Looking for best performers: a pilot study towards the evaluation of science parks

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：M. Ferrara ; F. Lamperti ; R. Mavilia
• 关键词：Performance evaluation ; Multi ; attribute value theory ; Science parks ; Innovation ; Entrepreneurship ; C44 ; O30 ; O32
• 刊名：Scientometrics
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：February 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：106
• 期：2
• 页码：717-750
• 全文大小：727 KB
• 参考文献：ANGLE (2003). Evaluation of the past and future economic contribution of the UK science park movement. United Kingdom Science Park Association.
  Battaglia, R., Lamperti, F., & Siligato, L. (2012). AREA SP: potere alleccellenza. In M. Ferrara & R. Mavilia (Eds.), Dai distretti tecnologici ai poli di innovazione. Milan: Egea.
  Bernoulli, J. (1713). Ars conjectandi, opus posthumum. Accedit Tractatus de seriebus infinitis, et epistola gallic scripta de ludo pilae reticularis. Basel: Thurneysen Brothers.
  Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., & Reijnen, J. O. (1993). Employment growth and innovation at the firm level. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 3(2), 153–159.CrossRef
  Choquet, G. (1953). Theory of capacities. Annales de l’Institut Furier, 5, 131–295.MathSciNet CrossRef
  Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from italy. Research policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.CrossRef
  Dabrowska, J. (2011). Measuring the success of science parks: performance monitoring and evaluation. In Paper for the XXVIII World Conference on Science and Technology Parks. IASP.
  Debreu, G. (1960). Topological methods in cardinal utility theory. In Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press.
  Delmar, F. (2006). Measuring growth: methodological considerations and empirical results. In Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms (Vol. 1, pp. 62–84). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham.
  Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks, seedbeds or enclaves of innovation. Technovation, 14, 93–110.CrossRef
  Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of ntbfslocation, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17.CrossRef
  Ferrara, M., & Mavilia, R. (2012). Dai distretti industriali ai poli di innovazione : L’Italia nel Mediterraneo. Milan: Egea.
  Ferrara, M., Lamperti, F., & Mavilia, R. (2014). The impact of technopoles and science parks on the regional and local innovation systems. In Design a Pattern of Sustainable Growth. Innovation, Education, Energy and Environmnent. Asers Publishing.
  Ferrara, M., Mavilia, R., & Lamperti, F. (2012). The effects of innovation poles and science parks on regional economies in italy. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on communication and management in technological innovation and academy (pp. 196–202).
  Fish, M. S. (2006). Stronger legislatures, stronger democracies. Journal of Democracy, 17(1), 5–20.MathSciNet CrossRef
  Gerardi, D., McLean, R., & Postlewaite, A. (2009). Aggregation of expert opinions. Games and Economic Behavior, 65(2), 339–371.MATH MathSciNet CrossRef
  Grabisch, M. (1996). The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 89(3), 445–456.MATH CrossRef
  Grabisch, M., Kojadinovic, I., & Meyer, P. (2008). A review of methods for capacity identification in choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the kappalab r package. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 766–785.MATH MathSciNet CrossRef
  Guy, I. (1996). A look at aston science park. Technovation, 16(5), 217–218.CrossRef
  Hansson, F., Husted, K., & Vestergaard, J. (2005). Second generation science parks: From structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25(9), 1039–1049.CrossRef
  Hodgson, B. (1996). A methodological framework to analyse the impact of science and technology parks. In M. Guedes & P. Formica (Eds.), The Economics of Science Parks. : IASP and AURRP.
  Hsu, H.-M., & Chen, C.-T. (1996). Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 79(3), 279–285.MathSciNet CrossRef
  Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291.MATH CrossRef
  Krantz, D., Luce, D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement, Vol. I: Additive and polynomial representations. : Dover Books on Mathematics.
  Labreuche, C., & Grabisch, M. (2003). The choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 137, 11–16.MATH MathSciNet CrossRef
  Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2015). The role of science parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–26.
  Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. (2015). Science and technology parks in italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, pp 1–36.
  Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of us science parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.CrossRef
  Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Us science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.CrossRef
  Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms-academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.CrossRef
  Luger, M. I., & Goldstein, H. A. (1991). Technology in the garden: Research parks and regional economic development. Chapel Hill: Univ of North Carolina Press.
  Marichal, J.-L. (2000). Behavioral analysis of aggregation in multicriteria decision aid. In Preferences and decisions under incomplete knowledge (pp. 153–178). Springer.
  Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High-tech fantasies. Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge.
  Meyer, P., & Ponthière, G. (2011). Eliciting preferences on multiattribute societies with a choquet integral. Computational Economics, 37(2), 133–168.MATH CrossRef
  Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities? Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities. Scientometrics, 102(1), 1057–1081.CrossRef
  Minguillo, D., Tijssen, R., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics, 102(1), 701–725.CrossRef
  Monck, C. (2010). Performance monitoring and evaluation. In UKSPA conference proceedings.
  Monck, C., & Peters, K. (2009). Science parks as an instrument of regional competitiveness: Measuring success and impact. In IASP 2009 annual conference proceedings.
  Moon, J. H., & Kang, C. S. (1999). Use of fuzzy set theory in the aggregation of expert judgments. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 26(6), 461–469.CrossRef
  Murofushi, T., & Soneda, S. (1993). Techniques for reading fuzzy measures (iii): Interaction index. In Proocedings of the 9th Fuzzy System Symposium, Sapporo (Japan).
  Pinar, M., Cruciani, C., Giove, S., & Sostero, M. (2014). Constructing the feem sustainability index: A choquet integral application. Ecological Indicators, 39, 189–202.CrossRef
  Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2014). Recovery from financial crises: Evidence from 100 episodes. American Economic Review, 104(5), 50–55.CrossRef
  Saublens, C. et al. (2007). Regional research intensive clusters and science parks. European Commission, ec. europa. eu/research/regions/pdf/sc\_park. pdf.
  Shapley, L. S. (1953). Stochastic games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 39(10), 1095.MATH MathSciNet CrossRef
  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(9), 1357–1369.CrossRef
  Smith, J. H. (1973). Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp 1027–1041.
  Squicciarini, M. (2009). Science parks, knowledge spillovers, and firms innovative performance. evidence from finland. Economics Discussion Paper 2009-32, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
  Sugeno, M. (1974). Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Tokio Institute of Technology.
  Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–531.CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：M. Ferrara (1) (3)
  F. Lamperti (2) (3) (4)
  R. Mavilia (3) (4)
  
  1. Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy
  3. CRIOS Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
  2. Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy
  4. MEDAlics, University for Foreigners “Dante Alighieri” of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy
  
• 刊物主题：Information Storage and Retrieval; Library Science; Interdisciplinary Studies;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1588-2861

文摘

Science Parks are complex institutions that aim at promoting innovation and entrepreneurship at local level. Their activities entertain a large set of stakeholders going from internal and external researchers to entrepreneurs, local level public administration and universities. As a consequence, their performances extends on a large set of dimensions affecting each other. This feature makes Science Parks particularly difficult to be properly compared. However, evaluating their performances in a comparable way may be important for at least three reasons: (1) to identify best practices in each activity and allow a faster diffusion of these practices, (2) to inform potential entrepreneurs about institutions better supporting start-ups birth and first stages and (3) to guide public policies in the distribution of funds and incentives. The multidimensional nature of Science Parks raises the problem of aggregating performances in simple indexes that can be accessed by stakeholders willing to compare different structures on the basis of their own preferences. This paper exploits a new dataset on Italian Science Parks to provide a pilot study towards this direction. In particular, we apply Choquet integral based Multi-Attribute Value Theory to elicit stakeholders’ preferences on different dimensions of Science Parks’ performances and construct a robust index allowing to rank them. This tool can be used to support the decision making process of multiple stakeholders looking for best (or worst) performers and allows to account both for subjective nature of the evaluation process and the interactions among decision attributes. Despite the present study employs only a limited number of respondents and performance measures, the procedure we present can be straightforwardly adapted to much richer environments. Keywords Performance evaluation Multi-attribute value theory Science parks Innovation Entrepreneurship