ابزار موقعیت: بررسی مقایسه ای بین شرکت های مبتنی بر فن آوری نوین کوچک قرار گرفته در پارکهای علمی فعال و غیرفعال؛ مفاهیمی برای مدیریت امکانات
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|18025||2006||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7764 کلمه|
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله شامل 7764 کلمه می باشد.
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Technovation, Volume 26, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 506–517
This paper aims to highlight the role of facilities management (FM) for new technology-based firms (NTBFs) that are located on respectively off Science Parks. It incorporates FM as a contributory background element in the enhancement of the entrepreneurial environment, which is one explanatory factor of the superior performance and growth of NTBFs located inside Science Parks. Differences in location preferences between on and off park NTBFs are brought into evidence in this paper by means of an extensive quantitative survey. This resulted in the finding that the proximity to university is especially significant among NTBFs inside parks. Furthermore, infrastructure has high significance in both groups whereas significance of facilities cost differs in range of significance. In a model it is argued that FM indirectly contributes to beneficial scenarios for interaction, interfirm relations and networks that can be found particularly in Science Parks. A discussion and a set of hypotheses in the conclusive part link FM and location issues to the performance for NTBFs.
What can growth firms learn from the more successful firms that have established within the realms of a Science Park? How can the role of facilities management (FM) be linked to their success? The aim of this paper is to link the significance of facilities management and location among New Technology Based Firms (NTBFs) that are located on respectively off Science Parks. A comparison between the two categories is made through quantitative methodology. Although all NTBFs do not grow, here it will be assumed that technology-based growth firms have the similar basic performance variables and FM needs as those of NTBFs. Science Parks provide an important resource network for new technology-based firms (NTBFs). The government and other organizations—The Swedish Board for Industrial and Technical Development—have introduced regionally targeted measures to provide an appropriate physical infrastructure for the encouragement of economic development in deprived and depressed localities. Central government has a long history of providing support for R&D, the transfer of technology and its diffusion into industry. Local authorities in Sweden have developed a range of local economic initiatives designed to create new employment opportunities. One element has been the encouragement of NTBFs in order to achieve high rates of growth. Local authorities have also played a key role in encouraging universities to take a more active role in the revival of local economies. Several financial institutions have made commitments to Swedish Science Parks, although these may have been prompted more by promotional and social reasons rather than commercial criteria (Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2002). The theories of Williamson (1975) argue for minimizing transaction costs through a balance between employment and leasehold of staff. An outsourced function of a firm thus reduces the cost of facilities for employees that must be carried by other actors on the market. The outsourced staff is accessible through physical proximity, infrastructure or virtually by IT-technology. Williams (1996) presents two categories of management structures: (1) the in-house management with traditional hierarchy structure and (2) the ‘intelligent’ client with flatter management structure. The latter is characterized by outsourced facilities services and team structures. Inadequate provision of facilities might put the core business into a risky situation, which sometimes argues for the provision of external forces, if the facilities management skills there are higher than within the firm. An example of this might be the management of a start-up firm that consider themselves as having no experience of handling facilities, and only having the resources to concentrate on the core business. Incubators and Science Parks cover the facilities needs of start-up firms by offering them bundles of services that large and mature firms with developed FM structure can enjoy. The purpose of this paper is to relate location to facilities management, and how it can affect the growth and performance of NTBFs through the enhancement of the entrepreneurial environment. Comparison is made between NTBFs located on respectively off Science Parks through a model based on an empirical sample of 273 new technology-based firms in Sweden. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 briefly discusses FM, location, Science Parks and NTBFs. Section 3 outlines the methodology adopted in the study, while Section 4 presents the findings from our survey. Section 5 discusses the findings and their implications, and Section 6 presents some conclusions expressed in hypothesis.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper has compared facility related issues between NTBFs located on-and-off park. A superior performance among on-park firms has been discerned, which we have attributed to differences in contractual agreements and facilities solutions. In this paper, it was assumed that the two categories of firms have the propensity to choose different solutions of location and facilities (on-and-off park). The attitudes and motivation of the firm founders and managers is an important factor in the ability to achieve high growth. This study has shown the apparent differences between on-and-off park location among NTBFs and the support of the performance of firms. We enlarge the model for future studies to also involve FM. Fig. 2 suggests the following hypotheses for future surveys: The statement: On-park NTBFs have a facilities constellation that better supports formal and informal networks than off-park NTBFs can be developed more generally: Hypothesis A. Appropriate proximity between growth firms and facilities is positively correlated to purported interaction.Once within a park many services are included in the leasehold contract:The statement: The formal networks among off-park NTBFs must be supported by a higher number of contractual relations than on-park NTBFs. Hypothesis A-1. Formal contracts among growth firms are more independent to distances than informal contracts.According to Fig. 2, we assume that the entrepreneurial environment and social context consisting of informal and formal networks, and conformingly contract relations among the formal networks, forms a vehicle between FM and Entrepreneurial environment. Hypothesis B. The entrepreneurial environment of on-park firms support growth and performance better than off-park firms. Hypothesis B-1. Younger firms are more dependent for their growth on informal interaction than older firms that have developed their necessary network for interaction.Hypothesis A plus B gives the conclusive Hypothesis C of this paper: Hypothesis C. FM affects growth and performance among growth firms in all growth phases. Hypothesis C-1. Growth on single site location is more likely to occur among off-park NTBFs than on-park NTBFs. Hypothesis C-2. FM in an urban context contributes positively to competitive advantage among growth firms in an entrepreneurial environment. Hypothesis C-3. FM contributes to competitive disadvantage when on-park NTBFs leave Science Parks due to retardation in FM knowledge. Hypothesis C-4. The superior performance of on-park NTBFs relates to the capability to handle rapid changes supported by FM skills.The superior performance among on-park NTBFs might thus be explained by the social context and entrepreneurial environment according to Fig. 2. Apparently Science Parks are better supporting and contractually managing the formal and informal networks than off-park NTBFs. Future cities will perhaps resemble Science Parks in order to promote interaction and decreasing space costs for start-up firms. Today's trend, i.e. that firms avoid employing new staff and still are capable of growth in turnover will require a large number of new firms that can prevent mass unemployment. ‘Cityscapes’ that should be able to facilitate growth and decrease transaction costs for firms in all phases so that unjust contract relations or unnecessary relocation would be avoided.