|
Introduction
Today, the prime motors of the world economy are the global, high technology and research oriented organisations. This new dynamic status came into being in the wake of new technologies and the search for alternative social, political and economic models. This process is defined as a move from geopolitics to geoeconomics, where the linkage between the local and the global tends to by-pass national boundaries and the major economic actors tend to localize their most dynamic economic institutions, the advanced research centers, in favorable sites. The current economic, technological and social transition offers little chance for success for 19th and even late 20th century traditional organizational forms and systems. In this context, a new institutional form has emerged as a very favorable site for regional development, the science and technology park.
The ParadigmWhile the number of empirical studies of science parks, as defined by the European Commission is substantial, little advance has been made to systematize this wealth of knowledge and from there generate a theoretical framework which allows for concrete, but flexible, recommendations to managers. With this in mind, a series of studies were carried out, leading to two main publications. The article on a science park in a developed country, IDEON in Southern Sweden, was published in a developing country while the article about a science park in a developing country, BIORIO in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was published in an international journal, Biotechnology Review No. 1 (1993), edited by E. J. Blakely and K. W. Willoughby. In this later article, ten points, or elements, were suggested as necessary conditions for the success of a science park. Success here was defined operationally, as achieving the aims which the founders or organizers of the park had declared to be their primary objectives. Despite the fact that the paradigm emerged from the study of a science park in a developing country, it was soon realized that it was more general than initially thought of. These studies were completemented by work which appeared in the International Journal of Technology Management, VOL. 16 (1998). The Cabral Dahab Paradigm was validated for cases in the United States, Brazil, Sweden, China, Arab countries, among others.
A science park must 1. Have access to qualified research and development personnel in the areas of knowledge in which the park has its identity. 2. Be able to a market its high valued products and services. 3. Have the capability to provide marketing expertise and managerial skills to firms, particularly SMEs, lacking such a resource. 4. Be inserted in a society which allows for the protection of product or process secrets, via patents, security or any other means. 5. Have the capability to select or reject which firms will enter the park. The firm's business plan is expected to be coherent with the science park identity. 6. Have a clear identity, quite often expressed symbolically, as the park's name choice, its logo or the management discourse. 7. Have a management with established or recognised expertise in financial matters, and which has presented long term economic development plans. 8. Have the backing of powerful, dynamic and stable national and/or local economic actors, for instance funding agency, political institutions or the local university. 9. Include in its management an active person of vision, with power of decision and with high and visible profile, who is perceived by relevant actors in society as embodying the interface between academia and industry, long term plans and good management - Mr./MS. Science Park. 10. Include a prominent percentage of consultancy firms, as well as technical services firms, including laboratories and quality control firms.
The call for papers and for Collaboration We are constatly producing works inspired or motivated by the Cabral-Dahab Science Park Management Paradigm. If you are interested in participating send us a proposal. The articles, generally have the following format
Title
Abstract and Author(s) biographical note
1. Introduction (2 pages)
2. A brief general history of the science park in question (4 pages)
3. A description of the evolution and current composition and structure of the park (graphs and tables welcomed): a. firms (4 pages), b. administrative structure, including boards (4 pages), c. financial structure (4 pages), d. supporters, local and national (4 pages), e. the park's identity (4 pages)
4. Application of the paradigm, point by point discussion arguing for validation or rejection (8 pages)
5. Conclusion: What can be learned from the science park experience, given the paradigm (4 pages)
6. Bibliography
E-mail a letter of intent to us at the address below.
Regis Cabral Blog
Regis Cabral at Myspace
Regis Cabral at Facebook
FEPRO - Funding for European Projects
e-mail: science_parks@yahoo.se
Tel: +46-(0)733 256 379
|
