IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v106y2016i2d10.1007_s11192-015-1804-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Looking for best performers: a pilot study towards the evaluation of science parks

Author

Listed:
  • M. Ferrara

    (Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria
    CRIOS Bocconi University)

  • F. Lamperti

    (Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies
    CRIOS Bocconi University
    MEDAlics, University for Foreigners “Dante Alighieri” of Reggio Calabria)

  • R. Mavilia

    (CRIOS Bocconi University
    MEDAlics, University for Foreigners “Dante Alighieri” of Reggio Calabria)

Abstract

Science Parks are complex institutions that aim at promoting innovation and entrepreneurship at local level. Their activities entertain a large set of stakeholders going from internal and external researchers to entrepreneurs, local level public administration and universities. As a consequence, their performances extends on a large set of dimensions affecting each other. This feature makes Science Parks particularly difficult to be properly compared. However, evaluating their performances in a comparable way may be important for at least three reasons: (1) to identify best practices in each activity and allow a faster diffusion of these practices, (2) to inform potential entrepreneurs about institutions better supporting start-ups birth and first stages and (3) to guide public policies in the distribution of funds and incentives. The multidimensional nature of Science Parks raises the problem of aggregating performances in simple indexes that can be accessed by stakeholders willing to compare different structures on the basis of their own preferences. This paper exploits a new dataset on Italian Science Parks to provide a pilot study towards this direction. In particular, we apply Choquet integral based Multi-Attribute Value Theory to elicit stakeholders’ preferences on different dimensions of Science Parks’ performances and construct a robust index allowing to rank them. This tool can be used to support the decision making process of multiple stakeholders looking for best (or worst) performers and allows to account both for subjective nature of the evaluation process and the interactions among decision attributes. Despite the present study employs only a limited number of respondents and performance measures, the procedure we present can be straightforwardly adapted to much richer environments.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Ferrara & F. Lamperti & R. Mavilia, 2016. "Looking for best performers: a pilot study towards the evaluation of science parks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 717-750, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1804-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1804-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1804-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1804-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Meyer & Grégory Ponthière, 2011. "Eliciting Preferences on Multiattribute Societies with a Choquet Integral," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 133-168, February.
    2. Francesco Lamperti & Roberto Mavilia & Simona Castellini, 2017. "The role of Science Parks: a puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 158-183, February.
    3. David Minguillo & Mike Thelwall, 2015. "Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities? Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 1057-1081, January.
    4. Grabisch, Michel & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Meyer, Patrick, 2008. "A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 766-785, April.
    5. Per Davidsson & Frédéric Delmar & Johan Wiklund, 2006. "Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3971.
    6. Carmen M. Reinhart & Kenneth S. Rogoff, 2014. "Recovery from Financial Crises: Evidence from 100 Episodes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 50-55, May.
    7. Cruciani, Caterina & Giove, Silvio & Pinar, Mehmet & Sostero, Matteo, 2012. "Constructing the FEEM Sustainability Index: A Choquet-Integral Application," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 130550, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. David Minguillo & Robert Tijssen & Mike Thelwall, 2015. "Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 701-725, January.
    9. Gerardi, Dino & McLean, Richard & Postlewaite, Andrew, 2009. "Aggregation of expert opinions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 339-371, March.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Squicciarini, Mariagrazia, 2009. "Science parks, knowledge spillovers, and firms' innovative performance: evidence from Finland," Economics Discussion Papers 2009-32, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Colombo, Massimo G. & Delmastro, Marco, 2002. "How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1103-1122, September.
    13. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    14. Danilo Liberati & Marco Marinucci & Giulia Martina Tanzi, 2016. "Science and technology parks in Italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 694-729, August.
    15. Christophe Labreuche & Michel Grabisch, 2003. "The Choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales in multicriteria decision making," Post-Print hal-00272090, HAL.
    16. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2003. "U.S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1323-1356, November.
    17. Richard Ferguson & Christer Olofsson, 2004. "Science Parks and the Development of NTBFs-- Location, Survival and Growth," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 5-17, January.
    18. Siegel, Donald S. & Westhead, Paul & Wright, Mike, 2003. "Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1357-1369, November.
    19. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred & Reijnen, Jeroen O N, 1993. "Employment Growth and Innovation at the Firm Level," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 153-159, May.
    20. Link, Albert N & Link, Kevin R, 2003. "On the Growth of U.S. Science Parks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 81-85, January.
    21. Grabisch, Michel, 1996. "The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 445-456, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge-Gil & Salvador Pérez-Canto & Paolo Landoni, 2023. "The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1489-1531, August.
    2. Wei Keat Benny Ng & Robin Junker & Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek & Myriam Cloodt & Theo Arentze, 2020. "Perceived benefits of science park attributes among park tenants in the Netherlands," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1196-1227, August.
    3. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & André Spithoven, 2019. "The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 559-595, April.
    4. Corrocher, Nicoletta & Lamperti, Francesco & Mavilia, Roberto, 2019. "Do science parks sustain or trigger innovation? Empirical evidence from Italy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 140-151.
    5. Laspia, Alessandro & Sansone, Giuliano & Landoni, Paolo & Racanelli, Domenico & Bartezzaghi, Emilio, 2021. "The organization of innovation services in science and technology parks: Evidence from a multi-case study analysis in Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Mahdi Yami & Gao Changchun & Gao Han, 2018. "The Science and Technology Parks (STPs) Evaluation Model Approach to Eco-Innovation Key Indicator," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(11), pages 187-200, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge-Gil & Salvador Pérez-Canto & Paolo Landoni, 2023. "The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1489-1531, August.
    2. Ng, Wei Keat Benny & Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Cloodt, Myriam & Arentze, Theo, 2021. "Perceptual measures of science parks: Tenant firms’ associations between science park attributes and benefits," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    3. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & André Spithoven, 2019. "The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 559-595, April.
    4. Kholekile L. Gwebu & Jeffrey Sohl & Jing Wang, 2019. "Differential performance of science park firms: an integrative model," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 193-211, January.
    5. Kelsi G. Hobbs & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2017. "Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 957-976, August.
    6. Francesco Lamperti & Roberto Mavilia & Simona Castellini, 2017. "The role of Science Parks: a puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 158-183, February.
    7. T. Theeranattapong & D. Pickernell & C. Simms, 2021. "Systematic literature review paper: the regional innovation system-university-science park nexus," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2017-2050, December.
    8. Ng, Wei Keat Benny & Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Cloodt, Myriam & Arentze, Theo, 2022. "Exploring science park location choice: A stated choice experiment among Dutch technology-based firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    9. Hülya Ünlü & Serdal Temel & Kristel Miller, 2023. "Understanding the drivers of patent performance of University Science Parks in Turkey," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 842-872, June.
    10. Elisa Salvador, 2012. "Italian Science Parks And Incubators: Some Considerations Arising From A Questionnaire Investigation On Research Spin-Off Firms," Post-Print hal-02093934, HAL.
    11. Elisa Salvador, 2011. "Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 203-232, April.
    12. Mariagrazia Squicciarini, 2008. "Science Parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: who innovates more? A duration model," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 45-71, February.
    13. Fernando Ubeda & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Eva-María Mora-Valentín, 2019. "Do firms located in science and technology parks enhance innovation performance? The effect of absorptive capacity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 21-48, February.
    14. Eduardo Cadorin & Magnus Klofsten & Hans Löfsten, 2021. "Science Parks, talent attraction and stakeholder involvement: an international study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-28, February.
    15. Corrocher, Nicoletta & Lamperti, Francesco & Mavilia, Roberto, 2019. "Do science parks sustain or trigger innovation? Empirical evidence from Italy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 140-151.
    16. Alberto Albahari & Magnus Klofsten & Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero, 2019. "Science and Technology Parks: a study of value creation for park tenants," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1256-1272, August.
    17. Ng, Wei Keat Benny & Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Cloodt, Myriam & Arentze, Theo, 2019. "Towards a segmentation of science parks: A typology study on science parks in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 719-732.
    18. Danilo Liberati & Marco Marinucci & Giulia Martina Tanzi, 2016. "Science and technology parks in Italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 694-729, August.
    19. Ilaria Mariotti & Elisa Salvador, 2015. "On-park and off-park research spin-offs: some insights from an empirical investigation on Italy," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 19(5/6), pages 405-422.
    20. Ángela Vásquez-Urriago & Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Rico & Evita Paraskevopoulou, 2014. "The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 835-873, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1804-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.