Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An interactive multi-objective incubatee selection model incorporating incubator manager orientation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Operational Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes an incubatee selection model as an important tool for technology incubators. Previous studies have determined that incubator managers who use multi-criterion screening or selection factors realize lower incubatee failure rates. Despite the importance of the incubatee selection process, there have been no efforts to date to formulate a mathematical model that addresses multi-criterion incubatee selection. Therefore, only a small number of incubator managers use multiple criteria to select the most promising incubatees. Our selection model uses multiple criteria in a multi-objective optimization based on the incubator’s goal. The criteria include profitability, survivability, and worker absorption. Because different ideological orientations of the incubator managers acting as decision makers (DMs) can influence the incubatee selection process, an interactive Tchebycheff method is used to provide a set of alternative solutions. Using a set of alternative solutions, we provide a degree of freedom in the analysis to accommodate DM orientation. Using the proposed model, a decision maker can optimize incubator goals, thereby ensuring the survivability of the incubatee and the success of the technology transfer process. Furthermore, the model also incorporates incubator specialization and the advantages of diversification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerts K, Matthyssens P, Vandenbempt K (2007) Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation 27:254–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn BS, Cho SS, Kim CY (2000) The integrated methodology of rough set theory and artificial neural network for business failure prediction. Expert Syst Appl 18:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardic OP, Mylenko N, Saltane V (2011) Small and medium enterprise: a cross-country analysis with new data set. Policy research working paper, the World Bank

  • Aretoulis GN, Kalfakaku GP, Striagka FZ (2010) Construction material supplier selection under multiple criteria. Oper Res Int J 10:209–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayyagari, M, Beck T, Kunt AD (2003) Small and medium enterprise across the globe: a new database. Policy research working paper, the World Bank

  • Ballantine JW, Cleveland FW, Koeller TC (1993) Profitability, uncertainty, and firm size. Small Bus Econ 5:87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero E, Bravo B, Perez-Gladish B, Parra MA, Pla-Santamaria D (2012) Socially responsible investment: a multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives. Eur J Oper Res 216:487–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick MR, Mount MK (1993) Autonomy as moderator of the relationship between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. J Appl Psychol 78:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer R, Koedijk K, Otten R (2005) International evidence on ethical mutual fund performance and investment style. J Bank Financ 29:1751–1767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergek A, Norrman C (2008) Incubator best practice: a framework. Technovation 28:20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman B (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Res Policy 29:627–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KF, Lau T (2005) Assessing technology incubator program in the science park. Technovation 25:1215–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciavarella MA, Buckholtz AK, Riordan CM, Gatewood RD, Stokes GS (2004) The big five and venture survival: is there a linkage? J Bus Ventur 19:465–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin Sci Q 35:128–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull R, Davis LE, Lamoreaux NR, Rosenthal JL (2006) Historical financing of small and medium size enterprise. J Bank Financ 30:3017–3042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitras AI, Zanakis SH, Zopounidis C (1996) Theory and methodology: a survey of business failures with an emphasis on prediction methods and industrial application. Eur J Oper Res 90:487–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitras AI, Slowinski R, Susmaga R, Zopounidis C (1999) Business failure prediction using rough set. Eur J Oper Res 119:263–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission Eurostat (2009) http://www.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

  • Everett J, Watson J (1998) Small business failure and external risk factor. Small Bus Econ 11:371–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairfield PM, Yohn TL (2001) Using asset turnover and profit margin to forecast changes in profitability. Rev Account Stud 6:371–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelderen M, Thurik R, Bosma N (2006) Success and risk factors in pre-startup phase. Small Bus Econ 26:319–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin P, Wright G (1994) Heuristic, biases and improvement strategies in judgmental time series forecasting. Omega 22:553–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunasekaran A, Rai BK, Griffin M (2011) Resilience and competitiveness of small and medium size enterprises: an empirical research. Int J Prod Res 49:5489–5509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett SM, Dilts DM (2008) Inside the black box of business incubation: study B—scale assessment, model refinement, and incubation outcomes. J Technol Transf 33:439–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallerbach W, Ning H, Soppe A, Spronk J (2004) A framework for managing a portfolio of socially responsible investments. Eur J Oper Res 153:517–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayaraman V, Bhatti MI, Saber H (2004) Towards optimal testing of a hypothesis based on dynamic technology transfer model. Appl Math Comput 147:115–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalid FA, Gilbert D, Huq A (2011) ICT incubation in Malaysia: selection performance practice. In: Proceedings of the 8th AGSE international research exchange

  • Löfsten H, Lindelöf P (2002) Growth, management and financing of new technology-based firms—assessing value-added contributions of firms located on and off Science Park. Omega 30:859–876

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan IC, Siegel R, Narasimha PNS (1985) Criteria used by venture capitalist to evaluate new venture proposals. J Bus Ventur 1:119–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26:369–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza A, Ventura JA (2013) Modeling actual transportation costs in supplier selection and order quantity allocation decisions. Oper Res Int J 13:5–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrifield DB (1987) Executive forum: new business incubator. J Bus Ventur 2:277–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian S (1994) US University-sponsored technology incubators: an overview of management, policies and performance. Technovation 14:515–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian S (1996) Assessing value added contribution university technology business incubator to tenant firm. Res Policy 25:325–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen K, Ruiz F, Wierzbicki AP (2008) Introduction to multi objective optimization: interactive approach. Multi objective Optimization, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5252, Berlin, pp 27–57

  • Moon J (2002) The social responsibility of business and new governance. Gov Oppos 37:385–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips RG (2002) Technology business incubator: how effective as technology transfer mechanism? Technol Soc 24:299–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves GR, MacLeod KR (1999) Some experiment in Tchebycheff-based approach for interactive multiple objective decision making. Comput Oper Res 26:1311–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soylu B (2011) A multi criteria sorting procedure with Tchebycheff utility function. Comput Oper Res 38:1091–1102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steuer RE, Choo EU (1983) An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Math Program 26:326–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steuer RE, Silverman J, Whisman AW (1993) A combined Tchebycheff/aspiration criterion vector interactive multi-objective programming procedure. Manag Sci 39:1255–1260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung TY, Gibson VG, Kang BS (2003) Characteristic of technology transfer in business venture: the case of Daejon Korea. Technol Forecast Soc 70:449–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tay AS, Wallis KF (2000) Density forecasting: a survey. J Forecast 19:235–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thierstein A, Wilhelm B (2001) Incubator, technology, and innovation centers in Switzerland: features and policy implication. Entrep Reg Dev 13:315–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations-Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (1989) Technology Atlas Project: a framework for technology based development. Bungalore, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gils A (2005) Management and governance in Dutch SMEs. Eur Manag J 23:583–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xidonas P, Askounis D, Psarras J (2009) Common stock portfolio selection: a multiple criteria decision making methodology and an application to the Athens Stock Exchange. Oper Res Int J 9:55–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The Authors thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments which help to improve the quality of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of System Cybernetics, Hiroshima University, Kagamiyama 1-4-1, Higashi Hiroshima, 739-8527, Japan

    R. B. Seno Wulung, Katsuhiko Takahashi & Katsumi Morikawa

  2. Academy of Leather Technology, Ministry of Industry Republic of Indonesia, Panggungharjo, Sewon, Bantul, Yogyakarta, 55188, Indonesia

    R. B. Seno Wulung

Authors
  1. R. B. Seno Wulung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katsuhiko Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katsumi Morikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. B. Seno Wulung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seno Wulung, R.B., Takahashi, K. & Morikawa, K. An interactive multi-objective incubatee selection model incorporating incubator manager orientation. Oper Res Int J 14, 409–438 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-014-0148-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-014-0148-7

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation