3 November2000 Sience/Technology Parks and Incubators: Models and Criteria 1 Science/Technology Parks and Incubators in ESCWA Member Countries: Models

3 November2000

Sience/Technology Parks and Incubators: Models and Criteria

1

Science/Technology Parks and Incubators in ESCWA Member Countries: Models and Criteria

Expert Group MeetingTechnology Capacity Building Initiatives

ESCWA - 1-3 November 2000

Technology Section - ESCWA

ESCWA

3 November2000


2

Contents

• Introduction: the need for S and T initiatives • Science/technology parks• Case studies:

Sophia Antipolis Technopole Cambridge Science Park

• Technology incubators• Case study: Israeli Incubators Program• High technology industry clusters• Criteria for enhancing success

3 November2000


3

Introduction: the need for Science and Technology Initiatives

• Investment in new technologies has tangible socioeconomic impact and leads to a dynamic system of innovation

• Clear policy objectives are needed

• Coordination of efforts between government, private sector and NGOs

• New models: technology parks & incubators, innovation centers and industry clusters

3 November2000


4

Science/Technology ParksWhat?

• Property-based initiatives with formal links to universities and research institutions

• Encourage formation and growth of knowledge- based businesses

• Actively support technology brokering and enhance business skills in tenant firms

• Provide assistance and advice for new technology-based firms

3 November2000


5

Science/Technology ParksWhy?

• Catalyst for local development and employment

• Hasten technology transfer to SMEs

• Facilitate formation of networks/linkages based on mutual needs and benefits

• Provide access to research facilities

• Constitute a center of innovation

• Give prestige and status to tenant firms + collective identity

3 November2000


6

Science/Technology ParksTenants

• Firms: diverse in size, business interest, technological status and future ambitions; include start-ups, outward/ inward looking firms.

• Research institutions: independent, corporate, public, university labs,…

• Universities: branches for education and training; may host the park.

• Incubators: related to research on the park.• Services: gov. agencies, finance institutions, conference

services, business center, …

3 November2000


7

Science/Technology ParksManagement

• Important role in success/failure of park

• Determines park’s character

• Should be based on tenants needs

• Should have clear objectives

• Should play a “technology broker” role

• Should take into consideration the park phases: institutional and entrepreneurial

3 November2000


8

Sophia Antipolis Technopole

• First distinguished technopole in Europe (1969) • Model for economic development• 2,300 hectares; 1,200 firms; 21,000 engineers;

5,000 researchers; university; engineering schools; research centers; …

• Center of excellence in new technologies• Innovation center

3 November2000


9

Sophia Antipolis TechnopoleSectors of activity

SECTORS Institution % Jobs %

Information and Communications Technologies (ICT)

297 26% 8998 44%

Medical and Chemical Sciences (MCS)

53 5% 1920 9%

Natural Sciences (NS) 13 1% 228 1% Higher education and Research (HER)

66 6% 2328 11%

Services / Manufacturing (S/M)

589 50% 5956 29%

Trade 121 10% 965 5% Associations / Clubs (A/C) 25 2% 135 1%

Source: www.saem-sophia-antipolis.fr

3 November2000


10

Sophia Antipolis Technopole

Evolution of institutionsFigure 3 - Classification of institutions by # jobs

66 5818

820

309

35

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

< 10 10 .. 99 100+

# employees

# in

stit

uti

on

s

1989

1999

3 November2000


11

Sophia Antipolis TechnopoleEvaluation

• Model of a “Science City” followed by the Japanese and Edinburgh University

• Not very innovative in the beginning, it has become an internationally recognized center

• Large number of start-up companies and new jobs• Development of new specialized training and

research programs • Socio-professional associations and clubs

3 November2000


12

Cambridge Science Park

• A truly entrepreneurial high technology center

• Aims at increasing interaction between Cambridge University and high-tech industries

• 64 companies on the park; 4,000 employees

• Cluster of nearly 1,200 high technology companies in the Cambridge area employing nearly 35,000 people

3 November2000


13

Cambridge Science ParkSectors of activities

SECTORS Companies %

Information and CommunicationsTechnologies

21 32%

Healthcare 25 38%Agriculture and biotechnology 2 3%Legal and business services 5 7.5%Scientific instruments and 5 7.5%Technical Consultancy and publishing 6 9%Venture capital 2 3%TOTAL 66 100%

3 November2000


14

Cambridge Science ParkEvaluation

• The park has been at the origin of virtually all new companies in the area

• Symbol of the innovative milieu: “Cambridge Phenomenon”

• Success due to: quality investment, quality science and quality people

• Negative aspect: takeover of small companies by multinationals

3 November2000


15

Technology incubatorsWhat?

• Creation and nurturing of new technology-based enterprises

• Means for promoting innovative firms and commercialization of university research

• Tools for job creation through start-up companies

• Increase the chances of new firm survival and growth

3 November2000


16

Technology incubatorsObjectives

• Overall economic development

• Economic restructuring

• Addressing specific economic development problems

• Creating employment opportunities

• Commercializing new technologies

• Property and real-estate development ventures

3 November2000


17

Technology incubatorsServices

• Shared physical facilities and infrastructure

• Access to basic business related services

• Technology expertise

• Guidance and support for venture capital

• Management support

• Market information

• Networking

3 November2000


18

Technology incubatorsOrganization and Management

• No single organizational format: flexibility, versatility and dynamism are the key criteria

• Management is responsible for policy, strategy and regulatory aspects

• Main considerations:– Networking and resources– Occupancy period, rent etc.– Graduation and follow-up

3 November2000


19

Israeli Incubators ProgramObjectives

• Started in 1990 under the supervision of the Office of the Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Industry to:– Create a sheltered environment for nurturing

innovative ideas– Employ qualified Soviet immigrants– Boost Israeli exports

3 November2000


20

Israeli Incubators Program Organization

• Steering Committee for supervision, guidance and control of incubators

• Professional director, Policymaking Board and a Project Committee for each incubator

• High caliber professional as members

• Each incubator can handle 10-15 R&D simultaneous projects

3 November2000


21

Israeli Incubators Program Projects

• Should have innovative technological ideas• Entrepreneur + team of 3-6• Budget should not exceed $172,000; grant: 85%

Project approval: experts + project committee + steering committee

• Agreement signed to ensure developer’s rights & reimbursement to the State

• Entrepreneur carries out ideas to the stage of product definition and proven feasibility; learns how to operate as commercial venture; after graduation, can obtain State support and outside investment

3 November2000


22

Israeli Incubators Program Achievements

• January 2000: – 592 projects graduates, employing ~1900 people– 52% went into production– Investments of $50,000 - $27 million– Total investments: $320 million (1.3M per project)

• ~40 start-ups leave the incubators per year• Fields of activity: software, electronics, telecom,

medical equipment and biotechnology• Massive repositories of potential ideas

3 November2000


23

Framework for initiativesCreation and establishment of initiatives

• Factual and balanced feasibility study for any initiative, taking into account national priorities

• Prerequisites for an optimal solution include: – desirable working and living environments– proximity to a major university or research institution– steady supply of skilled manpower

3 November2000


24

Framework for initiativesPolitical, legislative and regulatory environments

• National/local political backing for initiatives needed• National S and T strategy, specifying areas of priorities • Intellectual property rights laws • Special status should be defined for science parks,

incubators and innovation centers • Prominent role for private enterprises• National programs to organize and promote initiatives

such as incubators and technopoles• Multinational initiatives

3 November2000


25

Framework for initiativesFinancial aspects

• Adequate financial support is a key factor in the success of S&T initiatives

• Indirect support from governments through investment laws and tax incentives

• Private sector, and financial institutions should be encouraged to provide venture capital

3 November2000


26

Framework for initiativesManagement

• Qualified managers and board of directors• Adopt clear objectives and monitoring modalities• Establish advisory boards in incubators involving

public and private stakeholders• Screening of tenants and periodic assessment• Seek national and international linkages • Establish strategic alliances for a global market• Adapt management to maturity level of national S and

T institutions• Strive for top-notch S and T institutions in parks

3 November2000


27

Networking

• Networks are essential for the success of initiatives especially in ESCWA/Arab countries, where resources are often limited

• Linkages between incubators, start-up companies and investors are necessary for the good functioning of the incubator and survival of emerging companies.

Documents

3 November2000 Sience/Technology Parks and Incubators: Models and Criteria 1 Science/Technology Parks and Incubators in ESCWA Member Countries: Models