Authors
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, a rapidly growing number of science and technology
parks (STPs) in health sector have emerged across the world. There has been little discussion in
the literature to show how STPs could make an attractive environment to absorb and retain potential
firms. This is even more challenging for specialized STPs in health sector. The aim of this study is
to identify the attractive factors for firms in a STP in health sector.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review method was undertaken to review the literature
on seven databases (ScienceDirect, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, EconPapers, PubMed,
and ISI Web of Science) for peer‑reviewed articles published until 2019. The search results were
screened against the inclusion of criteria to ensure they met the objectives. The eligible papers were
then assessed on the basis of the full text, and finally the results were extracted.
RESULTS: The attractive factors for firms and talents in multidimensional STPs and those in health
sector are extracted and summarized. The attractive factors of multidimensional STPs, which
includes health sector firms, and those specialized in health sector are summarized in three main
categories; factors created by government and universities, and factors related to STP policies and
those expected by the firms.
CONCLUSION: To make STPs attractive for firms in health sector, there is a list of factors that
are required to be done not only by STP itself, but also by the national and local government and
industries. It is important to consider the factors that are expected by the firms to be implemented.
The results of this study suggest that making STPs attractive for health sector firms needs close
collaboration between government, universities, related industries, and STPs all together.
Keywords
- Henriques IC, Sobreiro VA, Kimura H. Science and technology
park: Future challenges. Technol Soc 2018;53:144‑60.
2. Díez‑Vial I, Montoro‑Sánchez Á. How knowledge links with
universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park.
Technovation 2016;50:41‑52.
3. International Association of Science Parks and Areas of
Innovation; 2019. Available from: https://www.iasp.ws/. [Last
accessed on 2019 Nov 07].
4. Albahari A, Barge‑Gil A, Pérez‑Canto S, Modrego A. The Influence
of Science and Technology Parks Characteristics on Firms´
Innovation Results. 35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013.
Spain: Barcelona; 2013.
5. Albahari A, Barge‑Gil A, Pérez‑Canto S, Modrego A. The
influence of Science and Technology Park characteristics on firms’
innovation results. Pap Reg Sci 2018;97:253‑79.
6. CohenWM, LevinthalDA. Absorptive capacity: Anew perspective
on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 1990;35:128‑52.
7. de Medeiros Rocha M, Lima GB, Lameira VD, Quelhas OL.
Innovation as a critical success factor: An exploratory study about
the partnership among university with pharmaceutical industry
in Brazil. J Technol Manag Innov 2012;7:148‑60.
8. Hobbs KG, Link AN, Scott JT. Science and technology parks:
An annotated and analytical literature review. J Technol Transf
2017;42:957‑76.
9. Rowe D. Setting up, Managing and Evaluating EU Science and
Technology Parks. Brussels: EU Commission, Forthcoming; 2013.
10. Zhang Y. Critical factors for science park management: The North
American and European experience. Int J Entrep Innov Manag
2004;4:575‑86.
11. Huibing X, Nengli S. Exploration of science parks. Chin J Popul
Resour Environ 2005;3:55‑9.
12. Ruiz MS, Costa PR, Kniess CT, Ribeiro AP. Proposal of a
theoretical model for the implementation and scalability of science
parks: A case study. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação
2017;14:2‑15.
13. Wasim MU. Factor for science park planning. World Technopolis
Rev 2014;3:97‑108.
14. Hladchenko M, Pinheiro R. Implementing the triple helix model:
Means‑ends decoupling at the state level? Minerva 2019;57:1‑22.
15. Machado HV, Lazzarotti F, Bencke FF. Innovation models and
technological parks: Interaction between parks and innovation
agents. J Technol Manag Innov 2018;13:104‑14.
16. Rowe D. Setting up, Managing and Evaluating EU Science and
Technology Parks: An Advice and Guidance Report on Good
Practice: EUR‑OP; 2014.
17. Leyden DP, Link AN, Siegel DS. A theoretical and empirical
analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park.
IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2008;55:23‑8.
18. Yang WT, Lee WH. A study on management performance of
Taiwan high technology industry–the Hsinchu science park
experience. J Inf Optim Sci 2000;21:19‑44.
19. Koh FC, KohWT, Tschang FT. An analytical framework for science
parks and technology districts with an application to Singapore.
J Bus Ventur 2005;20:217‑39.
20. Ghoronh H, Tabaian SK, Bushehri AR, Ghorbani S. Identifying
and prioritizing policy tools to support new technology‑based
firms’ cooperation with public industries in Iran, a futures studies
approach. J Futures Stud 2017;22:57‑72.
21. Lindelof P, Lofsten H. Academic versus corporate new
technology‑based firms in Swedish science parks: An analysis
of performance, business networks and financing. Int J Technol
Manag 2005;31:334‑57.
22. Phillimore J. Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park
evaluation an analysis of Western Australian Technology Park.
Technovation 1999;19:673‑80.
23. Quintas P, Wield D, Massey D. Academic‑industry links and
innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation
1992;12:161‑75.
24. Salvador E. Are science parks and incubators good “brand
names” for spin‑offs? The case study of Turin. J Technol Transf
2011;36:203‑32.
25. Albahari A, Klofsten M, Rubio‑Romero JC. Science and technology
parks: A study of value creation for park tenants. J Technol Transf
2019;44:1256‑72.
26. Ng WK, Junker R, Appel‑Meulenbroek R, Cloodt M, Arentze T.
Perceived benefits of science park attributes among park
tenants in the Netherlands. J Technol Transf (published
online on 28 June 2019); 45, 1196–1227 (2020). [doi: 10.1007/
s10961‑019‑09744‑x].
27. Jamil F, Ismail K, Mahmood N. A review of commercialization
tools: University incubators and technology parks. Int J Econ
Financ Issues 2015;5(Special Issue) 223‑228.
28. Tajpour M, Hossini S. A study of factors affecting academic
entrepreneurship in University of Tehran Science and Technology
park. Int J Case Stud 2014;3:34‑41.
29. Chan KF, Lau T. Assessing technology incubator programs in
the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation
2005;25:1215‑28.
30. Cattapan P, Passarelli M, Petrone M. Brokerage and SME
innovation: An analysis of the technology transfer service at area
science park, Italy. Ind High Educ 2012;26:381‑91.
31. Şimşek K, Yıldırım N. Constraints to open innovation in science
and technology parks. Procedia – Soc Behav Sci 2016;235:719‑28.
32. Liefner I, Hennemann S, Xin L. Cooperation in the innovation
process in developing countries: Empirical evidence from
Zhongguancun, Beijing. Environ Plan A 2006;38:111‑30.
33. Narasimhalu AD. CUGAR: A model for open innovation in
science and technology parks. World Technopolis Rev 2013;2:10.
34. Jin C, Lingyan D. Design and role of university‑based science and
technology parks in China. Ind High Educ 2003;17:179‑85.
35. Corrocher N, Lamperti F, Mavilia R. Do science parks sustain
or trigger innovation? Empirical evidence from Italy. Technol
Forecast Soc Change 2019;147:140‑51.
36. Fikirkoca A, Saritas O. Foresight for science parks: The case of
Ankara University. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 2012;24:1071‑85.
37. Cadorin E, Johansson SG, Klofsten M. Future developments for
science parks: Attracting and developing talent. Ind High Educ
2017;31:156‑67.
38. Alishiri MJ, Makvandi P, Khamesh A. Identification and ranking
the critical success factors of business incubator of science
and technology parks – A case study: Business incubator of
Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences. J Appl Biotechnol
Rep 2018;5:64‑9.
39. Weng XH, Zhu YM, Song XY, Ahmad N. Identification of
key success factors for private science parks established from
brownfield regeneration: A case study from China. Int J Environ
Res Public Health 2019;16:E1295.
40. Shams M, Bandarian R, Behbahani FH. Identifying and ranking
the policies of the science and technology parks to support
new technology‑based firms. Int J Technol Policy Manag
2017;17:139‑58.
41. González‑Masip J, Martín‑de Castro G, Hernandez A.
Inter‑organisational knowledge spillovers: Attracting talent in
science and technology parks and corporate social responsibility
practices. J Knowl Manag 2019;23: 975‑997. [doi: 10.1108/
JKM‑06‑2018‑0367].
42. Kharabsheh R, Magableh IK, Arabiyat TS. Obstacles of success of
technology parks: The case of Jordan. Int J Econ Fina 2011;3:219‑26. - 43. Cadorin E, Magnus K, Alberto A, Henry E. Science parks and
the attraction of talents: Activities and challenges. Triple Helix
2019:6:36‑68. [doi.org/10.1163/21971927‑00601002].
44. Cabral R, Dahab SS. Science parks in developing countries: The
case of BIORIO in Brazil. Int J Technol Manag 1998;16:726‑39.
45. Cabral R. Refining the Cabral‑Dahab science park management
Paradigm. Int J Technol Manag 1998;16:813‑8.
46. Cadorin E, Klofsten M, Löfsten H. Science parks, talent attraction
and stakeholder involvement: An international study. J Technol
Transf (published online on 10 October 2019);2021:46:1‑28. [doi:
10.1007/s10961‑019‑09753‑w].
47. Eckardt F. The multidimensional role of science parks in attracting
international knowledge migrants. Reg Stud Reg Sci 2017;4:218‑26.
48. Roldan LB, Hansen PB, Garcia‑Perez‑de‑Lema D. The relationship
between favorable conditions for innovation in technology
parks, the innovation produced, and companies’ performance:
A framework for an analysis model. Innov Manag Rev
2018;15:286‑302.
49. Guy K, Autio E, Escorsa P, Hogan B, Laamanen T, Marinazzo M,
et al. The Science Park Evaluation Handbook. Innovation
Programme of Directorate General XIII; 1996. Available from:
http://www technopolis‑groupcom/resources/downloads/
reports/098a_EVALMETH_final pdf, [Last accessed on 2019 Dec
14].
50. Triadó‑Ivern XM, Aparicio‑Chueca P, Jaría‑Chacón N. Value
added contributions of science parks—the case of the barcelona
scientific Park. Int J Innov Sci 2015;7:139‑52.
51. Kang BJ. A study on the establishing development model for
research parks. J Technol Transf 2004;29:203‑10.
52. Tang M, Lee J, Liu K, Lu Y. Assessing government‑supported
technology‑based business incubators: Evidence from
China. Int J Technol Manag 2014;65:24‑48. [doi: 10.1504/
IJTM.2014.060956].
53. Hansson F, Husted K, Vestergaard J. Second generation science
parks: From structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of
the knowledge society. Technovation 2005;25:1039‑49.
54. ZhangY. Constructing a conducive environment for the growth of
knowledge‑based SMEs in a science park context: A study on the
demand‑side perceptions in Malaysia. Int J Entrep Innov Manag
2004;4:515‑28.
55. Ustundag A, Kilinc MS. Fuzzy multi‑criteria selection of
science parks for start‑up companies. Int J Comput Intell Syst
2011;4:217‑27.
56. Calvo N, Rodeiro‑Pazos D, Fernández‑López S. Science and
technology parks as accelerators of knowledge‑intensive business
services. A case study. Int J Bus Glob 2017;18:42‑57.
57. CastonguayY, Saint‑Yves‑Durand S, HamoutiR. The expectations
of businesses settled in a science park. Int J Res Sci 2018;4:1‑5.
58. Yang Z, Wang Y, Pang J, editors. The Motivation of Enterprises’
Moving into Science Parks: Difference from Enterprises’
Size, Characteristic and Industry Classification. 2010
International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics;
2010:3: 1373‑1377.
59. McCarthy IP, Silvestre BS, von Nordenflycht A, Breznitz SM.
A typology of university research park strategies: What parks
do and why it matters. J Eng Technol Manag 2018;47:110‑22.
60. Romer PM. Growth based on increasing returns due to
specialization. Am Econ Rev 1987;77:56‑62.
61. Aerts K, Matthyssens P, Vandenbempt K. Critical role
and screening practices of European business incubators.
Technovation 2007;27:254‑67.
62. McAdam M, Marlow S. Building futures or stealing secrets?
Entrepreneurial cooperation and Conflict within Business
Incubators. Int Small Bus J 2007;25:361‑82.
63. Tseng J, Samagh S, Fraser D, Landman AB. Catalyzing healthcare
transformation with digital health: Performance indicators
and lessons learned from a digital health innovation Group.
Healthc (Amst) 2018;6:150‑5.
64. DePasse JW, Chen CE, Sawyer A, Jethwani K, Sim I. Academic
medical centers as digital health catalysts. Healthc (Amst)
2014;2:173‑6.
65. Chanvarasuth N, Indaraprasirt R. Thailand biotech business:
Product of the national policy. J Commer Biotechnol 2009;15:66‑72.
66. Beaulieu M, Lehoux P. The emergence of health technology firms
through their sensegiving activities and competitive actions. Int
J Innov Manag 2017;21:1750043 (22 pages).
)