Science parks as knowledge organizations – the “ba” in action?

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of the failure of science parks to become a central actor in the knowledge economy and, with the help of new organizational theory, to propose new solutions. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews a number of recent studies of science parks and their effect on innovation and economic growth, measured by revenue or survival rate of new firms, but demonstrating no positive result of the parks. The paper then introduces modern organization theory, specializing in analyzing the processes of creating, managing, organizing, and transferring knowledge distributed through a number of networks and other volatile organizations in order to investigate the set‐up of science parks in the knowledge economy. Findings Using Nonaka's concept ofbaas a metaphor for the new tradition in organizational theory, the paper finds very few – if any – signs of these new ways of organizing in traditional science parks. The paper argues that principles from modern knowledge organizations has to be installed in science parks if the parks are to regain the initiative and become an important actor in the new regime of knowledge production. Otherwise, science parks must be viewed as an outdated institution, left over from the industrial society. Practical implications The paper proposes a system of certification and quality assessment that might speed up the change in science parks from organizations formed by the industrial society to organizations serving the needs of the knowledge society. Originality/value The paper is an original contribution to the theory of science parks and innovation policy. The use of new organizational theory on knowledge management, illustrated by Nonaka's concept ofba, presents a new solution to overcome the traditional thinking on how to organize science parks.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 54 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.