Real Estate Resourcing on Science Parks:

Exploratory Overview of European Science Parks

Benny Ng (PhD student) Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek, Myriam Cloodt & Theo Arentze Faculty of Built Environment - Urban Systems & Real Estate

ICICKM HONG KONG 2017 International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning

PAGE 2

SCIENCE PARK CAMPUS

TECHNOLOGY PARK

RESEARCH PARK

TECHNOPOLE

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

PARK

Science parks

Compare on / off park firms

Outcome

Science parks

Case studies

Unit of analysis

Economic output

Innovation

Networking

Creation

Retention

Transfer

Knowledge

Methods

Science Park characteristics

Survey EU SP managers

Population: literature + members of SP associations

Sample of 82 SPs Representative for

UN regions of North-East-South-West EU

NL

UK

CHSE ES

DE

12% response across 16 countries

29% 30%51%

21%

18%

65% 34%

33%

52%

5% 15%

46%

CLEAN ROOMS INCUBATORS LABORATORIES PILOT ROOMS

Present Present and shared Absent

Physical aspects Size

Single building (32%) Park-like (68%)

•  Work-related •  Leisure •  Others

Facilities

Services •  Networking •  Business development •  Support

Urban context

77% connected to a city (32% within)

University ownershipPublic ownershipPrivate ownershipUniversity-public ownershipTriple helix (gov - ind - uni)University-private partnershipPublic-private science park

Non-physical aspects

Resident organisations

Higher educational institutions (66%)

Research institute (65%)

SME & multinationals (88%)

Start-ups (98%)

Service firms (61%)

Low sectoral focus(38%)

Medium sectoral focus

High sectoral focus

Uniform sectoral focus

Technology sectors Biotechnology and life sciences (71%)

Computer sciences (66%)

Electronics (61%)

UNI

U-PU

3HelixU-PR

24%

26%

Regional developm

ent17 Industrial

rejuvenation7Local

benefits11[CATEGO

RY NAME]

31

Knowledge creation

15

Technology and

knowledge transfer

19

Objectives Allocate 100 points

Single on-site

manager

On-site managem

ent company

Informal teamsNo management team

Non-physical aspects

(65%) No selection criteria

Quality of past research

Attract funding for research

Commitment with academics

Technological orientation

Focus on R&D (82%)

(72%)

(39%)

(37%)

(27%)

Networking

Networking is explicitly promoted among residents (89%)

Networking is somewhat supported

Not explicitly promoted/supported

Knowledge Management

Creation Transfer Retention

Science Parks

Conclusions & Limitations • Real estate contribution to knowledge management process

•  Physical and non-physical side • Reveal general overview of science parks in EU

• Limited number of cases; primarily NL + UK •  Impact and success are not studied of SP firms

Future research

Segmentation study science parks

Tenant type

Perceived benefits SP firms

w.k.b.ng@tue.nl www.knowledgesharing.space +31 40 247 2937

Science parkattributes

Interactions & networking Ecosystems