Validating the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Evaluation Framework of Science and Technology Parks in Khorasan Razavi Province

Subject Areas : Business Management

Nika Khajepourshirvan ¹ , Parviz Saketi ² , Kaveh Teymournejad ³

1 - Ph.D Candidate, Department of Entrepreneurship, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran.
2 - 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Educatinal Planing, University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of public Administration, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2023-02-14 Accepted : 2023-04-29 Published : 2024-07-03

Keywords: entrepreneurship ecosystem, evaluation framework, validation, science and technology parks, strategy, outcome,

Abstract :

This study mainly aims to validate the framework of the entrepreneurship ecosystem of science and technology parks in Iran. The purpose of this study is to improve the infrastructures and achieve the vision of the science and technology parks, managing and directing the interactions among different factors involved for creating sustainable value, entrepreneurial opportunities and business scalability. In terms of purpose, the current research is applied and has a descriptive approach of the correlational type, with a qualitative strategy of a sequential exploratory type. The statistical sample in the qualitative section was purposeful and theoretical in the form of interviews with 15 experts in the field of entrepreneurship and science and technology parks in Iran. In the quantitative part, 181 managers of parks and technology units, and other key people involved in this ecosystem participated. The reliability and validity of the researcher-made questionnaire was measured using Cronbach’s alpha and the average extracted variance were above 0.845 and 0.604, respectively. The findings show that causal factors (characteristics of local structures, entrepreneurship policies and local entrepreneurship indicators), contextual factors (financial, human resources, physical and intangible infrastructure, capacity building, promotion, enablers) and intervening factors (adaptability, tension removal, resilience) predict 0.487, 0.541 and 0.634 of changes in strategies (interactions within and outside the ecosystem), respectively. The axial category predicts 0.798 of changes in strategies. Strategies also predict 0.782 of changes in outcomes (wealth creation, workforce, and businesses). The science and technology parks are suggested to consider the aforementioned categories in their entrepreneurship ecosystem evaluations.

Key Words: entrepreneurship ecosystem, evaluation framework, validation, science and technology parks, strategy, outcome

 

1. Introduction

In Iran, science and technology parks, in accordance with their statutes, have been established as one of the effective social institutions in the development of technology, innovation, and knowledge-based economy, creation of technological jobs and wealth in society through promoting the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, in line with supporting the establishment and development of small and medium- scaled technology companies, research and development units, and management of knowledge and technology among industries, research institutes and universities, private companies, and the market (International Association of Science Parks, 2012). In recent years, science and technology parks in the country have been recognized as one of the most significant structures for the implementation of innovation policies through the formation of entrepreneurial ecosystems for the development of the regional economics. Hence, designing an evaluation framework for the entrepreneurial ecosystems of the parks, can lead to an increase in the quality of the services provided to their beneficiaries in addition to determining the role and effectiveness of the parks on the development of the knowledge-based economy and increasing the GDP. Hence, the present research, aims to validate the proposed framework for evaluating the entrepreneurial ecosystem of science and technology parks through the structural equations of the partial least squares approach. Accordingly, the following research questions are raised:

What are the factors affecting the entrepreneurship ecosystem evaluation framework of Khorasan Science and Technology Parks?

What is the degree of fit of the framework from the experts’ viewpoints?

2. Problem Statement

In recent years, the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystem has become an important framework for technology policy-making in Iran since it shows how entrepreneurship was formed and what components it requires and what preconditions exist for the effective interaction among its different factors. Despite the key role of parks' entrepreneurial ecosystem in the country's policy documents in the development of entrepreneurship, there is no framework to evaluate their performance in order to create and lead the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The frameworks for evaluating existing entrepreneurial ecosystems are only at the national and regional levels, and there is not one at the level of innovation organizations such as science parks. Therefore, the role of parks in providing services to their beneficiaries and their effectiveness on the indices involved in the entrepreneurship development have not been evaluated in any of the previous studies. Although the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (in the form of a report for ease of doing business), the Iranian Statistics Center,  and the Scientific Vice-President of the Presidency provide the national level of entrepreneurial activities in the form of extensive reports annually or alternately, in these reports, science and technology parks have not been considered as the executive arm of the government in entrepreneurship policies despite the given  emphasis in the country strategy plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran and general policies of the resistance economy and general employment policies, and the law of leapfrogging production for technology and innovation. Therefore, among these studies, it is rare to find results based on which one can evaluate entrepreneurial activities by the parks due to the compatibility with the specific conditions of the region and the park, the values in it, the strategic plans and technological and entrepreneurial perspectives of the park, the economic, political, and political characteristics, and land survey documents affecting the park.

3. Literature review

Akbari Samani and Rezvani (2019) evaluated the entrepreneurial ecosystem of tourism in Tehran province. The results suggested that the most important indicators of rural tourism evaluation from the point of view of the statistical population included experts, rural business owners, and rural managers, including participation, investors, market access, support from the government, and education. Similarily, Shojaati (2017) investigated the social entrepreneurial ecosystem in Tehran. The results showed that the dimensions of the entrepreneurial ecosystem included finance, laws and regulations and policy making, support services and infrastructure, entrepreneurial culture, promotion of innovation, and human capital, with culture being the most effective factor on Tehran's social entrepreneurial ecosystem. In their study, Mian et al. (2022) identified the key role of the park in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and found that the technology park plays two key roles, including park management in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and facilitating and establishing continuous communication with external and future stakeholders. They suggest that these roles need to be considered by officials and policy makers. In another study, Kordi and Yeylaghi (2020) identified and evaluated the factors affecting the success of the entrepreneurial ecosystem with the focus on start-ups. The results showed that "government role", "human capital", "financing", "education", "entrepreneurial culture", and "sales and marketing" were the most effective components, respectively. Finally, Abella (2020) evaluated the entrepreneurship ecosystem in Stockton, California. The results indicated that the most important factors affecting the evaluation of the entrepreneurship ecosystem were culture, stakeholder interactions, the number of entrepreneurs, supporters of entrepreneurial activities, talents and infrastructure, innovative institutions and startups, financial resources, network, and services.

4. Methodology

The present research is considered to be applied in terms of purpose with an exploratory sequential mixed method (descriptive-analytical in the qualitative part and descriptive-correlation of modeling type based on structural equations in the quantitative part) and cross-sectional in terms of time. The qualitative data was collected through library studies and review of existing literature and theoretical models and field studies with semi-structured interviews with 15 entrepreneurship and technology park experts using snowball-type purposive sampling until theoretical saturation. The qualitative data was analyzed through the systematic grounded theory approach and by Atlasti 9 software to extract the dimensions and components of the framework for evaluating the entrepreneurial ecosystem. In the quantitative part, the statistical population included managers of parks and technology units and some managers of the park's entrepreneurial ecosystem in Razavi Khorasan province in 2021, of which 181 people were selected as the sample for the quantitative part by the simple random method. In this research, researcher-made questionnaires based on the codes obtained from the interviews were used in order to collect the data. The analysis in the quantitative part was carried out using the method of structural equations based on the partial square approach through Smartpls3 software to validate the framework obtained from the qualitative part. Examining the convergent validity and combined reliability and Cronbach's alpha in this research, the researchers estimated the reliability and validity of the researcher- made questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha and the combined reliability and the average variance extracted were found to be above 0.845 and 0.604, respectively. The results obtained from fitting the framework (comparative, parsimonious, and absolute) indicate the optimal fit of the model.

5. Result

This research aims to identify the dimensions and factors affecting the framework for evaluating the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Khorasan Science and Technology Parks and to validate the given framework. The results show that the designed framework has six selective codes, 23 axial codes, and 73 open codes. The causal factors including characteristics of local structures, entrepreneurship policies, and local entrepreneurship indicators and the contextual factors including financial and human resources, physical and intangible infrastructure, capacity building, promotion, enablers, and intervening factors including adaptability, elimination of tension, resilience, predict 0.487, 0.541, and 0.634 of changes in the strategies including interactions inside and outside the ecosystem, respectively. The axial category including patronage, exploitation of opportunities, intermediation, technological opportunity making predicts 0.798 of changes in strategies. Also, the strategies predict 0.782 of changes in the consequences including wealth creation, workforce, businesses.

6. Discussion

The framework for evaluating the entrepreneurial ecosystem and its validation suggests that the causal conditions affect the axial phenomenon and do not have a direct effect on other conditions such as contextual and intervening factors, strategies, and consequences, which means that the implementation of the axial phenomenon depends on the realization of factors related to the characteristic of local structures, entrepreneurship policies, and local entrepreneurship indicators. The contextual conditions also affect the axial phenomenon, but it has no direct effect on other factors such as causal and intervening factors and strategies. Therefore, in order to affect the axial phenomenon, the main factors of the contextual conditions, including financial and human resources, physical and intangible infrastructure, capacity building, promotion, and enablers should also be considered. The effect of the intervening conditions on the axial phenomenon depends on the occurrence or removal of resilience, coordination, and tension, which are specific results of this research. This factor expresses the level of durability and stability of the ecosystem during internal and external interactions among ecosystems. The effect of the axial phenomenon on the strategies and the lack of direct effect on the other categories of the framework means that achieving the greatest effect of the strategies should be determined by the axial phenomenon, that is, the occurrence of the indicators of intermediation, technological opportunity-making, patronage, and exploitation of opportunities shows the formation of a constructive interaction, which is one of the specific results of this research. The effectiveness of strategies on the consequences of the framework and the lack of direct effect on other main categories of the framework means that we will reach the consequences with the occurrence of the factors affecting the strategies, that is, interactions inside and outside the entrepreneurial ecosystem. It is also expected that the results of this research will lead to the simultaneous understanding of the role of creation and management of the entrepreneurial ecosystem by the park and attention to the factors affecting the evaluation of the ecosystem, such as the governance, ownership, and management factors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:


Abella, A. (2022). Evaluting the Enterprenurship Ecosystem in Stockton, California. Master Theses and Graduate Research, 1-114. doi:10.31979/etd.7j68-3xds
Ahmad, N., Haffman, A (2014). A Framework for Addressing and Measuring Entrepreneurship,2,1-36.https://OECD.org,doi:10.1515/zfw-2018-0014.
Akbari Samani, N., Badri, S. A., Rezvani, M. R., & Salmani, M. (2020). Performance Evaluation of Elements of Rural Tourism Entrepreneurship Ecosystem; Case Study: Tehran Province. Journal of Rural Research, 11(3), 556-575.[In Persian] doi:10.22059/jrur.2020.294235.1435
Albahari, A., Modrego, A., & Barge, A. (2019). Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116(2), pp. 13-28. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.012
Amoroso, S., Link, A., & Wright, M. (2019). Science and Technology Parks and Regional Economic Development : An International Perspective, Springer International Publishing, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30963-3.
Aparicio, S., Audretsch, D., & Urbano, D. (2016). Governmental Support for Entrepreneurship in Spain:An Institutional Approach. Revista Hacienda Pública Española 243(4),29-49.doi:10.7866/HPE-RPE.22.4.2
Bellavista, J., Sanz, L (2009). Science and technology parks: Habitats of innovation: Introduction to special section, Science and Public Policy 36(7):499-510.doi:10.3152/030234209X465543
Carayannis, E., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D., Meissner, D., and Stamati, D. (2018) The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148–162. doi:10.1111/radm.12300.
Cohen, B (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment 15(1),1 - 14, doi:10.1002/bse.428.
Corbin, J.,Ghezzi, A., & Strauss,A.(1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Sage Publications,1-333. Inc.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-98829-000. doi:10.4135/9781452230153
Entezari Y. (2019). Development requirements of university –based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 25 (1), 1-25. [In Persian]
Germain, E., Klofsten,M., Löfsten, H., Mian, S. (2022) Science parks as key players in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of R&D management, 65(5),48-66. doi:10.1111/radm.12536.
International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation(2020)Online through.https://www.iasp.ws/our-industry/definitions/science-park
Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution? Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 41–50. doi:10.1177/0003603X16676162
Keykha, A., Pourkarimi, j. (2021). Assessing entrepreneurial ecosystems through a strategic value network approach: evidence from the San Francisco Area. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 301-320. .[In Pesian] doi:10.22059/JED.2021.320332.653621
Kordi, M., Yeilaghi, Z. (2020). Identifying factors affecting the success of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. New applied studies in management, economics and accounting, 9, 72-91. [In Persian]
Meisami, AM., Elyasi, Q., Mobini Dehkordi, A. (2017). Dimensions and components of technological entrepreneurship ecosystem in Iran, Organizational Culture Journal, 4(27), 419-444. [In Persian] doi:10.22104/JTDM.2018.2553.1866
Malpass, D. (2020). Doing business 2020, 1-149. https://archive. doingbusiness. org/en/reports/global-reports/doing business-reports.doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2.
Phan, A., Ghezzi, p (2005). Science Parks and Incubators: Observations, Synthesis and Future Research. Journal of Business Venturing 20(2),165-182. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001
Ramezaninejad, R., Boumand, M.R., Ahmadi, F. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystem: a new approach for the development of entrepreneurship in sports. Contemporary researches in sports management, 8(16), 40-29.[In Persian] doi:10.22084/SMMS.2019.17945.2288
Shojati A. (2016). Evaluation of social entrepreneurship ecosystem in Tehran. Master's thesis. Allameh Tabatabai University, Faculty of Management and Accounting.[In Pesian] doi:10.52547/jstpi.21020.18.70.12
Spigel, B. & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12 (1),151-168. doi:10.1002/sej.1268
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, & J. Heinonen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of small business and entrepreneurship (pp. 407– 422). London: SAGE.doi:10.4135/9781473984080
Acs, Z., Stam, E., Audretsch, D.B., and O'Connor, A. (2017) The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8
Torabi, H., Kheyrandish, M., Mohammadi Khiyare, M. (2020). Impact of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem on Entrepreneurial Activity: GEM based Analysis.Journal of Innovation and Value Creation,17,163-182.(In Persian)
Xie, Y., Zhang, Z. (2019). Construction and Measurement of University-based Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Evaluation Index System: A Case Study of Zhejiang University in China. Conference ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Tampa, Florida, 15-19 June. doi:10.18260/1-2-32541