CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF TECHNOLOGY PARKS
IN AUSTRALIA
Radwan A. Kharabsheh
Department of Business Adminstration, The Hashemite University, Jordan
Keywords: Success factors, Technology parks, Australia.
Abstract: Given the potential importance of technology parks, their complexity in terms of the scope of required
investment and the growing interest of governments to use them as tools for creating sustainable
development there is a pressing need for a better understanding of the critical success factors of these
entities. However, Briggs and watt (2001) argued that the goal of many technology parks and the factors
driving innovation success are still a mystery. In addition, it is argued that the problem with analyzing
technology parks and cluster building is that recent studies analyze “the most celebrated case studies… to
‘explain’ their success” (Holbrook and Wolfe, 2002). This study uses intensive interviewing of technology
parks’ managers and managers of tenant firms in the technology park to explore critical success factors of
four of Australia’s' technology parks. The study identified the following critical success factors: a culture of
risk-taking “entrepreneurism”, an autonomous park management that is independent of university officials
and government bureaucrats, an enabling environment, a critical mass of companies that allows for
synergies within the technology park, the presence of internationally renounced innovative companies, and
finally a shared vision among the technology park stakeholders.
1 INTRODUCTION
Technology parks and incubation programs provide
a mechanism to promote and stimulate commercial
and industrial innovation, encourage re-
industrialization and ensure sustainable regional
development. The UNESCO defines Science and
Technology Parks (STPs) as “economic and
technological development complexes that aim at
fostering knowledge-based economies by bringing
together scientific research, business and
governmental organizations in one physical location,
and supporting interrelationships between these
groups.” In addition to providing space for
knowledge-based products, science and technology
parks can house centres for scientific research,
technological innovation and incubation, training,
forecasting, as well as facilities for fairs, exhibitions
and market development. They are formally linked
(and usually physically close) to centres of
technological excellence, universities and/or
research centres.
In a technology park knowledge can be diffused
through formal and informal interpersonal or
employee-related contacts amongst the firms (which
may result from direct face-to-face interaction or
more indirectly from the research ambience
generated by, for example, a nearby leading firm), or
knowledge may be dispersed through relationships
with local universities or other institutions of higher
learning and/or research (Wolfe and Gertler, 2003).
Indeed universities and colleges often play the role
of an “anchor” and are a catalyst to high-technology
company spinoffs (Berry, 1998).
However, technology parks and incubation
programs are not always successful (Sun, Ni and
Leung, 2007). For example, Colombo and Delmastro
(2002) pointed out that “in spite of the diffusion of
science parks in Europe, whether they have been
successful or not in supporting new technology-
based firms still is unclear”. Some even concluded
that technology parks in specific context might be a
“technology fantasy” (Bakouros, Mardas, and
Varsakelis, 2002). In addition, it is argued that the
problem with analyzing technology parks and cluster
building is that recent studies analyze “the most
celebrated case studies… to ‘explain’ their success”
(Holbrook and Wolfe, 2002).
Using intensive interviewing (Kvale, 1996;
Reinharz, 1992) of four Australian technology
parks’ managers and managers of tenant firms this
103
A. Kharabsheh R. (2009).
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF TECHNOLOGY PARKS IN AUSTRALIA.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing, pages 103-111
DOI: 10.5220/0002274901030111
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

paper presents a framework of critical success
factors for technology parks in Australia. The model
has practical implications for technology parks.
2 SUCCESS FACTORS OF
TECHNOLOGY PARKS
The American National Business Incubation
Association (NBIA) estimates that there are more
than 1000 business incubators in North America, up
from only 12 in 1980; and the number at present
exceeds 4000 worldwide (Sun, Ni and Leung, 2007).
Numerous science park and incubation programmes
are very successful in fostering growth of emerging
entrepreneurs, creating new job opportunities, and
speeding up development of regional economy (Lee
and Yang, 2000; Walcott, 2003; Phan, Siegel and
Wright, 2005). Successful examples exist in Italy
(Colombo and Delmastro, 2002), China (Sutherland,
2005; Lai, and Shyu, 2005), Poland (Matusiak,
2003), Singapore (Koh, Koh, and Tschang, 2005),
Korea (Lee, 2003), Nigeria (Adegbte, 2001), and
Brazil (Lalkaka, 2003) to name some; this is of
course in addition to the North American and UK
parks that have been world class exemplars in
developing such incubation programmes to enhance
the growth of regional economies and foster new
firm development.
However, technology parks and incubation
programmes are not always successful. Evidence on
the effectiveness of incubation programs is not
conclusive. For example, Colombo and Delmastro
(2002) indicated that “in spite of the diffusion of
science parks in Europe, whether they have been
successful or not in supporting new technology-
based firms still is unclear”. Other researchers even
argued that technology parks in some context may
be a “technology fantasy” (Bakouros, Mardas, and
Varsakelis, 2002). There is little systematic research
and empirical study on the relationship between
critical success factors and the performance of
incubation programme. How to improve the
technology parks success rate and rate of the
technological incubated entrepreneurs has become a
critical issue.
While there is a considerable amount of research
on the performance of incubation programmes
(Mian, 1996, 1997; Sherman, 1999; Lindelof,
Lofsten, 2002; Siegel, Westhead, and Wright, 2003;
Bigliardi, et. al., 2005), few studies have examined
related performance driven factors especially in
Australia. For example, Smilor and Gill (1986)
identified ten critical success factors from the
incubator perspective, and four from the tenant
company perspective. Factors found described the
static configuration of incubation programmes, such
as “facilities, budgets, organizational charts,
geographic location, institutional link and so on”.
Autto and Klofsten (1998) identified configuration
parameters including proximity to major
universities, or technology sites, availability of on-
site manufacturing facilities, competent science park
management, accessibility of venture capital
funding, and prudent tenant selection criteria. There
are also process oriented factors which refer to
active hands-on support arrangements that assist
start ups companies during the early phases of their
life cycle. Phan, Siegel and Wirhgt (2005) suggested
that research should be analyzed at four levels; the
incubator level, the incubatee level, the entrepreneur
level, and the system level. They also advocate
connecting the four levels together for a
comprehensive examination of success criteria.
While this brief literature review is both important
and helpful, it is used only in developing the
research questions.
3 METHODOLOGY
The research design employed in this study follows
the fundamental prescription of Glaser and Strauss
(1967) called “grounded theory.” In this
prescription, the researcher establishes a specific
area of study and a general theoretical framework
without specifying hypotheses a priori. Instead,
these are allowed to flow from the phenomenon
being studied. The researcher conducted semi-
structured intensive interviews of both technology
parks managers, business development managers
and marketing managers and mangers of tenant
firms in the technology parks. In total 30 interviews
were conducted. While an interview is a direct
conversation (Lofland and Loffland 1984; 1995);
intensive interviewing permits an in-depth
exploration of a particular topic or experience and
thus, is a useful method for interpretive inquiry.
The in-depth nature of an interview fosters
eliciting each participant’s interpretation of his or
her experience. The interviewer seeks to understand
the topic and the interview participant has the
relevant experiences to shed light on it (Fontana and
Frey 1994; Seidman 1997). Therefore, the
interviewer’s questions ask the participant to
describe and reflect upon his or her experiences in
ways that seldom occur in everyday life. The
interviewer is there to listen, to observe with
sensitivity, and to encourage the person to respond.
Hence, in this conversation the participant does most
KMIS 2009 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
104

of the talking.
The interviews consisted of open discussion
around a few general discussion points provided by
the interviewer. The same set of discussion points
was used with both the technology pork managers
and managers of tenant firms.
The processes of tape-recording, transcribing,
and analyzing interviews are ongoing. Document
collection and analysis allowed the researcher to
understand the official history or background of the
studied institutions.
The data were analyzed in two basic, interrelated
phases. As the data were collected, the researcher
was looking for themes and factors of success. From
these readings, the researcher constructed analytic
memos consisting of hunches, questions, topics, and
themes. This preliminary analysis, involving careful
listening and reading guided by the research
question, guided both the interviewing and the
collection of documents. The researcher used the
themes generated by the analytic memos to block
and label the transcribed interviews. Below are the
discussion points:
1. How would you define success of a technology
park? What makes one technology park more
successful than another?
2. What factors influenced the success or failure of
the technology park? What are the barriers to
success? What are the enablers?
Hypotheses with regard to the determinants of
success have been developed from the interviews
and will be empirically tested by using a survey
instrument. This paper contains the findings from
the interviews.
3.1 Profile of the Participants
There are four technology parks participating in this
study. One is located in New South Wales and is
considered to be the largest technology park in
Australia with more than ninety tenant firms
inhabiting the park. The second is located in Victoria
and is seen to be as one of the smallest technology
parks in Australia with only numerous tenant firms.
The other two parks were located in South Australia
and one of them is the oldest technology park in
Australia. In terms of management structures the
parks varied in terms of reporting and management.
Two parks reported to local government agencies,
one reported to an Australian university and another
had an independent form of a private company.
2.2 Key Informants
The researcher interviewed general managers,
business development managers and marketing
managers of the technology parks. In addition,
interviews were conducted with managers of tenant
firms located in the parks. First the managers were
contacted via phone and provided with a brief
description of the study's rationale and objectives.
The manager was assured that his/her identity and
the identity of his organization were to remain
confidential and that no one will have direct contact
with the data collected except for the researcher.
4 DEFINING TECHNOLOGY
PARK SUCCESS
It is extremely difficult to quantify the financial and
economic impact of a technology park, primarily
because there is no established definition of success
or a standard way to examine a company's effect on
an economy (Drescher, 2001). Studies that have
attempted to determine success or failure of
technology parks tend to focus on two areas:
benefits received by the park or the community and
benefits received by businesses locating in the park.
An even greater challenge, is defining success in a
way that allows comparisons across different
technology parks.
The interviews showed that the success of a
technology park depends primarily on the body or
the institution that is managing the park. That is the
driving force behind the establishment and
management of the technology park. In general the
participants agreed that universities focused on
research, students training and creating IP whereas
government bodies focused on technology transfer,
job creation and economic development. In reality,
though, the participants agreed that universities had
little understanding of market mechanisms such the
commercialization of IP and concept development
and testing while government bodies usually treated
technology parks as mere real estate developments.
This caused a distorted view of success. Once the
there was a shift to autonomous, private firm-like
management the way success of the technology park
was viewed changed to reflect the different
stakeholders of the park itself.
While the participants agreed on the five major
indicators of technology park success they placed
different weights on them. This reflected the
different stakeholders involved in the technology
park and their differing interests. Following are the
five indicators:
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF TECHNOLOGY PARKS IN AUSTRALIA
105

4.1 Technology Parks’ Innovation
and its Ability to Create IP
One of the numerous and major roles a technology
park plays is creating linkage between universities,
research centres, research and development
departments in companies and technologically based
start ups. These linkages work on different levels:
first, they allow start ups to have access to
established laboratories and research bases that are
otherwise expensive to build or rent. Secondly, they
allow university students to have access to
companies for training and an opportunity to pursue
projects that can create IP. Thirdly, when a critical
mass of companies exists in the technology park
synergies exist and more IP is created. The bottom
line here is the number of IPs created per year.
Although this is important it is only one dimension
of parks’ success.
4.2 The Ability of the Technology Park
to Attract Funding
Participants agreed that the ability of the technology
park to attract funding was detrimental to its success.
Te funds that are collected are usually used for
diverse purposes. Some of the purposes mentioned
by participants included: intellectual property
enhancement and “freedom to practice” analysis,
prototype development and testing, market research
and commercial assessment, feasibility studies for
production, determination of regulatory and
reimbursement pathways and finally preliminary
business plans. One park manager explained that:
our focus is to provide the critical support needed
to advance technologies and generate public
interest in the technology so the companies can
attract additional funding and market interest.
4.3 The Ability of the Technology to
Create Value through Real Estate
Development
Technology parks are essentially a property-based
development with a high-quality, physical
environment in a park-like setting. They takes
advantage of proximity to sources of significant
intellectual capital, conducive infrastructure and
policy environment, and supports technology-based
firms and state institutes in a managed area, thus
facilitates interaction, technology development and
economic growth.
All participants agreed that technology park
success can be measured by its ability to create and
develop real estate value. From the technology
parks’ management view this is important because
real estate development is one of the factors that
prospective tenants consider when choosing a park.
A manager of a technology park explains:
Aesthetics and beauty is a very important aspect
We have created natural spaces overlooking
water front and developed a conference centre,
fully serviced apartments that can be rented for
variable periods of time. We are also attracting
supporting services such as cafes and the likes.
From the tents firms view it is important that
apartments and other services are available so that it
becomes easier to accommodate their employees and
visitors.
4.4 Number of Jobs created within the
Immediate Community and the
Country
This is a straight forward measure of the technology
park success. However, it also reflected the ability of
the technology park management to effectively link
the different stakeholders together. That is the ability
of the technology park management to link
universities and local labour market with tenant
firms. One technology park manager explains:
We have developed a mechanism by which we
can link job seekers with the companies within
the park. But the more important aspect is that of
university students training which can be
replaced by a formal job opportunity. The
relationship between universities and the parks
tenant firms is assumed to exist and function
smoothly. However, this is not the case.
Universities are sometimes distant and may not
be able to gain access for training in the parks
tenant firms. In our capacity as park management
we bring the different parties together and make
sure that they see what is in it for them.
4.5 Technology Transferred
Technology transfer can take place in different
ways. The usual is that through the mingling of
different tenant firms within the park. Technology
park management arranges regular meeting to hook
up employees and managers of tenant firms together.
In these informal meeting managers and employees
from different firms but related or close industry can
share experiences, discuss common obstacles and
problems. This may lead to sharing of knowledge
and technology. In many cases synergies are created
and companies can benefit through the buying of
services or product from other tent firms in the park.
KMIS 2009 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
106

One technology park manger explains:
We set up regular activities every month. We do
it in way that it is informal and apart in time. The
idea is to put everybody in an environment where
they can have a chat, discuss their work, goals
problems and so on.
The second way a technology park assists in
transferring technology is through the provision of
jobs and training for students an, young graduates
and highly skilled employees. Employees may have
the opportunity to work with leading Australian or
foreign firms for short projects or even have along
term contracts which injects them with new
knowledge, technology and managerial skills. When
these employees leave the tenant firm, and join the
workforce in the market they participate directly or
indirectly in transferring this knowledge, technology
and management styles.
Of course this is a two way process in which the
knowledge may be transferred from the local
workforce to the foreign companies. One manager
comments:
Foreign companies are attracted to this park
because this city has been traditionally known to
host [certain industry-name removed]. Proximity
to the sea has always attracted [name of industry]
industry to this city which meant that with time
we have created a pool of skilled labour in this
realm.
5 SUCCESS FACTORS
The interviews revealed a variety of factors that
influence the success of the technology parks. The
researcher was able to triangulate perspectives and
to develop a more robust assessment of each
technology park by comparing different perspectives
across technology parks' management and tenant
firms' management. However, differences in
perceptions of success naturally translated into
differences in perceived determinants of success.
Cross-case comparison was the most useful tool in
the researcher’s induction of the determinants of
success. At a basic level, it was found that successful
technology parks were characterized by: 1. an
autonomous park management that is independent of
both university officials and government
bureaucrats, 2. a risk taking "entrepreneurial"
culture, 3. an enabling environment, 4. a critical
mass of companies that allows for synergies to arise
within the technology park, 5. the presence of
internationally renounced innovative companies and
finally, 5. the presence of supporting services such
as lawyers, accountants and real estate development
agencies.
5.1 A Culture of Risk Taking
“Entrepreneurism”
One of the major roles of a technology park is that of
linking research, technology, capital and know-how
to leverage entrepreneurial talent, accelerate the
development of new technology-based firms, and
speed up the commercialization of technology. Most
mangers interviewed believed that innovation
required a risk taking culture that is rarely existent in
universities or local/regional government
institutions. One researcher/technology park
manager commented:
the university [name of university removed] does
not understand what we do. They perceive what
we do as risky. When they undertake their risk
assessment every year they put us at the top of
the list. I think they are worried about the
resources and grants and how they are being
used. This is why universities should not manage
the park!
Another explained:
Universities; like any other government
institution are mainly concerned with efficiencies
and playing it safe. If they are not sure of the
outcomes then they are not willing to take a risk.
However, private firms are more likely to
undertake risk.
Another researcher further elaborated that:
We do not advocate taking risk. It is risk that is
managed professionally by the people who truly
understand its nature!
Furthermore, despite universities interest in
generating income from patents and attracting funds
the main focus of universities remained knowledge
creation and dissemination. One manager/researcher
explained that:
Before the technology park became independent,
some university deans who were brilliant researchers
worked at the technology park as associated deans.
Their compensation came from the university and
were paid no extra money from the technology park.
Now, in exchange for each new patent they came up
with the university paid them 1 dollar. That is one
dollar for each patent created! This just an example
on how universities lack of understanding of
importance of motivating researchers to create
patents that can be commercialized and make huge
amount of money. How can we motivate researchers
under these conditions to excel.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF TECHNOLOGY PARKS IN AUSTRALIA
107

Government entities on the other hand tended to
view technology parks as no more than real estate
development. This was the case in the four
technology parks surveyed. One technology park
manager argued:
A very important distinction between the present
management and the previous one (the present being
market oriented and autonomous and the previous
being the local government) is that the previous
management treated the technology park as a pure
real estate development. This meant that they were
not concerned with the impact of the technology
park on the economy, creating IP and knowledge,
creating linkages between universities, research
facilities and private companies whether start ups or
international firms. The difference in enormous!
5.2 An Autonomous Park Management
In order to create a risk taking environment where
participants have the freedom to try and fail
managers agreed that technology parks’
management should be independent from both the
university and local/regional government
bureaucrats. One manger commented:
Since the new management took lead of the
technology park from the regional government
things have changed dramatically. We operate on
commercial basis just like any other firm in the
market.
Another manager/researcher argued that:
At the technology park level, universities and
government agencies do not usually have the
capability to assess the clear risks and potential
benefits of financing the creation and expansion of a
technology-based enterprise. They inherently lack
the knowledge to make a rigorous appraisal for a
technology project. Because we understand the
nature of what we do we can employ the right
people and therefore can mange the risk effectively
and efficiently.
This is not to say that the technology parks are
totally independent from the university or the
regional government. In some cases universities
undertook administrative support in the form of
developing contracts and other HRM activities. This
allowed the technology park management to focus
on what is important. In addition universities are
represented on the board of directors of the
technology park so that the relationship is continued
and an understanding of university interested is kept
in consideration. One researcher argues that:
Technology based ventures often have social and
environmental implications. They are inherently
more risky than others and the management of risks
calls for assessment techniques and vision.
5.3 An Enabling Environment
Most of the study participants agreed that an
enabling environment in which the technology park
operates can be detrimental to its success. According
to the participants of the study there are numerous
enablers to the success of a technology park which
may include: the presence of knowledge workers
and skilled labor in the immediate environment of
the technology park, the availability of the right
communication energy and real estate infrastructure,
the availability of IP offices within the technology
parks.
With regards to skilled labor it is important that a
pool of workers exists in the immediate environment
and outer environment of the technology park. This
does not seems to be a problem for any of the
technology parks involved in the study despite the
fact that Australia faces an extreme shortage in
skilled labor. One technology park manager
explains:
This city has been a traditional location for ship
builders in Australia. This meant a pool of skilled
labor in this industry and related industries which
helped us a lot in attracting the kind of companies
that we have in the park.
In other parks the labor consisted mainly of
researchers who were attracted by universities and
research companies that are themselves tenants in
the park. One technology park manager comments:
We rely heavily on researchers from the
university [this university is linked formally to
park]. We also rely on postgraduate research
students who undertake their research under the
university but at the same time use research facilities
and labs in tenant companies. This provides us with
a big pool of knowledge workers.
With regards to the right infrastructure, it is
important that the necessary infrastructure such as
communication and energy are made available to
tenant companies. Technology parks involved used
provided developed infrastructure that was used
attract leading research and foreign companies to the
park. One technology park business development
manager explained that:
We have managed a major Australian
communication firm to base its broad band internet
services in the park. In exchange we promised them
to the official provider for the park and its tenant
KMIS 2009 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
108

firms. Indeed we gave them big fish! Foreign
companies whose work required a high quality
communication infrastructure and what can be better
than a facility that is in the same vicinity of the firm
(that is in the park).
5.4 A Critical Mass of Leading Foreign
Companies
Participants agreed that a critical mass of companies
in general and foreign companies specifically
affords park and the region a sought-after labor pool
that is both broad and deep. This enables the region
to draw more high-quality employers and companies
that not only provide jobs but also increase the
sophistication and expertise of the region’s
workforce through their research, use of technology,
investment in employees and high standards. It also
provides an environment in which company
researchers, knowledge workers, and university
professors can interact around ideas, creativity and
entrepreneurship, thereby creating more knowledge,
more innovation, and economic growth.
Another reason why the presence of
internationally renowned firms is important is that
these firms usually have established markets
overseas. One park manager commented:
The Australian market is limited in size, there is
a shortage of skilled labor and more than 90% of
Australian companies are SMEs. All of these factors
crate a challenge. The presence of leading foreign
companies guarantees that they will have their own
established markets and will not rely totally on the
Australian market. They bring in their capital,
technology and managerial knowledge. At time they
may even bring in their own employees.
This is not always the case however. To a certain
extent it depends on the nature of the technology
park and the rationale behind its establishment. For
example, one of the smallest technology park, which
was not located in a major city and was located
rurally was focused on agricultural businesses and
research. Here it was obvious how the nature of
Australian market, labor market reflected on the
technology park. Australia faces a huge shortage in
skilled labor in general and in agriculture
specifically. This meant that Australian agricultural
businesses used capital investment and highly
developed technology and the use of highly
productive workforce to compensate for this
shortage. The technology park itself was composed
of mainly Australian SMEs that specialized in
agriculture. However, the technology park did attract
world class researchers from all around the world in
order to solve the shortage problem.
5.5 A Shared Vision
Due to the nature of a technology park and the fact
that numerous parties are involved in its creation and
development; it is important that these parties have
an agreement and understanding of what the
technology park should do both in the short and long
run. The aim is to link the strategies of the
universities and the tenant firms with the
city’s/region’s own self-vision of the future of the
city/ region where the technology park resided. One
manager argued that:
To seek a shared vision among senior
stakeholders of what success in [city name]
would look like in 3 years time and to begin the
process of developing a strategy to achieve that
vision.
Another manager noted that:
the direct involvement of senior stakeholders in
generating the strategy, created an impetus
towards implementation of results that may have
been lacking in a more extended but lower level
process. In a way the process provided insights
for all into how foresight approaches can be
usefully adapted to a specific policy context to
set in motion dynamic networking processes so
vital for the regional innovation system.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The study used intensive interviewing of technology
parks’ managers and managers of tenant firms in the
technology park to explore critical success factors of
four of Australia's' technology parks. The study
found general agreement on success dimensions but
differences on the weights placed on these
dimensions depending on the different stakeholders
involved in the technology park. The study found
that an autonomous, private firm like management
of the technology park is more likely to reach a
better success considering the multiple stakeholders
involved in the technology park. This is in contrast
to the situation when universities managed
technology parks here they focused solely on
research and IP creation and government entities
where the technology park was treated as a mere real
estate development. This is evident by the fact that
all four technology parks involved shifted from
university and/or government control into an
autonomous management that is independent from
both the universities and the government.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF TECHNOLOGY PARKS IN AUSTRALIA
109

The study found the following to be critical
success factors of technology parks in Australia:
1. A culture of risk-taking “entrepreneurism”: a
technology park that is has a culture of risk taking
and entrepreneurism is more likely to succeed and
produce more innovation and technology. 2. An
autonomous park management that is independent of
both university officials and government
bureaucrats; a technology park that is managed by
an independent private firm-like management is
more likely to adopt a risk taking culture and
therefore produce more innovation and commercial
results. 3. An enabling environment, a critical mass
of companies that allows for synergies within the
technology park, the presence of internationally
renounced innovative companies, and finally a
shared vision among the technology park
stakeholders. 4. A critical mass of companies that
allows for synergies within the technology park, the
presence of internationally renounced innovative
companies, and finally , 5. A shared vision among
the technology park stakeholders.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the previous conclusions the study makes
the following recommendations:
1. To able to succeed technology parks
management should nurture a culture of risk taking
and freedom to fail. Innovation and success
involves risk taking that is usually lacking in
universities and government institutions. The nature
of technology parks requires such risk taking, but it
is calculated risk. That is risk under professional
management. 2. Technology park management
should be autonomous from both universities and the
government. It should either be totally independent
or has a very high degree of autonomy. A culture of
risk taking that was described in the previous point
can only be achieved if the technology park has a
high degree of autonomy. 3. Technology parks
should provide and strive to build an enabling
environment that attracts prospective tenants to the
park. Communication infrastructure, real estate
development of the park, proximity services can all
add value to the park and can be detrimental to the
decision of entry of prospective tenants. 4.
Technology parks should try and build a critical
mass of tenants firms which may help in creating
synergies between these firms and therefore add
value. Technology parks' management can adopt
specific and targeted entry policy for prospective
tenants that allows the technology park to choose
tents that will add to the value of the technology
park stock of firms. Further, leading foreign firm
should be targeted since they bring in technology,
capital and new managerial ways. 5. Technology
park management should aim to build a consensus or
at least an understanding among the park
stakeholders so that the benefits and value are
maximized and all interests are served. Successful
technology parks' management should make regular
meeting and gatherings among tents of the park,
government officials, and the community to open
communication channels. This process serves to
build relationships at the grass root levels and helps
create a comprehensive and sustainable development
on the long run where technology parks become a
major player in this process.
REFERENCES
Adegbite, O., 2001. Business incubators and small
enterprise development: the Nigerian
experience. Small Business Economics 17, 157-166.
Autto, E., Klofsten, M., 1998. A Comparative Study of
Two European Business Incubators. Journal of Small
Business Management 36(1), 30-43.
Bakouros, Yiannis L., Mardas, Dimitri C, Varsakelis,
Nikos C, 2002. Science Park, a high tech fantasy? an
analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation
22, 123-128.
Berry, M., 1998. Strategic planning in small high tech
companies. In: Long Range Planning, 31(3), 455-466.
Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. I., Nosella, A., Petroni, G., 2005.
Assessing science parks' performances: directions
from selected Italian case studies. Technovation (In
press), 1-17.
Briggs, A., Watt, S., 2001. Technology and research parks.
Report in “Impacts of National Information
Technology Environments on Business,” American
University, Washington, D.C.
Colombo, M. G, Delmastro, M., 2002. How effective are
technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research
Policy, 31(7), 1103-1123.
Drescher, D., 2001. Research parks: A brief overview of
research parks for economic developers, http://
www.unc.edu/depts/dcrpweb/courses/261/drescher/ind
ex.html, visited December 14, 2001.
Fontana, A., Frey, J., 1994. Interviewing: The art of
science. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, (Eds.), Hand-
book of Qualitative Research, 361–377, Thousand
Oaks. C.A.
Glaser, G., Strauss, A., 1967. The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Aldine.
Chicago.
Holbrook, A., Wolfe, D. 2002. (eds.). Knowledge, Clusters
and Regional Innovation. McGill-Queen’s. Montreal
and Kingston.
Koh, Francis C.C, Koh, Winston T.H., Tschang, Feichin
Ted, 2005. An analytical framework for science parks
and technology districts with an application to
Singapore. Journal of Business Venturing 20, 217-239.
KMIS 2009 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
110

Kvale, S., 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative
research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, Sage. CA.
Lai, Hsien-Che, Shyu, Joseph Z., 2005. A comparison of
innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan
Strait: the case of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and
Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park. Technovation
25, 805-813.
Lalkaka, R., 2001. Best Practices in Business Incubation:
Lessons (yet to be) Learned. International Conference
on Business Centers: Actors for Economic & Social
Development, Brussels, 14-15 November.
Lee, K. B., 2003. The evolutionary process of venture
incubation in Korea. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management 3(1/2), 78-86.
Lee, W.H., Yang, W. T., 2000. The cradle of Taiwan high
technology industry development—Hsinchu Science
Park (HSP). Technovation 20, 55-59.
Lindelof, P., Lofsten, H., 2002. Growth, management and
financing of new technology based firms-assessing
value-added contributions of firms located on and off
science parks. Omega 30, 143-154.
Lofland, J., Lofland, L., 1995. Analyzing social
settings: A guide to qualitative observation and
analysis, Belmont. CA: Wadsworth, 3rd edn.
Lofland, J., Lofland, L., 1984. Analyzing social
settings: A guide to qualitative observation and
analysis, Belmont. CA: Wadsworth.
Matusiak, K.B., 2003. Business incubators in Poland. Int.
J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,
3(1/2), 87-98.
Mian, Sarfraz A., 1996. Assessing value-added
contributions of university technology business incu-
bators to tenant firms. Research Policy 25(3), 325-335.
Mian Sarfraz A., 1997. Assessing and managing the
university technology business incubator: an
integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing
12, 251-285.
Phan, P. H., Siegel, Donald, S., and Wright, M., 2005.
Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis
and future research. Joumal of Business Venturing 20,
165-182.
Reinharz, S., 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research.
Oxford University Press New York.
Seidman, S., 1997. Difference troubles: Queering
social theory and sexual politics, Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
Sherman, H. D., 1999. Assessing the intervention
effectiveness of business incubation programmes on
new business start-ups. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 117-133.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., Wright, M., 2003. Assessing
the impact of university science parks on research
productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the
United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial
Organization 21, 1357-1369
Smilor, R.W., Gill, M. D. Jr., 1986. The new business
incubator: linking talent, technology, capital, and
know-how. Massachusetts: Lexington, 23-33.
Sun, H., Ni, W., Leung, J., 2007. Critical success factors
for technological incubation: Case study of Hong
Kong science and technology parks. International
Journal of Management, 24(2), 346-363.
Sutherland, D., 2005. China's Science Parks: Production
Bases or a Tool for Institutional Reform? Asia Pacific
Business Review 11(1), 83-104.
Walcott, S. M., 2003. Chinese science and technology
industrial parks. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.
Wolfe, D., Gertler, M., 2003. Lessons from the ISRN
study of cluster development, in Clusters old and new:
The transition to a knowledge economy in Canada’s
regions. Ed. D.A. Wolfe. Kingston: School of Policy
Studies, Queen’s University and McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 1-36.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF TECHNOLOGY PARKS IN AUSTRALIA
111