Pathway to improve space technology transfer
How European Space Agency can improve the effectiveness in the
process of space technology transfer through technology
incubator?
Muhammad Aditya Yudiantama (11089229) // 5 August 2016 // Final Version // MSc. Business and Administration – Entrepreneurship and Innovation // Supervisor: Dr.
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Muhammad Aditya Yudiantama who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ... 4 1. INTRODUCTION ... 5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8 2.1 Technology Transfer ... 8 2.2 Space Technology ... 102.3 Space Agency – European Space Agency ... 10
2.4 Space Technology Transfer – Spin-off ... 12
2.3.1 European Space Agency - Technology Transfer Programme ... 14
2.5 The Incubator concept ... 15
2.6 The process of Space Technology Transfer Through Incubation Centre ... 18
Technological factors: Determinants and challenges ... 21
Determinants (or capabilities) and challenges in technology business incubator ... 22
Important factors and challenges of startups and entrepreneur ... 26
2.7 Theoretical Framework ... 26
3. Method ... 28
The Interview ... 31
4. Results ... 31
Incubator capabilities and challenges ... 31
Entrepreneur capabilities and challenges ... 39
Technological determinants and challenges ... 44
Process of technology transfer through incubator ... 47
Success of technology transfer, important part in technology transfer ... 48
Theoretical Framework refinement ... 49 5. Discussion ... 50 6. Conclusion ... 55 7. Limitations and recommendations for further research ... 56 8. References ... 57 9. Appendix ... 63 Appendix I – List of interviewees ... 63
ABSTRACT
This study explain how space technology transfer process from technology incubator to startups through incubator can be improved. From previous literature, it has been
identified that there are three important factors in technology transfer through incubator: (1) Incubator (2) Entrepreneur and (3) Technology. From three different factors,
theoretical framework is developed. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with
technology transfer managers and startup is used to test the theoretical framework. Using thematic analysis, data obtained from the interviews provides refinement of the
theoretical framework. The results has shown that incubator capabilities and entrepreneur capabilities are the most important factors in space technology transfer through incubator. Both entrepreneur and incubator capabilities helps to deal with challenges and produce a greater outcome. Space technology transfer can be improved by encouraging the
networking between internal and external parties in the space technology transfer. This research gives significant contribution to the previous research gaps in space technology transfer, which focus on incubator as the facilitator of space technology transfer.
Keywords: Space technology transfer, entrepreneurship, incubator, start-up,
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1990, European Space Agency was established its “Technology Transfer Programme” dedicated to promoting technology transfer from space technology to commercialize it non-space applications(ESA, 2013). Fast forward to 2003, European Space Agency launched “Space Solutions” through its Technology Transfer Programme (TTPO), which consist of four distinguished mechanisms of technology transfer(ESA Space Solutions, 2015). The term “knowledge transfer” or “technology transfer” is not new, research institutions (universities or other public research organizations) have been actively involved in transferring their knowledge to the other parties for centuries (Cleyn, Meysman, Braet, Gielen, 2014). Petroni, Verbano Bigliardi and Galati (2013) have identified the background motives of space agency in its technology transfer effort: Public research institutes such as European Space Agency consume high public funds in developing its advanced technology in small quantities. In 2016, European Space Agency have more than five billion in euro currency for its annual budget(ESA, 2016).
Therefore, space agency needs to have returned over investment. Different from any other kind of technology, space technology is the most advanced technology used in non-terrestrial applications(Petroni, Verbano, Bigliardi and Galati, 2014).
The focus of this research is space technology transfer through Business
Incubation Centre. Business Incubation (or incubator) is an infrastructure built to support and encourage the formation and development of small and medium-sized enterprises (Bøllingtoft and Ulhøi, 2006). Bergek and Norman (2008) argue that business incubation is viewed by policy makers as a tool for leveraging economic development and nurture new technology-based growth companies. In a nutshell, business incubation develops effective ways to connect technology, capital, and proficiency to leverage
entrepreneurship, to speed-up the creation of new companies or startups, and accelerate exploitation of technology (Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005).
On a large scale, space technology transfer offers a wide-range of benefits to a nation, or region in several different ways. Space technology provides a compelling source of technological spillover, the assimilation of such technologies by space agencies may lead to the impact that space sector can utilize, supporting a wide-range of
industries. Hence, space technology could make an important contributor to the economic development of a nation (Venturini, Verbano, and Matsumoto, 2013). The economic development resulted from space technology transfer can be viewed from new commercial activities (creation of startups or new companies)(Omelyanenko, 2015). Until 2016, through its ESA-Business Incubation Centre plays a critical role in the
development of more than four hundred startups (ESA-Space Solutions, 2015). However, despite the huge potential benefits of space technology for a wide range of industries and society as a whole, there has been limited attempt in the literature to study the transfer process from space industries (Petroni, Venturini, and Santini, 2010).
Problem Statement
Technology transfer through incubation center presents a considerable amount of challenges. In general, Petroni, Venturini, and Santini (2010) have identified
characteristics that determine the success of space technology transfer coming from two different sources: technology and agents involved in space technology transfer
respectively. From a technological aspect, its complexity and implementation issues are the main challenge in technology transfer(Krishen, 2012; Biscotti & Ristuccia, 2006; Lalkaka, 1996; Phan & Siegel, 2006). Space technology and space industry is
characterized by its complexity(Petroni, Verbano, Bigliardi and Galati, 2013). Meanwhile, implementation issues come from the inability of space agency to match space technology and its applications in the non-space sector (Krishen, 2012).
Agents involved in the space technology transfer are divided into two inter-related groups: incubators and incubatees (startups). Startups use space technology for its product or service development, which ESA delivers the technology through its business incubation centre (ESA, 2016). From the literature, it has been identified that the main inhibitor of technology transfer in the incubator is technological knowledge and its applicability and management (Phan & Siegel, 2006; Krishen, 2012; Lalkaka, 1996). Often, the subject who transfer the technology have the insufficient entrepreneurial expertise. Therefore, space technology application to another sector can be difficult (Krishen, 2012).
For startups, as a space technology “receiver”, entrepreneurial skills are the core determinant. However, McAdam and McAdam (2008) finds there are some critical challenges that entrepreneurs face in the early stage of the companies which will be discussed later in the literature review. Space technology transfer requires enormously high involvement and commitment from both actors. Space technology transfer presents several challenges. Therefore, it is necessary to question European Space Agency’s initiative in transferring its space technology through the incubator. Therefore, research question is developed:
Research Question:
- How ESA-BIC can improve the effectiveness in the process of space technology transfer
through technology incubation centre?
Sub-Questions:
- What are the difficulties in space technology transfer through incubation centre? - What makes space incubator differ from other types of the incubator?
- What are the success factors in space incubators?
- How the effectiveness of space technology transfer can be measured?
The objective of this study is to empirically assess the performance of European Space Agency space technology transfer through its Business Incubation Centre from three important aspects: (1)ESA-BIC as a subject who transfer space technology and (2)Incubatees or startups as a receiver of space technology and (3)technological aspect, technological aspect includes the characteristics that builds up space technology. All three critical aspects will be analyzed along with its own challenges and important factors. In the next section, the literature review will discuss the core definition and concept of technology transfer, space technology transfer, and business incubation centre. On top of that, a theoretical framework constituting the success of space technology transfer in the incubator is developed. The third section will discuss methodology used for this study. Section four will present the analysis of data collected and the findings of this research. And section five will discuss the results and draw a conclusion of the research, the limitations, and further research directions will also explain in the fifth section.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Technology Transfer
There is no exact definition of the term “technology transfer”, instead, the term “Technology Transfer” has many definitions (Kremic, 2003; Bozeman, 2000; Sung & Gibson, 2000). The common definition of technology transfer is defined by Soender et al. (1990) technology transfer is “The orchestrated process of transferring technology from one party to its enactment by another party”, this definition illustrates technology transfer as a process (as cited in Kremic, 2003). Technology transfer is the process where
scientific findings (e.g., skills, knowledge, technologies and methods of manufacturing) are transferred from (public) research institutes and universities to different actors in the different industries, and open up the way to development or replacing existing
solutions(OECD, 2003)(Petroni, Venturini and Santini, 2010)(Krishen, 2012). However, the process of technology transfer is not linear; it is an interactive process going back and forth among individuals or organizations in a long-term period (Gibson and Smilor, 1991).
Technology transfer occurs when private or government institutions and organizations that perform research and development (R&D) seek mechanisms for diffusing technology, promoting entrepreneurial activity and ways to collaborate on projects (as cited in Phillips, 2002). For the government research and technology agency, the background motives to do technology transfer is to shows and give sensible benefits to public in respect to their investment in research and technology (Kremic, 2003).
Technology transfer encourages technological progress in a region or a nation. Therefore, it will lead to the development of economy (Mukherjee and Marjit, 2004). However, the development of economy not only comes from innovation and productivity from the amount of capital invested in the institutions, but many studies found that it is also influenced by the characteristics and intensity of interactions and learning processes among involved actors (Debackere and Veugelers, 2005).
In 2005, Debackere and Veugelers introduced the term “Industry-Science Links” to describe this phenomenon of interactions between the commercial application and science, which will result in technology transfer. For public research institutes, it usually uses common ways to transfer technology: through the establishment of Technology Transfer Office (TTO) or Industrial Liasion Office (ILO)(Debackere and Veugelers, 2005; Macho-Stadler, Castrillo, and Veugelers, 2007). As technology transfer agency
transfer its technology mostly to companies, the establishment of technology transfer office enabling public research agency to achieve effective networking with companies within the respective country (Petroni, Venturini, and Santini, 2010).
2.2 Space Technology
Space exploration triggers people’s imaginations. It started with the first-ever human spaceflight in 1961, and move forward to the couple decades, over 500 explorers from diverse nations have discovered first-hand the outer-space experience, “motivated by curiosity, the drive for knowledge, and the belief that space exploration can benefit people on Earth.”(Ochiai, Niu, Steffens, Balogh, Haubold, Othman and Doi, 2014). To do so, space exploration requires advanced technology called space technology. Space technology refers to components built for the operation of launch vehicles and ground stations, which has later been used for a satellite in the military and civilian missions (Venturini, Verbano, and Matsumoto, 2013). Space Technology is developed by public research institutes or agencies established and funded by the respective government in which technology is developed(ISU, 1998). Paikowsky, Baram and Ben-Israel(2016) explain that on a global scale, space agencies divide its activities into five specific activities: (1)Space exploration (2)Human spaceflights (3)Industry and Technology (4)cooperation and self-reliance and (5)sustainable space environment. The first three activities rely heavily on the development of space technology from space agencies and the later two are focusing on collaboration and cooperation between space agencies worldwide (Paikowsky, Baram, and Ben-Israel, 2016).
2.3 Space Agency – European Space Agency
The example of a public research institute that develops space technology is European Space Agency. European Space Agency develop space technology for space missions. As an intergovernmental organization, ESA works with other research institutes in its member states to seek more knowledge about Earth, the space environment outside
earth, solar system and the Universe (ESA, 2015). The role of space agencies is complex; space agencies make decisions in space programs, including scientific programs, services to society in a nation or as a whole (Petroni, Venturini, Verbano and Cantarello, 2009). The decisions made by space agencies depend on the type of its international relations with another individual countries (Petroni et al., 2009) and government spending budget (ISU, 1998). Space agencies can spark major technological innovations in developing space technology by bolstering the links between space industry and research performed in laboratories and universities (ISU, 1997).
European Space Agency is one of the organizations that has special interest in transferring space technology to other application across many industries by funding several studies in feasibility, market analysis and the creation of prototypes (Szalai, Detsis, Peeters, 2012). Despite its modest budget allocation, ESA has significant impact in space technology progress (Bach, Cohendet, and Schenk, 2002). ESA projects were mainly aimed at developing infrastructure in space: launchers, satellites and ground stations (Bach, Cohendet, Schenk, 2002). In total, ESA currently has nine different space activities, including earth observation, human spaceflight, launchers, navigation, space science, space engineering & technology, operations, telecommunications and integrated applications and general studies program to lay the groundwork for the future ESA activities (ESA, 2016). ESA activities require specific product and technology to carry out with its activities. And economic activities that involved in manufacturing
components or elements that purposively goes to Earth orbit or beyond, is called space industry (Bromberg, 2000).
To continuously works on space missions, ESA uses public funds generated from tax payers (ESA, 2016). Often, space agencies across the globe have limited or modest budget allocation (ISU, 1998). European Space Agency is considered to be modest
regarding budget allocation compared to National Aeronautics Space Agency
(NASA)(Bach, Cohendet, and Schenk, 2002). From the beginning of its space program in 1960’s, the European cumulative expenses in space effort are only 10% of NASA
cumulative expenses (Bach, Cohendet, and Schenk, 2002). In 2016, ESA received more than five billion euros (EUR 5.25billion) in funding (ESA, 2016). This budget will be allocated to all ESA domains, with the largest allocation goes to earth observation for 1.5 billion euros (accounts to 30% of total budget) and followed by launchers domain with 1.05 billion euros (20% of total budget).
Eventhough ESA has modest budget; the space agency is required to advocate its high consumption of public funds (Venturini, Verbano, and Matsumoto, 2013). Fortunately, in terms its technology, space industry provide compelling sources of technological
spillovers, capable of delivering a significant contribution to the economic development of a nation (Venturini, Verbano, and Matsumoto, 2013).
To make use of its technology, space agency employs space technology transfer. De Stavola in 2007 (as cited in Venturini and Verbano 2014) provides evidence of the space technology transfer potential to generate new innovative processes from NASA. The revenue or the outcome of technology transfer is valuable for all involving actors: the space agencies that developed the technology and funded the technology, corporate firm or company as a receiver of space technology, the middle company that intermediate the transfer, technology transfer office that supports the process and the end-user (Bach, 2011, as cited in Szalai, Detzis and Peeters, 2011).
2.4 Space Technology Transfer – Spin-off
Each nation have different views and action on technology transfer, depending on the policy and objective (Hertzfeld, 2002). Space agency usually uses the term “Spin-off” on its technology transfer effort. NASA define spin-off as “commercialized product
2016). Bach (2011) refer spin-offs as a technology transferred from one primary domain to another industry, which originally not intended. Therefore, Space spin-offs are viewed as the benefits of space activities as it allows the creation of economic value (as cited in Szalai, Detsis, and Peeters, 2012). In 1997, ISU developed the “Earth-Space-Earth” to describe the common space technology transfer flow as illustrated in figure 1.
Figure I. “Earth-Space-Earth”
‘Space’ refers to all kind of technologies developed for a space mission and ‘Earth’ refers to technology developed in terrestrial sectors(ISU, 1997). Therefore, space technology transfer is not a linear process, but rather a continuous cycle approach and can be beneficial to both terrestrial and non-terrestrial sector. Venturini, Verbano, and Matsumoto (2013) explain two principal ways of transfer of technology in the space industry:
1. directly through a specific project that identifies actors, roles, and the receiving non-space industry
2. indirectly, resulting from spontaneous relationship of the participants in the space mission program
Direct technology transfer
Some space agencies (NASA, JAXA) are involved in promoting and organize their patents through mechanisms they explicitly set up to (Petroni, Venturini, Verbano &
Space
Spin-offs
Earth
Cantarello, 2009). The experts in the set-up mechanisms will screen the potential beneficial firms to receive the technologies transferred.
Indirect technology transfer
Technology and knowledge can be acquired during the process of a space mission, (Ergas, 1987). For example, it is a result of international collaboration between space agencies in different coutnries during the space mission(Dormino, Nosella, Petroni and Verbano, 2003). Indirect space technology transfer is a result of “spontaneous
relationship” in a space program (Venturini, Verbano, and Matsumoto, 2013).
2.3.1 European Space Agency - Technology Transfer Programme
In 1990s, European Space Agency introduces its first Technology Transfer Programme Office, promoting “Space Solutions”, which is a term for space technology used as a spin-offs application on earth (ESA, 2015). Through several mechanisms, ESA’s Technology Transfer Programme Office (TTPO) offers opportunities for start-ups, entrepreneurs, companies and European business to use ESA’s expertise, patents, systems & services and also space technologies (ESA, 2014). Specifically, ESA – TTPO have three different mechanisms under “Space Solutions”. First is business incubation. ESA established support system for startups to use space technologies and services. Second, ESA broker network, a network consists of fifteen technology brokers across Europe, working with local industry to solve production and processes problems. And third, ESA intellectual property, ESA aims to commercialize its intellectual property to companies in non-space applications (ESA-Space Solutions, 2015). This study will then focus on the first ESA initiative to transfer space technology to startups through its business
2.5 The Incubator concept
Aernoudt (2004) argue that the concept of business incubator has become part of the ‘common vocabulary’ and by the time it becomes well-known, there will be more and more false definition as the candidates try to use ‘business incubator’ as a brand. And the definition will be far away from the concept of incubator might refer to (Aernoudt, 2004). However, Hansen, Chesbrough, Nohria and Sull (2000) define incubator as the
organization that built to support and stimulate the development of new ventures, to achieve economic development goals. Business incubators encourage the development of new startups and assisting the startups to survive and to grow in the first couple years (Aernoudt, 2004). The evidence had shown by European Commission in 2002, the survival rate of start-up firm from incubator is significantly higher (80-90% still exists after five years) than the startup from other SME community (as cited in Aerts, 2007). In practice, Hansen et, al. (2000) find there are three similar characteristics shared in various types of business incubator: (1)Business Incubator provides coaching and consultancies for startups (2)Helping startups to achieve economies of scale (3) and providing access to network of companies they have to startups. In general, Incubator offers both technological and business assistance (Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2010). For example, business assistance provided by incubator could be in the form of counseling and networking interaction which is considered by Hackett and Dills (2004) to be the most important form of business assistance (as cited in Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2010). Somsuk, Wonglimpiyarat, and Laosirihongtong (2012) find that previous researchers have identified the common form of technological assistance are (1)access to university and science park laboratory, research activity, technologies (2)intellectual property management and (3)technological know-how to startups.
However, despite incubator have general offerings and common definition, in reality, there are contrasting differences between business incubators. Aernoudt (2004) argue that
‘business incubator’ term have become more and more an “umbrella word,” a term which used in many different applications. Then he further suggests that incubator should be categorized in several types. In every type of incubator, it tries to solve the market failures or to fill the specific gap, but they differ in which gap each incubator tries to solve(Aernoudt, 2004). The categorization of the business incubator should be traced back on its background concept or the reason behind the establishment along with its objectives (Aernoudt, 2004). Aernoudt (2004) distinguish five different typologies used to categorized incubators based on their initial attempts in filling the gap and their main objectives. Aernoudt’s (2004) typology of a business incubator is illustrated in Table 1.
Table I: Typology of business incubators (Aernoudt, 2004)
Main Philosophy (dealing with)
Main Objective Secondary Sectors Involved Mixed Incubators Business gaps Create Startups Employment
creations All sectors Economic Development Incubators Regional or local disparity gap
Regional development Business creation All sectors
Technology Incubators
Entrepreneurial gap Create entrepreneurship Stimulate innovation, technology Start-ups and graduates
Focus on technology, recently targeted e.g. bio-technology
Social Incubators Social gap Integration of social categories Employment creation Non-profit sector Basic research incubators
In the case of ESA business incubation centre, they aim to increase the use of space-technology in terrestrial or non-space applications to startups, leveraging entrepreneurship and focusing on commercialization of space technology (ESA-Space Solutions, 2015). ESA offer entrepreneurs with infrastructure support (office, experts, suppliers & supportive working environment, collaboration with CEMS, funding, and loan for incubators, access to exclusively related events connection to investment capital and strategy consultation (Business development, IP)(ESA, 2016). From this point, ESA Business Incubation Centre is close what Aernoudt(2004) called ‘Technology Incubator’. But in order to justify that ESA-BIC is technology incubator, there should be further explanation on what technology incubator is, what are the characteristics of technology incubator and how it differ from another incubator.
Generally speaking, the developer of technology incubator programs are
universities and research organizations, because they have to commercialize their R&D (Phillips, 2002) Ayawong, Kanjana-Opas, Chayabutra and Noipital (2007) explain four important characteristics of technology incubator: (1)explicitly aims to incubate
enterprises with high or advanced technology content (2)technology business incubator provides additional services including specialized services that intensify technology utilization (3)technology incubator usually works together with research base to utilize the advanced technology (4)and lastly, the main objective of technology incubator is to commercialize its technology by creating innovative startups (as cited in Somsuk, Wonglimpiyarat, and Laosirihongtong, 2012). Phillips (2002) explain Technology incubator differ from the other incubators in three different way:
1. Most general business incubator programs aim to increase the rate of the new business formation, expansion, and development, along with the aim to boost
the chances of survival among client firms regardless of their focus, w hether it is technology-based business or not (Lichenstein, 1993)
2. General business incubators are more likely to focus on client firms that
have or currently develop proprietary advanced technology products or services that are marketable.
3. Transfer or commercialization of technology is not the major objective of general business incubator.
Technology business incubators combine the concept of encouraging new business development and the concepts of commercialization as well as the transfer of technology (Phillips, 2002). In the space technology transfer context, the use of “Technology
Incubator” presents similar philosophy and objectives. Therefore, from the literature (Phillips, 2002; Aernoudt, 2004; Ayawong et al., 2007) it can be concluded that BIC can be categorized as ‘technology incubator’. After defining the typology of ESA-BIC, we should go further into the success factors of space technology transfer through incubation centre, specifically technology incubator.
2.6 The process of Space Technology Transfer Through Incubation Centre
To facilitate space technology transfer, it involve multiple actors (Petroni et al., 2013; Krishen, 2012; Petroni, Verbano and Matsumoto, 2013). In general, there are three involving actors in space technology transfer (Phillips, 2002; Petroni et al., 2013). First the the subject who transfer the space technology, second receiver of technology, and third is the transfer facilitator (Petroni et, al., 2013). Petroni et, al. (2013) provide full explanation on all three different actors in space technology transfer: (1)Subject who transfer space technology could be large/small firm, a research laboratories or
engineering company (2)Receiver of space technology is usually a small firm as the final customer of technology transfer process. The receiver of space technologies may comes
from various backgrounds; whether from commercial, government and military customer. (3)Facilitator, the third actor in space technology transfer may be represented by space agencies, universities and research centres, scientific parks. The facilitator share the same task, which is bridging the integration between two firms involved in space technology transfer (Bozeman, 2000). In figure 2, it has been identified that is the subject who transfer the space technology is European Space Agency, startups as the subject who receive the technology and ESA-Business Incubation Centre as a facilitator.
Figure 2. Space Technology Transfer Actors
In the process of space technology transfer, there are three important factors that should be looked into. First, technological factor. Second, a subject who transfer the space technology, in this case, ESA-BIC (Petroni et al., 2013) and the receiver of the technology or startups (Phillips, 2002).
Technological factor
Space technology is known for its complexity(Petroni et al., 2013). Technology and legal procedures in the development of space technology are what makes space technology complex(Krishen, 2011). Therefore, Krishen (2011) argue that identification of
challenges and determinants from technological factors are considered to be important.
Incubator factor European
Space
Agency ESA- BIC Startups
Space Technology
Previous study has shown the importance of incubator capabilities in facilitating
technology transfer to another companies or startups, and its numerous form of assistance offered to startups(Phillips, 2002; Peters, Rice, and Sundararajan, 2004; Phan, Siegel and Wright, 2005; Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2010; Somsuk, Wonglimpiyarat and
Laosirihongtong, 2012). However, there is lack of literature available discussing the incubator in the space technology transfer context. Thus, incubator important incubator capabilities and challenges will be assessed.
Start-up and entrepreneur factor
Startups human capital or the entrepreneurs themselves plays a huge role in space technology transfer context. Colombo and Grilli (2010) finds that the knowledge of entrepreneur has a direct effect on high-tech startups growth. From that. The startups or entrepreneur capabilities and challenges in receiving space technology transfer will be identified. In summary, it has been identified that there are three factors that influence space technology transfer to startups. Each factor has its determinants and challenges. The term “Determinants” refer to the important elements or capabilities from one factor that contribute to the success of space technology transfer through the incubator. While the term “Challenges” refers to anything that inhibits the successful space technology transfer through the incubator.
Figure 3. Important Factors in space technology transfer
ESA-BIC Space Technology Transfer ESA-BIC Startups (entrepreneurs) Technology
Technological factors: Determinants and challenges
As mentioned, determinants and challenges not only comes from the actors but also from technological factor (Petroni et al., 2013; Krishen, 2011). Petroni et al. (2013) have summarized the important factors from technological factor in space technology transfer. First, technology must be versatile; known behavior (Bach, Cohendet, Schenk, 2002) it should be known what the technology could do and how the particular technology can be used in other application. Secondly, technology should preferably have a similarity of use based on operational requirements and objectives (functional symmetry)(Amesse,
Cohendet, Poirier, Chouinard, (2002). Third, technology must be able to be integrated with other technologies in ‘terrestrial’ or commercial application. Therefore it should be highly reliable and flexible (Martyniuk, Jain, and Stone, 2003). And lastly, the
relationship between its costs and benefit must be identified within each technology(ISU, 1997).
Another challenge from technological aspect have been identified by Biscotti and Ristuccia in 2006, which they argue that the problem lies in the transfer of space technology mainly due to its (1)complexity that characterizes such technology and the industry itself. (2)Technology and knowledge-based venture often have social and environmental implications, riskier than others, and hard to manage (3) technology is changing rapidly, advantageous to make technology acquisition arrangements
(4)licensing and protecting IPR of technology developed require special skills (5) innovation has to be moved quickly, which means that the process from knowledge generation to introducing the product to the market must be fast. The quickest startup or company that introduce a new product to the market and establish the market standard often wins the market (Biscotti and Ristuccia, 2006). Table XX shows the determinants and challenges from technological factor.
Determinants and Challenges of technological factor in space technology transfer
Determinants (Petroni et al., 2013) Challenges (Biscotti and Ristuccia, 2006; Krishen, 2012)
Versatility, known behavior(Bach, Cohendet and Schenk, 2002) Space technology is characterized by its complexity
Similarity of use (functional symmetry) (Amesse et al., 2002) Social and environmental implications of the technolgoy, high-risks
Integratability, reliable and flexible (Martyniuk, Jain and Stone, 2003).
Technology is changing rapidly
Maintain good costs and benefit relationship(ISU, 1997) Innovation from technology has to be moved quickly
Hard to license and protect Intellectual Property
Determinants (or capabilities) and challenges in technology business incubator
The first actor that involved in space technology transfer is the subject who transfer the space technology. Technology business incubator is initiated by space agencies funded and directed by government, termed ‘public incubators’ where the objective is reducing the operational costs of business by offering services, access to technical and business assistance (Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005). Petroni et al. (2013) finds that the easiest path to execute space technology transfer lies in the receiver of the space technology, in which the subject who transfers is a research organization (in this case, BIC), and the receiver is a small firm. This findings are supportive to what ESA-BIC is doing presently, transferring space technology transfer to startups which is a small or medium firm.
In order to have a complete framework of important factors of technology business incubator in space technology transfer, there should be another integration with important factors of technology transfer from other concept. Interestingly, a Model developed by Grimaldi and Grandi (2005) showed that there are three similarities to be found in both Business Innovation Centre (public incubator) and University Business Incubator; (1)similar objectives, both type of incubator aims to provide knowledge-based companies with sustaining access to advanced technological knowledge (2)academic tangible resources (laboratories and facilities) and (3)networking.Important capabilities and determinants from university science incubator can also be integrated with
capabilities and challenges of technology business incubator as there are similiraties in between two types of incubator.
Krishen (2012) identify this part as ‘Innovator obstacles’ which refer to the important factors and challenges that surface from the subject who transfer the technology.
Previous study have explained in detail what are the important factors that technology business incubator should have in order to achieve successful space technology transfer. In the first place, it is important to have knowledge of potential markets (Becerra-Fernandez, 2002; Jagoda, Maheshwari and Lonseth, 2010, as cited in Petroni et al., 2013; Phan and Siegel, 2006). The first factor seems obvious, but the findings from Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link (2004), supported with Markman, Phan, Balkin and Giannodis (2005) shows that there are insufficient marketing skills and entrepreneurial skills in the technology transfer offices and incubator(as cited in Phan & Siegel, 2006). Moreover, previous findings from Venturini and Santini (2010) shows that space industry potential is limited because lack of well-defined market model.
Secondly, technology business incubator should have enough financial resources availability (Teece, 1977; Lalkaka, 1996; Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005). Not only have the financial resources, incubator should also have the competencies to manage the financial resources available (Phan and Siegel, 2006; Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005). The amount available capital should be allocated to its R&D competency and knowledge (JAXA, Industrial Collaboration Department, 2006). And to manage the financial resources, the technology business incubator should have a well-defined funding model, because incubators depends on public subsidies and fees from startups (Phan and Siegel, 2006).
Next, technology business incubator should create linkages between research centres, academic, and the industry(Krishen, 2012; Lalkaka, 1996; Hansen, Chesborough, Nohria and Sull, 2000). It can be in the form of combined research and technology
transfer effort with academic and industry research that will lead to effectiveness in spin-in and spspin-in-out (Krishen, 2012; Cleyn, Meysman, Braet and Gielen, 2006). Lalkaka (1996) argue that collaborative work with professional or business communities, legislative support along with supportive environments, will add value to technology business incubator through service quality and monitor the process of the ‘incubated’ firm will contribute to the incubator’s success. In similar, Hansen et al. (2000) introduce ‘networked incubator’ term, as there is distinguishing feature of a networked incubator is that it has mechanisms to foster partnerships among start-up teams and other successful Internet-oriented firms, thus facilitating the flow of knowledge and talent across
companies and the forging of marketing and technology relationships between them. This activities will solve the implementation of technology issues in space technology transfer (Phan and Siegel, 2006; Krishen, 2012). This also related to the challenges of space technology transfer
Lastly, McAdam & McAdam (2008) find that the University Science Incubator’s unique resources are able to contribute to the growth of the high-tech business firm by examined the lifecycle development of the high-tech business firm. What is meant by unique resources is the way technology business incubator use their resources such as access to new knoledge, expertise, networks and cost that will lead to leading research (Barrow, 2001, as cited in McAdam and McAdam, 2008). Scillitoe & Chakrabati (2010) finding is supportive to the previous study research, as the finding suggest that business assistance, in the form of venture learning about buyer preferences, is best enabled through counseling interactions with incubator management. Table 3 summarize the technology incubator determinants or capabilities and challenges.
Determimnants and Challenges of technology business incubator in space technology transfer
Determinants or Capabilities Challenges Organizational level competencies(Becerra-Fernandez, 2002; Jagoda,
Maheshwari and Lonseth, 2010, as cited in Petroni et al., 2013; Phan and Siegel, 2006)
Hard to penetrate competitive market (Petroni, Venturini and Santini, 2010; Lalkaka, 1996)
Financial resources availability (Teece, 1977; Lalkaka, 1996; Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005; Phan and Siegel, 2006)
Implementation of technology issues (Phan and Siegel, 2006; Krishen, 2012)
Networking with companies and combined research with academic and industry(Hansen et al. 2000; Krishen, 2012; Lalkaka, 1996; Cleyn, Meysman, Braet and Gielen. 2006)
Business and Technological assistances (Lalkaka, 1996; Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2010; McAdam and McAdam, 2008; Somsuk,
Wonglimpiyarat and Laosirihongtong, 2011)
Inadequate marketing skills and entrepreneurial experience insufficiencies of transfer agent. Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link (2004); Markman, Phan, Balkin and Giannodis (2005 (as cited in Phan and Siegel, 2006)
Organizational culture and and politics (Petroni, Venturini and Santini, 2010).
Maintain lifecycle development of startups through unique resources (McAdam and McAdam, 2008; Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2010
Important factors and challenges of startups and entrepreneur
In this context, startups and entrepreneur are considered to be the receiver of space technology, as described by Petroni et al. (2013). Colombo and Grilli (2010) finds that entrepeneur (founder) capabilities have direct positive effect to startups growth. To identify the challenges that entrepreneur face in while receiving space technology, Greiner’s (1972) “Growth Model” is used. Greiner (1972) divide the startup growth in the incubator in five different phase, the first two phase particularly in the first two stages of ‘incubation’ process, the problem identified in crisis of leadership and crisis of
autonomy (as cited in McAdam & McAdam, 2008). Lalkaka (1996) explain that the entrepeneurs oftenly have lack of technical and entrepreneurial expertise during the first year of the venture. Krishen (2012) explain that the challenges of entrepreneur as a receiver of space technology is lack of technology potential which will lead to insufficient use of technology. Krishen (2012) further explain what is meant by “insufficient use of technology”: space technology that should be used in high-tech terrestrial applications may be used for a problem in low-tech solutions. Insufficient use of technology will make inefficient product cost and lose the market to available
competitors. To solve this problem, Colombo and Grilli (2010) suggest that prior work experience in the field and higher degree of university education in management and economics will help the startups to grow bigger than other firms.
2.7 Theoretical Framework
The development of theoretical framework developed to make a clear overview of the input gained from the previous literature regarding the success of space technology transfer through an incubation centre. Both challenges and important factors are separated by external and internal factors, incubator including its incubatees (Startup) are grouped in internal factor, while technological and other issues outside incubator and incubatees
sphere are combined in the external factor. Success factors and determinants will be tested to mediate internal and external barriers and challenges in space technology
transfer through incubation centre. Figure 1 presents complete factors from technological, incubator and startups determinants and challenges. On the other hand, figure 1 and 2 summarize three important factors that will contribute to the success of space technology transfer through incubator.
3. Method
In the previous section, the three critical factors play a major role in space technology transfer through business incubation centre. First one is the technological factor, second incubation centre and lastly the entrepreneur or startups. To get complete information from all three factors, technology transfer officers and managers from three different institutions will be interviewed. First is from European Space Agency-Technology Transfer Office; second is from startup as a recipient of space technology and lastly from university technology transfer offices. The data will be collected in European Space Agency, Kennispark, and Space Business Incubation Centre (SBIC). All of the interviews will be taken in the Netherlands. The consideration to interview people from three
different institutions is because each of institutions works in high-technology transfer to startups and another firm. Especially for ESA and SBIC, both ESA and SBIC works together and have directly involved in the process of space technology transfer through the incubator. Direct involvement of the participants in the space technology transfer will provide meaningful insight into this study. Another important view will also gain from Kennispark, organization that “develop an innovative entrepreneur’s climate in the region
of Twente” (Kennispark, 2016). Interestingly, Kennispark assists students that have an innovative idea to market their products or services through the incubator.
The participants of this study are three ESA-BIC technology transfer manager and officers, one director from Kennispark, an entrepreneur from SBIC and one program director of SBIC. This study will use direct semi-structured interview is chosen to optimize the collection of information from the total of six respondents. The total of six interviews did not match Guest, Bunce and Johnson (2006) findings on “data saturation”. Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) find that the interview will no longer give informative data after twelve interviews. Interestingly, what have also shown from Guest, Bunce and Johnson (2006) findings is after the first six interviews, numbers of new codes generated are three times lower, the first six interviews generates eighty new codes while in the later six interviews generate no more than twenty new codes.
Interestingly, there is another comparison theory. Consensus theory was introduced by Romney, Batchelder, and Weller in 1986. Consensus theory is based on “the principle that experts tend to agree more with each other (on their particular domain of expertise) than do novices” (Guest, Bunce and Johnson 1986). Romney, Batchelder, and Welfer (1986) prove that small samples can be enough to get accurate information in specific context. Romney, Batchelder, and Welfer (1986) use “formal mathematical model” to justify its findings. The calculation has shown as small as four samples can provide highly accurate information with a high confidence level (.999) if the samples “have a high degree of competence for the domain inquiry”(Guest, Bunce and Johnson, 2006). From Romney, Batchelder, and Weller (1986) consensus theory, it can be concluded that the total amount of six interviews consist of experts not only from space technology transfer but also technology transfer is sufficient to get highly accurate information.
However, Vaughn and Turner (2016) argued that the biggest challenge in conducting qualitative research is to identify “what is worth analyzing”. And to maximize and to get detailed information of data, the data collected will be analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis process stretch from identifying, analyze and reporting themes from the data collected (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis strategy is able to
describe and organize data set in detail (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis will identify several themes from the data set and match the themes with the proposed
theoretical framework. As thematic analysis will provide a detailed set of information from the data, thematic analysis will also explain emerging themes that related to the theoretical framework. Theme is important information from collected data which relates to research question (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis begin as research is noticing and seek meaning and issues in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Braun and Clarke (2006) step-by-step guide to thematic analysis is used in this research.
Table 4: Braun and Clarke (2006) Phases of thematic analysis
Phase Description of the process
1. Familiarizing yourself with your data Transcribing data (if necessary), reading and re-reading the data, noting down with your data: initial ideas.
2. Generating initial codes Coding interesting features of the data in a systematic fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant to each code 3. Searching for themes Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data relevant
to each potential theme
4. Reviewing themes Checking if the themes work in relation to the coded extracts (Level 1) and the entire data set (Level 2), generating a thematic ‘map’ of the analysis
5. Defining and naming Ongoing analysis to refine the specifics of each theme, and the overall story the themes: analysis tells, generating clear definitions and names for each theme.
6. Producing the report The final opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid,
compelling extract examples, final analysis of selected extracts, relating back of the analysis to the research question and
literature, producing a scholarly report of the analysis.
The Interview
Semi-structured interview is chosen in order to gain concrete validity to subject discussed. As explained by Rynes and Gephart (2004), qualitative research is a multi-method research using an interpretive and inductive approach to the subject. The result of the interview will be transcribed into text-by-text (verbatim) manually. Outcome of this research will able to answer the relation between technological and incubator
determinants as well as its challenges to the success of the space incubator in transferring space technology
4. Results
From the total of six interviews from technology transfer managers, director, officers and the startup, there are a lot of interesting information that can be learned. By thematic analysis, the collected information from interviews can be processed in detail (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The result of the interview will be matched with the theoretical framework, in order to refuse, confirm and to add important points in the theoretical framework. The result of the interviews are categorized in four different topics, which are (1)The incubator capabilities and challenges (2)Entrepreneur capabilities and challenges (3)Technological determinants and challenges (4)Process and important parts in
technology transfer.
Incubator capabilities and challenges
1. Entrepreneurial ecosystem: create networking between startups and companies (Krishen, 2012; Cleyn et al., 2006; Hansen et al., 2000; Lalkaka, 1996)
Interestingly, when repondents were asked about technology transfer, six out of six respondents pointed out the importance of building innovation ecosystem in technology
transfer. One respondent went straight to “when you look into technology transfer, you have to support the ecosystem.” Some respondent called it “eco-environment” or “innovation ecosystem” and “entrepreneurial ecosystem” but they refer to the same explanation an application. Entrepreneurial ecosystem emphasize on how comprehensize set of resources and involving actors such as univeristy, company and government institutions encourages entrepreneurship (Stam, 2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystem can be considered as critically important of incubator capabilities and put as one of the most important agenda in technology transfer as respondent mention “we really to build eco-environment around”. Another respondent mentioned that the creation of entrepreneurial ecosystem attract “three most important things in technology transfer” which are talent, money and knowledge. The importance of creating entrepreneurial ecosystem is aligned with both theoretical framework and previous researches (Krishen, 2012; Lalkaka, 1996; Hansen, Chesborough, Nohria and Sull, 2000). To be more specific, there are several executionable approaches done by TTO or incubator to encourage the innovation ecosystem which summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Creating entrepreneurial ecosystem
Creating entrepreneurial ecosystem (6 out of 6 respondents)
Data Extract
Use networks to help startups in business-related activities
“we are trying to enlarge the community approach, how can you build up the market together is the possibility to share talent”
Networking with the alumni and form partnership with local partners, space agencies, research centres, universities, business partners, advisors and
investors
“We try to bring program together with the industry”
“some of the alumnis have been succeessful so they become coaches so they created an ecosystem and that's interesting i believe”
Conduct collaborative project with other TTOs and partners next to technology transfer
“We have started to meet all the space TTO offices in the world and we are the founding member called “TTO Circle” and this is the environment we place next to technology transfer”
Connecting entprereneurs with industry expert to educate and for future networking
“We have the space accelerator, then we participate with the broker, we want to create an ecosystem which stimulate entrepreneurs entrepreneurial minds connect startups with larger companies.”
Collaboration with partner to promote the program “They can use our marketing platform, we can use theirs, they have access to business community so they have access a lot of network”
Networks provides more options for entrepreneurs to get more capital
“Give an access to the startup community, they were all investment funds and link to startups” “We try to strengthen the community approach in order to fill in the incubator aspects, and especially the money is really important”
Provide supprotive environment to startups “We are trying to build a community which in the community is the place where startups learn from each other”
Create events to encourage community building “we are organizing seminars, events, all kind of meeting stuff where the companies come together and try to understand what they are dealing with, that's the community building.”
2. Business and Technological assistances (Lalkaka, 1996; Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2010; McAdam and McAdam, 2008; Somsuk, Wonglimpiyarat and Laosirihongtong, 2011)
Previous researches mentioned the core services of incubator is to provide business and technological assistance (Bozeman, 2000; Lalkaka, 1996). And Bozeman (2000) finds that not all of the technological and business assistance for technology incubator are successful and help startups to survive and grow. Even Bozeman (2000) has shown that the technology incubator is not effective. As business and technological assistances are the core services of incubator, there should be the identification of which types and form of business and technological assistances that suitable for high-tech startups and
entrepreneurs.
Table 6. Business and technologial assistances
Business and Technological Assistance (6 out of 6 respondents)
Coach the entrepreneur to develop proper business model
“That's the goal to boost innovation and innovative concept and create business model”
Support startup’s technical problem “SBIC also offer technical support from expert for example here ESTEC who can help with a more technical knowledge and insights”
Help entrepreneurs to scale the business “The incubator is a mean of how helping entrepreneurs to create the project and obviously grow and in the long-term”
Identify startups needs and try to personalize the assitances to startups
“So for me, my startups and our startups are like kids, they have different needs depends on the age. Some way they need the nannies, the babies, the diapers later they need good advice”
Assessing startup team composition “Sometimes we even advice to change management
structure in the beginning before it starts.” Help startup to reach the first customers “Not only technical support, but also help them to
get the first contact to the customers.”
Pre and Post incubation program “we need to work on the pre-feasibility, or indeed,
in the pre-incubation, the pre-feasibility is to make sure that, it’s make sense to do this business” “there is a possibilty especially for a high tech companies, to get a approval concept loan, to make the demonstration of their technology and show the market there is a real possibility for such a market or product to get launched in the market”
“when they are incubated or after, we need to find mechanism to accelerate their growth”
3. Monitor start-up lifecycle and development (McAdam & McAdam, 2008)(Lalkaka, 1996)
There is an evidence that while monitoring start-up lifecycle, technology incubator’s resources can enhance startups growth (McAdam and McAdam, 2008). All of the
technology transfer managers and incubator manager were maintaining start-up lifecycle development whether to measure the impact of the startups over the year, assisting them after the incubation process in a so-called “post-incubation” process. Incubator maintain “formal” relationship by asking startup to “supply with information for up to ten years”
and also startups have to “report yearly turnover, investment, member of employees” this kind of formal relationship will help incubator to measure the impact that has been created by incubator. One respondent mentioned the benefits of maintain relationship and monitor lifecycle with the startup alumni “If they are successful, maybe the come back as an investors”.
4. Internal Organizational skills (Emerging)(refinement)
Phan and Siegel (2006) has shown organizational level competency have a direct impact on the incubator overall performance and startups growth. Gained from the interviews, respondents have mentioned the organizational level competencies that incubator should have to execute technology transfer program.
Table 7. Internal organizational skills Organizational Competencies (5 out of 6 respondents)
Data Extract
Adaptive and Innovative team “It took NASA took 2.5 years to get into
procurement system, and it is still the old guy who is doing astronaut suit. So you have crazy new ideas, then you merge it with the person who is done no innovation before, that is sucks”
Marketing and communication “Marketing and communication will drives and
rotates the spin-out and spin-in quicker”
5. Financial availability (Teece, 1977; Lalkaka, 1996; Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005; Phan and Siegel, 2006)
There are several actionable approach from the respondents on how to allocate the available funding. Both incubators provide initial funding for startups. The initial funding can be allocated to the development of prototype, or ‘pre-feasibility’ research for startups. However, if the initial funding is not enough, the incubator will then seek another funding mechanisms from partners, and government public funds. The establishment of
“innovation ecosystem” or “eco-environment” will benefits the technology transfer as a whole, it helps greatly also in funding
Table 8. Financial Availabilities
Financial Availabilities (6 out of 6 respondents)
Data Extract
Seek additional funding from partners (public or private funding) and link startups with other funding mechanisms
“We have close contact with the fund manager, we know the directors, the right contacts and I can give an access to the startups community, so how can we link. They were all investment funds and link with startups.”
Initial funding “We provide 50 thousand euros funding, but there
are some restrictions on how they can use this funding again this is mainly for technical development and IP support”
Provide startups with concept loan to develop protoype
“there is a possibilty especially for a high tech companies, to get a approval concept loan, to make the demonstration (prototype”
Provides funding for pre-incubation (feasibility study) and post-incubation
"”Okay before we are incubated, we gonna do the pre-incubation, we gonna feasibility" to make sure that the things that they say, are true, “So that could be done by them or that could be done by funding from ESA, European Comission, from the region of government, whoever”
The interviews provides significant contributions to answer the research question, in this section, it has been discussed that there are several core capabilities that the incubator should have to transfer the technology to startups. Interestingly, the data collected from the interviews were matched with the theoretical framework, and extend the explanation and activities in each sub-themes. Frequency chart will display the level of importance of each sub-themes in incubator capaibilities. Four out of five sub-themes were heavily linked to the incubator capabilities, which means that all of the respondents were agree development of entrepreneurial ecosystem, business and technological assitances,
respondents mention the importance of organizational competencies. Figure below summarized the level of importance for each sub-themes.
After the incubator capabilities has been identified, the challenges that incubator face in it technology transfer are also explained by the respondents. There are five mentioned challenges from the respondents which explained below.
1. Funding mechanisms
Apparently, even though the financial availability is critically important, each incubator has it’s own problem with financial availability. Both incubators have limited financial resources, even if it’s considered enough to run its current activities, the further funding needed ‘to be invested in a lot of TTP activities’. Furthermore, another considerable amount of capital ‘should be invested more’ to both pre-incubation program such as feasibility study and to post-incubation such as acceleration program. Therefore, one of the incubator challenges is to get additional capital in order to extend or to increase the amount of activities. However, one respondent reminds that the current progress of TTP is efficient, ‘because we very limited means in terms of money and people working with this we can create quite large result’.
2. Publicity and awareness of entrepreneurs(emerging theme)
One emerging sub-theme result from the interview is publicity and awareness of entrepreneur. Even with the fact that SBIC generates more than hundred of startups
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Entrepreneurial
ecosystem technological Business and assistance
Monitor startup
generated per year, there are only a handful of people knows the program. With the huge possible impact of space technology, one respondent said ‘not many people think about going into space technology when they want to build start-up company’. It also goes into the general public, not only entrepreneurs, as they mentioned ‘We try to be more in the outreach, we need to let people know that we really have a good portofolio, that space has an impact, and that is available for creation of companies’. Another respondents inform
that currently the awareness is ‘sufficient’ but followed up with ‘There's a quite lot of work to be done to spread the message’
3. Hard to penetrate competitive market (Petroni, Venturini and Santini, 2010; Lalkaka, 1996)
The respondents does not specify the competitive markets in detail, yet all of them generally mentioned that the market is really competitive. One respondent mention “The market is going tougher and tougher, they don’t want half solutions but they want to have full solutions”. The market itself is relateOd with changes in technology, and both
entrepreneur and incubator should “makes a whole new approach of making products and bringing products to the markets”.
4. Understanding start-up financing (emerging theme, 1 out of 6 respondents)
Both incubator in general have capabilities to understand the concept of start-up financing. Yet, the understanding does not comes from the other parties, which is
‘Venture Capital’ or start-ups in the Netherlands. Therefore, it can be one of the incubator challenge to educate both VC or start-ups in the start-up financing model. One respondent mentioned that the start-up financing in European context is ‘not very well developed’ compared to the start-up financing in the United States. The fact that ‘The VC in NL dont have many experiences with statups companies and how they have to bring startups to scale’ also ‘they dong have the expertise in financing the startups’ and from the start-up
side, ‘they don’t want to give the knowledge or the idea because they think that the idea is brilliant enough’. From incubators perspective, it is the challenge for them to educate both VC and start-up in start-up financing model.
5. Implementation of technology issues (Phan and Siegel, 2006; Krishen, 2012)
In implementing the technology to new application or to start-ups, SBIC will ‘helps entrepreneur in technical skills’ and assess the technical problem with ‘ESA technical experts.’. However, they have a rather ‘limited availability of technical expertise’ but not mentioning the difficulties in implementing the technologies. Therefore, there are no issues in implementation of technologies in SBIC
6. Organizational culture and politics (Petroni, Venturini and Santini, 2010 and Inadequate marketing skills and entrepreneurial experiences of transfer agent (Krishen, 2012; Siegel, Waldman, Atwater and Link, 2004 & Markman et al., 2005(as cited in Phan and Siegel, 2006))
Interestingly, both organizational culture and politics and inadequate marketing skills and entrepreneurial experiences of transfer agent are not mentioned by all of the respondents, therefore both sub-themes were rejected. The figure below summarized the incubator challenges.
Entrepreneur capabilities and challenges 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
The interviews provides a detailed approach to a context of technology transfer as a whole. Interesting insights are gained from the interviews from technology transfer managers and startup. Some respondents mentioned several important things for
entrepreneurs to start a business or to be involved in the incubator. This part will display and explain the entrepreneur capabilities and challenges based from the interviews.
Table 10. Entrepreneur capabilities
Entrepreneur Capabilities (emerging theme) Data Extract
Identify “Space links” a match technological availability and market needs
“The space link have to be well-described, if there's no space link, its a good idea, then ESA BIC is not a right program”
Extensive market knowledge “Most of the problem that the startups is heading
mostly is not the technology part, but it takes more time to develop a product that really fits for the market”
Building networks and partnership “And the market model which we sell direct in the
US, we decided to do that because we want to be close to the customers understanding their needs, outside the US we have an indirect model, so we sell through partners”
Adaptive business model and technology
.
“The technology that we have is so adaptable to the business process in a worklflow of our customers, we could evolve the platform to meet the demands, today and in the future”
“What changes if why when? There are so many models you can do, which are the sales channel? This they don’t do. And I would say 90% failing due to business model, not something else”
Inventor of technology “if you have the inventor of the technology, than it's
super good”
“after few months we got acquinted with the program, and we saw an opportunity to develop our platform using one of the patents”
inventor that need to have the idea.”
Internationalization and scale “I think the key is to think right away to
internationalization”
“Startups is from university is heading to a global market, and our global market, how do you define, what target you are heading”
“We think that we will have 95% market share in our revenue in healthcare market. So we just want to have the best possible platform that works best on any conditions, we work on every single network (internet, satellite, mobile networks) and it works stable and consistent across different networks, that's how we define technology leadership.”
Feasibility studies “With the idea they should come to us you , and
there;s to be a mechanism ‘okay before we are incubated, we gonna do the pre-incubation, we are going to do feasibility’ to make sure that the things that they say, are true”
Strong team composition “It depends already on the team composition.
Sometimes we even advice to change the management structure in the beginning before it starts”
Start-up finance understanding “Startups as well, they dont want to give the
knowledge or the idea because they think that the idea is brilliant enough and say ‘you are luck to give me one milliion dollar I will burn it and you get nothing’. The maturity of startups in NL have to grow as well, they have to understand