Annex B
Overheads on the Research Triangle Experience
Prof Michael Luger
THE ROLE OF S&T PARKS: The Research Triangle Experience with Lessons for Sandia Presentation at NRC Symposium on Industry-Laboratory Partnerships: The Role of S&T Parks April 22, 1998 Prof Michael Luger University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Outline of presentation |
|
I. |
Basis for remarks |
II. |
Overview of S&T (research) parks in the US |
III. |
What makes them ''successful?'' |
IV. |
The RTP phenomenon |
V. |
The rest of the world—further lessons |
Basis for remarks |
|
Overview of S&T (research) parks in the US |
||||
Type of park |
# of parks |
Median Age, 1995 |
Mean # tenants, 1989 |
Mean # tenants, 1995 |
Fast growing |
17 |
16 |
32 |
58 |
Growing |
30 |
11 |
3 |
19 |
Stagnant |
12 |
12 |
34 |
41 |
Declining |
3 |
14 |
33 |
35 |
Early parks, no data |
13 |
12.5 |
8 |
|
Later parks, no data |
28 |
13 |
35 |
|
Newcomers |
41 |
5 |
8 |
|
No longer park |
4 |
|
10 |
|
Not located |
16 |
12 |
18 |
|
Skipped in 1989 |
20 |
11 |
|
|
TOTAL |
184 |
|
|
|
Overview of S&T (research) parks in the US |
|||||
Type of park |
% in NE and MA |
% in S |
% in W and NW |
% with access to university |
% with infrastructure |
Fast growing |
42 |
29 |
12 |
88 |
76 |
Growing |
10 |
30 |
24 |
80 |
80 |
Stagnant |
25 |
33 |
33 |
58 |
33 |
Declining |
|
67 |
|
67 |
33 |
Early parks, no data |
30 |
38 |
15 |
77 |
62 |
Later parks, no data |
18 |
25 |
21 |
|
|
Newcomers |
35 |
34 |
9 |
66 |
59 |
No longer park |
25 |
25 |
25 |
|
|
Not located |
27 |
40 |
13 |
|
|
Skipped in 1989 |
44 |
17 |
22 |
|
|
Overview of S&T (research) parks in the US |
|
Specializations of different types of parks: |
|
|
|
What makes parks "successful?" |
|
|
|
|
|
What makes parks "successful?" The U.S. story, in brief Our 1991 study used net induced job creation in the region as measure of success; outcomes varied among parks |
|
Research Park Success Indicators |
|||
NAME OF PARK |
LOCATION |
YEAR ESTABLISHED |
DIFFERENCE (%) |
Ada Research Park |
Ada, OK |
1960 |
-0.02 |
Ann Arbor Technology Park |
Ann Arbor, MI |
1983 |
-1.49 |
Arizona State University Research Park |
Tempe, AZ |
1984 |
-0.17 |
Carolina Research Park |
Columbia, SC |
1983 |
-0.16 |
Central Florida Research Park |
Orlando, FL |
1979 |
0.72 |
Charleston Research Park |
Charleston, SC |
1984 |
-1.20 |
Chicago Technology Park |
Chicago, IL |
1984 |
1.65 |
Clemson Research Park |
Clemson, SC |
1984 |
0.38 |
Connecticut Technology Park |
Storrs, CT |
1982 |
3.18 |
Cornell Research Park |
Ithaca, NY |
1951 |
9.48 |
Cummings Research Park |
Huntsville, AL |
1962 |
0.40 |
Engineering Research Center |
Fayetteville, AR |
1980 |
0.02 |
Great Valley Corporate Center |
Malvern, PA |
1974 |
0.08 |
Innovation Center and Research Park |
Athens, OH |
1978 |
1.94 |
Interstate Business Park |
Tampa, FL |
1983 |
-1.05 |
Johns Hopkins University Research Park |
Baltimore, MD |
1984 |
-0.64 |
Langley Research & Development Park |
Newport News, VA |
1966 |
-8.80 |
Maryland Science and Technology Center |
Adelphi, MD |
1982 |
1.44 |
Massachusetts Biotechnology Research Park |
Worcester, MA |
1984 |
3.48 |
Miami Valley Research Park |
Kettering, OH |
1981 |
0.11 |
Morgantown Industrial & Research Park |
Morgantown, WV |
1973 |
0.24 |
RTP DIFFERENCE is 4.45; DIFFERENCE is employment growth in park region minus employment growth in control counties after park opens. |
What makes parks "successful?" |
||||||||||||
Regression analysis of 70 parks (DIFF on explanatory variables and a hazards model), and case studies of 3 parks (RTP, Stanford, Utah) indicated the following common success factors: |
||||||||||||
|
The Research Triangle phenomenon |
|
The Research Triangle phenomenon |
|
RTP has used relatively little government assistance |
The Research Triangle phenomenon |
One out of 4 jobs created in the region between 1959-1990 traced to park (almost 60,000). INCLUDES: |
|
We did not count jobs in businesses that moved to region not to be in park, but because of reputation of region, due to park |
The Research Triangle phenomenon |
|
Spin-offs |
|
Recent research identified a total of 32 high-technology spin-offs from North Carolina universities between 1972 and 1997. Sixteen of those taken place since 1991, implying a considerable increase in spin-off activity in recent years, though trend is difficult to assess since older spin-offs are more difficult to identify. Unsurprisingly, the state's three largest research universities, UNC-CH, Duke, and NCSU, generated almost all the spin-offs, and most were located in the Research Triangle area. Spin-off/start-up activity from industry comes from high-level scientists and engineers let go in restructuring. . . having severance, pensions, savings, and real estate to use as seed capital |
S&T parks worldwide |
|
Sample of S&T parks elsewhere: |
|
|
|
These countries differ widely in their levels of economic development |
Principles: Knowledge Along the Economic Development Continuum |
|
Policy: Services Along the Economic Development Continuum |
|
Lessons for Sandia |
|