Classification of parks based on quality/innovation and knowledge transfer

transfer

In order to have a better understanding of the position of each park, a classification can be made based on 2 aspects. Such classification will represent the current status of the parks and the new insights gained, this approach can be useful for the management. They can change or maintain the overall strategy and targets to make sure the park is moving in the right direction. Below, some information is represented on each park that is related to the criterion ‘quality and innovation’. In table 8 the priorities of the park managers are included. This table is a copy of the second row of table 6. For the managers of Park 1, Park 5 and Park 3, a culture of quality and innovation is on place 2 or 3 and thus important. For the managers of the other parks this criterion has less priority and is ranked in a lower position (place 5 or 6 out of 7).

Table 8: Priority of park managers based on 7 goals of a Technology Park

Priority of criterion: a culture of quality and innovation

Technology Park Place

Park 1 2 Park 2 5 Park 3 3 Park 4 NA Park 5 2 Park 6 6 Park 7 5 Park 1

The fact that Company X has its R&D department located in Park 1 underlines the presence of an innovating culture. Other companies located in the park develop commercial and some R&D activities in the park, but R&D does not comprehend the majority of the activities.

Park 2

The R&D institution is located in the Park 2. This center belongs to the company group Y. Park 2 has technology based companies, but not necessarily high technology. Right now, there are three companies with R&D projects.

Park 3

Park 3b (owned by the institution) is inside the technology cluster (owned by the government) and started in 2005/2006. It really developed in 2007/2008 and it houses a lot of national research institutes

Assessment of Technology Parks: a University case Page 39 like Conacyt (national research council) and 7 research company centers. Some of those are from the food industry and companies from the energy sector. Several universities have their buildings and small technology parks, not only an university from the institution, but also the state and regional universities. The center is for example focusing on design and packaging and others are focusing on design for automotive industry. The big difference is that Park 3a (Technology Park) does not has sophisticated laboratories (not designed for that) like Park 3b has. That park has all kinds of laboratories and infrastructure for development and testing. Not only the university but also companies can benefit from those laboratories. Knowledge creation is more extensive in a park designed as Park 3b in X then Park 3a because that is more a collaboration/relationship/company creation park. The parks are working together because management is the same of both park and also companies are move from one park to the other one. Company Z was first in Park 3a for recruiting operations (60 engineers) and after that moved to Park 3b because they wanted to make use of the laboratories. Park 3a was build on initiative of the institution. TP was built as a joint initiative. The government wanted to have a place where knowledge is a central issue.

Park 4

The companies do not make use of the available laboratories very often. Park 5

This park has 40 research institutes. The Technology Park has a close relationship with an research institute.

Park 7

This data shows that Park 1 is performing very good on quality and innovation. Especially the number of new products, laboratories and square meter of laboratories are impressive compared to the other parks, even after calculating ratios.

Based on the indicator framework formulated above in this section and considering the results while comparing the Technology Parks in terms of knowledge transfer (section 4.5) and the culture of quality and innovation (section 4.4), the researcher made a classification of the Technology Parks of the institution which is shown in figure 9.

Assessment of Technology Parks: a University case Page 40 Figure 9: Classification of parks based on the amount of knowledge transfer and level of quality and innovation

This model is a classification based on only two factors and is therefore not a perfect classification, but it can be used as a starting point when describing the parks. The figure tells us that Park 3b and Park 7 main activity is generation of high quality knowledge by laboratories and research institutes (private and public). The transfer of this knowledge into products/services is low. Park 3a, Park 6 and Park 2 have opposite characteristics. In these parks a substantial amount of new companies, products and services are generated with available knowledge, but this knowledge is not necessarily scientific or high technology. So the amount of research developed is lower in these parks. Park 1 and Park 5 are performing on both aspects but their output and impact is small compared to the bigger parks. Park 4 has some knowledge transfer and R&D, but their focus is more on networking between the companies and adapting the education program according to the needs of the business environment.