Mba Desertation
Mba Desertation
Dissertation
MBA SBMA7049-L
Submitted by
Uran Joshi
CTL ID: 096274-83
UWL ID: 29002099
Submitted to
Dr. Stanley Lees
Declaration
Uran Joshi
UWL MBA Entrepreneurship
UWL ID: 29002099
26th October 2010
ii
Acknowledgment
I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to my Supervisor Dr. Stanley
lees for attention, guidance and insight.
My gratitude also goes to Ms. Rakshya Aryal, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Neupane, Er. pradeep
Jha for support and valuable suggestions during research. I would also like to express
special appreciation to Ms. Heema Rai, Mr. Harish Bhusal ,Mr. Shashi Bhattari and all
Participant Incubatees of BIP for their full support in this research.
I would also like to thank specially to Mrs. Simona and Mr. Adeel for full support in my
study.
Lastly, I sincerely would like to thank my Parents, my Family and Friends , Mr. Saurav Joshi,
Ms. Mamta Amatya, for motivation and support during my study period.
Uran Joshi
[email protected]
London,United Kingdom
26th October ,2011
iii
Abstract
Government from both developed and developing countries has recognized the
mechanism of business incubation as way to support the development of micro, small and
medium enterprises. A business incubation service is an appropriate tool for economic
development which helps in job creation on one hand and less business failures on the
other hand. Selection, Infrastructure, Business Support, Mediation ,Graduation are found to
be the main incubator model components of business incubation
This research aims to focus on evaluating the selection process , infrastructure services
provided, business support provided, mediation and networking provided and graduation
policy of Business incubation Program(BIP) operated by Government of Nepal. The
research also aims to examine and identify the problems of growth facing by new start up
firms in Nepal. The methodology consisted of data collection by questionnaire with selected
key-informant from incubator and participant incubatees.
Selection of clients was found to be based on strict criteria that are in alignment with the
available resources and reasonable cost for development. The users of physical
infrastructure provided by Business incubator was seen low. The major reason for not using
was being enterprises located in different places of country.
The business support was found to be reactive and episodic. The leadership training,
financial management ,marketing management Accounting and taxation, business
registration services were provided to all where as other business services were provided
according to individual need. The mediation service provided by incubator was found to be
rated highly by incubator (provider side) but was perceived less by incubatees side. All the
mediation service was provided according to individual need of incubatees. The graduation
policy was found to be flexible. After a certain period , with mutual agreement between
incubator and incubatee ,the firm was graduated.
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1- Stages of Business Growth ( Greiner 1972) .......................................................... 4
Figure 2 -Stages of Business Growth, (Churchill and Lewis, 2007) ........................................ 4
Figure 3- Campbell,Kendrick,and Samuelson framework(Campbell et al.,1985) ................... 9
Figure 4 - Business Incubation Framework for Research (incorporating Churchil and Lewis
Growth Stage, 1983 .............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 5-Age of Incubatees ................................................................................................... 25
Figure 6-Gender ratio ............................................................................................................ 25
Figure 7-Educational background ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 8-Importance of Selection criteria as perceived by Incubator .................................... 26
Figure 9-Importance of Selection criteria as perceived by Incubator .................................... 27
Figure 10-Infrastructure users ............................................................................................... 28
Figure 11- Perceived Quality of Infrastructure service by Incubator ................................... 28
Figure 12-Perceived Quality of Infrastructure service by Incubatees ................................. 28
Figure 13-Perceived Quality of business Support by Incubator .......................................... 29
Figure 14-Perceived Quality of Business Support by Incubatees ......................................... 29
Figure 15-Perceived Mediation by Incubator ........................................................................ 30
Figure 16- Perceived Mediation by Incubatees ..................................................................... 31
Figure 17-Incubatees Views on Mediation statements ......................................................... 32
Figure 18-Incubatees Views on Mediation Statements ......................................................... 32
Figure 19-Important criteria for Graduation as Perceived by Incubator ............................. 33
Figure 20-Important criteria for graduation as Perceived by Incubatees ............................ 33
Figure 21-Financial resource problem as perceived by Incubator ........................................ 34
Figure 22-Financial resource problem as perceived by Incubatees ..................................... 34
Figure 23-Marketing resource problem perceived by Incubator ........................................... 35
Figure 24- Marketing resource problem perceived by Incubatees ........................................ 35
Figure 25-operational/production problems perceived by Incubator ..................................... 36
Figure 26-operational/production problem perceived by Incubatees .................................... 36
Figure 27-General management Problem perceived by Incubator ....................................... 37
Figure 28-General management Problem perceived by Incubatees .................................... 37
Figure 29 -Owner related problems perceived by Incubator ................................................. 38
Figure 30-Owner related problems perceived by Incubatees ............................................... 38
Figure 31-Perceived Effect of Business Incubation on Incubatees ....................................... 39
Figure 32-The success of business incubation perceived by Incubator ............................... 40
Figure 33- measure of success of incubatee as perceived by Incubatees ........................... 41
List of Table
Table 1- Business Incubation Program Board Members,source (BIP, 2007) ....................... 23
Abbreviations
I/NGO
ITPF
DoCSI
BIP
FNCCI
KUSoM
NAST
ITPF
MoEST
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment ................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... v
List of Table .......................................................................................................................... vi
Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1 . Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2
vii
3.3.2 Survey................................................................................................................... 18
3.3.3 Case Study ........................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Research Conduct ....................................................................................................... 19
3.4.1 Primary Data Collection ........................................................................................ 19
3.4.2 Secondary Data Collection ................................................................................... 20
3.5 Methodology in practice .............................................................................................. 21
Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................................ 23
4.1 Business Incubation program (BIP) ............................................................................. 23
4.2 Summary of Data Collection Experience ..................................................................... 24
4.3 Findings ....................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.1 Incubatee Background Information ...................................................................... 25
4.3.2 Selection Policy .................................................................................................... 26
4.3.3 Infrastructure......................................................................................................... 27
4.3.4 Business support .................................................................................................. 29
4.3.5 Mediation .............................................................................................................. 30
4.3.6 Graduation Criteria ............................................................................................... 33
4.3.7 Problems of Growth .............................................................................................. 34
4.3.8 Perceived Effect of Business Incubation on Incubatees ...................................... 39
4.3.9 Measure of Success of Business Incubation by Incubator. .................................. 40
4.3.10 Measure of Success of Incubatee firm as perceived by Incubatees ................. 41
Chapter 5: Discussion and limitations .............................................................................. 42
5.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 42
5.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................. 46
6.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 46
6.2 Reflections ................................................................................................................... 47
6.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 48
6.4 Contribution ................................................................................................................. 49
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX A- Key-Informant (Incubator) Survey Questionnaire.................................... 53
APPENDIX B- Participant Incubatee Survey Questionnaire .......................................... 62
APPENDIX C- List of Key- Informant ................................................................................. 69
APPENDIX D - List of Participant Incubatee ..................................................................... 70
APPENDIX E -Records of Meeting ..................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX F-Introduction Letter ...................................................................................... 76
viii
ix
Chapter 1 . Introduction
1.1 Background
There have been some isolated and uncoordinated activities for enterprises promotion
services in Nepal for past few decades. According to Nepal (2006), Notably ,the activities
targeted for enterprise development are under government programs or through donor
assisted projects. The programs ranges from technical and management training,
counseling, information providing, credit facilities, infrastructure facilities through public
sector.
In year 2003, Information Technology Professional Forum (ITPF) initiated to assess the
enterprise environment and design. The environment and need assessment study
suggested about possible Business incubation program.
In 2004-2005 ,with grant assistance by infoDev Incubator Initiative ,project of The World
Bank, ITPF conducted a study named as Business Incubation Initiative in Nepal Project .
the objective was to study the feasibility of Business Incubation Center (BIC) concept and
identify possible stakeholders, and network for nurturing the economic growth of Nepal. The
study suggested some models for BIC development . one was suggested as Business
incubation center in Kathmandu under Department of Cottage and Small Industries,
Government of Nepal. other one was suggested as Information Technology Park at Banepa
, which would run under fund from Government.
According to Incubator Initiative Planning Grant (2006) the Business Incubation Center,
Kathmandu was established in 2007 under the lead role of Department of Cottage and
Small Industry, Government of Nepal. It was administered by Government Development
Committee Act, 2013 with a governing board comprising representation from the
government, Academic Sector, Business Sector, Technical and Research Centers, I/NGOs
and experts in the field of incubation. The initiation was taken by preparing a business plan
to operate Business Incubation Program (BIP) under the DoCSI. Since then, the one and
only Business Incubation Program in Nepal, is running in DoCSI premises located at
Kathmandu, Nepal.
The objectives of initiating the Business Incubation Program are to:
The study first aims to review the literature with focusing on business growth and the factors
related to business growth of small business. The study will also study working framework
models and success measures of business incubation suggested by various authors .
The methodology incorporates interview administered questionnaire for Primary data
collection with selected keyinformants from Incubator and Participant Incubatees of
Business Incubation Program.
Chapter 4 consists of findings from data collection which are interpreted and evaluated with
weighted factor analysis. Further analysis and discussions over the issues around the
literature review and in practice seen are discussed with limitations of study in chapter 5.
Lastly, chapter 6 summarizes the study with conclusion and some recommendations as
thought important.
Those small firms who desire to achieve growth and enterprise development will be affected
by different factors related opportunity sets, managerial abilities and resources. Storey
(1994) as cited in Beaver (2002) mentions the background and access to resources, nature
of firm, and the strategic decisions taken by firm are three key influence on growth rate of
small independent firms.
Growth models are useful in benchmarking and draw lessons for survival and growth of firms
characterized with similar business features and operating in similar business climate
(Poutziouris, Binks and Bruce, 1999). Much of early theoretical work on business growth and
development of small firms are attempted in terms of stage , or life cycle ,models of firm
growth. There are common problems which arise at similar stages of business development.
These common problems can be organized into a framework which helps to deeper
understanding of nature ,and problems of businesses.
Such an understanding of growth pattern of small firms and the factors that trigger growth
aspirations or conversely hamper growth can aid in assessing current challenges. It can help
in anticipating the key requirements at various points, during the start-up period and the
need for delegation and changes in their managerial roles (Churchil and Lewis, 2007).
The most commonly cited stage models of business growth are those developed by
Greiner(1972) and Churchill and Lewis(1983). Greiner (1972) offers a five-stage framework
for business development but considering the managerial changes faced by founder. The
phases are Growth through Creativity, Growth through Direction, Growth through Delegation,
Growth through Coordination, and Growth through Collaboration.
Fig. 1 represents the stages of business growth of Greiner model. Each growth phase is
followed by crisis that shows need of changes in way of managing business if it has to
continue to grow. If crisis cannot be overcome then there is possibility of failure. The length
of time in each phase depends on nature of firm and industry.
Figure 2 -Stages of Business Growth, (Churchill and Lewis, 2007)
Churchill and Lewis (1983) model Fig 2 link marketing, people and financial management
issues. The five stages are Existence, Survival, Success, Take-Off, and Maturity. The key
factor which affects the success or failure in different stages of its life is developed as
attributes of Owner-manager and Resources.
Stage I: Existence
In this stage the problem faced by business is obtaining customer and delivering of product.
The companys first strategy is to remain alive. the owner is the one who performs the entire
important task and makes decision. If company is unable to get sufficient customer
acceptance or cannot deliver product ,owner closes the business as capital runs out . those
companies who can remain in business become stage II survival business.
Stage II: Survival
In this stage ,the business is now a workable business entity. The business provides and
satisfies the customers sufficiently with products or service. now the key problems have
shifted to relationship between revenue and expenses than mere existence.
In this stage, the company grows in size, the profitability also increases and moves to stage
III. Most of companies remain at survival stage, earns marginal returns on invested time and
capital , and eventually leave business after the owner retires or gives up.
Stage III: Success
There are alterative options for owner in this stage. The owner can either exploit the
companys achievements and expand or keep the company stable and profitable.Thus, a
key issue is whether to use the company as a platform for growtha sub stage III-G
companyor as a means of support for the owners as they completely or partially
disengage from the companymaking it a sub stage III-D company.
In this stage, the company has very good economic condition. The size and product market
penetration is above average and earns profit. The company can stay in this stage for long
time unless the external business environment changes, and reduce its competitive abilities.
In success growth sub stage the owner assesses the resources and decides for growth of
company. The owner arranges cash using borrowing power and risks for financial growth.
The owner is thus far more active in all phases of the companys affairs than in the
disengagement aspect of this phase. If it is successful, the III-G company proceeds into
Stage IV. Indeed, III-G is often the first attempt at growing before commitment to a growth
strategy. If the III-G company is unsuccessful, the causes may be detected in time for the
company to shift to III-D. If not, retrenchment to the Survival Stage may be possible prior to
bankruptcy or a distress sale.
Poutziouris, 1993 has pointed out as problems faced by small firms ( growth constraints) are
respectively ,General management, Operations/production, Finance and Marketing.
General managerial problems relate to factors which are poor time management, failure to
realize the benefits of specialization, resistance to modern management practices and poor
assembly and analysis of information.
Degree of disadvantage associated with the inability of small firm to capitalize on available
scale economies is key consideration in operational and production-related problems.
Financial problem ranges from narrow product orientation of small firms, absence of track
record, and lack of expertise in articulating financial need or financial forecasts in dealing
with potential financiers to non-existence of specialist financial managers.
Marketing constraints is due to neglect to longer-term strategic plan and focus in day-to-day
survival, limited penetration of market information systems and research, limited awareness
and capacity for marketing activities.
Shared office space which are for creating favorable condition to incubates
A shared business support services
Professional advice, mentoring and coaching
Networking with external and internal business environment
Moreover (UKBI, 2010) focuses incubator as not only a mission statement ,shared office
facility,infrastructure but is also a network of individuals and organization which includes
incubator manager ,staff ,incubator management board,incubatees,industrial contact and
service providers. It states that incubator can significantly reduce cost for start up to achieve
growth by reducing the time span that it often takes.
Norrman and Anna, 2008 has tries to identify the business incubator concept as different
from science parks ,technology parks . They are distinguishable. They are generally
designed for supporting mature firms . But business incubator are the ones who helps the
ventures on early stages ,immature potential ideas to develop into viable companies.
8
Norman and Anna (2008) have suggested appropriate selection criteria as two approaches:
Idea focused approach and Entrepreneur-focus approach.
For an idea-focus approach, incubator managers should be able to evaluate the viability and
feasibility of idea. Relevant technological knowledge and knowledge regarding product
,market and profit potential is a must.
For entrepreneur-focus approach, it is required to evaluate the experiences, skills,
characteristics and driving forces of entrepreneurs. The ability to judge personality as well
as knowledge of more general business development is also sought.
As discussed by Clarisse et al. (2005) cited in Norrman and Anna, (2008) other two
approach: picking-the-winners approach and survival-of-the-fittest approach are other
selection criteria. In the picking-the-winners approach, incubator managers try to identify a
9
Survival of the fittest & idea. This strategy will gather a large no of idea owners with
immature ideas which may be from wide range of fields.
Survival-of-the-fittest & entrepreneur. This strategy will collect diverse ventures
consisting of entrepreneurs/teams with strong driving forces.
Picking-the-winners & idea. This strategy will select highly screened ideas mostly
within a narrow technological area and are found commonly started from institutions.
Picking-the-winners & entrepreneur. This strategy will gather handpicked and well
evaluated entrepreneurs and generally the idea is linked with research.
2.4.2 Infrastructure
The infrastructure covers all the business premises, office facilities and administrative
services that an Incubator provides. Most incubators seems to supply or provide generally
same set of administrative services including office space, amenities, equipments as well as
office services like reception and clerical. (Rice, 2002); (Lalkaka, 1997)
2.4.3 Business support
Business support includes all coaching and training activities undertaken to provide to
incubatees. It has been seen that business support services generally provided are
business development advices and general business matters. It ranges from leadership
training, marketing and sales training, business planning, accounting, legal matters, financial
matters etc .It is viewed that the way these business supports are supplied are also crucial
factors to consider rather than concentrating only on business support.
Hackett and Dilts (2004a) observed that business assistance approaches widely depend
upon working hour devoted to developing incubatees ,the strategic and operational
approach taken by incubator and degree of quality of services that incubator aims to deliver.
Rice (2002) as cited in (Norrman and Anna, 2008), provides following approach for different
types of business counseling:
10
Incubator can define their role and boundary for interventions. The business services can be
provided as a manager led, as an external facilitator, or even with a complete management
team which can guide venture throughout the incubation process with help of staffs.
2.4.4 Mediation
One of major role of incubator is to act as intermediary or mediator between the incubatees
and the business environment (Peters et al., 2004). Thus the incubator acts like a bridge
between the incubatee and its environment.
Collinson and Gregson, 2003 as cited in (Norrman and Anna, 2008) states that the
information ,knoweldge and expertise gained through the mediation network are crucial for
the survival of new company and reduces the uncertainites that business faces in different
times. It is seen that Mediation has help in building networking of incubatees and external
factors like customers ,partners ,employees ,financiers ,researchers. ( Hackett and Dilts,
2004b).
( Collinson and Gregson, 2003) further states that through mediation ,incubator and
incubatees can understand ,interpret and even influence the institutional demands
introduced by regulations, law and rules. The incubatees can obtain legitimacy and social
acceptance ,and may also get credibility and understandability in eyes of external actors. .
2.4.5 Graduation
Graduation is related to exit policies, i.e. decisions concerning under what circumstances
incubatees should leave the incubator. Most incubators have formal exit rules requiring
incubatees to leave the incubator after 3-5 years selection. Monkman (2009) mentions that
Graduation policies have become more sophisticated over the years. Graduation polices
have been based on business-related benchmarks rather than time limits. Clients achieving
milestones, outgrowing space, spending maximum time etc have been some of factors
guiding graduation policies.
11
extent to which incubator outcomes correspond to incubator goals (Norrman and Anna,
2008).
According to (Hackett and Dilts, 2004b),Incubator goal may be set on following basis:
The Indicator of measure of success may be different for different goals .for example ,the no
of employees may be good indicator if the goal is to create jobs while growth in sales may
be indicator for measuring success of incubator whose goal is to commercialize new idea.
The fact is that the incubator most of time has multiple stake holders with different interests
and goal ,so incubator may have multiple goals according to stakeholders.(OECD, 1997).
Campbell and Allen (1987) has set milestones for measures of incubator success as
creation of a strong and responsive business consultation network, participation of financial
institutions in capitalization of incubatees, and trade relation development of incubatees.
12
type Business incubator in Nepal which is nonprofits and run under lead role of Department
of cottage industries.
Figure 4 - Business Incubation Framework for Research (incorporating Churchil and Lewis Growth Stage,
1983
Above literature review can be concluded in following notes and Business incubation
framework (Fig-4) will guide for methodology and finding for this research .
In different growth stages of a firm, there are several problems of growth which is developed
as
attributes
of
owner-manager
and
resources.
General
management,
operations/production, finance and marketing are the known common growth constraints.
Various authors have endorsed emphasis that overcoming of these problems can be
ensured via business incubator as they provide managed business infrastructure, business
support, and mediation and networking. Incubator can be measured as successful according
to measured outcome .However the criteria and indicator may depend upon goal and
objectives, incubator models. The criteria may be creation of job, growth in sales of
incubatee ,creation of business network. Similarly ,the criteria like graduation from
incubation, development of sustainable business structure, increase in number of jobs or
sales over time, product innovation, and incubator manager-incubatee relationship are the
measure of incubatees success.
13
Chapter 3. Methodology
3.1 Research Philosophy
With purpose of finding a solution or answer to a specific problem ,business research is
conducted. It is organized ,data-based ,critical and does a scientific inquiry or investigation
of problem. (Sekaran, 2003).
Even the purpose is answering a specific problem; it is a development of new knowledge so
research philosophy is associated with development of knowledge and nature of that
knowledge
There are some important assumptions about the way of viewing world which research
philosophy adopts. These assumptions govern the research strategies and methods. There
has to be some practical considerations of philosophy as well.
the major influencing factor is the relationship between knowledge and process of
development of knowledge (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007) The major ways of
thinking about research philosophy are as follows:
Epistemology
Ontology
Axiology
Epistemology
i.Epistemology
Epistemology is related with what is considered acceptable knowledge in field of study. The
researcher who is more interested with finding facts is likely to have different approach and
view on the way a research is to be performed than with the researcher who is interested
with knowing feeling and attitudes. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007)
ii.Ontology
Ontology. Is more related with nature of reality. The questions of assumptions researches
make about the way world operates and the commitment held to specific opinion.
iii. Axiology
Axiology studies about the judgments about values. Heron(1996) (as cited in Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2007) states that researcher can show axiological skill by being
compentent to demonstrate their values as foundation of making judgemnt aobut what
research is being conductio and how they are doing it.
There are mainly three branches of research philosophies in practice;
Positivism
Realism
Phenomenology
14
3.1.1 Positivism
This approach is based on philosophy of science and the approach is called as positivist
approach. Robson(1993)as cited in (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997)has listed five
sequential stages through which positivist research goes:
has listed
3.1.2 Realism
Realism is another epistemological position which relates to scientific enquiry. Realism is
branch of epistemology which is similar to positivism in that it assumes a scientific approach
to the development of knowledge. This assumption underpins the collection of data and the
understanding of those data and the understanding of those data. The meaning becomes
clearer when two forms of realism are contrasted. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007)
15
Direct realism and Critical realism are two parts of Realism. Critical realist views that the
experiences we have are sensations, and points out that our senses often deceive us. The
direct realist on the other hand views as illusion; they
are actually due to insufficient
information. In order to be able to understand what is going on in social world, the social
structures are to be understood which created the phenomena. Researcher can find what is
not seen through practical and theoretical processes of social sciences.
Dobson.2002 as cited in Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007 further clears the critcal
realists position that knowledge of reality is a result of social conditioning and cannot be
understood independently of the social actors involved in the knowledge derivation
process.Another important point is direct realist perspective would suggest the world is
relatively unchanging: that it operates in the business context. The critical realist on the other
hand,would recognize the importance of mulit-level study.Each of these levels has the
capacity to change the researchers understanding of that which is being studied (Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2007).
My research is to explore and evaluate on business incubation and business
growth which comprises business services provided, problems of growth
faced, measuring perceived effect and success. Direct realism and critical
realism approach will help me to understand theoretical and real
understanding on the topic deeper. level .Both philosophy are of important for
my research. so I prefer this philosophy.
3.1.3 Phenomenology
Phenomenology is an approach which is based on the way people experience social
phenomenon in the world they live. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997). Phenomenology
is characterized by a focus on the meaning that research subjects attach to social
phenomena; an attempt by the researcher to understand what is happening and why it is
happening. Easterby-smith et al., (1991) as cited in Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997
points out that researchers in this tradition are more likely to work with qualitative data and
use a variety of methods to collect these data in order to establish different views of
phenomenon.phenomenology approach is good at understanding social processes however
researcher may have to live with the uncertainity that clear patterns may not emerge.
My research aims is to have insight and evaluate a business incubation service
.This also has to deal with connection to society, human behavior and
experience for perfect understanding to the topic. The information to be
derived from understanding the topic are fact basis and judgment basis as
well. This approach will help me in some part to assess perceived effect of
incubation but not as a whole .so I reject this approach as my primary
approach for research.
16
A search of literature;
Getting view from experts of subjects;
Having focus group interviews.
This study has advantage of being flexible and adaptable to change. As new data emerges
and new insights occurs ,researcher must be willing to change direction of research .Adams
and Schvaneveldt(1991) further strength the argument by arguing that the flexibility inherent
in exploratory research doesnt mean the direction of enquiry is vague. The focus in research
is initially broad and it narrows down as there is progression in research.
collection is intended; consider the constraints which will be inevitable .crucially, it should
reflect the fact for employing particular strategy. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997).Each
strategy can be used for exploratory , descriptive and explanatory research. Some of these
clearly belong to the deductive approach, others to the inductive approach. (Yin 2003 as
cited in Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007).Robson(1993) lists the three traditional
research strategies as:
Experiment;
Survey;
Case Study;
3.3.1 Experiment
Experiment is a research which owes much to the natural science. it is also featured strongly
for social science research ,psychology as well (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997). In
experiment, the link between variables can be studied, and the magnitude of effect of one
independent variable can be studied upon another dependent variable. (Hakim
2000).Experiment typically involves:
3.3.2 Survey
Survey is tends to be used for exploratory and descriptive research. This strategy is common
and popular strategy in business and management study. It is commonly used to answer
who, what, where, how much and how many questions.The data is collected by using a
questionnaire. The data collected are standardized and easily comparable.
The data collected are quantitative data and can be analysis quantitatively using descriptive
statistics.In addition ,the data collected can also be used to give suggestion about possible
reasons for relationships between variables . However , There are other data collection
techniques as well for survey strategy. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007).
3.3.3 Case Study
Case study is a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of
particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple source of
evidence. Robson (2002:178).The case study strategy gives use good understanding of the
context of research and processes that are going on.( Morris and Wood 1991).
The case study strategy also can give answers to the what, how and why questions so it is
also a common approach for research strategy.
Case study strategy is most often used in explanatory and exploratory research. The data
collection techniques like interviews ,observation, documentary analysis, questionnaire etc
and are likely to be used in combination. (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007). In case
study strategy it is also likely to need to use and triangulate multiple sources of data.
18
In such interview, the respondents should not feel any partiality even in the tone of voice.
Even voice inflection of interviewer may be cause of bias responses (Barath and Cannell,
1976, Benson, 1946).
19
The unstructured interview doesnt have specific questions and time length and they are
totally informal.This method is useful for exploring the depth of a general area of topic of
interest so it is also called as in-depth interview. While using this method even research
doesnt have pre-determined list of questions to ask but they have to be clear of area of topic
to explore (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997)
Questionnaires
One of best method to collect data is questionnaire method . There is room for being
confident on same interpretation by respondents as it has standardized questions. (Robson,
1993, cited on Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997).
Self administered questionnaires are one of best ways to collect data from respondents as
they feel free to complete at their convenience.Questionnaires are also cost effective than
face to face interview as there is no cost like travel and time .(Bachrack and Scoble, 1967).
The self-administered questionnaires are sent by post and after it is completed by
respondent, they return back by post or can also be delivered by hand and collected later at
later time.The problem with mail survey is that there is low response rate which reduce
accuracy in statistical analysis. There is also doubt that the returned questionnaire is same
person or not.
The interview administered questions on the other hand can be recorded either by using
phone or structured interviews which can be taken by face to face interview with
respondent.The physical presences will increase the reliability of data collected as physical
presence dilutes the dilemma of whether the respondent is same person or not. however,
there is also possibility that in presence of interviewer ,some respondent may response to
please (Dillman, 1978, cited on Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997)
20
Pilot Testing
Pilot testing includes steps of checking the questionnaire with experts or friends before the
questionnaires is handed or supplied to respondent .it is a vital step before the data
collection takes place.
This pilot testing helps to confirm unambiguous and refined questionnaire which are
without flaws so that respondents would be easily understand questions and answers the
questions easily (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 1997)
In my research, I have chosen questionnaires as way of collecting data, so pilot test was
done for validity and reliability of data collected. The pilot test was done with my supervisor
and it was checked and approved. In addition ,suggestions were also taken from friends by
distributing to them for opinion.
Question of reliability of finding
My questionnaires include two separate sets of questions each for key-informant from
incubator and participant incubatee which are related from sections of my literature review.
In my understanding, these questions on the main subject matters are strong enough to
give the answer to reach the objectives and finding of my research. After pilot testing, the
questionnaires are handed to key-informant from incubator and participant incubatee by
meeting in person .
I have used Interview administered questionnaires as collecting primary data. My data
collector assistant from made contact to incubator team and incubatee team. A prior written
acknowledgment letter was presented. An appointment was fixed at convenient location of
respondent at convenient time before meeting and data was collected in meeting. The
physical presence of interviewer and respondents confirms the respondent and other points,
shared experiences and related notes can also be taken at the same time which is helpful for
analysis of data. Thus, interview administered questionnaires helped in increasing the
reliability on the collected data.
Choosing Samples
I have used Snowball Sampling for selecting key-informants from incubator which is
choosing sample through contact or network. Firstly we need to contact with one or two
21
members and the same members later identify further members (Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill, 1997). However, in this method, there may be chance that the respondent is likely
to suggest the other respondent who is in touch with them or like them which may lead to
biasness.
(Lee 1993 cited in Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007). For participant
incubatee selection,. All of them were approached due to aim of research as sample was
low in number i.e. 16.
22
Chapter 4: Findings
4.1 Business Incubation program (BIP)
Business Incubation Program is a non-profit making organization under the ownership of
government but strictly operated as a private organization with an autonomous management
set-up. The BIP, Kathmandu, is located in the premises of DoCSI, within an available builtup space of over 6,000 sq. ft. With a mission of being a center of excellence.
It is primarily focusing on the provision of proactive support and guidance tailor made for
its clients through a range of in-house as well networked services such as subsidized flexible
accommodation, logistics, testing and lab facilities, market and finance linkages and human
resources who can mentor and guide clients to successfully transform start-up companies to
a fast growing enterprise. It will also be a dynamic process for the production of future
generation of fast growing innovative enterprises that will be able to stand up with the best
and compete in the global market (Incubator Initiative Planning Grant, 2006).
Government of Nepal has formed a Business Incubation Board having members from
different industrial, science & technology, professional and experts from different sectors to
run and guide this program at top most level. Current Board of Directors of this program is as
follows:
Position
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
MemberSecretary
The work of management team is supervised by one of Director level personnel as Program
Chief appointed by DoCSI. Currently, the DoCSI is funding this program from its regular
annual program budget. Program Chief and Management team are liable to present
progress reports to BIP board members.
23
To collect data from incubator management side, 3 key informant was selected who were
involved directly into business incubation process. Altogether there were 16 incubatees with
whom attempts were made to contact. The number of participating incubatees was 12.
4 of them were out of contact (2 of them were graduated incubatees and were not in contact
with BIP recently. Remaining 2 incubatees were out of Kathmandu due to personal reasons.)
All the issues, suggestions, comments and various personal experiences were also noted
down during the filling of questionnaire.
4.3 Findings
In 2 sets of questionnaires for incubator and incubatees , the questions and statements were
on 4 point scale. The participants were allowed to rate them . The participants from
business incubator and incubatees were 3 and 12 respectively. So, number of key informant
for Incubator (N) was 3 and number of participant ( N) was 12 for incubatees.
For convenience of analysis ,Weighted Factor Analysis was used for each set of
questions. The Weighted factor was assigned to each choice in question .lowest weight
was assigned to least agreeing choice .Similarly, highest weight was assigned to most
agreeing choice. All the questions were with 4 point scale so,
Each choices were assigned as 1,2,3,4 weighted factor with starting from value of 1 with
least agreeing choice toward most agreeing choice with value of 4.
(For example-Poor-1,Average-2,Good-3,Excellent-4)
Each question was then multiplied with Frequency of response which gave a minimum and
maximum range. The response range hence was dependent on value of N (no of
respondent).
For response range of Incubator ,minimum was 3 and maximum was 12 as N=3. Similarly
minimum response range for incubatees was 12 and maximum was 48 as N=12.
24
For Some choices of questions ,some incubatees did not respond as they had not deal
with such business support, mediation service i.e. Number of response N was less than 12,
.but N=12 was taken as number of respondent for all of graphical representation. Therefore
The weighted factor was given as 2.5 (1<2.5< 4) for those unanswered responses and
weighted factor analysis was carried on.
4.3.1 Incubatee Background Information
a. Age
Figure 5-Age of Incubatees
Age of Incubatees
N=16
13%
18-34
25%
62%
35-50
51-above
The total number of Incubatees under business incubation are 16 till date.5 of them were
incubated as first batch in 2007 since the program started and are graduated from Business
Incubation Program . 5 of them were under business incubation since 2008 and remaining 6
were under business incubation since 2009. In Nepal, the population of 15-64 age groups is
61.1% (CBS, Nepal 2011). High percentage of 18-34 age groups in business incubation was
encouraging.
b. Gender
Figure 6-Gender ratio
Gender ratio
N=16
19%
Male
81%
Female
The number of women in business was relatively less .There were only 3 females among
total number of Incubatees. In Nepal, Women participation is generally low in all business
activities where majority of women are active in house-hold activities. Women are always
encouraged to actively participated in all business activities by government and nongovernment organizations.
25
c.Education background
Figure 7-Educational background
Educational background
N= 16
12%
Under High
School
High school
38%
50%
Graduate
The number of incubatee with high school education was found to be 8. The number of
incubatee with graduate level of education was found to be 6 and 2 incubatee were with
under high school level of education.
Selection Criteria
Stage of idea/business
Business proposal
Family Background
5.25
7.5
26
9.75
12
Selection Criteria
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
The response on importance of factors for selection gave knowledge on factors which were
thought more important than others. Some factors were agreed more important than others.
Business proposal, stage of idea, plans to implement and market potential was highly
agreed upon as important .However, available resources and cost, and range of desired
support was also seen as important. Family background, type of firm, employment history
was found to be assumed less important. There was also suggestion by Key informant on
basis of day to day activities that criteria of selection should also focus in commitment and
willing to pay additional services.
4.3.3 Infrastructure
The users of physical infrastructure provided by Business incubator was seen low. The office
space and meeting space was furnished and cost of use was with nominal charge. Similarly
phone, internet, computer, email were individually supplied and cost of use was with nominal
charge. Fax was shared service and cost of use was with nominal charge. R&D facilities
were nominally provided.
Almost all infrastructures were access by less than half of incubatees for various reasons.
The majority seemed to be non users of infrastructures as we can see in fig 4.5 . The major
reason for not using was being enterprises located in different places of country. Half of total
enterprises were located in Kathmandu where business incubation Program was stationed .
Most of them had self managed infrastructures or use of infrastructures was minimum.
Mostly the technology based enterprises were seen using infrastructures as much as
possible.
27
Infrastructure Users
10
8
6
4
2
User
Non user
N=16
Infrastructure
Meeting room
Office space
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
Infrastructure
Computer/Internet/email
Meeting room
Office space
12
21
30
39
28
48
The view from key-informants from incubator on quality of infrastructure gives us information
that they assess few infrastructures like fax ,phone, computer ,internet were better provided
where as they have rated other infrastructure facilities like R & D facilities ,loan equipments
were not being supplied as necessary.
The views about majority of infrastructure by incubatees were also nearly same as rated by
key-informants from incubator but for fax. Phone and computer, it wasnt same. The
incubatees perceived quality about fax, phone, and computer was also as of other
infrastructure. the incubatees were of less need of these infrastructure so even these were
available, these were used less .In, Nepal, small business do not use fax, and computer
much due to low penetration of technology into business. The incubatees who were into
production industries showed dissatisfaction over R& D facilities and stated that
improvement in this particular infrastructure was vital and would help in their businesses .
4.3.4 Business support
Figure 13-Perceived Quality of business Support by Incubator
Business services
HR management
Marketing management
Financial management
Leadership training and coaching
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
Business services
HR management
Marketing management
Financial management
Leadership training and coaching
12
21
30
39
29
48
4.3.5 Mediation
The mediation service provided by incubator was found to be rated highly by incubator
(provider side) but was perceived less by incubatees side. All the mediation service was
provided according to individual need of incubatees.
Figure 15-Perceived Mediation by Incubator
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
The Key-informants from Incubator has believed that mediation services provided was
satisfactory. The mediation was found to be provided according to individual needs. The
mediation regarding equity investment was seemed relatively less as there was no
significant mediation was done by incubator regarding it.
A key-informant view- Apart from mediation with partners and other organizations, incubation
also tried to synergize between the incubatees themselves. For example we can take case
of Lapsi Candy(APPENDIX-D) and Web fusion Nepal. Lapsi candy owners had no idea how to
30
design or package their product, so web fusion helped them design their covers so as to gain
greater market value. Both of these were first graduation tenants.
Perceived mediation
12
21
30
39
48
Incubatee firms were seen less satisfied with the mediation service they received. Being
selected into business incubation had high hope by incubatees. The program was also
supported by Government so they were expecting more networking and mediation services
regarding financier, suppliers, customers, partners.etc. So, a significant disagreement can
be seen in mediation services.
An Incubatee view I had labor crisis in mid-April, some 5-6 months ago. There was no
skilled manpower to be found for my bag production. But incubation could not mediate
me in crisis to find me skilled workers.
An Incubatee View- I dont agree that mediation has changed in my credibility, social
acceptance etc. because I have been in business for long so i already had some sort of
recognition. I dont feel that being in incubation has added to this.
Most of incubatees seemed to have expected incubation would help them search for
financiers or they would mediate with government to finance project. A lot of them have
applied for incubation because they wanted direct or indirect financial support of some kind
and when what they receive is more of training and counseling only, it decreased satisfaction
level and slowly distant them from incubation process. Most of incubatee seems to be faded
of promises and bureaucratic government way of working. Incubation program being a
government organization runs procedural-delays in many things that they had promised.
This seemed to bring further distance between incubatees and incubation team.
31
Mediation
5.25
7.5
Response range
9.75
12
N=3
Mediation
12
21
30
39
48
Response range
Note: Weighted factor: Strongly Disagree-1, Disagree-2, Agree-3, Strongly Agree-4
The key informants from incubator and participant incubatees were seen agreeing on
mediation statements on questionnaire .Even both side agreed that the mediation was not at
desirable level. But it has helped morally being firms under Business incubation. As a direct
effect of mediation, Incubatees has experienced they got faster services when approached
to external companies, government offices for administrative and registration works.
An Incubatee view- Incubation has made my work faster and saved me cost . One example
I can take of Registration of
company. it would have taken me around Nepalese Rupees
6000 to register company. But since incubation office mediated, i could do the registration
with the mandatory sum of 1000 as the communication was done between BIP and
government authority for business registration. It also took me only 3 hours to do so.
Otherwise, it would take 2-3 days minimum.
32
Since Business incubation is a new concept it has not been able to influence change in
regulation and laws .Recently, due to approach and mediation from Business Incubation
program, Business incubation has been in priority of New Industrial Policy of Nepal, 2010.
4.3.6 Graduation Criteria
The graduation policy was found to be flexible. After a certain period ,with mutual agreement
between incubator and incubatee ,the firm was graduated.
Figure 19-Important criteria for Graduation as Perceived by Incubator
Graduation criteria
Sales turnover
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
Graduation criteria
Profitability
Sales turnover
12
21
30
39
48
An Incubatee View- I feel that I could graduate from incubation after I am able to
establish a brand name for my produced bag products and gain some recognition in the
market for it .
Perceived by Incubator
-Tax regulation
-Inflation
-Tax rate
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
Perceived by Incubatees
-Tax regulation
-Inflation
-Tax rate
-Cash and burrowing power
- Access to finance
-Lack of expertise in financial management
21
30
39
48
Cash and burrowing power, Access to finance ,and lack of knowledge in financial
management were found to be perceived as major financial resource problem faced by
entrepreneurs in doing business in Nepal. The banks and financial are seen more focused
34
for bigger borrower and the documentation required for processing loan are bureaucratic and
not small enterprises friendly. So, small business is seen reluctant to approach to bank for
access to credit. .
Tax regulation , inflation ,tax rate has also been perceived as problems for business growth.
After registration of business, income tax, audit fee, annual fee, frequent custom rate change
in raw material ,VAT rate range, etc were raised issues which were facing by incubatees in
business.
An incubatee view- we have big problem about loans and investment problem. I have
assets in Dolkha but no bank in Kathmandu will take it as Collateral. Government could
act as guarantee so that we could get a decent loan to expand our business. Many new
entrepreneurs had no idea how banking mechanism works. if BIP could give this
knowledge, it would be helpful.
Perceived by Incubator
-Limited awareness and capacity for
marketing activities
-Limited market information systems
and research
-Focus on day to day survival
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
Perceived by Incubatees
-Limited awareness and capacity for
marketing activities
-Limited market information systems and
research
12
21
30
39
48
35
The key-informant from incubator and participant incubatees were seen much agreed on
limited market information systems and research and Limited awareness and capacity for
marketing as marketing resources problems faced in small business operation in Nepal.
Both key-informants from incubator and participant incubatees perceived day to day survival
focus as less important problem for growth. Growth in business is sought by most of
business operating in Nepal.
Other local problem faced by some incubatees were tax imposed by local authorities for
marketing and promotion campaign, display board /hoarding board which added extra cost
to their products.
c. Operational/Production problems
Figure 25-operational/production problems perceived by Incubator
Perceived by Incubator
-Inadequate educated workforce
-Poor work ethics
-Inadequate supply of infrastructure
services
Operational/production
problems
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
Perceived by Incubatees
-Inadequate educated workforce
-Poor work ethics
-Inadequate supply of infrastructure
services
Operational/production
problems
12
21
30
39
48
The key-informants from incubator and participant incubatees has generally agreed on
limited knowledge, lack of infrastructure, poor work ethics and culture as important
36
Perceived by Incubator
-Lack of technological sophistication
-Corruption
-Policy instability
-Ineffective government bureaucracy
-Government stability
-Lack of government support
-Crime and theft
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
Perceived by Incubatees
-Lack of technological sophistication
-Corruption
General management
-Policy instability
-Ineffective government bureaucracy
-Government stability
-Lack of government support
-Crime and theft
12
21
30
39
48
37
The key-informant from incubator and participant incubatees has pointed out Lack of
technological sophistication, Policy instability, and Ineffective government bureaucracy as
major general problems of growth for new start-up in Nepal. Corruption is also seen as big
problem than crime and theft .
Other general social problems that incubatees faced were found to be forceful charity,
political labor union disrupting work, and force full charity by local mafia, etc.
e. Owner Related Problems
Figure 29 -Owner related problems perceived by Incubator
Perceived by Incubator
-Family history
-Gender
-Lack of trainings
-Lack of management abilities
-Lack of motivation for growth
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
Perceived by Incubatees
-Family history
-Gender
-Lack of trainings
-Lack of management abilities
-Lack of motivation for growth
12
21
30
39
48
38
support to interested ones. Gender and family history wasnt perceived as much bigger
problem of growth by both key informants from incubator and participant incubatees.
Perceived by Incubatees
would be less productive at home and less family support
would not exist as a business or trading
would not have been taken seriously
would have spent more money
very little would have changed
would be less confident
Would have taken longer
Would not learn issues in business
Would have been less successful
Would not have progress business quickly
12
Perceived effect of incubation
21
30
39
48
To know the effect of business incubation on incubatee and incubatee firm, the statements
were provided to incubatees to rate. The incubatees responses were mostly agreed with
conclusion that incubation has made their business more serious. Incubation made them
more confident, and would have taken longer time for setting business.
Progress in business quickly, learning of business issues, cut in business infrastructure
cost was also agreed by most incubatees as perceived benefit of business incubation
.however, nearly half of incubates denied that they would not have existed as business if
they were not in incubation and would have been less successful.
An Incubatee View- First of all Business Incubation Program gave me an identity. It provided
an office space and contract place during the innovation period. It helped to take patent right
for the innovative Air Supply Disk and played a role of a mediator for joining with other
financers. I expect further assistants from Business Incubators for handling management part
of my business, writing business proposals, corresponding with donors, promoting the
business in national and international level etc. I want to get my product patented in
international level also. I also wish that Incubators will provide same type of assistant to other
entrepreneurs in future.
39
Measure of success
5.25
7.5
9.75
12
The measure of success of business incubation program was also tried to map by providing
statement to judge by key-informant of business incubator. Greater agreement was seen on
Positive growth in expertise, Success of commercialization of technology and business plan
and Employment creation and venture growth.
The issues like misunderstanding about how much to expect from business incubation by
incubatee was also raised. The idea and limitations of business incubation was not
understood by incubatees at first .The orientation program and information relay was lacking
at first.
40
Perceived by Incubatees
12
21
30
39
48
Measure of success
Measure of success of incubatees due to Business Incubation was also tried to map by
providing statements to judge by Participating Incubatees .The incubatees did not seemed
to be comfortable to strongly agree on statements. The low scoring is also due to firms being
still under incubation. Judgments are based on the service received till date. Cost saving and
confidence build up were highly agreed as factors which measures their success.Positive
publicity, Networking, Business skill improvement were also agreed which measures their
success.
An Incubatee view- After being in incubation, I have received greater exposure. recently I
was able to attend a highly glamorous fashion week and help the designers there too. My
designs has much improved much.I want to learn more about fashion business through
incubation. Business Incubation has been a opportunity to learn about my business and
increase knowledge.
An incubatee view- I have now known how to research market and get information regarding
suppliers, customers, partners and market mechanism. i also recognized the need to maintain
and certify the quality and standard of product so that it may gain acceptance in international
market. I learned the importance of planning and making strategy for business growth. I
learned how to make business plan.
41
42
43
The Infrastructure provided as study suggests did not proved to be major need of
incubatees. The use of infrastructure was not possible for some of incubatees for working
base being far from Incubation center. The infrastructures seemed to be supplied more or
less as same set of general administrative services as well as facilities-related service and
office services as mentioned by (Rice, 2002); (Lalkaka, 1997), The limited users were also
not satisfied with being nominal services with R&D services. For mixed incubator like BIP in
infant stage, it is not possible to supply each specific R&D Services that incubatees
demanded to their necessity but sure it can mediate with external service provider and
provide service at reduced cost.
The study shows that the reactive and episodic counseling for business support (Rice, 2002)
approach taken was not perceive well by the incubatees. The success of incubator tenants is
not only dependent on nature of services, but also how they are supplied. The business
support has been sought to be highly demanded by incubatees. The role of business
incubator manager seems to be one of the key factor to consider for success of incubation.
The experience in running the business and problem solving capacity is helpful for
business incubation manager to provide business service effectively .The continual and
proactive approach was seen sought by incubatees which is more useful way of providing
business services for its intense aggressive intervention
The study has seen general agreement with value of mediation provided by BIP which has
increased the visibility credibility and understandability of incubatees in the eyes of external
actors as stated by Collinson and Gregson,2003 .The mediation (Hackett and Dilts, 2004b)
has also seen influenced the institutional demand introduced by regulations, and laws. The
industrial Policy of Nepal ,2010 has now recognized Business Incubation as a service
industry and has been priority program for implementation with proposed coordination with
chamber of industry and commerce, federation of cottage industry etc.
Holovnia et al., 2008 has focused on a clear vision and well defined graduation polices .the
study shows that the graduation policy was not clearly defined. The exit rule was not strictly
followed by incubator and the mutual agreement process was followed. The graduation
polices has also been based on business-related benchmark as monk man (2009) stress
and the research study also has strengthen the statement. Agreement was seen in client
achieving milestone as an independent business, profitability, and sales turnover as more
important graduation criteria.
5.2 Limitations
The study had time constraint as it was to be conducted for 4 months. The literature review
can point out other issues of Business incubation which were not discussed and was
discarded. One of important limitation this research has is it doesnt discuss about the role
of business incubation manager .various authors Holovnia et al., (2008);Jim Robbins(2002)
have highlighted the effect of experience and capabilites of manager in Business incubation
Process.
This study has limted to business incubation service by Government of Nepal. It is not able
to raise the enterprise development issues and efforts running in nepal from private
initative or by non governmental organisation. The activities for enterprenurship development
from them is scattared and unorganised but not negligible to ignore for Nepal.
44
Another limitation in this research is that this research doesnt discuss about financial
sustainability of business incubation center itself. The case study Business Incubation
Center was government funded and the research was focused in evaluating the services
provided and exploring the topic. The strategies that business incubation center incorporates
for being financial sustainable have effects on business incubation process and a different
framework or working model may arise as various authors like Richards 2002 has stated.
45
6.2 Reflections
If I were to do this research again, I would approach the research in some different ways. I
feel the study of evaluation of business incubation services could also be done with focusing
in supply and demand of business incubation services. The data collection could be more
refined with use of different sets of questionnaires for graduated and under-incubation
incubatees as there were seen some mixed responses. Some questions were seen less
relevant to incubatees who were still under incubation.
47
I would approach the primary respondents early .i learned to consider the factors which can
delay the research process. Even the social factor like celebration of festival in between the
data collection period interrupted the data collection process. This early consideration would
have increased my sample size.
Conducting a research staying in United Kingdom and exploring over the case study over
another country, Nepal initially had some sort of lack of confidence and fear for not being
able to grasp the real scenario. There was always fear that the questionnaire may not be
well perceived by the respondents. So it was pilot tested before it was handed to
respondents.
Personally, the research study made me learn about the procedure of doing research. I
learned the skill for forward plan and proposal planning also. I learned to coordinate with
organization. I learned the skill for preparing an original piece of work on a defined and
relevant topic.
6.3 Recommendations
The study of this research gives following recommendations which can provide greater
benefits towards promoting successful enterprises in Nepal and other under-developed
countries.
-Credit and seed fund, easy flow of credit, loan guarantee scheme to BIP incubatees need to
be ensured .
-Local tax credit, exemptions, Proper business incentives are needed for encouraging small
enterprise creation in Nepal from support of stable government policies and laws.
-The Business Incubation Program(BIP) should strengthen and direct involvement and tie
up with universities and corporate private sector for expert advices, mentoring on business
incubatees.
-The Business Incubation Program(BIP) should have enhanced ties with private business
sector, Research centers, Workshops ,Testing and laboratory facilities for product testing,
developing, research and designing . It can enhance infrastructure usage by incubatees for
their growth.
-Awareness of Business Incubation Program(BIP) need to be done and promote Business
incubation as service industries. The industrial policy 2010 has given importance to business
incubation but serious and concrete steps are needed to implemented by planning
authorites.
-The stakeholders like Chamber of commerce and industry, Technical Institutions,
Universities should be networked and have alliance to run business incubation services .A
public- private partnership approach
which has been seen
successful in other
developmental activities in Nepal could be considered for running business incubation
house.
-The Business Incubation Program(BIP) should tap the success stories of successful
graduates and increase the expertise of business incubation. It will help to motivate other
Entrepreneurs for their ventures and promote entrepreneurial culture in country on the other
hand.
48
6.4 Contribution
This research is the first research study over the Business Incubation Program (BIP). This
study can help any interested individuals or organization to find about progress of business
incubation scenario in Nepal. The stakeholders of Business Incubation Program can use this
study to find about business incubation services provided. This study can also help
researchers interested to find about initiatives in entrepreneurial development environment
in Nepal.
49
Bibliography
Beaver, G. (2002) Small Business,Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development, 1st
edition, Pearson Education Limited.
Bergek, A. and Norrman, C. (2008) 'Incubator best practice: A framework', Technovation,
vol. 28, no. 1-2, January-February, pp. 20-28.
Burns, P. (2001) Entreprenurship and small business, 2nd edition, Palgrave macmillan.
Churchil, N.C. and Lewis, V.L. (2007) The Five Stages of Small Business Growth, 28 Aug,
[Online], Available:
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbs.?articleID=83301&ml_action=getarticle&print=true [25 Jun 2011].
Department of Cottage and Small Industries, G.o.N. (2010), [Online], Available:
http://incubation.gov.np/ [1 november 2010].
Hackett, S.M. and Dilts, D.M. (2004a) ' A real options-driven theory of business incubation',
Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 41-54.
Hackett, S.M. and Dilts, D.M. (2004b) 'A Systematic Review of Business Incubation
Research', Journal of Technology Transfer, no. 29, pp. 55-82.
Hannon, P.D. (2003) 'A conceptual development framework for management learning in the
UK incubator sector', Education + Training, vol. 45, no. 8/9, pp. 449-460.
Holovnia, N., Lanciani, K., Moran, Y. and Rosales, M. (2008) Recommendations for a
Creative Business Incubator for the City of Worcester, [Online], Available:
http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-122008202704/unrestricted/Recommendations_for_a_Creative_Business_Incubator_for_the_City_o
f_Worcester.pdf [15 Nov 2010].
kuratko, d.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (2004) 'Entrepreneurship:Theory,process,and practice'
thomson south-western.
Lalkaka, R. (1997) 'Lessons from International Experience for the Promotion of Business
Incubation Systems in Emerging Economies', UNIDO.Discussion Paper No.3.
McAdam, M. and Marlow, S. (2008) 'A preliminary investigation into networking activities
within the university incubator', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research , vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 219-241.
Monkman, D. (2000) Impact of Business Incubation in the US Lessons for Developing
Countries, [Online], Available: www.infodev.org/en/Document.896.pdf [10 Oct 2010].
Monkman, D. (2009) David Monkman - NBIA for infoDev, [Online], Available:
www.infodev.org/en/Document.896.pdf [24 Aug 2011].
Monkman, D. (2010) Business Incubators and Their Role in Job Creation, [Online],
Available: http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/hearing-3-17-10-businessincubators/Monkman.pdf [29 Oct 2010].
50
52
c. Others (please
3.Please rate the importance of following factors used for Selection Criteria.
Please tick the choices as appropriate
Doesnt
Matter
Family background
Business proposal
Stage of idea/business
Creativity of idea
Technical knowledge
Use of information technology
Plans to implement
Expected earning/expenditure
53
Moderate
Important
Very
Important
Employment history
Patents/intellectual property
Type of firm
Available resources and cost
Reservation by government
(marginalised/female /ethnic group)
Infrastructure
1.Please rate the following infrastructures provided by incubator.
Cost of use
Please tick as
appropriate
Free
Furnished
Poor
Paying
Unfurnished
Average
Good
Excellent
Office space
Meeting
room
Cost of use
Please tick as
appropriate
Free
Shared
Poor
Paying
Individual
Phone
Fax
54
Average
Good
Excellent
Computer/
Internet/e
mail
Business
postal
address
Cost of use.
Free
Poor
Paying
Average
Good
Excellent
Business support
1.Please rate the following business services provided
Provided Services (please tick
Please rate the service as appropriate
Business
as appropriate)
service
provided
Provide Provided
Never
d to all
according
to
individual
need
provided
Poor
a. Leadership
training and
coachingb. Financial
55
Average
Good
Excellent
managementc. Marketing
managementd.HR
managemente. Legal issues
f.
Entrepreneurial
-development
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
g. Accounting and
taxation
h. Export
assistance
i. Secretarial
services
j. Business
registration services
k. Others (please
specify)
..
3.Any comment(please specify)
.
56
to
individual
need
a. Mediation
regarding
partnersb. Mediation
regarding
customersc.Mediation
regarding
suppliers
d. Mediation
regarding
employeese. Mediation
regarding
financiersf. Mediation
regarding
equity
investmentg. Others
(please
specify)
..
57
Average
Good
Excellent
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
SD
SA
Graduation1.Please rank the importance of the following factors for graduation from
incubation.
Please tick as appropriate
Not at all
Sales turnover
Profitability
Time under incubation
Trading as independent
business
Others (please
specify).
58
less important
Important
Very
important
c. Operational/production problems
-Limited knowledge in manufacturing and
distribution process
-Inadequate supply of infrastructure services
-Poor work ethics
59
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
SD
60
SA
Measure of success of incubator1.Please rank following statements to benchmark measure success of incubator
programme.
Please tick as appropriate
Strongly
Disagree
61
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Part 2
Incubatee information
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
NameAgeGender
- Male
Education - High school
Enterprise Name Enterprise Est. Date Enterprise industry type -
Female
Undergraduate
Graduate
Infrastructure
1.Please rank the following infrastructures provided by incubator.
Please tick the service as appropriate
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
Office space
Meeting room
Computer/Internet/email
Business postal address
Phone
Fax
Loan equipment for business purposes
(laptops/projector/cameras)R & D facilities (facilities for designing, simulating
and testing new products such as labs, servers)-
62
Business support
1.Please rank the following business service provided
Please tick as appropriate
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
Mediation regarding partners Mediation regarding customersMediation regarding suppliersMediation regarding employees63
Average
Good
Excellent
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
3.Any Comments-(please
specify)
.
Graduation1.Please rank the importance of the following factors for graduation from
incubation.
Please tick as appropriate
Not at all
Sales turnover
Profitability
Time under incubation
64
less important
Important
Very
important
Trading as independent
business
Others (please
specify).
65
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
c. Operational/production problems
-Limited knowledge in manufacturing and
distribution process
-Inadequate supply of infrastructure services
-Poor work ethics
-Inadequate educated workforce
-Others (please
specify).
-Others (please
specify).
Strongly
Disagree
67
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
68
SN NAME
DESIGNATION
Association
with BIP
Ms..Rakshya
Aryal
Mr. Rabindra K
Neupane
2007-2009
69
2008-2010
SN Tenant
firm owner
Anjana 2007-2009
firm type
Anima
Research
Centre
Himalayan
udyog
Karnali
technology Mr.
Takka 2008
development
Bahadur Nepali
One
peace
fashion Ms.
Sangita 2008
house
Lama
Kathmandu
macaroni Mr. Shiva Hari 2008
industry pv. ltd
Prasai
Designer
dress
production
Macaroni production
Herbal
production
Nepal
infopark
Limited
10
11
12
Pragati
udhyog
Visual
& Ms.
Service Sharma
incubation
period
Pvt. Mr.
Dhakal
Madhukar 2007-2009
2008
Saurav 2008
70
Visual
house
production
Incence-stick
prodution
Production of ecofriendly
improved
cooking stove
Alternative
energy
appliance production
cosmetic
medicinal
Jatropa plantation
Bags production
Eductional
production
materials
Date- 4/7/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-revise the focus of research and further development
Work required by next meeting:
-work on literature review more
-focus on growth of companies
Date of next meeting: 18/7/11 ,11:30 am
Date- 18/7/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-body of literature review decided
Work required by next meeting:
-carry on literature review
-topic business incubation need to be started
Date of next meeting: 25/7/11 , 11:30 am
71
Date- 25/7/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-First half of literature review done
Work required by next meeting:
-look at important highlighted points
-edit required parts
Date of next meeting: 2/8/11
Date- 2/8/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-main points of literature review discussed
Work required by next meeting:
-explain all the elements /issues of literature review
-put into model
-send over email
Date of next meeting:8/8/2011
Date- 8/8/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-summary model discussed
72
Date- 15/8/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-looked at summary model
-summarise model
Work required by next meeting:
-final refinement needed
-send over email
Date of next meeting:22/8/11
Date- 22/8/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-Discussed questionnaires preparation
-looked at various model of questionaire drafts
Work required by next meeting:
Draft questions related to research objective
Date of next meeting:2/9/11
Date- 2/9/2011
Summary of Discussion:
- discussion over questionaire
Work required by next meeting:
-Draft judgment based questions that arises
-draft Fact based questions that arises
-send over email
Date of next meeting:6/9/11
73
Date- 6/9/2011
Summary of Discussion
-questionaire and 4 point scale discussed
Work required by next meeting:
-Refinement over questionaire needed
-send over email
Date- 19/9/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-Discussion over sets of questions
-Discussion over layout of questions
Work required by next meeting:
-Refinement needed over questions
-Modify question content
-send over email
Date of next meeting:23/9/2011
Date- 23/9/2011
Summary of Discussion
-final discussion about questionaire was done
Work required by next meeting:
-final refinement needed to be done in questionaire
-now focus in completing the methodology part.
74
Date- 06/10/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-discussion about interpreting data
-discussion about weighted mean
-discussion about bar chart
Work required by next meeting:
-complete weighted mean in data obtained
-start making graphical representations
Date of next meeting:10/10/2011
Date- 10/10/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-discussion about findings
Work required by next meeting:
-complete findings ,make all bargraphs
Date of next meeting:17/10/2011
Date- 17/10/2011
Summary of Discussion:
-discussion over findings,layout
-amendment in topic of research
-discuss over table of content
Work required
-complete remaining works
75
76
77