A Framework Of
Knowledge Management For Higher Education Business Incubation
Philip Hennessy, Limerick Institute of Technology, Tipperary, Ireland
ABSTRACT:
This paper investigates the
link between the management of knowledge in Higher Education incubation and the
growth of the firm. The development of
Higher Education Institute (
Keywords: Higher education, Business incubation, Knowledge, Theory of the growth of the firm
Introduction
Start-up firms face many
difficulties in their initial years. While many start- ups may have an
abundance of technical knowledge or product knowledge they lack managerial,
market and administrative know-how. Firms compete in an extremely complex world
where their ability to deal with this complexity to survive and grow is
dependent on their ability to gain and use knowledge. One approach of
protecting start-up firms from this lack of knowledge and the complexities of
the business world is Higher education Incubation. The development of Higher
Education Institute (
Business Incubation
Start-ups
face many obstacles and experience high failure rates, previous research has
summarised the reasons for this phenomenon in the concepts of ‘liabilities of
newness’ and ‘liabilities of smallness’ (Hannan and
Freeman, 1989). Examples of disadvantages of young firms are diseconomies of
scales, missing legitimacy with potential stakeholders and lack of managerial
experience (Baysinger et al. 1981, Sheperd et al. 2000, in Bohringer
2006). Most emerging firms are just not big enough to hire the many specialists
needed for managing the founding and early growth of the firm (Penrose, 1995).
Many entrepreneurs lack the managerial skills, marketing capability, or
financial resources. Their inventions are frequently unrealistic, needing
significant modification to be marketable. In addition, entrepreneurs
frequently do not know how to interface with all the necessary entities, such
as banks, suppliers, customers, venture capitalists, distributors and
advertising agencies (Hisrich & Peters 1998, p.
16)
Curran,
et al (2011) classify the knowledge needed by start-ups into the areas of
“know-why, know-how and know-who” knowledge, and a fourth area of
industry/business knowledge. “Know-why knowledge is an understanding of science
and its applications. Know-how encompasses technical skills and know-who is the
kind of networking and business knowledge that enables a firm to find venture
funding, employees, and management staff” (Curran et al, 2011, p.5).
One
approach to overcome these obstacles is the business incubator. The term incubation evokes the fragile period
at the beginning of life. It is thought that the term comes from the Industrial
Centre real estate development in Batavia, New York. Back in 1959 the Mancuso
family bought the vacated buildings of a Massey Harris plant for the
fabrication of farm machinery. Not finding a large tenant for the use of the
buildings, they decided to let it to a number of small local companies which
needed an understanding landlord, in order to grow their business. One of the
first companies was a chicken firm, which prompted the name, conveying the idea
of a nurturing place (Haour & Miéville,
2011). Kuratko
and LaFollete (1987, p. 47) define the role of the
business incubation centre in the following terms: “…the business
incubator seeks to effectively link talent, technology, capital, and know-how
in order to leverage entrepreneurial talent and to accelerate the development
of new companies.” Haour & Miéville
(2011) describe that for incubators the crucial part is certainly not the real
estate or the shared office services, what is crucial in an incubator is for
entrepreneurial teams to have access to relevant business knowledge and
experience and to be relentlessly questioned ‘for the good of the venture’.
For the purposes of this
paper we are interested in academic incubators which Hacket
and Dilts (2004) describe as having the primary
objectives of job creation and positive statement of entrepreneurial potential.
These define the incubator not as an independent entity, but rather, as an
organisation whose success largely depends on the degree of its integration
with the community and in the case of the Higher Education incubator with the
host institute. The institute offers the start-up a safer environment to grow
in its initial years. Smilor (1987) cites Allen’s
(1985) report for the U.S Department of Commerce which indicated that almost
twice as many firms succeed as fail when participating in an incubator. Smilor (1987) argues that the success rate is higher
because of the ability of incubators to leverage resources and to provide a
flexible structure for growth. In the UK, the Department of Trade and Industry
has identified the process of business incubation as a powerful tool in
overcoming the pitfalls of starting and growing businesses. As such, incubation
is now viewed as a key component of regional and national economic development
strategies, supporting and accelerating growth across all sectors (Voisey et al, 2006). While the concept of nurturing new and
young businesses is described as appearing straightforward but in reality is
complex in structure and execution (Voisey et al,
2006).
The HEI Incubator is now seen as an important
tool for promoting entrepreneurship and economic growth. This growth is based
on access to knowledge. The question now needs to be asked what form does this
knowledge take and how is it created?
Knowledge And The Growth Of The Firm
David and Foray (2001)
argue that knowledge has been at the heart of economic growth and social
wellbeing since time immemorial. The ability to invent and innovate, that is to
create new knowledge and new ideas that are then embodied in products,
processes and organisations, has always served to fuel development. Knowledge includes everything we know about
the world, from the basic laws of physics, to the blueprint for a
microprocessor, to how to sew a shirt or paint a portrait (Cortright,
2001). This knowledge when it can be exploited through market opportunities is
therefore a crucial corporate resource (Scarborough, 2009). Current thinking goes further than simply
acknowledging it as a source of competitive advantage; it is argued that
turning knowledge into value is the main reason for firms to exist (Grant,
1996). Van Winkelen & McKenzie (2011, p. 1)
state: “In a rapidly changing world, current success and future survival depend
on constantly learning to do things differently and better. Knowledge is both
the raw material that is the foundation for learning and the output from it,
offering new opportunities and new sources of revenue.”
Despite variance in
terminology for organisational knowledge (competencies, capabilities, routines,
or innovations) there is growing agreement that it is what the organisation
comes to know that explains its performance (Argote
& Ingram, 2000). Penrose outlined that the resources of a firm and its
productive services are functions of knowledge: “Surely extensive
questionnaires are not required to convince us that able businessmen are well
aware that the more they can learn about the resources with which they are
working and about their business the greater will be the prospects of
successful action” (Penrose 1995, p. 77).
While a great deal has been
written about the importance of knowledge very little attention has been paid
to how knowledge is created or used. Knowledge has attributes which make it a
unique economic resource, unlike other resources it is not exhaustible, and it
is cumulative in that new knowledge can create more knowledge and it is nonrivalous, it can theoretically be used by a million
people at no extra cost. Scarborough (2009, p. 6) describes the paradoxical
qualities of knowledge, where in one instance it can be a powerful agent of
change and the next a significant barrier to change. “Recognition of these
paradoxical qualities has obvious implications for policy and practice”.
Penrose (1995, p. 68): acknowledged its
intangible nature has made a very difficult topic to study and understand:
“Economists have, of course recognised the dominant role that increasingly
knowledge plays in economic processes but have, for the most part, found the
whole subject of knowledge too slippery to handle “
The theory of organisation
has long been dominated by a paradigm that views the organisation as passive
and static, that conceptualises the organisation as a system that inputs
information from the environment processes it and produces output; ‘information
processing is viewed as a problem solving activity which centres on what is
given to the organisation- without due consideration of what is created by it’
(Nonaka, 1994, p.14). ). In neoclassical theory the
firm is characterised by its production and cost function. Subject to this
restriction, it maximises its profits in which it has complete information
concerning supply and demand, resulting in optimal product-market price. All
firms have access to the same knowledge so the theory of the firm represents a
theory of resource allocation but not a detailed model of the individual firm.
Penrose (1959) presented a
different view of a dynamic firm which grows on its own path through utilising
its resources and knowledge: “…as management tries to make the best use of resources available, a truly
dynamic. interacting process occurs which encourages
continuous growth but limits the rate of growth” (Penrose, 1995, p.5). Penrose
undertook to try understand how firms grow and what limits their growth: “In
undertaking an analysis of the growth of firms in the 1950’s the question I wanted
to answer was whether there was something inherent in the very nature of any
firm that both promoted its growth and necessarily limited its rate of growth”
(Penrose, 1995, p. xi).
As Foss (2002) outlines, in The Theory of The Growth of the Firm, Penrose was both critical and constructive; critical of the limitations of the neo-classical theory of the firm of her day, and clearly constructive by putting forward a new theory of the firm, based on knowledge, learning and cognition. Penrose wants to deal with the firm as a growing organisation, not as a price-and-output decision maker for given products (Mahoney 2005). “Firms are ‘flesh and blood’ real organisations, not points on a cost curve” (Pitelis, 2002, p. 3). Lockett and Thompson (2004) note that the Penrosian firm differed from its counterpart in neoclassical economic theory in two important aspects. First managers are not assumed to possess perfect foresight but instead have to make decisions based upon expectations about the environment. These expectations may or may not subsequently prove to have been correct. Penrose uses an open systems approach where there is continual interaction between the firms resources and its markets. Second, Penrose’s central contribution is to recognise the path dependent nature of the evolution of each firm. That is, every firm confronts a different set of resources leading to different strategic decisions that, in turn, further modify the resource bundle. Lockett and Thompson (2004) state that Penrose’s arguments set her apart from her contemporaries precisely by her recognition that strategy matters. The activities of identifying opportunities and threats in an uncertain environment and of identifying strengths and weaknesses internally are very important. Indeed it is this knowledge of the firm’s resource base, embodied in its managers, that constitutes the ultimate constraint – the ‘Penrose’ effect – in her system (Lockett & Thompson, 2004). The firm’s development is essentially an evolutionary and cumulative process of ‘resource learning’ (Mahoney, 1995), in which increased knowledge of the firms resources help both to create options for further expansion (Foss, 2002).
Edith Penrose’s (1959)
Theory of the Growth of the Firm has been a very influential in the development
of the Resource Based View of the Firm (Peteraf,
1993, Garnsey, 1998, Barney, 1991, Barney et al,
2011) and subsequently the Knowledge Based View (Barney, 2011) of the firm. In
developing her theory Penrose put knowledge at the centre of a firm’s growth. Penrose’s theory of the growth of firms if essentially an
examination of the changing productive opportunity of firms. In 1960
Penrose further outlined her theory by using the Hercules Powder Company as a
case study in The Growth of the Firm: “Growth is governed
by a creative and dynamic interaction between a firm’s productive resources and
its market opportunities. Available resources limit
expansion; used resources (including technological and entrepreneurial)
stimulate and largely determine the direction of expansion” (Penrose 1960, 1).
One of the primary assumptions of the theory of the growth of firms is that;
‘…growth is essentially an evolutionary process and based on the cumulative
growth of collective knowledge…’(Penrose, 1995 p.xiii). The very performance of activities within firms
creates new knowledge through specialisation, division of labour, teamwork and
learning (Pitelis, 2002, p.3) Kor
& Mahoney (2000) argue that Penrose offers durable principles governing the
growth of firms and the rate at which firms can grow efficiently.
While Penrose’s study was
on growth of established firms, Garnsey (1998) uses
Penrose’s approach to provide an account of the origins and early growth of the
firm. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm is very applicable to new firms as
it stresses entrepreneurship and learning in a world characterised by change
and uncertainty (Foss, 2002). Garnsey (2002) outlines that Penroses approach
has numerous implications for strategy on new business development.
Entrepreneurs can be helped to develop informed assessments of opportunities
and difficulties ahead. Mentoring and the provision of resources at critical
junctures in the growth process could make a difference to survival rates,
drawing more firms from micro to medium size. “… the profitability, survival
and growth of a firm does not depend so much on the efficiency with which it is
able to organise the production of even a widely diversified range of products
as it does on the ability of the firm to establish one or more wide and
relatively impregnable ‘bases’ from which it can adapt and extend its
operations in an uncertain, changing and competitive world” (Penrose, 1959,
p.137).
Dynamic Knowledge Creation
Nonaka (1994) and Sveiby
(2001) built on Penrose’s work and proposed a dynamic theory of organisational
knowledge creation where ideas are formed in the minds of individuals and
contribute to the development of knowledge through interaction between
individuals. Knowledge is defined as: “…dynamic, personal and distinctly different
from data and information. Since the dynamic properties of
knowledge are most important for managers, the notion individual competence can
be used as a fair synonym to a capacity to act” (Sveiby,
2001, p. 344).
This process of knowledge
growth for managers is transformative learning; “becoming critically
aware of one’s own tacit assumptions and of and expectations and those of
others and assessing their relevance for making an interpretation”(Mezirow, 2000, p4). Nonaka (1994) describes as “…a dynamic human process of
justifying personal beliefs as part of an aspiration for the ‘truth’” (Nonaka, 1994, p.15). Sveiby (2001) describes an autopoietic
epistemology where input into a system is data only, knowledge is private. An autopoietic system is both open and closed open to data,
but closed to information and knowledge where both have to be interpreted
inside the system. Penrose (1959) describes an ‘mage’
in the mind of the entrepreneur where knowledge is personal. This image
provides the firm with what Penrose describes as its ‘productive opportunity’,
“…which comprises all of the productive opportunities that its
‘entrepreneurs’ see and can take advantage of” (Penrose, 1995, p. 31). Studies
have shown that entrepreneurial opportunities are not exogenously given but
rather endogenously and systematically created under certain conditions. They
are the outcome of investments in new knowledge and ideas (Schumpeter, 1942) on
the one hand, and the accumulation of knowledge in individuals (Shane 2000) and
firms (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) on the other (Garnsey, 2007).
Central to this Knowledge Based View is the differentiation of types of knowledge. Penrose (1959) described knowledge as objective (transmittable) or experience (hard to transmit). The most widely used categorisation of knowledge is between tacit and explicit, where tacit is personal knowledge that cannot be easily codified and articulated or transferred from the holder of the knowledge. Tacit knowledge is knowledge accumulated through years of experience and practice. Explicit knowledge is defined as codified, easily translated facts and information. Explicit knowledge for start-up firms takes the form of textbooks and industry and market research reports; it is captured in libraries and databases. Penrose (1995) sees no sharp distinction between these two forms because to a considerable extent the ability to use old knowledge is dependent on the acquisition of new knowledge. Spender (1996) notes that the boundary between the explicit and tacit types of knowledge is both porous and flexible, and there is constant dialogue between the domains. The firms provides the context in which this dialogue takes place and over time the quality of the interaction of the explicit and evolving implicit types of knowledge may lead to further and to superior firm performance. Nonaka (1994) describes a continual dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge which drives the creation of new ideas and concepts. He terms four different modes of knowledge conversion: socialisation, combination, externalisation, and internalisation.
The key to the process of creating tacit
knowledge is through shared experience - socialisation. Socialisation takes
place through observation, imitation and practice. The second mode of knowledge
conversion involves the use of social processes to combine different bodies of
explicit knowledge held by individuals. Individuals exchange and combine
knowledge through meetings and telephone conversations; this process of
creating explicit knowledge from explicit knowledge is referred to as
‘combination’. The third and fourth modes of knowledge capture the idea that
tacit and explicit knowledge are complementary and can expand over time through
a process of mutual interaction. One is the conversion of tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge which is called ‘externalisation’,
the other is the conversion of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
‘internalisation’.
Bohringer (2006) argues that this
knowledge-based view offers a sound theoretical basis for the analysis of the
existence and role of the incubator. An incubator may need physical resources
and facilities but an important requirement for competitive advantage is
knowledge. Bohringer (2006) argues that the business
incubator forms a voluntaristic social community
which provides a context for knowledge integration and transfer superior to the
market and other network solutions. Sveiby’s (2001)
Knowledge Based Theory describes outside partners becoming part of the family
of the firm, where the importance is placed on how effective the value creation
is in the whole system. For the HEI incubator this value can be achieved
through the combination of spatial agglomeration, frequent and long term
interaction, the level of common knowledge, goal congruence and identity.
A Structured Approach To Managing Knowledge
Knowledge management is a strategic process, which aims to differentiate a firm from competitors such that a sustainable competitive advantage is forged. The ability of organizations to create, transfer, assemble, integrate and leverage knowledge is fundamental to achieving this competitive advantage. Tiwana (2000) suggests that knowledge drives strategy and strategy drives knowledge management. Ismail & Ahmad (2011) outline that the first priority of an ideal knowledge management strategy which is that it should address people, processes, and technology.
Van Winkelen &
McKenzie (2011) argue for a structured approach to managing knowledge, and
outline that it is the piecemeal approach to knowledge which fails to help
organisations make more meaningful and informed strategic choices. By
understanding what knowledge makes a difference to organisational performance,
the firm can focus their limited resources on the things that will generate most
impact and value. “Even when you accept the importance of taking a knowledge
perspective on the organisation, it is still a challenge to prioritise, time
attention effort, and financial resources to improve the way knowledge delivers
results” (Van Winkelen & McKenzie, 2011, p. 1).
Van Winkelen & McKenzie (2011) building on the
work of Sveiby (2001) propose a strategic approach to
designing knowledge initiatives based on mapping critical knowledge and
knowledge flows and determining strategic knowledge priorities in conjunction
with key stakeholders. Van Winkelen & McKenzie
(2011) contend that this strategic approach should be flexible and take account
of the complexities of the business world that the firm is operating in, it should be used to shape rather than constrain
thinking about knowledge priorities.
Figure 1: A Strategic Approach To Designing Knowledge Initiatives (Van Winkelen
& Mckenzie, 2011, p. 3)
Mapping Critical Knowledge
The objective of this stage
of the process is to map the domains of knowledge that are important to the
business. Without this mapping exercise, critical knowledge resources for the
business may be missed. The knowledge map is not an organisational chart or
process map. It is a representation of the key areas of knowledge that are core
to the business over time.
To identify valuable
knowledge resources, there are some trigger questions that can be asked about
the organisation:
· What differentiates us in the marketplace?
· What do we consider as meaningful results for the organisation?
· Who are our customers?
· Who are our competitors?
· What are their values and behaviours?
· What are our important markets?
· What are our core competencies?
·
Mapping
key knowledge flows
Productive knowledge flows
increase the potential for value generation. When knowledge is transferred
quickly and easily from where it is generated to where it is needed it has more
opportunity to make both a short and a longer term difference to something that
matters in the organisation. People in an organisation can use their competence
to create value in mainly two directions: externally or internally. If the
managers of an organisation direct the efforts of their people internally, they
may create tangible structures such as machinery and intangible structures such
as better processes, when they direct their attention outwards, they can create
in addition to tangible things, intangible structures such as customer
relationships and new experiences (Sveiby 2001).
Sveiby (2001) identifies three families of
intangible assets built on relationships which can convert and transfer
knowledge; the external structure, the internal structure and individual
competence. The knowledge value generated depends on how well connected the
organisation is within these relationships and how effectively critical
knowledge flows work together to influence the firms performance. Van Winkelen & McKenzie (2011) identify nine critical
knowledge flows that influence a firm’s performance based on Sveiby’s (2001) three families of intangible assets. These
flows enable activities that form the backbone of a knowledge strategy:
I. Between individuals
II. From individuals to external structure
III. From external structure to individuals
IV. From individual competence into internal structure
V. From internal structure to individual competence
VI. Within the external structure
VII. From external to internal structure
VIII. From internal to external structure and
IX. Within internal structure
These nine knowledge flows
exist in most organisations. However they tend not to be coordinated in a
coherent strategy, because management lack the full perspective that a
knowledge based theory may give them. Most organisations also have legacy
systems and cultures that block the transfers (Sveiby
2001).
What knowledge should be
central to this mapping, flow and knowledge initiatives? This paper proposes
that knowledge flow between the HEI, the firm and its environment to build the
resources of a firm and their productive services should be central to these
knowledge processes. For the incubation
process to work to its full potential the HEI and Incubation companies must
develop a system of knowledge creation or spiral of knowledge, where learning
takes place within the structure of the firm’s mission and strategy to support
the growth and long-term survival of the incubation firm.
Figure 2: Framework For HE Incubation Knowledge Management
Framework For HE Incubation Knowledge.
This paper proposes that
this is a valid framework to design knowledge initiatives between the HEI and
an incubation firm. To facilitate this
process and to locate blockages or gaps in knowledge the incubation firm maps
critical knowledge and knowledge flows. The firm then maps their strategic
knowledge priorities. The HE and the Start-up then jointly design knowledge
initiatives to improve the firm’s knowledge and knowledge flows. The host
institute and the incubation firm should work together to create a ‘spiral of
knowledge’ (Nonaka 1994). The HE and incubation firm
can transfer tacit knowledge through sharing experiences, observation, and
imitation and practice (socialisation). They can exchange and combine explicit
knowledge through meetings and telephone calls (combination), and through
mutual interaction they can convert tacit to explicit knowledge
(externalisation) and explicit to tacit knowledge (internalisation).
Externalisation and internalisation can be facilitated through the building of
a strong relationship between the HE and the incubation firm.
Start-up companies need
information quickly as a good idea or potential market today could be gone
tomorrow, so this knowledge flow and creation needs to work efficiently. Any
barriers to this process should be identified and eliminated. The host
institute and the incubation firm should have appropriate leadership, problem
solving behaviour, support structures and absorptive and retentive capacity (Goh, 2002) to facilitate the design and management of these
knowledge initiatives. This effective knowledge management will allow small
companies to build an impregnable base before leaving the protective
environment of the incubation centre.
Conclusions
This paper posits that for
the incubation process to work to its full potential, the HEI and Incubation
companies must develop a system of knowledge creation or spiral of knowledge,
where learning takes place within the structure of the firm’s mission and
strategy to support the growth and long-term survival of the incubation firm.
Entrepreneurs
are not risk-takers and they need risk to be minimised. No entrepreneur can
obtain an instant market or productivity, resources must be obtained from their
environment and internally and skilfully combined to give rise to productive
activity, and this requires a period of intensive collective learning (Garnsey, 2002). Start-up companies within Incubation
Centres are in the perfect environment to learn, minimise risk and build an
impregnable base to sustain success. However just because investments in
knowledge are made through Higher Education and you place start-ups in close
proximity does not guarantee success. The investment will go to waste unless
the relevant knowledge for the start-up is created between the HEI, the
environment and the start-up firm. This creation of knowledge will allow: “…the
firm to establish one or more wide and relatively impregnable ‘bases’ from
which it can adapt and extend its operations in an uncertain, changing and
competitive world” (Penrose, 1959, p.137).
Van Winkelen
& McKenzie (2011) argue for a structured approach to managing knowledge and
propose a strategic approach to designing knowledge initiatives based on
mapping critical knowledge and knowledge flows. This paper builds on Penrose’s
(1959) Theory of the Growth of the Firm and applies Nonaka’s
(1994) dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation to build a
structured framework of Knowledge
Management for Higher Education business Incubation
References
Argote, L. &
Ingram, P. (2000) ‘Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for competitive advantage in
firms’, Organisational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, No 1, May, pp. 150- 169.
Barney, J. Ketchen, D. & Wright, M (2011) ‘The future of Resource Based Theory: Revitalisation or decline?’, Journal of Management 2011 vol 37 No 5, 1299-1315.
Barney, J. (1991) ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage?’, Academy of
Management Review, 11 (3), 656-665.
Bohringer, A. (2006)
‘Knowledge specialisation and transfer; A knowledge
based framework for business incubation’, Druid
Summer conference.
Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. (1990)
‘Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on Learning and Innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly. Ithaca: Vol 35, Iss. 1;
p 128.
Cortright, J. (2001) New
Growth Theory, Technology and Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide. Washington,
DC: US Economic Development Administration.
Curran, D., van Egeraat, C. & O’Gorman, C. (2011) New Entrants and Inherited Competence: The Evolution of the Irish Biotech Sector NIRSA, NUI Maynooth.
David, P. & Foray, D. (2001)
‘An Introduction to the Economy of the Knowledge Society,’
Economics Series
Working Papers 084, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
Foss, N. (2002) ‘Edith Penrose and Strategic Management’. In Pitelis, C. (ed.): The growth of the firm: the legacy of Edith Penrose. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.101-125.
Garnsey, E. (1998) A Theory of the Early Growth of the Firm ,Oxford University Press, New York.
Garnsey, E. (2002) 'The growth of new ventures: analysis after Penrose.' In Pitelis, C. (ed.): The growth of the firm: the legacy of Edith Penrose. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.101-125.
Garnsey, E. (2007) ‘ Entrepreneurship in the Knowledge Economy’, Centre for Technology Management Working Paper Series, University of Cambridge.
Goh, S. (2002) ‘Managing effective knowledge
transfer: an integrative framework and some practice implications’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 6, no 1., pp 23-30.
Grant, R.M. (1996) ‘Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,’ Strategic Management Journal (17), Winter Special Issue pp. 109–122.
Hackett, S.M. & Dilts,
D.M. (2004) ‘A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research’. Journal of Technology
Transfer. 29: 55–82.
Hannan, M. & Freeman, J. (1989) Organizational Ecology, Cambridge.
Haour, G. & Miéville, L. (2011) From Science to Business, How firms create value by partnering with Universities, London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hisrich, R.D. & Peters, M.P. (1998) Entrepreneurship. McGraw-Hill. 4th ed.
Ismail, S. & Ahmad, M.S. (2011)
Agent-Mediated Knowledge Management: An Exploratory Review for Research in
Knowing the Know, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 12,
No. 1.
Kor, Y.Y. & Mahoney, J.T. (2000) Penrose‘s resource-based approach: The process and product of research creativity. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1): 109-139.
Kor, Y.Y. & Mahoney, J.T. (2005) How dynamics, management, and governance of resource deployments influence firm-level performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5): 489-496.
Kuratko,
D.F. & LaFollette, W.R. (1987) ‘Small Business
Incubators for Local Economic Development’. Economic Development Review. 5(2): 49–55.
Lockett, A. Thompson, S. (2004) ‘Edith Penrose's Contribution to the Resource-Based View: An Alternative View’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.41 (1), pp.193-203.
Mahoney J. T. (1995) ‘The
management of resources and the resource of management’. Journal of Business Research, 33: 91–101.
Mahoney, J. T. (2005) Economics Foundations of Strategy. London: Sage.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Mezirow, J. (Ed.) & Associates, Learning as Transformation (pp. 3- 34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nonaka, I. (1994) ‘A
dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation’. Organisation Science, 5 (1): 14-37.
Penrose, E.T. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Oxford University Press.
Penrose, E.T. (1960) ‘The growth of the firm. A case study: the Hercules Powder Company’. Business History Review, 34, 1, 1–23.
Penrose, E. (1995) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm: 3rd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peteraf, M. (1993) ‘The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view’. Strategic Management Journal,
Vol 14 Is. 3 179 -191.
Pitelis, C. (2002) The Growth of the Firm, the Legacy of Edith Penrose, Oxford University Press, New York.
Scarborough, H. (2009) The Evolution of business knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schumpeter,
J.A. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy. London: Routledge.
Shane, S.A. (2000) ‘Prior
Knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities’. Organisation Science, 11 (4), 448-472.
Smilor, R.W. (1987) ‘Managing
the Incubator system: Critical Success Factors to accelerate new company
development.’ IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management EM-34 (4), 146 – 156.
Spender, J-C, (1996) ‘Making Knowledge the basis of a
dynamic theory of the firm’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17 45-62.
Sveiby, K.E. (2001) ‘A knowledge- based theory of
the firm to guide in strategy formulation.’ Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol 2 No 4, 2001, pp.
344-358.
Tiwana, A. (2000) The Knowledge Management Toolkit: practical Techniques for building a Knowledge Management System. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Van Winkelen, C, & McKenzie, J. (2011) Knowledge Works. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Voisey, P., Gornall, L.,
Jones, P., & Thomas, B (2006) ‘The measurement of success in a business incubation
project’, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 13(3): 454-468.
About the
Author:
Philip Hennessy is a Lecturer in the Business Department Limerick Institute of Technology (Tipperary), and Doctorate of Business Administration student, University College Cork. Research interests are Enterprise Policy, Business Incubation and Entrepreneurship. He can be contacted: Philip Hennessy, Tipperary Institute, Cashel Court Road, Clonmel, Co Tipperary. Tel: (0504) 28453; Email: phennessy@tippinst.ie