IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 68, NO.
1, FEBRUARY 2021
The Evolution of the Incubator: Past, Present,
and Future
Brendan Galbraith , Member, IEEE, Rodney McAdam , and Stephen Edward Cross , Life Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—The evolution of the incubator is retraced from the
foundational research in the 1950s and 1960s of Research-on-
Research—that explored the R&D process in a number of contexts
to derive and test theories of organizational behavior. In this paper,
we review the next phase of this evolution, starting with seminal
incubation research in the early 1970s and, we reflect on the pro-
lific growth of incubation research and practice, as well as new
challenges that lie ahead for the next phase of incubation. The in-
cubation field has expanded to include a wide range of models and
a plethora of spin-off terminology that have been used interchange-
ably, with the emergence of the most recent model—the accelerator.
Our historical critical review of the evolution of the incubation field
is used to ask: in this current era of technological change, what can we
learn from the past? We reflect on this question in an attempt to help
direct researchers in their endeavors to contribute to the next gen-
eration of incubation research. This paper presents lessons learned
from prior research and provides a range of indicative areas for
further empirical studies at four levels of analysis.
Index Terms—Accelerator, incubator, innovation management,
research-on-research, technology transfer.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE global interest in the incubator phenomenon and its
implications for management practice and, truly support-
ive policy development has burgeoned over the decades. There
has been a surge in the growth of incubators, initially in the
United States, but this has quickly spread throughout Europe
and Asia. It is estimated that there are more than 7000 incubators
around the world, most of which are supported by local or na-
tional governments [1]. As such, a multitude of related terms has
been attached to these third-party entities in the entrepreneurial
ecosystem, ranging from Science Parks, Innovation Centers, Re-
search Parks, and Business Incubators. This worldwide growth
has spurred the emergence of a wider constituency of incubator
and technology transfer models, often with overlapping func-
tions and objectives and an eclectic range of sponsors including
Manuscript received September 25, 2018; revised February 8, 2019; accepted
March 7, 2019. Date of publication May 15, 2019; date of current version
November 13, 2020. (Corresponding author: Brendan Galbraith.)
B. Galbraith is with the College of Business, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates, and also with the Department of Management, Leadership
and Marketing, University of Ulster, BT37 0QB Jordanstown, U.K. (e-mail:,
Brendan.Galbraith@zu.ac.ae).
R. McAdam is with the Ulster Business School, University of Ulster, BT15
1ED Belfast, U.K. (e-mail:,r.mcadam@ulster.ac.uk).
S. E. Cross is with the Office of the President, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332 USA (e-mail:,cross@gatech.edu).
This paper has supplementary downloadable material available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org, provided by the authors.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2019.2905297
0018-9391 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 09:43:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
265
corporations, investors, universities, and regional government
departments. Incubators have provided a fascinating arena for
researchers due to the heterogeneity among incubators and in-
cubator firms in terms of their success and performance [2] and
the implications of what works with management practices, cor-
porate strategy, and university and government policy. As entire
industries are disrupted with technology and other megatrends,
so too, are the management practices and business models of
an eclectic range of organizations, including the incubator. In
the most recent instantiation of incubator and related technol-
ogy transfer models, additional offshoots have evolved such as
virtual models, matchmaking platforms, open innovation inter-
mediaries, and niche incubators with a focus on sustainability.
Moreover, the last decade has heralded the arrival of an ap-
parently new type of incubator, that has quickly gained global
attention—the accelerator. In the United States alone, it is esti-
mated that 6000 start-ups have participated in 650 accelerators
and have collectively raised over $30 billion in capital [3]. There
are differences between the criteria and features of incubator and
accelerator models, and a tension amongst researchers whether
the accelerator can be considered a new generation incubator
model [4] or a new form of entrepreneurial support organization
[5]. This is discussed in more detail later in this paper. Our aim
is to integrate the foundational Research-on-Research body of
work on the scientific organizational management of the R&D,
with the origins the incubation research. As we retrace this im-
portant, and seemingly overlooked, foundational work, we use
this historical review to ask: what can we learn from the past, in
order to help provide direction to researchers.
As the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
(TRANSACTION) enters its seventh decade it is timely to look
back and retrace the roots of incubator research in the TRANS-
ACTION (and other journals) and critically review this in light
of the apparent, latest instantiation of incubation–the accel-
erator. Historically, the TRANSACTION has played a key role
in some of the foundational research preceding incubation–
from the origins of Research-on-Research, and later, to sem-
inal papers in incubation. Moreover, a core objective of the
IEEE Technology Engineering Management Society (TEMS)
is moving product/services from idea to market and with the
TRANSACTION being the premier journal that is housed under
the TEMS umbrella, a realignment with evolving incubation re-
search is timely, from both, research and management practice
perspectives.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II charts the
development of Research-on-Research and its impact on the
266
R&D and engineering management field. Section III briefly re-
views the origins of the incubation field and critiques emerging
incubator models and avenues for further research. Section IV
concludes this paper.
II. RETRACING RESEARCH-ON-RESEARCH
In many of the earliest issues of the (TRANSACTION) and under
the stewardship of its founding editor, Dr. Albert Rubenstein,
there was a concerted drive to explore research on the R&D
process to derive and test theories about organizational behavior
in the R&D context [6], [7] and to understand how to resolve
the gap between knowledge and its application [8], [9]. This
fledgling work on the management of research, development and
engineering became known as research-on-research and many
of the earliest studies were carried out by social scientists, such
as psychologists, sociologists, and economists—some of whom
had a prior technical background [10], [11].
The rapid development of postWorld War II industrial and
research laboratories was the initial focus of this evolving man-
agement science [12]–[15]. The goal was to advance theory
and practice—the art—of R&D and engineering management.
Rubenstein’s editorial pages were repeated calls for action to
management researchers to advance theoretical research to ad-
dress what he was convinced was the serious lack of under-
standing of what takes place in the complex process of R&D
and engineering management [7], [16]. At the same, Ruben-
stein highlighted that in order to make progress there had to be
recognition that this endeavor was a two-way street. It was in-
cumbent on practicing R&D and engineering managers to seize
their role in helping to improve the art of management by test-
ing, developing, adopting and implementing changes in R&D
management, according to emerging academic management re-
search at that time [17]. Writing in an editorial in December
1966, [17] Rubenstein was unsparing:
Until sufficient effort is put into these latter aspects of the Manage-
ment of R, D & E process by the managers themselves, the results of
basic research into management will just lie in the libraries and on
the shelves, with little effect on the art of managing R, D and E.
An early research paper by Ed Roberts, at that time an As-
sistant Professor at MIT, was an agenda setting critique of the
research focus that was taking place in this era as well as the
dissemination of a novel theoretical contribution Toward a new
theory in research and development [18]. Of course, it would be
very difficult to imagine that this was the case if one reviews the
mere five Google Scholar citations affiliated to his 1962 sem-
inal paper Toward a new theory for research and development
published in Industrial Management Review.1 Roberts [18] cri-
tiqued that management researchers were working in the wrong
areas and with the wrong viewpoints, namely: 1) management
research had emphasized pieces rather the process of R&D;
2) emphasized techniques rather understanding; 3) those that
did attempt to analyze R&D used a framework which hindered
rather than helped understanding [18].
1 Industrial Management Review was later retitled to Sloan Management
Review
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 09:43:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 68, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2021
Rubenstein was a trailblazer in how he helped shape the re-
search agenda and he directly communicated the critical part
that practicing industrial managers were expected to play. As
Ed Roberts [19] reflected, this occurred in an era were many
of the relatively few managers in the reading audience doubted
that academics had a basis for informing them, and they cer-
tainly questioned how much performance improvement might re-
sult from reading the TRANSACTION …and some related journals
were even outright hostile to academic contributors. Rubenstein
was a proponent of the classic counter argument to this skepti-
cism, in that nothing is so practical as a good theory [20]. As
Van de Ven [21] explains: Good theory is practical precisely
because it advances knowledge in a scientific discipline, guides
research toward crucial questions, and enlightens the profession
of management.
This research agenda, championed by Rubenstein and oth-
ers [18], gained momentum and in particular the TRANSACTION
reported advancements of Research Laboratories that was oc-
curring at MIT [22], Northwestern, [7], the Georgia Institute of
Technology [23], Bell Laboratories [24], and Lockheed [25].
In the early 1970s we started to see a shift on the field’s focus
from R&D and engineering management to innovation man-
agement [26] and some of the most important seminal research
came from Rubenstein’s past students, for example, James Utter-
back’s [27] work on the process of innovation. Around the same
time, the TRANSACTION published the seminal research into in-
cubator organizations; charting the characteristics of technical
entrepreneurs in incubators in MIT [28] and incubator spin-offs
in Stanford and Silicon Valley [29].
As the R&D and engineering management field evolved and
broadened into innovation management, the research foci of gov-
ernment, university and industrial research laboratories trans-
gressed to fledgling incubator organizations. Over the years a
wide range of journals provided sustained coverage of incuba-
tor and related research, in particular, Research Policy, Tech-
novation, Journal of Business Venturing, and The Journal of
Technology Transfer. Other significant outlets included: R&D
Management, Journal of Small Business Management, Technol-
ogy Analysis and Strategic Management, and The Journal of
Product Innovation Management. Post-Rubenstein, the TRANS-
ACTION grew in several other important areas, but with notable
exceptions such as [30] and a Special Issue by Link et al. [31]
the TRANSACTION was less engaged in the incubator research
field. Moreover, the legacy of the foundational body of work
on Research-on-Research in the pages of this publication and in
other leading journals over years, is seemingly omitted in histor-
ical reviews of the organizational and management of science of
R&D. Before incubation was conceptualized, there was a rich
vein of foundational organizational and management science on
how industrial and government labs were attempting to convert
R&D into viable products. To be clear, Research-on-Research
is not incubation, but one of the foundational predecessors to
the global phenomenon of incubation. Albert Rubenstein, who
was referred to as Mr. Research-on-Research by many of his
peers [32], played a key stewardship role in championing this
vital, foundational stream of research. This paper will now turn
to briefly retrace the emergence of the incubation movement and
research field and reflect on future research avenues. This will
GALBRAITH et al.: EVOLUTION OF THE INCUBATOR: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
be followed by a review how the development the incubation re-
search field can be shaped by future challenges as well as learn
from the past.
III. MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATION—INCUBATORS
AND ACCELERATORS
The origin of incubators is often traced back to the 1950s, first,
with the opening of Stanford Research Park that helped seed the
Silicon Valley and the Industrial Center of Batavia, New York,
in 1959 [33]. Around the same time, both the MIT Instrumen-
tation Laboratory and MIT Lincoln Laboratory, having under-
taken substantial defense technological innovations and space
technologies, were considered to be major source organizations
for new high technology enterprises [34]. Faculty entrepreneur-
ship in the MIT labs developed organically, with many MIT
researchers electing to moonlight on a part-time basis, whilst
retaining full time faculty positions [34]. Both, the subsequent
high-tech clusters of Silicon Valley and Boston-Route 128 were
considered to be exemplar environments for the growth of high-
technology start-ups and successful university and corporate
spin-offs. An interesting variation was that the Boston-Route
128 model stood out with a much higher degree of regional en-
trepreneurial dependence upon one major academic institution,
namely, MIT [34]. In comparison, an early study found that only
eight out of 243 technical firms in the Palo Alto area had their
origins with Stanford University [29].
Since the 1960s, the Palo Alto area was home to some of the
most impactful corporate incubators such as Fairchild Semicon-
ductor and Ampex [29]. As the incubator concept evolved in the
1970s and 80s, Smilor [30] reported that two broad strategies
began to emerge. The first approach was to renovate older or va-
cant buildings and lease the space at relatively inexpensive rates,
in what was largely a property management endeavor. The sec-
ond strategy was a more conscious attempt to build companies
and leverage resources to help companies grow. This second
strategy became a greater concern in the United States in the
1970s following the concern about the apparent deterioration of
national comparative advantage in manufacturing and, in partic-
ular, the increasing competition from Japanese firms [34], [35].
Policy-makers, influenced by the success of Silicon Valley and
Route 128, came to believe that universities could undergird
a response to Japanese success [36]. The United States would
compete by introducing the newest science-based technologies;
many of which would be developed by research universities [35].
This paved the way for a series of reforms that targeted the trans-
fer of university research to industry with the enactment of the
Bayh-Dole Act 1980 that significantly altered how universities
commercialized and diffused technologies.
Since then, there was a further surge in the growth of incuba-
tors, initially in the United States, but this was quickly replicated
throughout Europe and Asia. Today, incubators are a worldwide
phenomenon and are integrated in most developed and devel-
oping nations. Terms such as Science Parks, Research Parks,
Science and Technology Parks, Business Incubators, Techno-
logical Business Incubators, University Incubators, Innovation
Centers, Enterprise Centers, Business and Technology Centers,
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 09:43:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
267
and Innovation Intermediaries have been attached to these third-
party entities in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Often these terms
have been used interchangeably, especially, Science Parks and
Incubators.
The study of incubators [28], [29], [30], [38]–[45] and science
parks [46]–[53] has been the focus of prolific empirical research
for several decades. Attempts to cluster this multitude of similar
terms have led to several typologies. For example, Grimaldi and
Grandi [54] mapped business incubators into four categories:
business innovation centers, university business incubators,
independent private incubators and corporate private incubators.
A common denominator of all of these terms or entities is that
they, in some manner, exist to play a role to support and harness
new technology-based start-ups. Moreover, at the incubator
level, the formative work was dominated by configurational-
orientated studies [33] and was a dearth of process studies that
attempted to shine light in the black boxes of business building
and commercialization processes [47]. Some incubators were
focused on a specific industry while others recruit businesses
from all sectors [2]. As new models emerge, such as technology
platforms, matchmaking platforms and accelerators, there is a
need to move away from descriptive and studies of the attributes
of these new forms and steer a research focus on value-added
processes and business models [55]. Moreover, in this new
technological era, we need to understand how new incubator
models are positioned to address megatrends, digitization, big
data, blockchain, and the platform economy. Related to this,
we need to better understand emerging methods such as design
thinking, processes, strategies and collaborative models of
innovation at level of embryonic start up. To effectively do so,
we need to further distinguish, what is known as the incubatee
[33] level of analysis. Incubatee tends to refer to the embryonic
start-up firm (spin-in or spin-off). However, this can be further
differentiated as embryonic start-up firm, entrepreneur (lead
founder) and entrepreneurial team. The latter two areas of
entrepreneur and team level have received considerably less
attention in the incubation literature than the start-up firm level.
At the entrepreneur or team level, there has been a much recent
empirical work that has explored innovative behavior in teams
from diversity [56], psychological safety [57], and psychologi-
cal empowerment [58] perspectives. There is a need for further
exploration of entrepreneurial behaviors at individual and team
level within an incubation setting.
Undoubtedly there have been advancements and offshoots of
incubator and technology transfer models that have evolved in
the form of virtual models [59] and matchmaking platforms [60],
niche incubators with a focus on sustainability [61] and social
impact as well as the arrival of an apparently new type of incu-
bator, the accelerator. The accelerator has already generated a
number of terms such as corporate accelerator [62], seed ac-
celerator [63], or technology accelerator.
The first accelerator, Y Combinator, was founded by Paul
Graham in 2005 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, before mov-
ing to the Silicon Valley in 2007 [63] Since then, it has be-
come a worldwide phenomenon but the current academic litera-
ture on accelerators is scant, and mostly amounts to descriptive
studies [64]. The current research on the accelerator has reported
268 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 68, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2021

TABLE I
INCUBATION LEVELS OF ANALYSIS WITH INDICATIVE RESEARCH AREAS

differing interpretations of this latest instantiation. There is the various sponsors and together with the previous discussion, we
supported analysis that an accelerator is essentially a special outline four levels of analysis alongside indicative research ar-
type of incubator or new generation incubation model [55] al- eas that may be useful in developing what incubation can be and
beit, with several configurational differences, such as they are what it can do (see Table 1).
cyclical, shorter-duration and cohort-based programs rather con-
tinuous, and longer-duration support offered by incubators [64]. IV. BUILDING ON THE LEGACY OF PAST RESEARCH
In contrast, [5] argue that accelerators are a new form of en-
It is widely accepted that virtually no industry is safe from
trepreneurial support organization and different to an incubator.
technological disruption and the effects of this dynamic change
Goswami et al. [5] report that accelerators contribute to ecosys-
are widespread. It is not only legacy businesses that need to
tems in a way that is distinct from, but supportive of, building
pivot and adapt in their business environment, but stakeholders
individual ventures. There are other new collaborative ecosys-
throughout the entrepreneurial ecosystem are challenged to re-
tem models emerging. For example, it has been reported [65] that
view their modus operandi. For example, in Finland, the connec-
a new urban model –innovation district is evolving. Innovation
tivity of open data and artificial intelligence has given rise to the
districts are geographic areas where leading-edge anchor insti-
platform economy—that in turn, helps to reshape the contours
tutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, busi-
of the Finnish entrepreneurial ecosystem. Increasingly, all kinds
ness incubators and accelerators. They are physically compact,
of services in nonobvious sectors are being digitized, products
transit-accessible, and technically wired and offer mixed-use
are increasingly becoming servitized and classic consumption-
housing, office, and retail [65]. Related to this, are quadruple-
driven (and investor-friendly) razor and razor blade business
helix models, such as urban living labs that are reported to be
models are being pervaded with sharing and leasing models
bringing existing constellations of urban actors together in new
of consumption. The convergence and hyper-connectivity with
ways to create more collaborative and experimental ways of
platform technologies such as AI, VR, AR with open data is
doing urban development [66]. Other variations of this type of
already seeding a new generation of start-ups. The much-hyped
multistakeholder collaboration are evident with quintuple helix
foundational technology2 —blockchain, has been the focus of
models that address sustainability challenges [67]. Inter alia, net-
widespread claims that it is going to revolutionize business and
working is important for embryonic start-ups in incubators [44],
redefine companies and economies [69]. This, ever-changing
[68], and thus, the emergence of quadruplex and quintuple-helix
and dynamic context presents new challenges to regional in-
innovation systems offer interesting regional levels of analysis
novation policymakers, innovation funders and third-party in-
for incubation.
novation intermediaries such as incubators and accelerators. In
Hackett and Dilts [33] report their systematic review of in-
cubation research according to community, incubator, incubate
levels of analysis. However, as a result of significant worldwide 2 Iansiti and Lakhani (2017) define foundational technologies as having the
developments of new incubator and accelerator models, from potential to create new foundations for economic and social systems.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 09:43:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
GALBRAITH ET AL.: EVOLUTION OF THE INCUBATOR: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
parallel, we argue that learning from the past can help guide re-
search to critical research questions and enlighten the profession
of management.
First, by acknowledging the rich, foundational research and
practice of Research-on-Research in industrial research labo-
ratories led by, Albert Rubenstein we ask: what can we learn
from the past? The Rubenstein era was a period of sustained
focus and analysis of the direction of the field and its impact
on practice. Alongside new theoretical developments were the
efforts of inducing key stakeholders into translating and adopt-
ing new practices—all in the pursuit of advancing the art of
R&D and engineering management. However, at the closing of
Rubenstein’s 25-year editorial reign at the TRANSACTION, he
observed that compared to other functional areas of in the firm,
such as marketing, finance, production and strategic planning,
our techniques have not advanced—leaving room for much im-
provement [16]. Moreover, it has been asserted that the uptake
of academic technology transfer and innovation management
research and models into management practices is under lever-
aged [26]. If we pose the rhetorical question of what manage-
ment practices have emerged from more than half a century of
research into incubation?, a compelling answer is not immedi-
ately apparent. In part, it could be argued that this is because
there is a plethora of incubator models with differing strategic
objectives, operating environments and national contexts. One
generic lesson we do know is that the best incubator models are
those that realize that they are not standalone entities, and clev-
erly interact with and leverage the resources within their own
regional environments [40]. If we turn to the development of the
incubator field, research into traditional incubator models were
dominated by configurational-orientated studies and seldom
produced managerial insights into their value-added processes
[70], [71] and so far, the largely descriptive research (with no-
table exceptions [5], [55]) in accelerators is following the same
path.
Second, we are reminded that from its origins, the R&D
and innovation management field has developed with schol-
arly research from many disciplines—often appearing in non-
management discipline journals. It is obvious that additional
interdisciplinary research studies will be of value. This should
cover sub-disciplines in management as well as an increas-
ing number of related disciplines (i.e., economics, psychology,
engineering, design, information systems, etc.). Research-on-
Research benefitted from important empirical studies by psy-
chologists and social scientists and likewise, we posit that en-
trepreneur and entrepreneurial team levels of analysis within
incubation is a gap that would be well served by psychologists
and other related discipline experts. If we look at the perva-
siveness and hyper-connectivity of emerging technologies, tra-
ditional ways and forms of pursing entrepreneurial opportunities
are increasingly questioned and refashioned [72]. For example,
Augmented Reality will affect companies in every industry and
many other types of organizations, from universities to social en-
terprises. It will transform how we learn, make decisions, interact
with the physical work and change how enterprises design and
create products [73]. Digital platforms are evolving to go beyond
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 09:43:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
269
market matchmaking and are investing in value creation (e.g.,
Facebook’s Blueprint courseware initiative) [74]. Nambisan [72]
argues that there is a need to integrate digital-technology-related
concepts and constructs with those in existing entrepreneurship
theories. This raises many opportunities for researchers to fur-
ther question: what the future of incubation can be or do, to
support innovation in this digital and multidisciplinary context?
Related to this, there may even be the possibility of extending
a fifth level of analysis for incubation research, namely at the
digital-technology level?
Third, if we are to learn from the past then researchers must
ensure they adopt appropriate research protocols when design-
ing systematic literature reviews. Scholarly research that appears
in nonmanagement discipline journals or in a management dis-
cipline journal that is not listed as a current top journal, is often,
and methodically, omitted from systematic literature reviews.
This is a scientific loss of both, new and classic research. Many
classic research studies that were reported in older, scholarly
journals, which no longer feature in the top tier echelons of
various journal-ranking lists, are often excluded. As we are re-
minded of, in numerous reflective commentaries of the field3
and journal and citation analysis studies, [32], [75] the frequent
variance in the titles that are considered to be the most important
field journals or a top tier journal, is in itself, a characteristic of
our field. We can only learn from the past, if we are adopting
literature review protocols (especially systematic reviews of the
field) that are inclusive of scholarly research, regardless of do-
main discipline or current journal ranking index. To qualify this
point, a more inclusive and robust approach for reviews of the
literature field, would help complement (not replace) systematic
and credible research in the field that benefits from a high level
of partitioning [76].
V. CONCLUSION
The global interest in the incubator phenomenon and its im-
plications for management practice and, truly supportive pol-
icy development has burgeoned over the decades. This has
prompted the emergence of a wider constituency of incubator
and technology transfer models, often with overlapping func-
tions and objectives. As entire industries are disrupted with
technology and other megatrends, so too, are the management
practices and business models of an eclectic range of organi-
zations, including the incubator. The TRANSACTION are posi-
tioned to contribute to the evolving incubator research agenda,
with recent launch of a Special Issue on Incubators and Ac-
celerators [77] that aims to both, advance theoretical develop-
ment and present new insights for engineering and manage-
ment professionals. We would encourage researchers to take
appropriate steps to ensure more rigorous and inclusive literature
searches, be more interdisciplinary in their research approaches
and make additional strides to uncover valuable management
practices.
3 For several examples see (2014) 50 years of engineering management
through the lens of the IEEE transactions, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 51, 4.
270 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 68, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2021
REFERENCES
[1] M. V. Weele, F. J. V. Rijnsoever, and F. Nauta, “You can’t always get
what you want: How entrepreneur’s perceived resource needs affect the
incubator’s assertiveness,” Technovation, vol. 59, pp. 18–33, 2017.
[2] A. Bergek and C. Norman, “Incubator best practice: A framework,” Tech-
novation, vol. 28, no. 1–2, pp. 20–28, 2008.
[3] S. L. Cohen, C. B. Bingham, and B. L. Hallen, “The role of accelerator
designs in mitigating bounded rationality in new ventures,” Administ. Sci.
Quart., Jul. 2018.
[4] S. Wise and D. Valliere, “The impact of management experience on the
performance of start-ups within accelerators,” J. Priv. Equity, vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 39–57, 2014.
[5] K. Goswami, J. R. Mitchell, and S. Bhagavatula, “Accelerator expertise:
Understanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of
the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem,” Strat. Entre. J., vol. 12, no. 1,
pp. 117–150, 2017.
[6] E. B. Roberts, “Research on the management of technology-based enter-
prises,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. TEM-11, no. 3, pp. 99–102, 1964.
[7] A. H. Rubenstein, “A program of research on the research and development
process,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. TEM-11, no. 3, pp. 104–112,
1964.
[8] E. Glatt, “Research and application: An approach to management problems
in an R and D laboratory,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. TEM-11, no. 3,
pp. 90–94, Sep. 1964.
[9] P. E. Haggerty, “Research management – a survival issue,” IEEE Trans.
Eng. Manag., vol. TEM-11, no. 1, pp. 3–7, Mar. 1964.
[10] A. H. Rubenstein, “Magazine review section,” IRE Trans. Eng. Manage.,
vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 87–88, 1959.
[11] A. H. Rubenstein, “About this issue. [editorial],” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.,
vol. TEM-11, no. 3, p. 89, 1964.
[12] H. Baumgartel, “Leadership, motivations, and attitudes in research labo-
ratories,” J. Social Issues, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 24–31, 1956.
[13] L. Meltzer, “Scientific productivity in organizational settings,” J. Social
Issues, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 32–40, 1956.
[14] R. W. Avery, “Enculturation in industrial research,” IRE Trans. Eng. Man-
age., vol. EM-7, no. 1, pp. 20–24, Mar. 1959.
[15] S. L. Jones and J. E. Arnold, “The creative individual in industrial re-
search,” IRE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 51–55, Jun. 1962.
[16] A. H. Rubenstein, “Trends in technology management. [editorial],” IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. TEM-32, no. 4, pp. 141–143, 1985.
[17] A. H. Rubenstein, “About this issue. [editorial],” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.,
vol. TEM-13, no. 4, p. 159, 1966.
[18] E. B. Roberts, “Toward a new theory for research and development,” Ind.
Manage. Rev., Fall, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 29–40, 1962.
[19] E. B. Roberts, “A perspective on 50 years of the engineering management
field,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 398–403, Nov. 2004.
[20] K. Lewin, “The research center for group dynamics at massachusetts in-
stitute of technology,” Sociometry, vol. 8, pp. 126–135, 1945.
[21] A. H. Van de Ven, “Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory,” Acad.
Manage. Rev., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 486–489, 1989.
[22] E. Roberts, “A study of scientific research in the operating components of
a large decentralized manufacturing company,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.,
vol. TEM-11, no. 3, pp. 99–102, 1964.
[23] J. E. Boyd, “Research center in an institute of technology,” IRE Trans.
Eng. Manage. vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 99–100, 1957.
[24] J. A. Morton, “The innovation of innovation,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.,
vol. TEM-15, no. 2, pp. 57–65, Jun. 1968.
[25] W. M. Hawkins, “Technological transfer programs at lockheed,” IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 121–125, Aug. 1969.
[26] M. L. Tushman, “From engineering management/R&D management, to
the management of innovation, to exploiting and exploring over value
nets: 50 years of research initiated by the IEEE-TEM,” IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 409–411, Nov. 2004.
[27] J. Utterback, “The process of innovation: A study of the originations and
development of ideas for new scientific instruments,” IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag., vol. TEM-18, no. 4, pp. 124–131, Nov. 1971.
[28] E. B. Roberts and H. A. Wainer, “Some characteristics of technical en-
trepreneurs,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 100–109,
Aug. 1971.
[29] A. C. Cooper, “Spin-offs and technical entrepreneurship,” IEEE Trans.
Eng. Manag., vol. TEM-18, no. 1, pp. 2–6, Feb. 1971.
[30] R. W. Smilor, “Managing the incubator system: Critical success factors
to accelerate new company development,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.,
vol. TEM-34, no. 3, pp. 146–155, Aug. 1987.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 09:43:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[31] A. N. Link, F. T. Rothaermel, and D. S. Siegel, “University technology
transfer: An introduction to the special issue,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.,
vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 5–8, Feb. 2008.
[32] D. F. Kocaoglu, “Professor Albert H. Rubenstein – a legend in his own
time. [guest editorial],” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. TEM-32, no. 4,
pp. 144–149, Nov. 1985.
[33] S. M. Hackett and D. M. Dilts, “A systematic review of business incubation
research,” J. Technol. Trans., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 55–82, 2004.
[34] E. B. Roberts, Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons From MIT and
Beyond. New York, NY, USA: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991.
[35] B. Coriat and F. Orsi, “Establishing a new regime of intellectual property
rights in the united states, origins content and problems,” Res. Pol., vol. 31,
no. 8–9, pp. 1491–1507, 2002.
[36] R. Grimaldi, M. Kenney, D. S. Siegel, and M. Wright, “30 years after
bayh-dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship,” Res. Pol., vol. 40,
no. 8, pp. 1045–1057, 2011.
[37] L. M. Branscomb and H. Brooks, Eds. Empowering Technology: Imple-
menting a U.S Strategy. Boston, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 202–235.
[38] D. N. Allen and R. McCluskey, “Structure, policy, services, and perfor-
mance in the business incubator industry,” Entre. Theory Pract., vol. 15,
no. 2, pp. 61–77, 1991.
[39] S. A. Mian, “Assessing value-added contributions of university technology
business incubators to tenant firms,” Res. Pol., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 325–335,
1996.
[40] E. Autio and M. Klofsten, “A comparative study of two european business
incubators,” J. Small Bus. Manage., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 30–43, 1998.
[41] M. P. Rice, “Co-production of business assistance in business incubators:
An exploratory study,” J. Bus. Vent., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 163–187, 2002.
[42] M. G. Colombo and M. Delmastro, “How effective are technology incu-
bators? evidence from Italy,” Res. Pol., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1103–1122,
2002.
[43] F. T. Rothaermel and M. Thursby, “Incubator firm failure or graduation?
The role of university linkages,” Res. Pol., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1076–1090,
2005.
[44] A. Bøllingtoft and J. P. Ulhøi, “The networked business incubator – lever-
aging entrepreneurial agency?,” J. Bus. Vent., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 265–290,
2005.
[45] M. McAdam, B. Galbraith, R. McAdam, and P. Humphreys, “Business
processes and networks in university incubators: A review and research
agendas,” Technol. Anal. Strat. Manage., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 451–472,
2006.
[46] P. Quintas, D. Wield, and D. Massey, “Academic-industry links and inno-
vation: Questioning the science park model,” Technovation, vol. 12, no. 3,
pp. 161–175, 1992.
[47] P. Westhead, “R&D ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ of technology-based firms lo-
cated in and off science parks,” R&D Manage., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 45–62,
1997.
[48] H. Löfsten and P. Lindelöf, “Science parks in sweden – industrial re-
newal and development?,” R&D Manage., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 309–322,
2001.
[49] H. Löfsten and P. Lindelöf, “Science parks and the growth of new
technology-based firms – Academic-industry links, innovation and mar-
kets,” Res. Pol., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 859–876, 2002.
[50] D. S. Siegel, P. Westhead, and M. Wright, “Science parks and the perfor-
mance of new technology-based firms: A review of recent UK evidence and
an agenda for future research,” Small Bus. Econ., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 177–
184, 2003.
[51] P. H. Phan, D. S. Siegel, and M. Wright, “Science parks and incubators:
Observations, synthesis and future research,” J. Bus. Vent., vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 165–182, 2005.
[52] I. Diez-Vial and A. Montoro-Sanchez, “Research evolution in science
parks and incubators: Foundations and new trends,” Scientometrics,
vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 1243–1273, 2017.
[53] K. G. Hobbs, A. N. Link, and J. T. Scott, “Science and technology parks:
An annotated and analytical literature review,” J. Technol. Trans., vol. 42,
no. 4, pp. 957–976, 2017.
[54] R. Grimaldi and A. Grandi, “Business incubators and new venture cre-
ation: An assessment of incubating models,” Technovation, vol. 25, no. 2,
pp. 111–121, 2005.
[55] C. Pauwels, B. Clarysse, M. Wright, and J. Van Hove, “Understand-
ing a new generation incubation model: The accelerator,” Technovation,
vol. 50–51, pp. 13–24, 2016.
[56] C. R. Østergaard, B. Timmermans, and K. Kristinsson, “Does a different
view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innova-
tion,” Res. Pol., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 500–509, 2011.
GALBRAITH et al.: EVOLUTION OF THE INCUBATOR: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
[57] A. C. Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological
Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Boston,
MA, USA: Wiley, 2018.
[58] A. N. Pieterse, D. v. Knippenberg, M. Schippers, and D. Stam, “Transfor-
mational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The mod-
erating role of psychological empowerment,” J. Org. Behav., vol. 31, no. 4,
pp. 609–623, 2010.
[59] D. Durão, M. Sarmento, V. Varela, and L. Maltez, “Virtual and real-estate
science and technology parks: A case study of Taguspark,” Technovation,
vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 237–244, 2005.
[60] T. Holzmann, K. Sailer, and B. R. Katzy, “Matchmaking as multisided
market for open innovation,” Technol. Anal. Strat. Manage., vol. 26, no. 6,
pp. 601–615, 2014.
[61] N. Bank, K. Fichter, and M. Klofsten, “Sustainability-profiled incubators
and securing the inflow of tenants – The case of green garage Berlin,”
J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 157, pp. 76–83, 2017.
[62] T. Kohler, “Corporate accelerators: Building bridges between corporations
and start-ups,” Bus. Horizons, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 347–357, 2016.
[63] S. Cohen and Y. V. Hochberg, “Accelerating startups: The seed
accelerator phenomenon,” SSRN, Mar. 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2418000
[64] A. Yin and J. Luo, “How do accelerators select startups? Shifting decision
criteria across stages,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 574–
589, Nov. 2018.
[65] B. Katz and J. Wagner, “The rise of innovation districts: A new geography
of innovation in America. Brookings,” May, 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.brookings.edu/essay/rise-of-innovation-districts/
[66] Y. Voytenko, K. McCormick, J. Evans, and G. Schliwa, “Urban living
labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in europe: Towards a research
agenda,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 123, pp. 45–54, 2016.
[67] E. Carayannis, T. D. Barth, and D. F. J. Campbell, “The quintuple helix in-
novation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation,”
J. Innov. Entre., vol. 1. no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2012.
[68] M. Schwartz and C. Hornych, “Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and
the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany,”
Technovation, vol. 30, pp. 485–495, 2010.
[69] M. Iansit and K. R. Lakhani, “The truth about blockchain,” Harvard Bus.
Rev., pp. 118–127, Jan./Feb. 2017.
[70] M. McAdam, R. McAdam, B. Galbraith, and K. Miller, “An exploratory
study of principal investigator roles in UK proof-of-concept processes: An
absorptive capacity perspective,” R&D Manage., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 455–
473, 2010.
[71] R. McAdam., W. Keogh, B. Galbraith, and D. Laurie, “Defining and im-
proving technology transfer business and management processes in uni-
versity innovation centres,” Technovation, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1418–1429,
2005.
[72] S. Nambisan, “Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology per-
spective,” Entre. Theory Pract., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1029–1055, 2017.
[73] M. E. Porter and J. E. Heppelmann, “Why every organization needs an
augmented reality strategy,” Harvard Bus. Rev., vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 46–57,
Nov.–Dec. 2017.
[74] M. W. Van Alstyne and M. Schrage, “The best platforms are more than
matchmakers,” Harvard Bus. Rev., Aug. 2, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://hbr.org/2016/08/the-best-platforms-are-more-than-matchmakers
[75] C. H. Cheng, A. Kumar, J. G. Motwani, A. Reisman, and M. S. Madam,
“A citation analysis of the technology innovation management journals,”
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 4–13, Feb. 1999.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on March 31,2022 at 09:43:11 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
271
[76] A. H. Rubenstein, “Trends in technology management revisited, IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 335–341, Nov. 1994.
[77] B. Galbraith, R. McAdam, and S. Cross, “Incubators and accelerators:
Integrating evolving incubator models and learning from the past,” IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag. vol. 65, no. 3, p. 526, Aug. 2018.
Brendan Galbraith (M’16) received the B.A.(Hons.) in hospitality manage-
ment, the M.S. degree in business studies, and the Ph.D. degree in innovation
and entrepreneurship from Ulster University, Newtownabbey, County Antrim,
Northern Ireland, U.K., in 2003, 2004, 2014, respectively.
He is currently an Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship with Zayed Uni-
versity in Abu Dhabi, UAE and is the VP (TACs) with IEEE Technology Man-
agement Society. He has authored or coauthored in a range of international
journals including Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Technovation,
R&D Management, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, and Inter-
national Journal of Production and Operations Management. He has coauthored
and coedited two books on Innovation Intermediaries and Social Innovation.
Rodney McAdam received the B.Sc.(Hons.) and Ph.D. degrees in engineer-
ing from Queens University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, U.K., in 1980
and 1983, respectively, the M.A. degree in management learning from Lancaster
University, Lancashire, U.K., in 1998, and the Ph.D. degree in management from
Ulster University, Newtownabbey, County Antrim, Northern Ireland, U.K., in
2002.
Currently he is Professor of Innovation Management with the Ulster Uni-
versity Business School, Belfast, Northern Ireland, U.K. He has authored or
coauthored over 200 journal papers in a range of international journals includ-
ing International Journal of Production Economics, Entrepreneurship and Re-
gional Development, Technovation, R&D Management, Technology Analysis
and Strategic Management, and International Journal of Production and Opera-
tions Management.
Stephen Edward Cross (LF’17) received the B.S.E.E degree from the Uni-
versity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, in 1974, and the M.S.E.E degree
from the Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA,
in 1977, both in electrical engineering, and the Ph.D. degree from the University
of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, IL, USA, in 1983.
He is currently an Adjunct Professor in Industrial and Systems Engineering
with the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA, where he previously
served as its Executive Vice President for Research. He is a past Editor-in-Chief
of the IEEE Intelligent Systems and he has served in the Executive Committee
of the IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Society (TEMS). He
has authored or coauthored widely on topics spanning innovation ecosystems,
leadership, organizational development, technology transition, software engi-
neering, and machine intelligence.