Although there exists previous research on Science Parks’ impact on innovation, our study still adds to the literature and yields certain theoretical implications. Previous research uncovered the positive impact of Science Parks on innovation performance (e.g. Siegel et al., 2003; Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2001, 2003; Lindelöf & Löfsten, 2004; Vásquez-Urriago et al., 2014). While these studies found out the answer to ‘whether’ these parks impact innovation, our study focuses on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ the park impacts product innovation.
Furthermore, through our case study, we are able to outline the specific factors and relationships of a Science Park’s impact on the product innovation process which holds managerial implications and helps to understand the phenomena that are Science Parks and innovation. Hence, we are bringing this research closer to real-life situations (Flyvbjerg, 2001).
Specifically, our study supports previous literature focusing on the different factors that impact product innovation (Vásquez-Urriago et al., 2016; Beaudry & Breschi, 2003;
Albahari et al., 2018). While our study finds support for the importance of industry focus,
the role of management and location, we also add novel dimensions furthering our
understanding. Here, the facilitation, carried out by multiple actors and not solely the
management, established itself as a new theme. While past literature argues that the larger
the management team, the better the facilitation (Siegel et al., 2003), our study shows that
it is not solely a matter of size but rather having complementing institutions represented in
the park. Additionally, our study introduces the tenant’s time in park as an important
variable to consider since network building depends on past relationships and interactions
(Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Jones et al., 1997). While Albahari et al. (2018) stated that older
parks benefited from positive long-term learning effects, such as accumulation of
knowledge, these effects may arise also as a result of stronger and more trusted relationships
between the park’s tenants. Furthermore, building on the impact of location (Albahari et al.,
2018), we find that being located within a geographically important area of the industry
benefits the product innovation process through greater accessibility of customers, experts
and specialized workers.
Finally, our study adds to the literature by shedding more light on Science Parks geared towards companies operating in the food sector. Even though Science Parks were originally established for nurturing innovation in high-tech industries and/or manufacturing (Beaudry
& Breschi, 2003; Koh et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2009), our findings demonstrate that they may also be beneficial for the food industry. By creating possibilities for resource acquisition through network building, Science Parks support the increasing need for food companies to acquire resources externally to become more innovative (Acosta et al., 2015).
Hence, Science Parks hold the potential to function as innovation intermediaries in the food industry (Omta & Fortuin, 2013).
6.2. Managerial Implications
The results of our study have implications for the management of Agro Food Park in particular. However, it can be argued that these implications may apply to Food Science Parks in general to some extent, if there are similarities in setup and vision. The results of our study contribute to a deeper understanding of the park impact on the tenants’ product innovation process. Therefore, it can be used by the park management to identify how the park can be adapted to enhance its impact and improve the innovation ecosystem.
The park management plays an important role in facilitating the evolution of
value-enhancing networks in a Science Park. Albahari et al. (2018) mention the size of the
management team and Löfsten and Lindelöf (2003) bring in expertise as important
variables. Our study adds a novel perspective on the issue of multiple network facilitators
and the risk of the creation of isolated sub-ecosystems in the overall ecosystem. In the case
of Agro Food Park, it can be argued that the development of the incubator runs the risk of
becoming an isolated ecosystem since the startups interact very little, if at all, with the
tenants outside of it. Hence, we suggest that the management needs to establish more
structures and processes to organize the coordination both within the incubator and with
firms and other external stakeholders. Closer collaboration between the management of
Agro Food Park and Agro Business Park’s incubator is needed to contribute to an improved
integration of the startups and the tenants outside the incubator. In conclusion, while
expertise and size of the management can be complemented by other institutions, processes and structures need to be in place to ensure that they collaborate rather than work separated from each other.
We argue that more formalized structures for connecting tenants could create benefits with regards to network building and resource acquisition. Currently, there are no formal structures in place when it comes to the facilitation of relationship building between the tenants and relevant actors outside of the park. Instead, it is done randomly when the management identifies needs or synergies and is mostly based on existing relationships between the tenants and the management as well as on ad hoc personal motivation and initiatives. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the management, especially the Community Manager Søren Madsen, has extensive and highly specific information about the tenants, including valuable personal relationships with several actors which contributes to more effective network facilitation. Thus, in the event of a change in management, information and relationships will be lost because they are tied to specific people and are not codified in established frameworks and structures. Moreover, more formalized processes, concerning facilitation, hold further potential to increase awareness among the different tenants residing in the park.
While clustering companies, organizations, and supporting institutions operating in the same field enhances the possibilities for valuable knowledge exchange, trust is a crucial aspect that cannot be overrated. In line with the previous literature, the findings demonstrate that when trust is established between tenants as a result of innumerable past interactions, the level of knowledge exchange increases (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Jones et al., 1997).
Hence, it can be argued that tenants that have been longer in the park hold greater potential
to benefit from the park’s accumulated knowledge. From the perspective of the park
management, interactions between the different actors should therefore be encouraged and
supported. Also, it seems beneficial for the innovation environment that new players receive
more facilitation from the management in regards to network building compared to
companies that have been in the park for a longer period.
7. Conclusions
In document
Innovation in the Food Industry
(Sider 98-101)