A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research free essay sample

While much attention has been devoted to the description of incubator facilities, less attention has been focused on the incubatees, the innovations they seek to diffuse, and the incubation outcomes that have been achieved. As interest in the incubator-incubation concept continues to grow, new research efforts should focus not only on these under-researched units of analysis, but also on the incubation process itself. JEL Classi? cation: M13, O2, O31, O32, O38 1. Introduction Incubator-incubation research began in earnest in 1984 with the promulgation of the results of Business Incubator Pro? es: A National Survey (Temali and Campbell, 1984). Underscoring the enthusiasm of early researchers, only three years passed before two literature reviews were generated (i. e. , Campbell and Allen, 1987; Kuratko and LaFollette, 1987). However, since these early efforts to synthesize and analyze the state of incubator-incubation science, and despite the fact that the body of research has grown considerably 1 Vanderbilt University Management of Technology Program Box 1518, Station B, Nashville, TN 37235 USA E-mail: sean. We will write a custom essay sample on A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page m. [emailprotected] vanderbilt. du 2 Vanderbilt University Management of Technology Program Box 1518, Station B, Nashville, TN 37235 USA E-mail: david. m. [emailprotected] edu in the intervening years, a systematic review of the literature remains conspicuously absent. The primary objectives of this article are to systematically review the incubator-incubation literature and to provide direction for fruitful future research. Ultimately 38 studies were included in our review. We included a study in our review if it viewed the incubator as an enterprise that facilitates the early-stage development of ? ms by providing of? ce space, sharedservices and business assistance. When examining the literature chronologically, ? ve primary research orientations are evident: incubator development studies, incubator con? guration studies, incubatee development studies, incubator-incubation impact studies, and studies that theorize about incubators-incubation. While these orientations are not necessarily orthogonal, we employ them as classi? cations of convenience that we hope will facilitate a discussion of the literature. We have limited the review in several ways. First, we con? ne our coverage of the literature to studies devoted explicitly to incubators and/or incubation. Although the locus of the incubatorincubation concept is the nexus of forces involving new venture formation and development, new product conceptualization and development, and business assistance (each of which has an established body of research), to expand the scope of the review beyond research explicitly focused on incubators-incubation would make this research project impossible to complete on a timely basis. Second, although practitioner literature has in? uenced academic research, we center our review on the academic literature, except in cases where the practitioner literature has proven especially in? uential and has some intrinsic academic face validity. Third, with our long-term research interests in mind, we selected literature that conceptualizes incubators-incubation as a strategy Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 55–82, 2004 # 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands. 56 Hackett and Dilts or facilitating new business development rather than as a strategy for developing real estate. While this review is primarily intended for researchers who are considering potential research topics, we also believe that it will be of use to incubation industry stakeholders who are interested in understanding the epistemological evolution of the incubator-incubation concept. Our contribution is a synthesis and analysis of concepts, empirical ? ndings, and problems related to extant incubator-incubation research, as well as an identi? ation of potential areas for future research. In this section, we have noted the need for a systematic review of the literature, provided a working de? nition of the incubator-incubation concept, and delimited the scope of our review. The remainder of the article is organized in the following manner. First, we describe the methodology we employed in identifying and selecting articles for review. Second, we provide a formal de? nition of the incubator-incubation concept, place incubator-incubation literature in its historical context and review the research along the ? e primary research orientations described above. Third, we identify several challenges within extant research and suggest new avenues for future research. Speci? cally, we note the need for future research to address the lack of convergence in the terms and concepts of discourse related to incubators-incubation, the lack of theoretically meaningful incubator classi? cations, the lack of a business incubation process model, and the longstanding challenges in the de? nition and measurement of incubator-incubatee ‘‘success’’. We conclude by emphasizing the need to identify and unpack the variables of business incubation with a view toward developing theories that help to explain how and why the incubation process leads to speci? c incubation outcomes. 2. Methodology for identifying articles for review To identify the population of publications for review, we conducted an electronic journal database search of ProQuest-ABI/Inform, Science Direct and UMI Dissertation Abstracts using the search terms ‘‘incubator’’ and ‘‘incubation’’. Our objective was to conduct a census of all published esearch on incubators-incubation written in English between 1984 and early 2002. After identifying and retrieving all articles archived electronically in the databases identi? ed above, we read the bibliographies of these articles to identify other articles on incubators-incubation published prior to electronic archiving or not archived in the electronic databases, and subsequently retrieved those articles. We reviewed those articles’ bibliographies and found yet more articles dealing with various aspects of incubators-incubation and repeated the process of retrieving articles and reading through the bibliographies. Reasonably con? dent that all extant articles on incubators-incubation had been identi? ed and retrieved, we then checked all of the retrieved articles against a bibliography created by the National Business Incubation Association (NBIA) in 2001 that lists all (peer-reviewed, non-peer reviewed and popular press) articles related to incubation in order to ensure to the best of our ability that the entire population of articles on incubators-incubation had been collected. The articles considered for review appear in the following journals: American Journal of Small Business, Economic Development Quarterly, Economic Development Review, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Harvard Business Review, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Property Management, Journal of Small Business Management, Policy Studies Journal, Public Administration Quarterly, Regional Studies, Research Policy, Technology Management, and Technovation. Ultimately 35 articles (26 empirical studies and nine non-empirical studies), two dissertations and one national survey were included in this literature review (a complete listing of the studies reviewed is included in Appendix A). The distribution of articles among journals was highly skewed toward journals with an economic development perspective: Six articles appeared in Economic Development Quarterly and another four articles appeared in Economic Development Review. Considering the high number of often-cited publications appearing in these two periodicals, it is clear that the economic development perspective has in? enced the ? eld of published business incubation studies. A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research 57 The complete distribution of research perspectives applied to business incubation studies is detailed in Appendix B. 3. Primary research orientations In this section, we offer a formal de? nition of the incubator-incubation concept. Next we brie? y describe the historical context in the United States in which incubator-incubation research has evolved. Then we review the literature, using the ? ve primary research orientations mentioned above as our organizing principle. When reporting key ? ndings of each research orientation, we stratify the results based on their relevance to three different units of analysis: community, incubator, or incubatee. Figure 1. Incubator-incubation concept map. graphically depicts the incubator-incubation concept de? ned here. What is the incubator-incubation concept? Based on insights gleaned from reviewing the literature as well as from conducting ? eldwork in Asia and North America, we offer the following de? nition: A business incubator is a shared of? cespace facility that seeks to provide its incubatees (i. . ‘‘portfolio-’’ or ‘‘client-’’ or ‘‘tenant-companies’’) with a strategic, value-adding intervention system (i. e. business incubation) of monitoring and business assistance. This system controls and links resources with the objective of facilitating the successful new venture development of the incubatees while simultaneously containing the cost of their potential failure. 2 Additionally, we offer the following corollary: When discussing the incubator, it is important to keep in mind the totality of the incubator. Speci? cally, much as a ? rm is not just an of? e building, infrastructure and articles of incorporation, the incubator is not simply a shared-space of? ce facility, infrastructure and mission statement. Rather, the incubator is also a network of individuals and organizations including the incubator manager and staff, incubator advisory board, incubatee companies and employees, local universities and university community members, industry contacts, and professional services providers such as lawyers, accountants, consultants, marketing specialists, venture capitalists, angel investors, and volunteers. Figure 1 Historical context of ncubator-incubation development in the USA It is generally accepted that the ? rst incubator was established as the Batavia Industrial Center in 1959 at Batavia, New York (Lewis, 2002). A local real estate developer acquired an 850,000 ft2 building left vacant after a large corporation exited the area (Adkins, 2001). Unable to ? nd a tenant capable of leasing the entire facility, the developer opted to sublet subdivided partitions of the building to a variety of tenants, some of whom requested business advice and/or assistance with raising capital (Adkins, 2001). Thus was the ? rst business incubator born. In the 1960s and 1970s incubation programs diffused slowly, and typically as governmentsponsored responses to the need for urban/Midwestern economic revitalization. Notably, in the 1960s interest in incubators-incubation was piqued by the development of University City Science Center (UCSC), a collaborative effort at rationalizing the process of commercializing basic research outputs (Adkins, 2001). In the 1970s interest in the incubator-incubation concept was further catalyzed through the operation of the National Science Foundation’s Innovation Centers Program, an effort to stimulate and institutionalize best practices in the processes of evaluating and 58 Hackett and Dilts commercializing selected technological inventions (Bowman-Upton et al. , 1989; Scheirer, 1985). In the 1980s and 1990s the rate of incubator diffusion increased signi? cantly when (a) the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in the U. S. Congress in 1980 decreased the u ncertainty associated with commercializing the fruits of federally funded basic research, (b) the U. S. legal system increasingly recognized the importance of innovation and intellectual property rights protection, and (c) pro? t opportunities derived from the commercialization of biomedical research expanded. In this environment several incubator development guides4 as well as non-academic reports and articles5 with a geographic and normative focus on current or potential business incubation efforts were generated. This surge in report-generating activity in the early 1980s and the formation of the NBIA in 1985 underscore the growth in popular interest in business incubation in the 1980s. Concurrent to these and other local efforts at studying and unleashing the potential of business incubation to foster economic development, academic incubation studies began in earnest. Much of this early research addresses the questions ‘‘What is an Incubator? ’’ and ‘‘What do we need in order to develop an effective incubator? ’’ Business Incubator Pro? les: A National Survey (Temali and Campbell, 1984), a ground-breaking survey of 55 business incubators, is the ? rst academic attempt to address these questions by describing in detail the incubators operating in the United States. It is comprehensive in scope, taking the incubator, the incubator manager, the incubatees, and the services provided by the incubator as various units of analysis. Although this survey does not test hypotheses or attempt to build theory, its rich descriptive data and insightful perspective established a platform upon which much subsequent incubator development research is based. In the late 1990s, fueled by irrationally exuberant stock valuations of several for-pro? t incubators and/or their incubatees, the media popularized a fantasy of business incubators as innovation hatcheries capable of incubating and taking public ‘‘in? itely scaleable, dot-com ebusiness start-ups’’ less than a year after entering the incubator. This fantasy and the incubatorincubation concept were largely abandoned and left for dead by the popular press after the collapse of the United States’ stock market bubble. 6 However, rumors of the demise of the incubatorincubation concept are ‘‘greatly exaggerated’’. The media reached its negative conclusions regarding incubators-incubation while ? xated on forpro? t incubators, a relatively small segment of the total incubator population. The vast majority of incubators are non-pro? t entities that continue to incubate below the ‘‘radar screens’’ of most journalists. Since the establishment of the ? rst business incubator, most incubators have been established as publicly funded vehicles for job creation, urban economic revitalization, and the commercialization of university innovations, or as privately funded organizations for the incubation of highpotential new ventures (Campbell and Allen, 1987). The fact that most incub ators are publicly funded is not trivial. Despite normative incubation industry association positions asserting the importance of operating incubators as enterprises that should become self-suf? cient, pro? t-oriented intentionality has not been translated into pro? tability for the majority of publicly funded incubators (Bearse, 1998). Financial dependency forces incubators to operate in a politically charged environment where they must constantly demonstrate the ‘‘success’’ of the incubator and its incubatees in order to justify continued subsidization of incubator operations with public funds. Such a politically charged environment can tempt incubator-incubation industry stakeholders to underreport incubator-incubation failures and over-report successes. 8 For the researcher interested in understanding, explaining and building models of incubator-incubation phenomena, the politically charged environment and the state of subsidy-dependency in which many non-pro? t incubators operate cannot be ignored. Overview of research orientations We review the literature along the following ? ve primary research orientations: incubator development studies, incubator con? uration studies, incubatee development studies, incubator-incubation impact studies, and studies theorizing about incubators-incubation. These orientations, their A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research Table I Overview of incubator-incubation literature Research streams Incubator development studies Characteristics Research period Main topics 1984–1987 . De? nitions . Taxonomies . Policy prescriptio ns 59 Incubator con? guration studies 1987–1990 . Conceptual Incubatee development studies 1987–1988 . New venture Incubator-incubation impact studies 1990–1999 . Levels and units of Studies theorizing about incubatorsincubation 1996–2000 . Explicit and implicit frameworks . Incubatee selection development . Impact of planning analysis . Outcomes and on development measures of success Research question(s) . What is an incubator? . What are the critical . How do we develop success factors for . What is the process of . Do incubators . new venture incubators-incubation? development in an an incubator? . What life cycle model . How does the incubator context? . What is the role of can be extracted from incubator-incubation analysis of business concept work in practice? lanning and the . How do incubators select incubators? business incubator incubatees? manager? achieve what their stakeholders assert they do? . How can business incubation program outcomes be evaluated? . Have business incubators impacted new venture survival rates, job creation rates, industrial innovation rates? . What are the economic and ? scal impacts of an incubator? . . . use of formal theories (transaction cost economics, network theory, entrepreneurship, economic development through entrepreneurship) What is the signi? ance of relationships and how do they in? uence entrepreneurship? What are the critical connection factors to success, e. g. , settings, networks, founder characteristics, group membership, co-production value, and creation process? ’’ What constitutes a model for a virtual incubator? Is the network the location of the incubation process? key topics, and main research questions are presented in Table I. Incubator development studies The goal of early incubator-incubation researchers was to accurately and/or normatively describe incubators. Key themes in incubator development studies include efforts at de? ning incubatorsincubation, incubator taxonomies, and policy prescriptions. These themes are addressed below. De? ning incubators-incubation. Most research assumes that incubators are economic development tools for job creation whose basic value proposition is embodied in the shared belief that operating incubators will result in more start- ups with fewer business failures (Fry, 1987; Kuratko and LaFollette, 1987; Lumpkin and Ireland, 1988; Markley and McNamara, 1995; Rice, 1992; Udell, 1990). Despite the existence of this shared baseline assumption, de? nitional vis-a`-vis the terms ‘‘business ambiguity incubator’’ and ‘‘business incubation’’ plagues the literature. This is problematic because, without precise de? nitions, it is dif? cult to ascertain the actual size of the incubator population to which systematic research efforts seek to generalize their ? ndings. There are several sources of de? nitional ambiguity. First is the diffusion and repeated adaptation of the original business incubator concept in order to ? varying local needs and conditions (Kuratko and LaFollette, 1987). Second is the interchangeable manner in which the terms ‘‘Research Park,’’ ‘‘Technology Innovation Center,’’ and ‘‘Business 60 Hackett and Dilts Incubator’’ are used in the literature (Swierczek, 1992). 9 Third is the emergence of virtual incubators (also referred to as ‘‘incubators without walls’’) that endeavor to deliver business assistance services to incubatees who are not colocated within the incubator. 10 Fourth is a persistent tendency to not de? ne the incubation process, or—when de? ed—to disagree on where and with whom the incubation process occurs. 11 Cumulatively, if left unaddressed, the abovementioned sources of ambiguity in the terms and concepts of discourse will hinder efforts at generalizing incubator-incubation research results to the incubator population. Early attempts at de? ning incubators-incubation are careful to draw out a distinction betwee n incubators as real estate development efforts, and incubators as systematic business developmentbusiness assistance efforts (Brooks, 1986; Smilor, 1987b; Smilor and Gill, 1986). Highlighting this distinction in a normative description of incubators-incubation, Brooks (1986) describes a twotype incubator continuum where start-ups enter an ‘‘economic growth incubator’’ in order to gain access to the incubator’s external support network, shared support services, and the resources of a local university af? liated with the incubator (Brooks, 1986). In this view, once the start-ups have attained a more advanced state of business development they can move into a ‘‘real estate incubator’’ which provides of? ce space and shared services. Brooks’ continuum is adapted and elaborated by Allen and McCluskey (1990). They discard the notion that incubatees would move into a real estate property development incubator after achieving a critical mass, and instead focus on the primary and secondary objectives of four types of incubators that are distributed along a valueadding continuum. From least value-adding to most value-adding, these incubator types include For-Pro? t Property Development Incubators, Non-Pro? t Development Corporation Incubators, Academic Incubators, and For-Pro? Seed Capital Incubators. The Allen and McCluskey continuum is reproduced in Figure 2. While the goals and objectives of different incubator types may be indicative of the amount and type of resources that a certain type of incubator maintains, the varying goals and objec- tives among types of incubator depicted in the ? gure above may have little to say regarding the objectives of incubatees. Moreover, regardless of the stated goals and objectives of the incubator, ‘‘the universal purpose of an incubator is to increase the chances of a[n incubatee] ? m surviving its formative years’’ (Allen and Rahman, 1985). Similarly, regardless of the incubator stakeholders’ desire—and political need—to demonstrate the ancillary effects of job creation and economic development, the universal goal of incubatees is (or should be) to survive and develop as a corporate ? nancial entity that delivers value to the owner(s)/shareholders. This point is often lost in practitioner deba tes and in politically charged discussions related to the initiation of incubator feasibility studies. As understanding of the incubator-incubation concept advanced, the concept that the incubator itself is an enterprise with its own developmental life cycle was embraced. The incubator start-up stage begins at the time a local community begins to consider establishing an incubator and ends once the incubator has reached full occupancy (Allen, 1988). The incubator business development stage is indicated by an increase in the frequency of interaction amongst incubator manager and incubatees, stable demand for space within the incubator, and greater support for the incubator in the local community (Allen, 1988). The incubator maturity stage re? ects the point when the incubator has more demand for space than it can service and has become a center of entrepreneurial gravity in the community (Allen, 1988). The recognition of the incubator life-cycle is an important advancement. Speci? cally, it highlights the importance of would-be-incubatees performing due diligence on the incubator in order to determine whether the incubator has the core competencies in business assistance and the resources to provide the kind of value demanded by the venture’s management team. Incubator taxonomies. One of the great challenges of conducting incubator-incubation research is the dif? culty of creating a control group of nonincubated companies whose developmental outcomes could then be compared to incubated companies (Sherman and Chappell, 1998). Ways A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research 61 Figure 2. Allen and McCluskey continuum (Allen and McCluskey, 1990). to overcome this problem include adopting the use of matched pairs or comparing the performance of incubatees to the performance of a virtual incubator’s incubatees (Bearse, 1998). In the literature, however, taxonomies of convenience are typically employed to create comparison groups. These taxonomies classify incubators on the basis of (a) the incubator’s primary ? nancial sponsorship13 (Kuratko and LaFollette, 1987; Smilor, 1987b; Temali and Campbell, 1984), (b) whether incubatees are spin-offs or start-ups (Plosila and Allen, 1985), (c) the business focus of the incubatees (Plosila and Allen, 1985; Sherman, 1999), and (d) the business focus of the incubator (i. e. property development or business assistance) (Brooks, 1986) (see Table II). Despite the widespread use of these taxonomies, none of the studies reviewed demonstrated an ability to predict or explain variation in incubation outcomes—presumably the facet of the incubator-incubation phenomenon of greatest interest to researchers—on the basis of these taxonomic classi? cations. Policy prescriptions. A number of incubator policy prescriptions offered in the literature are synthesized and analyzed here. These prescriptions appear multiple times in the literature but are drawn primarily from the following sources: (Allen and Weinberg, 1988; Brooks, 1986; Bruton, 1998; Campbell and Allen, 1987; Culp, 1996; Plosila and Allen, 1985). First is the need for an advisory board to serve as an incubator ombudsperson. Because the incubator must make dif? cult incubatee selection decisions that require a sophisticated understanding of the market and the process of new venture formation, and because the incubator must rely upon political support from its advisory board in order to secure annual operating subsidies, the importance of a strategically constructed advisory board should not be understated. Second, the rental income risk associated with the temporary tenancy of incubatees must be managed. Basically, cyclical demands for incubator space are somewhat mediated by the level of development and competencies attained by the 62 Table II Taxonomies of incubators Taxonomy Incubator level: primary ? nancial sponsorship14 . Publicly-sponsored . Nonpro? t-sponsored . University-sponsored . Privately-sponsored Incubator level: business focus Property development 1. Single tenant 2. Multi-tenant . Business assistance 1. Shared space 2. Low rent 3. Business support services . Hackett and Dilts Representative citation (Kuratko and LaFollette, 1987; Smilor, 1987b; Temali and Campbell, 1984) Brooks, 1986) Incubatee level: business focus . Product development . Manufacturing . Mixed-use Type of incubatee Spin-off . Start-up . (Plosila and Allen, 1985; Sherman, 1999) (Plosila and Allen, 1985) incubator and the current state of the entrepreneurial activities in the local community. With this in mind, pre-screened incubatees should be waiting in the admissions pipeline prior to the departure of current incubatees in order to optimize incubator rental revenue streams. Third, a comprehensive menu of support services must be developed in order to be able to properly incubate the incubatees. Developing and offering a set of services—even if they are underutilized—may be signi? cant, as the availability of the services may induce self-re? exive consideration on the part of incubatees as to what is required for their new venture to develop. 15 Fourth, the qualitative difference between applicants for admission to the incubator and incubation candidates must inform the incubatee selection process. Speci? cally, because the incubator represents an attempt to help entrepreneurial new or young ? rms overcome some resource gap(s)16 that prevent them from succeeding in their early stages of development, it is important rom an economic rationality perspective to differentiate the types of applicants for admission to a business incubator in the following ways: (a) those that cannot be helped through business incubation, (b) those that should be incubated due to the existence of some resource gap(s) and (c) those that do not need incubation. Ideally, only those ? rms that are ‘‘weak-but-promising’’ (weak due to a lack of resources, but promising in the sense that they have built a compelling business case) should be considered incubation candidates. Fifth, the degree to which incubators should/ can assist incubatees with ? nancial matters must be considered. Typically, most incubators do not maintain their own investment fund, serving instead as a broker that introduces incubatees to sources of capital when the need arises. Sixth, while incubators are not an economic quick ? x and while they have numerous limitations, they are an important component of a local economic development strategy and can serve a market failure bridging function by enabling entrepreneurship where previously it was too costly or too risky. Finally, ? exible oversight with dynamic readjustment of incubation programs as dictated by local needs is important for maintaining the vitality and effectiveness of the incubator in a cost-effective manner. Key ? ndings. In sum incubator development studies represent the earliest research conducted on the incubator-incubation phenomenon. These studies are characterized by efforts to de? ne the incubator-incubation concept, to create taxonomic categories for comparison, and to provide policy guidelines for operating an incubator. While these efforts have several weaknesses that are discussed above, it is important to note that incubator development studies are novel exploratory, conceptual, empirical and normative attempts to render a very young phenomenon. Key ? ndings in the early research on incubators amount to key descriptions that are useful for understanding the scope and nature of incubators. These ? ndings are summarized in Table III. A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research Table III Key ? ndings from incubator development studies Level Community level . The incubator provides a protected environment in which new ventures—representing opportunities both for local economic expansion and investment—can develop. . Business incubators should be one element of a larger economic development strategy. . Net job creation through incubation is minimal, but not insigni? cant. Incubator level Incubators can be classi? ed according to the nature of their primary ? nancial sponsor or the business focus of the incubatees. . Low priced rent, shared-services, and the existence of entry/exit policies are key characteristics of incubators. The incubator support network and university ties are key characteristics of incubators. . 63 Representative citation (Allen and Rahman, 1985; Campbell, 1989) (Temali and Campbell, 1984; Plosila and Allen, 1985; Brooks, 1986) Incubatee level Charging the incubatees below market of? ce space rent is important. . Incubatees assist one another, and sometimes purchase from one another. . Comprehensive busi ness consulting services must be available to incubatees. . University technology business incubators have positive environmental effects on incubatees. . (Temali and Campbell, 1984; Allen and Rahman, 1985; Sarfraz A. Mian, 1994) Incubator con? guration studies Early studies often describe the con? gurations of business incubators, examining the ‘‘design of the . . . [incubator’s] support arrangement, [and] describing facilities, budgets, organizational charts, geographical location, [and] institutional links’’ (Autio and Kloftsen, 1998) with a view to ascertaining the critical success factors of business incubation. 17 The emergence of these studies indicates the evolution of incubator-incubation science from an initial exploratory, fragmented understanding of the phenomenon to an increasingly holistic, systemic perspective. In order to better understand the development of this systemic view of the incubator-incubation concept, we examine subsets of con? guration research that consider (a) incubator-incubation con? guration frameworks, and (b) the incubatee selection component of the incubator system. Incubator-incubation con? guration frameworks. Several attempts have been made to conceptualize incubator con? gurations and, to a limited extent, the process of incubation. Building on the survey data collected in Temali and Campbell (1984), Campbell et al. (1985) develop a framework offering the ? st explicit linkage of the incubator-incubation concept to the business development process of incubatees (Campbell et al. , 1985). This framework, reproduced in Figure 3, suggests four areas where incubatorsincubation create value: the diagnosis of business needs, the selection and monitored application of business services, the provision of ? nancing, and the provision of access to the incubator network. Implicitly, with this framework, Campbell et al. have normatively de? ned the incubation process. This is useful because it suggests in detail, and for the ? st time, how different components of, and activities within, the incubator are applied to facilitate the transformation of a business proposal into a viable business. Weaknesses in the framework center on the failure to account for failed ventures (the framework assumes that all incubator tenants succeed) and the ascription of the framework to private incubators only. In Figure 4 Smilor extends the Campbell et al. framework by elaborating various components (incubator af? liation, support systems, impacts of tenant companies) of the incubator-incubation co ncept.

Hungergy Games Essays - Peeta Mellark, Frankie Laine Discography

Hungergy Games Essays - Peeta Mellark, Frankie Laine Discography Hungergy Games I wake up screaming again. Its happened every night since Ive been back in district twelve. Back in this cold empty house, I never really called it home. The mockingjays are singing outside my window. I groan and press my pillow hard over my ears but I cant muffle the sound of the knock at my door so I reluctantly get up and answer it. I am surprised to see him, his blue eyes are still mesmerizing as ever but have grown more intense from all the pain and destruction they have been subjected to. The burns the seemed to take over a good portion of his face the last time I saw him have healed somewhat, but the scars wont ever fully go away. I have to say they make me feel closer to him, though Im not so sure why. Maybe because I know he has suffered as much if not more than I have these past couple of years and our scars seem to join us together. Peeta I am unsure what to say to him. They wouldnt let me leave until now he says I just came to check on you. You havent been answering your phone. I dont really feel like talking to anyone I say lowering my eyes to the floor. His gaze is too powerful but I have to admit I am glad to see him I have been so lonely and Haymitch isnt the best company or friend for that matter but he has grown on me in a way I cant explain. Maybe because I have weakness for helpless or broken people. Hey he says lifting my chin softly bringing me back to those eyes. He then smiles at me that smile that used to cross his face often before he was hijacked, and for the moment I feel that he is somewhat himself again. then we wont talk we spend the day in silence curled up on the floor with my head in his lap as he runs his fingers through my hair softly untangling the mats that have gone unbrushed for days. As night falls he motions toward the door and I grab his hand. Dont leave I say lightly The smile is quickly replaced by a concerned frown now it is he who lowers his gaze. Im not so sure thats a good idea I know you you wont hurt me. He stands not moving or looking up at me but I can tell what he is thinking. Fine! If you think you cant control yourself then just go! I run upstairs to my room and slam the door. I dont know why I got so mad at him. He was just being careful, but I felt angry at the thought that even now that the war is over, things can never be exactly the way they were before, and that gives President Snow a victory over me even in death. I climb into bed and start to sob. The door opens and he slowly lays down and puts his arms around me. You want me hear. Real or not real? he asks Real I tell him. I want you to stay with me. I dont know whats come over me. Im never good at expressing my feelings, but his warmth gives me chills and I realize I have missed his touch. He holds me closer and whispers in my ear Always Peeta holds me through the night but I can tell its hard for him because a few times he has to clutch the pillow tight and let the flash backs pass, but he never says a word or does anything to hurt me. I take a shower, get dressed and go outside. He is there digging a hole next to my house. His forehead parched with sweat, tassels of blonde curls sticking to it. His scars are more noticeable in the sunlight, but in no way does it take away from his charm. He is focused on what he is doing and he speaks to me without looking up from his work. I found these while I was taking a walk. I thought we could plant them for her. He says. I recognize the flowers right away. Primrose. The

Careers in Lodging and Food and Beverage Industries Essay

Careers in Lodging and Food and Beverage Industries - Essay Example Furthermore, the analysis of the occupational scenario within these industries is followed by the statement of appropriate recommendations with regards to best human resource practices in the lodging, food and beverage industries to enhance the procedures of recruitment, retaining and employee management within these career fields. The dynamics of the lodging industry indicate that there exists an extensive range of career opportunities with regards to management positions in the field of work. The job descriptions which represent the most distinct and unique requirements are that of the Hotel Manager whose role and responsibilities within the organization can be categorized on the basis of region and seniority. For example, the job titles which reflect this notion are that of Hotel Manager – Trainee and Hotel Manager – Regional respectively, in which the Hotel Manager – Trainee position implies that an individual is perhaps a fresh graduate with little or no exp erience while, the Hotel Manager – Regional position is reflective of an organization’s need to appoint separate Hotel Managers to govern the affairs of each region to ensure that the varying demands of the hotel guests are met accordingly. Consequently, another key feature of the human resources requirements of the lodging industry is reflected in the demand for Operations Managers. The job description of this title demands a variety of capabilities in a potential applicant which are fundamental to the effective handling of the day-to-day operations of a hotel. It is understood that an Operation Manager’s part in guiding an organization towards the achievement of profit maximization is pivotal because as a member of the management, it is usually the Operations Manager who assumes the responsibilities of the General Manager in case of his/her absence. Moreover, the lodging industry also invites applicants to explore the opportunities that Revenue Management has to offer. The most significant observation that is comprehensible from the assessments on management jobs in the foods and beverages industry is the availability of management positions that are specific to a distinct field of work. The job titles of these positions are associated with Kitchen Management and Restaurant Management. The occupations in Kitchen Management are categorized as Kitchen Manager – All and Kitchen Manager – Assistant, the classification of which is conducted on the basis of seniority and the scope of responsibility that each title entails. Similarly, jobs in Restaurant Management are categorized by the presence of several opportunities such as Restaurant Manager – Multi-unit and Restaurant Manager – Assistance. Furthermore, the food and beverage industry also invites potential applicants to apply for jobs in sales management and marketing management. The General Management (GM) positions in the lodging and food and beverage industri es can be examined as per the requirements that have been outlined by employers who are seeking to recruit ideal candidates to join their teams. The two comparable yet distinct positions in this regard are that of the Hotel General Manager and the Restaurant General Manager. The similarities in the characteristics of these General Manageme

Limbic encephalitis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Limbic encephalitis - Essay Example It governs the processes like writing, planning and speaking. (Vincent et al, 2008) As the structure and function of the brain is analysed to some extent, it becomes clear that dealing with brain can be complicated and multifarious, particularly in medical terms. â€Å"Encephalitis, an inflammation of brain parenchyma, presents as diffuse and/or focal neuropsychological dysfunction. From an epidemiologic and pathophysiologic perspective, encephalitis is distinct from meningitis, though on clinical evaluation the two often coexist with signs and symptoms of meningeal inflammation, such as photophobia, headache or a stiff neck.† (Lazoff, 2010). Encephalitis thus affects the brain in full or parts and it results into several behavioural disorders of the patient. The anatomy of brain explains that when affected, the brain fails to regulate the vital functions of human life. The form of encephalitis in which the limbic system is affected is called the limbic encephalitis. Limbic encephalitis involves inflammation of the limbic or intermediate brain. Hence, it can be regarded as an anatomical diagnosis rather than a disease caused by common, specific causative. (Vincent et al, 2008) â€Å"Limbic encephalitis is a condition marked by the inflammation of the limbic system  and other parts of the brain.  The cardinal sign of limbic encephalitis is a severe impairment of short-term memory; however,  symptoms may also include confusion, psychiatric symptoms, and seizures.  The symptoms  typically develop over a few weeks or months, but they may evolve over a few days. Delayed diagnosis is common, but improvements are being made to assist in early detection.  Early diagnosis may improve the outcome of limbic encephalitis.† (National Institutes of Health, 2010) Also, limbic encephalitis can be defined as â€Å"a progressive dementia, often preceded or accompanied by agitation, depression and behavioural disturbances. It is

4 Ways to Sustain Tourism Industry Essay Example for Free

4 Ways to Sustain Tourism Industry Essay Sustainable destinations have achieved balance. They have balanced the long-term economic needs of residents with the short and medium term needs of businesses. They have done this by creating a diverse and value-laden tourism product that attracts a mix of domestic and international guests, many of whom are repeat visitors and have made a personal financial commitment to the destination. Sustainable destinations are managed by well-trained and committed staff. They have an up-to-date tourism plan which focuses on sustainable tourism. They have the personnel, resources, and political commitment to implement and monitor the plan. Achievements are tracked and made public. Tourists are consulted and their opinions are considered in plans. Safety is taken seriously and plans and policies exist for crisis, security, fire, health and safety. See more: Defining research problem and setting objectives Essay Sustainable destinations reinvest the profits from their tourism activities in environmental conservation and historic restoration and preservation. They demonstrate a thriving culture, strong social networks and increasing biodiversity. They show effective planning, substantial land and marine protection, increased energy and water conservation, and a reduction in solid waste per guest over time. They have an effective recycling and wastewater sanitation program that is carefully managed. They have taken steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their activities. Sustainable destinations are internationally recognized, valued by tourists for their environmental quality, and receive increasing value from tourist stays. Assessment We start by working together to establish a long-term view of the destination landscape, identifying sustainability risks and strategic growth opportunities. We facilitate discussions with stakeholders, while utilizing our innovative tools and expertise to develop a clear plan of action. Planning As we design and implement initiatives, we’ll prioritize critical impacts, build local capacity and set achievable benchmarks. Over time, we’ll help you implement these programs, track their progress, and monitor your results. Standards and Monitoring Sustainable tourism standards are the genesis of quality tourism planning. Our place-based solutions focus on the needs of the destination, while assuring that local tourism businesses meet third-party verified levels of quality and sustainability.

History, present and future of BRIC countries

History, present and future of BRIC countries INTRODUCTION Our topic for research is BRIC issues, so firstly we must know what is BRIC. BRIC is a related acronym that refers to the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. This idea was incorporated by Brazilian president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva in June 2007. The basic reason for these four countries to come together was their common dissatisfaction the prevailing global economic and political order largely dominated by the US and her western allies. They have not been given the importance that these countries should have got in relation to their size and share in the economy. Its only the G-8 countries that decide for the future rules of global world order. So this was the reason for formation of the BRIC countries. The BRIC countries are also referred to as the big four as all of them are deemed to be at similar stage of economic development. The acronym was coined by Jim ONeill in a 2001 paper entitled The World Needs Better Economic BRICs. The following is the position of BRIC nations in relation to the world: Countries Share of world nominal GDP (%) Share of world military spending (%) Share of world population (%) Share of world landmass (%) Average share (%) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Flag_of_Brazil.svg/22px-Flag_of_Brazil.svg.png  Brazil 3.3 1.7 2.8 5.6 3.4 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png  China 9.3 6.6 19.5 6.2 10.4 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_India.svg/22px-Flag_of_India.svg.png  India 2.3 2.4 17.3 1.9 6.0 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Flag_of_Russia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Russia.svg.png  Russia 2.4 3.5 2.1 10.9 4.7 According to Goldman Sachs, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRIC countries would eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries in the world. The BRIC countries combined currently account for more than quarter of worlds land and more than 40% of worlds population. The economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India and China is such that they can become the top four dominant countries of the world by the year 2050. The following leaders were present at the summit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Lula_-_foto_oficial05012007_edit.jpg/80px-Lula_-_foto_oficial05012007_edit.jpg BrazilBrazil Luiz Inà ¡cio Lula da Silva, President http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Dmitry_Medvedev_official_large_photo_-5.jpg/86px-Dmitry_Medvedev_official_large_photo_-5.jpg RussiaRussia Dmitry Medvedev, President http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Manmohansingh04052007.jpg/78px-Manmohansingh04052007.jpg IndiaIndia Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Hu_Jintao_%28Cropped%29.png/107px-Hu_Jintao_%28Cropped%29.png Peoples Republic of ChinaChina Hu Jintao, President BRIC countries hold a combined GDP (PPP) of 15.435 trillion dollars. On almost every scale, they would be the largest entity on the global stage. These four countries are among the biggest and fastest growing emerging markets. In a paper Dreaming with BRICS: The Path to 2050, published in 2003, the following was estimated: Chinas economy will surpass the economy of Germany in the next few years, of Japan by 2015, and of the United States of America by 2041. The growth rate of India will be the highest and it will overtake Japan by 2032. BRICs currencies can appreciate by 300% over the next 50 years. Taken together, the BRIC countries can be larger than United States and the developed economies within 40 years. By the year 2025. The BRIC countries will bring about 200 million people with incomes above $15000 in the worlds economy. It is equal to the combined populations of Germany, France and United Kingdom. But according to the reports the economy of china overtook the economy of Germany in the year 2007 instead of the prediction of 2008 and Japan in the July 2010. ISSUES RELATING TO BRIC COUNTIES The first official BRIC summit was held on 16 June 2009, in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Luiz Inà ¡cio Lula da Silva, Dmitry Medvedev, Manmohan Singh, and Hu Jintao, the respective leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, all attended this summit. The main focus of this summit was to improve the current global economic situation and discussing how these four countries could work together in the future for the development of the world economy. They also discussed how these countries could be better involved in global affairs in the future. They also suggested that there was a need for a new global reserve currency that is diversified, stable and predictable. This statement was a kind of an attack on the dominance of the US dollar. The foreign ministers of all these countries had earlier also met on May 16, 2008 in Yakaterinburg. One week before their first official summit, Brazil had offered $10 billion dollars to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which was the first time that the country had ever made such a loan. This loan showed how the economy of Brazil is growing and that it is in a good state now. China has also planned to invest a total of $50.1 billion and Russia planned to invest $10 billion. The following the major issues discussed by BRIC: Coping with the current international financial crisis: Discussions were held on issues such as the worlds reserve currency and some countries will try and adopt local currencies as settlement currency for bilateral trade so that they can overcome the impact of international financial crisis and facilitate trade contacts with other countries. The BRIC countries discussed ways to overcome the financial crisis that many parts of the world were facing as a result of the crisis that started in U.S. Coping with global climate change: Another important BRIC issue is to cope with global climate change. This is a very important issue because we need to ensure that the world becomes a better planet to live in. The concept of sustainable development was stressed in solving this problem. Sustainable development means that the resources should be used efficiently and effectively such that it is not only useful to the present generations but also available for the future generations. They also discussed that environmental issues should not be made an excuse to restrain the economic and social development of emerging economies. Environmental degradation should not hinder economic growth. The colloquium on Climate Change Law and Governance in South Asia, aims to inspire legal discussion within and between the BRICs countries. It is being jointly organized by the Environment Ministry of Government of India and the Geneva-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Development of second and third generation renewable energies The development of second and third generation renewable energies is a subject of common interest for all the countries. They also hope that more and more countries of the world will participate in the development and utilization of renewable sources of energy so as to facilitate economic development. World peace and security: World peace and security is a universal issue concerning the human race. Without peace and security economic growth and development cannot happen. The emerging markets should play a greater role among international multilateral institutions to improve the efficiency, vitality of international multilateral mechanism. Such countries can play a positive role to preserve the sovereignty of all countries as well as maintain world peace. BRIC cooperation will enhance the voice of developing nations: BRIC countries share common interests and concerns in international affairs and should consolidate cooperation. It is necessary for the BRIC countries to strengthen dialogue, coordination and cooperation to enhance the overall voice and influence of emerging markets and developing countries, and promote world peace, stability and universal development. BRIC countries demand more say in financial system reform: The BRIC countries have welcomed the expansion of the Balse committee that standard accounting bodies need to be set up. The BRIC ministers agreed that stabilization of international financial system through liquidity support and recapitalization is a priority. They are also taking measures to promote domestic demand in their national economies. The BRIC countries to play roles as new donors to Africa: Africa has plenty to gain from the growing involvement of China and other BRIC nations in trade and investment on the continent Need for changes in global institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank: The BRIC countries have realized the need for change in global institutions including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. There is also a need to update regulation of financial markets to avoid another global crisis. On matters relating to the IMF, the countries have agreed to aim at achieving a significant 7% shift in Quota shares in favour of EMDCs and New arrangement to borrow. For the World Bank, the nations discussed ways and means of enhancing the voice participation of developing countries and agreed to aim for a shift of a 6% of parity. They also supported an increase in capital for both the World Bank and its private lending arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC). Challenges in setting conditions for sustained growth: Brazil is the only nation where the growth rates have been less than expected. This is because Brazil is much less open to trade and it has lower investment and savings. The public and foreign debt is also very high. Unless these obstacles are removed, Brazil is unlikely to achieve the targets set for it. Environmental constraints: Environmental degradation is a critical risk to the economic rise of the BRIC nations. Global warming can have a bad impact on the rural incomes. Also urbanization and industrialization puts a lot of pressure on the environment. Many major cities like Shanghai, Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro are vulnerable to rising sea levels. Resources issue: Russia and Brazil are resource rich nations but china and India have to depend a lot upon imports to fuel their growth. If commodity prices rise, it will have a lot of effect on their imports and hence their growth. If technology advances and reduces dependence on conventional energy sources, Russia and Brazil will face reduced prospects for growth. Demographics: The population of India is increasing at a very high rate while the population of Russia is at decline. Brazil and China have declining populations (in case of China due to one family one child policy). Population decline could be a significant constraint for Russia and China, though China could avoid this by relaxing the rules a bit. Structural constraints: All the BRIC countries have structural issues which need to be addressed. India needs significant economic reforms. Brazil saves and invests too little. Each country should invest at least that much to ensure that it has infrastructure to maintain growth. Iran: Brazil has expressed affinity with China towards the Iranian nuclear issue. Development: China has showed willingness to be a positive partner in global development saying The scale and complexity of the challenges that we face in the course of development are unmatched anywhere else in the world and have been rarely seen in human history. China is willing to be dedicated to peace and cooperation and is willing to make greater contribution to mankind. The above were most of the major BRIC issues which we have tried to explain through our research.

Lbj Paper

Nicole Curtis 4/15/10 APUS: LBJ DBQ Essay President Lyndon B. Johnson and his administration passed several legislations and supported many programs that attempted to repair the numerous political, economic, and social problems of the United States during the 1960s. His administration responded to most of the problems effectively, but with the issue of civil rights, for example, they didn’t always fix the problems to the best of their ability. But most importantly was his attack on the â€Å"war on poverty. Acts, like the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, assisted citizens of the US through attacking the â€Å"war on poverty† and creating opportunities for the children of the future. Minorities, like African Americans, had trouble gaining political power. Primarily, blacks were fighting for their protection to vote and an increase in their influence in politics. For instance, some African Americans got together and created â€Å"freedom organizations† known as t he Black Panther Party in order to represent their strength and dignity of their culture (doc. C).They didn’t have any legitimate successes in their fight for their political rights. Johnson and his administration, therefore, admitted the 24th amendment. This prohibited the poll tax which was a discriminatory tax that was required in order to exercise the ability to vote. Also, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, which outlawed the discriminatory voting practices that were responsible for the disenfranchisement of African Americans in the US. These laws and his support for blacks’ rights were strongly influential and beneficial to the United States. LBJ’s (Lyndon B.Johnson’s) most influential response to the problems of the United States was in his response to the â€Å"war on poverty. † The programs that he passed helped the poverty problem through the economical and social aspect of it. Economically, his programs boosted money into the econ omy and improved the education for citizens so that they could make more money in their future. Socially, it improved the conditions of the urban cities as well as decreasing the gap between the rich and poor by heavily helping the poor. Specifically, he aided in with the health care concern for United States citizens (doc.A). Medicare and Medicaid were created which provided federal aid to the elderly and poor for medic al expenses. Also the Economic Opportunity Act improved and increased the number of educational programs, gave money to the youth through Job Corps, and gave volunteers to troubled communities to provide educational and social services (doc. B). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Model Cities Program also were formed during Johnson’s presidency. The Model Cities Program redeveloped the urban city. This attempted to improve the conditions for the poor who lived in the city.Prior to Johnson’s aid, many people felt â€Å"†¦si ck of ‘poor’ people demonstrations†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (doc. G). So, Johnson’s main goal was to improve the poverty problem in the US which he did successfully. Between 1960 and 1970, the percentage of non-whites that fell below poverty level decreased from 53. 3% to 32. 0% (doc. H). Also the percentage of whites that fell below the poverty line decreased from 18. 1% to 9. 9% during the 60s. Clearly, his programs were effective. Socially, blacks had many problems regarding their human and civil rights. They continued to fight for them throughout the 60s.Johnson supported this and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This piece of legislation outlawed the application of unequal voter requirements and segregation in schools, work, and public places. He also facilitated the March on Washington. He, as well as Governor Wallace of Alabama, federalized the Alabama National Guard, and sent an additional 2200 troops from the U. S. Army to protect the marchers. His wide support for the civil rights movement was great, but still many blacks were being discriminated against due to the lack of enforcement of the Civil Rights Act in specific areas.His administration had the ability to do great things, yet they only did good things in response to the civil rights issue. Lyndon B. Johnson and his administration, â€Å"[made] it possible for every child of every color to grow up in a nice house, to eat a solid breakfast, to attend a decent school, and to get a good and lasting job† (doc. F). Johnson did this through his many successful programs like the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. He repaired many of the political, economic, and social problems of the US in the 60s effectively.