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.
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).
Abbas Mohammadzadeh,.. and Shaghayegh Haghjooy Javanmard,.. (2022). A review on attraction factors of science and technology parks to firms in health sector. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 12(5), 1-13.
MLA
Abbas Mohammadzadeh,.. , and Shaghayegh Haghjooy Javanmard,.. . "A review on attraction factors of science and technology parks to firms in health sector", Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 12, 5, 2022, 1-13.
HARVARD
Abbas Mohammadzadeh .., Shaghayegh Haghjooy Javanmard .. (2022). 'A review on attraction factors of science and technology parks to firms in health sector', Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 12(5), pp. 1-13.
CHICAGO
.. Abbas Mohammadzadeh and .. Shaghayegh Haghjooy Javanmard, "A review on attraction factors of science and technology parks to firms in health sector," Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 12 5 (2022): 1-13,
VANCOUVER
Abbas Mohammadzadeh .., Shaghayegh Haghjooy Javanmard .. A review on attraction factors of science and technology parks to firms in health sector. J Educ Health Promot, 2022; 12(5): 1-13.
