The University Incubator: Insights in the Entrepreneurial Process from a Network Perspective

Research to date has identified incubator units as an effective mechanism for supporting the growth and development of small entrepreneurial firms. Advantages are gained not only from the provision of appropriate facilities and external managerial expertise on site, but also from the opportunity to develop entrepreneurial networks facilitated by the spatial proximity of incubator firms. Therefore, the research question upon which the paper is based investigates the impact of context, in other words the degree to which the networking opportunities provided by the university incubator support the small firm in its pursuit of sustainability and growth

Sense and sensibility: The role of business incubator client advisors in assisting high-technology entrepreneurs to make sense of investment readiness status

For high-technology entrepreneurs, attaining an appropriate level of investment to support new ventures is challenging as substantial investment is usually required prior to revenue generation. Consequently, entrepreneurs must present their firms as investment ready in the context of an uncertain market response and an absence of any trading history. Gaining tenancy within a business incubator can be advantageous to this process given that placement enhances entrepreneurial contact with potential investors whilst professional client advisors (CAs) use their expertise to assist in the development of a credible business plan. However, for the investment proposal to be successful, it must make sense to fund managers despite their lack of technological expertise and product knowledge. Thus, this article explores how incubator CAs and entrepreneurs act in concert to mould innovative ideas into plausible business plans that make sense to venture fund investors. To illustrate this process, we draw upon empirical evidence which suggests that CAs act as sense makers between venture fund managers (VFMs) and high-technology entrepreneurs, yet their role and influence appears undervalued. These findings have implications for entrepreneurial access to much needed funding and also for the identification of investment opportunities for VFMs. © 2011 Taylor & Francis.

Additionality of Incubator Support on Networks of University Spin-Out Firms

The formation rate of university spin-out firms has increased markedly over the past decade. While this is seen as an important channel for the commercialisation of academic research, concerns have centred around high failure rates and no-to-low growth among those which survive compared to other new technology based firms. Universities have responded to this by investing in incubators to assist spin-outs to overcome their liability of newness. Yet how effective are incubators in supporting these firms? Here we examine this in terms of the structural networks that spin-out firms form, the role of the incubator in this and the effect of this on the spin-out process.

Characterization and optimization of experimental variables within a reproducible bladder encrustation model and in vitro evaluation of the efficacy of urease inhibitors for the prevention of medical device-related encrustation

This study presents a reproducible, cost-effective in vitro encrustation model and, furthermore, describes the effects of components of the artificial urine and the presence of agents that modify the action of urease on encrustation on commercially available ureteral stents. The encrustation model involved the use of small-volume reactors (700 mL) containing artificial urine and employing an orbital incubator (at 37 degrees C) to ensure controlled stirring. The artificial urine contained sources of calcium and magnesium (both as chlorides), albumin and urease. Alteration of the ratio (% w/w) of calcium salt to magnesium salt affected the mass of encrustation, with the greatest encrustation noted whenever magnesium was excluded from the artificial urine. Increasing the concentration of albumin, designed to mimic the presence of protein in urine, significantly decreased the mass of both calcium and magnesium encrustation until a plateau was observed. Finally, exclusion of urease from the artificial urine significantly reduced encrustation due to the indirect effects of this enzyme on pH. Inclusion of the urease inhibitor, acetohydroxamic acid, or urease substrates (methylurea or ethylurea) into the artificial medium markedly reduced encrustation on ureteral stents. In conclusion, this study has described the design of a reproducible, cost-effective in vitro encrustation model. Encrustation was markedly reduced on biomaterials by the inclusion of agents that modify the action of urease. These agents may, therefore, offer a novel clinical approach to the control of encrustation on urological medical devices. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Structural Capital of University Spin-Out Firms: The Moderating Role of University Incubators

University incubators (UI) are generally believed to be important in the successful commercialisation of university spin-outs (USO) with over half of all UK Universities having established an on-campus UI. In this chapter we examine the value of UIs in the spin-out process, focusing on the structural networks of USOs located in a UI as compared to USOs in a University with no access to a UI. Our primary research question is therefore: to what extent does the structural network of USOs with access to an on-campus UI differ from USOs without? The research therefore con-tributes to a growing critique of the effectiveness of UIs in commercialis-ing academic research and the recognition of positive direct and indirect externalities from participation in networks. Through network mapping of all USOs from two research intensive universities, we profile and ana-lyse the formal and informal network ties of USOs to various partners in-ternal and external to the host university. Through interviews we also consider how these networks enhance the resources and capabilities of USOs. Our findings highlight significant differences, with USOs located in a UI having more informal but fewer formal ties, both to other USOs as well as within the host University. In contrast, location in an incuba-tor was not found to affect the extent and nature of ties with external or-ganisations. Reasons for these differences are examined through inter-views with the USOs and point to various factors including the proactive brokering role of incubator and university staff, university bureaucracy, the hidden networks of executive board members across USOs, university equity investment policy and complementary technologies.