Teknikpark som
Tillväxtmiljö (in Swedish). Stockholm:
Teknikbrostiftelsen.
Little, A. D. (1979). New TechnologyBased Firms in the UK and Federal
Republic of Germany. London: Wilton
House Publications.
Löfsten, H., and P. Lindelöf (2001).
“Science Parks in Sweden—Industrial
Renewal and Development?,” R&D
Management 31(3), 309–322.
——— (2002). “Science Parks and the
Growth of New Technology-Based
Firms—Academic-Industry Links, Innovation and Markets,” Research
Policy 31(6), 859–876.
——— (2003). “Determinants for an
Entrepreneurial Milieu—Science Parks
and Business Policy in Growing
Firms,” Technovation: An International
Journal
of
Technical
Innovation and Entrepreneurship
23( January 1), 51–64.
Löwegren-Williams, M. (2000). Advantages of a Science Park Location: Case
Studies from the Ideon Science Park.
Lund: University of Lund.
LU 92 (1992). “Näringslivets Utveckling
Till 2002–Tillväxt Eller Stagnation (in
Swedish),” Bilaga 3, 121–122.
MacDonald, S. (1987). “British Science
Parks: Reflections on the Politics of
High Technology,” R&D Management
17(1), 25–37.
McDougall, P., P. Phillips, J. G. Covin, R.
B. Robinson Jr., and L. Herron (1994).
“The Effects of Industry Growth and
Strategic Breath on New Venture
Performance and Strategy Content,”
Strategic Management Journal 15(7),
537–554.
McMullan, E., J. J. Chrisman, and K.
Vesper (2001). “Some Problems in
Using Subjective Measures of Effectiveness to Evaluate Entrepreneurial
Assistance Programmes,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26(1),
37–54.
Mian, S. (1996). “Assessing Value-Added
Contributions of University Technology Business Incubators to Tenant
Firms,” Research Policy 25, 325–335.
——— (1997). “Assessing and Managing
the University Technology Business
Incubator: An Integrative Framework,”
Journal of Business Venturing 12,
251–285.
Mian, S. A. (1994). “US UniversitySponsored Technology Incubators:
An Overview of Management, Policies
and
Performance,”
Technovation
14(9), 515–528.
Miller, D. (1983). “The Correlates of
Entrepreneurship in Three Types of
Firms,” Management Science 29(7),
770–791.
——— (1987). “The Structural and Environmental Correlates of Business
Strategy,”
Strategic
Management
Journal 8, 55–76.
Miller, D., C. Droge, and J. M. Toulouse
(1988). “Strategic Processes and
Content as Mediators between Organizational Context and Structure,”
Academy of Management Journal
31(4), 544–569.
Miller, D., and P. Friesen (1978). “Archetypes of Strategy Formulation,”
Management Science 24(9), 921–933.
Miller, D., and P. H. Friesen (1982). “Innovation in Conservative and Entrepreneurial Firms: Two Models of Strategic
Momentum,” Strategic Management
Journal 3(1), 1–25.
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
403
——— (1983). “Strategy-Making and
Environment: The Third Link,” Strategic Management Journal 4(3), 221–
235.
Mitchell, V.-W. (1995). “Organizational
Risk Perception and Reduction: A
Literature Review,” British Journal of
Management 6, 115–133.
Monck, C. S. P., R. B. Porter, P. Quintas,
D. J. Storey, and P. Wynarczyk (1988).
Science Parks and the Growth of High
Technology Firms. London: Croom
Helm.
Nasyak, A., and S. Greenfield (1994).
“The Use of Management Accounting
Information for Managing Micro Businesses,” in Finance and the Small
Firm, ed. A. Hughes and D. J. Storey.
London: Routledge.
Oakey, R. (1991). “Innovation and the
Management of Marketing in High
Technology Small Firms,” Journal of
Marketing Management 7, 343–356.
——— (1995). “High Technology-Based
Firms, Variable Barriers to Growth,”
International Small Business Journal
13(3), 103–104.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the
Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell Publishers.
Perren, L. J., A. Berry, and M. Partridge
(1998). “The Evolution of Management
Information, Control and DecisionMaking Processes in Small Growth
Oriented Service Sector Businesses:
Exploratory Lessons From Four Cases
of Success,” Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development 5(4),
352–362.
Perren, L., and P. Grant (2000). “The Evolution of Management Accounting
Routines in Small Businesses: A Social
Construction Perspective,” Management Accounting Research 11,
391–411.
Pierce, J. L., and A. L. Delbecq (1977).
“Organizational Structure, Individual
Attitudes and Innovation,” Academy
of Management Review 2, 1389–
1409.
404
Quintas, P., D. Wield, and D. Massey
(1992). “Academic-Industry Links and
Innovation: Questioning the Science
Park Model,” Technovation 12(3),
161–175.
Roper, S. (1997). “Product Innovation and
Small Business Growth: A Comparison
of the Strategies of German, U.K., and
Irish Companies,” Small Business Economics 9, 523–537.
Russo, M. W., and P. A. Fouts (1997). “A
Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance
and Profitability,” Academy of Management Journal 40(3), 534–559.
Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1990). Forskningsparker och företagsrelationer:
Etablering av Novum forskningspark
i organisationsteoretisk Belysning (in
Swedish). Stockholm: Regionplaneoch trafikkontoret.
Segers, J. P. (1993). “Strategic Partnering between New-Technology Based
Firms and Large Established Firms
in the Biotechnology and MicroElectronics Industries in Belgium,”
Small Business Economics 5, 271–281.
Siegel, D. S., P. Westhead, and M. Wright
(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, 177–184.
Slevin, D. P., and J. G. Covin (1994).
“Entrepreneurship as Firm Behaviour:
A Research Model,” in Advances in
Firm Emergence, Growth and Entrepreneurship, ed. J. E. Katz and R. H.
Brockhaus. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Sweeney, T. W., H. L. Mathews, and D. T.
Wilson (1973). “An Analysis of Industrial Buyers’ Risk Reducing Behaviour: Some Personality Correlates.”
Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 217–221.
Tesfaye, B. (1993). Determinants of entrepreneurial processes: a case study of
technology-based spin-off company
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
formation. PhD diss., University of
Stockholm.
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.
Westhead, P., and D. J. Storey (1994). An
Assessment of Firms Located On and
Off Science Parks in the United
Kingdom. London: HMSO.
Williams, B. R. (1985). The Direct and
Indirect Role of Higher Education in
Industrial Innovation—What Should
We Expect? London: Technical Change
Centre.
Yap, C. M., and W. E. Souder (1993). “A
Filter System for Technology Evaluation and Selection,” Technovation
13(7), 449–469.
Yeoh, P.-L., and I. Jeong (1995). “Contingency
Relationships
between
Entrepreneurship, Export Channel
Structure and Environment. A Proposed Conceptual Model of Export
Performance,” European Journal of
Marketing 29(8), 95–115.
Yli-Renko, H., E. Autio, and H. J. Sapienza
(2001). “Social Capital, Knowledge
Acquisition, and Knowledge Exploitation in Young Technology-Based
Firms,” Strategic Management Journal
22, 587–613.
Appendix A. Growth
and Profitability
Growth in this study is not analyzed
as a separate employment element.
Growth must be seen as employment
growth and sales, which lead to increasing resources within the firm. Expanding
sales are a central element in a successful innovation process, but it is also
important to measure profitability (profit
margin), a sort of relative performance.
Growth dimensions are expressed as
sales growth (turnovers) and employment growth (number of employees):
gGrowth%
year
=
 x n +1  − 1 +  x n + 2  − 1
 xn 
 x n +1 
2
where xn = value year n
n = year (base).
, (1)
The profitability (profit margin) is calculated as
net income
+ financial costs
Profitability =
. (2)
sales
LINDELÖF AND LÖFSTEN
405
406
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
b
University spin-offs.
Corporate spin-offs.
c
Yes = 1, No = 0.
*Significance at the 5 percent level ( p < .05).
a
Investigation of Customer Preferences
Investigation of Competitors
Change of Marketing Activities
Marketing Cooperation with Other Firms
Long-Term Forecasting, Marketing
Long-Term Forecasting, Technology
Variables
2.54
2.71
1.95
1.00
2.30
1.90
1a
0b
2.03
2.24
1.33
1.02
2.23
1.47
Mean
0.82
3.17
0.53
0.21
0.81
1.25
F
0.37
0.08
0.47
0.65
0.37
0.27
Significant
Table A
Variables,* Firm Behavior
.09
.08
.02
.82
.80
.12
p-Value
1.66
1.41
1.56
0.92
1.49
1.58
1
S.D.
Appendix B. Variables List, Mean Differences, and Significances
1.73
1.62
1.44
0.85
1.65
1.42
0
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
1–5
Scalec