Faces Journal 2020

PROPOSTA DE MODELO BALANCED SCORECARD PARA
PARQUES TECNOLÓGICOS
A BALANCED SCORECARD MODEL PROPOSAL FOR SCIENCE PARKS
Juliane de Almeida Ribeiro Marcelo Bronzo Ladeira

Instituto Federal de Minas Gerais (Ouro Preto) – Brasil. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – Brasil.
juliane.ribeiro@ifmg.edu.br marcelobronzo@face.ufmg.br
Adriana Ferreira de Faria Submissão: 21/08/2019. Aceitação: 06/11/2019.

Universidade Federal de Viçosa – Brasil. Publicação: 30/12/ 2019. Sistema de avaliação: Double
adrianaf@ufv.br
blind review. Universidade FUMEC / FACE, Belo Horizon-
te - MG, Brasil. Editores Prof. Dr. Mário Teixeira Reis Neto
Kenyth Alves de Freitas
Fundação Getúlio Vargas (São Paulo) – Brasil. – Prof. Dr Cid Gonçalves Filho
kenyth.freitas@gmail.com
RESUMO
Os parques tecnológicos se espalharam pelo mundo como mecanismos para

promover a inovação, a transferência de tecnologia, a troca de conhecimen-
to, a geração de empregos qualificados e o desenvolvimento socioeconômico.
No entanto, um desafio é o desenvolvimento de sistemas de gerenciamento
de desempenho mais detalhados, demonstrando resultados e oportunidades
de melhoria. Esta pesquisa propõe um modelo de gestão de desempenho de
parques tecnológicos, utilizando como referência a ferramenta de gestão Ba-
lanced Scorecard. Na elaboração deste modelo, um estudo de caso múltiplo foi
elaborado em três parques brasileiros. A justificativa para o desenvolvimento
desse modelo é a necessidade de criação e aprimoramento de uma ferramenta
de gestão que seja referência para os gestores e os stakeholders. Dessa forma,
espera-se que o modelo ajude os envolvidos a entender os objetivos estraté-
gicos e os indicadores de desempenho comuns a esses empreendimentos. Essa
pesquisa contribui em estender uma solução conhecida para novos problemas,
e os resultados podem ser aplicados em diversos parque tecnológicos.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Parques tecnológicos. Fatores críticos de sucesso. Gestão de desempenho. Ba-

lanced scorecard. Mapa estratégico.
JULIANE DE ALMEIDA RIBEIRO, ADRIANA FERREIRA DE FARIA, KENYTH ALVES DE FREITAS, MARCELO BRONZO LADEIRA
ABSTRACT
Science parks have spread throughout the world as mechanisms to promote innova-
tion, technology transfer, knowledge exchange, generation of skilled employment and
socioeconomic development. Nevertheless, a current challenge for a venture is the de-
velopment of more detailed performance management system, representing the major
stakeholders, demonstrating results and indicating opportunities for improvement. To
contribute to fulfilling this gap, this work proposes a model for performance manage-
ment of science parks, using the management tool Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as a ref-
erence. In drawing up this model, a multiple case study was designed in three Brazilian
science parks in operation. The justification for the development of this model is the
need for the creation and improvement of a management tool that is a reference for
science parks’ managers and stakeholders.Thereby, it is expected that the model helps
managers understand the strategic goals and performance indicators common to these
ventures.The research contributions by extending known solutions to new problems and
the results could be applied in several science parks.
KEYWORDS
Science parks. Critical success factors. Performance management. Balanced scorecard.

Strategic map.
INTRODUCTION versities and companies. By facilitating the

In an increasingly knowledge-based econo- communication between companies, en-
my, science parks have emerged as promising trepreneurs, and technicians, they provide
mechanisms to promote sustainable develop- an environment that enhances a culture of
ment through innovation. Based on the Triple innovation, creativity, and quality.
Helix model of university-industry-govern- However, issues concerning science
ment interaction (ETZKOWITZ; LEYDES- parks’ governance, such as the alignment
DORFF, 1999; ETZKOWITZ, 2003), these ven- and integration of actors and organizations,
tures act as regional economic development and the evaluation of performance and ac-
catalysts, facilitating the creation and devel- countability, including the proper identifi-
opment of new technology-based companies cation of improvement opportunities, have
and knowledge transfer between universities been discussed more intensively (BIGLIAR-
and businesses (VILÀ; PAGÈS, 2008). DI; DORMIO; NOSELLA; PETRONI, 2006;
According to the International Asso- DABROWSKA, 2011; FERRARA; LAMPER-
ciation of Science Parks and Areas of In- TI; MAVILIA, 2016; MONCK; PETERS,
novation (IASP, 2016), science parks are a 2009). Notably, there is a dearth of studies
highly specialized type of innovation area, that address questions concerning science
that seek to stimulate and manage the flow parks’ governance and a lack of clarity re-
of knowledge and technology between uni- garding the performance measurement
R. Adm. FACES Journal Belo Horizonte v. 18 n. 4 p. 118-135 out./dez. 2019. ISSN 1984-6975 (online). 119
http://dx.doi.org/10.21714/1984-6975FACES2019V18N4ART7232
PROPOSTA DE MODELO BALANCED SCORECARD PARA PARQUES TECNOLÓGICOS
of these organizations (PHAN; SIEGEL; six critical factors for the success of a park
WRIGHT, 2005). were indicated: good convergence between
Consequently, proposals have emerged the scientific basis of the affiliated univer-
for the development of more detailed per- sity and the resident companies; ability to
formance assessment systems that can be help startups in the commercialization pro-
deployed relatively easily and are accepted cesses; access of the tenant enterprises to
by the main stakeholders (ANDREEVNA, capital for investments; priority in provid-
2013; DABROWSKA, 2011; FERNANDES, ing spaces for graduated companies from
2014; RODEIRO-PAZOS; CALVO-BABIO, the business incubator; priority access to
2012). Although, there is no consensus on university resources such as facilities, re-
what is a successful science park and it is searchers and students; formal presence of
particularly difficult to properly compare a business incubator.
these ventures (DABROWSKA, 2011; FER- Regarding the success of the resident
RARA; LAMPERTI; MAVILIA, 2016). companies in the park, the availability and
This paper follows a multiple study case ease of resources acquisition are funda-
design (YIN, 2014) and proposes a model mental (TSAMIS, 2009; KHARABSHEH;
for the performance management of sci- MAGABLEH; ARABIYAT, 2011) and can oc-
ence parks, using the Balanced Scorecard cur in two ways: by governments, inducing
(BSC) reference (KAPLAN; NORTON, specific programs or using their purchase
1997; 2000; 2004). Furthermore, a strategic power, and by the private sector, through
map was prepared, integrating information companies, commercial banks and venture
collected in multiple case study in three Bra- capitalists (VEDOVELLO; JUDICE; MACU-
zilians science parks and a set of theoretical LAN, 2006).
and conceptual performance indicators. By analyzing the literature, other factors
may be considered for the success of a science
CONTEXT AND CIRCUMSTANCES park, such as governance (BIGLIARDI et al.,
UNDER INVESTIGATION 2006; CHIOCHETTA, 2010; JÚNIOR; POR-
Critical Success Factors of Science TO; PACÍFICO; JÚNIOR, 2015; KHARAB-
Parks SHEH, 2012; KHARABSHEH; MAGABLEH;
In recent years, several Brazilian cities ARABIYAT, 2011; PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT,
have expressed interest in installing sci- 2005); geographic location (LINK; SCOTT,
ence parks to develop skills of universi- 2003; VEDOVELLO, 1997); infrastructure
ties and local companies, stimulating the (GARGIONE; PLONSKI; LOURENÇÃO,
development of their regions (Associação 2005; VEDOVELLO; JUDICE; MACULAN,
Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Em- 2006); innovation capacity and entrepreneur-
preendimentos Inovadores - ANPROTEC, ial culture in the region (SAUBLENS, 2007;
2019). However, as these ventures demand KHARABSHEH, 2012); qualified manage-
high public investment and the available re- ment team (KHARABSHEH, 2012; KHAR-
sources are limited, it is essential to estab- ABSHEH; MAGABLEH; ARABIYAT, 2011);
lish parameters to assess their feasibility. presence of anchor company (WASIM, 2014);
In a study conducted by the Association network for learning (HANSSON; HUSTED;
of University Research Parks (AURP, 2013), VESTERGAARD, 2005).
120 R. Adm. FACES Journal Belo Horizonte v. 18 n. 4 p. 118-135 out./dez. 2019. ISSN 1984-6975 (online).
Besides, several external aspects related parks arose due to the expansion of the
to cultural, political, economic and social concept and the creation of new parks. It
issues can also be highlighted. This environ- is about a real demand and can be under-
mental factor (environment) influences the stood as a consequence of the mechanism
degree of development and the viability of maturing as a policy to foster technological
the parks, and its interference can be seen in entrepreneurship.The performance assess-
the definition of priorities, the institutional ment can contribute to the identification of
structure in relation to technology trans- best practices that enhance these ventures’
fer, cooperation and entrepreneurship, the competitiveness, and also provide support
availability of resources to attract compa- for the development of the science park
nies to the park and the domestic market model and/or objectives, rectifying any
which supports the growth of small tech- shortcomings (FERRARA; LAMPERTI; MA-
nology-based companies (TSAMIS, 2009). VILIA, 2016).
Recent studies have used the Balanced
Science Parks’ Performance Scorecard as a theoretical framework to
Evaluation propose a more consistent approach for
Although science parks are nowadays managing science parks’ performance (AN-
largely regarded as key elements of the re- DREEVNA, 2013; DABROWSKA, 2011;
search-based regional development policy RODEIRO-PAZOS; CALVO-BABIO, 2012).
(SAUBLENS et al., 2007), evaluating their In these studies, contributions are point-
performance is a complex task (FERR- ed at the subject, especially in suggesting
ARA; LAMPERTI; MAVILIA, 2016), charac- performance dimensions and indicators for
terized by the proposition of approaches measuring these ventures’ effectiveness.
that cannot be generalized (BIGLIARDI However, greater depth investigations are
et al., 2006; DABROWSKA, 2011; PHAN; necessary to explore the Strategic Map
SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005; VEDOVELLO; JU- and the Balanced Scorecard potential as
DICE; MACULAN, 2006). Even though suc- integrated tools for the strategic manage-
cess stories can be highlighted, there is no ment of science parks.
agreement on a systematic approach to un-
derstand the science parks and identify the Balanced Scorecard and
nature of their performance (DABROWS- Strategic Maps
KA, 2011; PHAN; SIEGEL; WRIGHT, 2005; The Balanced Scorecard promoted and
RATINHO; HENRIQUES, 2010). Besides, integrated important aspects related to val-
a lack of a clear and shared taxonomy, ue creation for organizations, such as the
which distinguishes between science parks human capital, the critical internal processes
and different structures, and the scarcity and the value proposition for customers or
of available data concerning real ventures the target audience, which would be intrinsi-
make the plain understanding of the phe- cally related to the achievement of financial
nomena even more difficult (GUY, 1996; results and the fulfillment of the proposed
FERRARA; LAMPERTI; MAVILIA, 2016). mission (KAPLAN; NORTON, 1997).
According to Fernandes (2014), the Its name was chosen because the model
need to assess the effectiveness of science reflected the balance between short- and
long-term objectives, financial and non- trends that will impact on the target audi-
financial measures, lead and lag indicators ence and financial results.
and internal and external perspectives of Based on the BSC, the learning and
performance. This way, the BSC proposes growth perspective is responsible for defin-
the integration of objectives, indicators, ing the most important intangible assets for
targets, and initiatives in four interrelated strategy. The objectives in this perspective
categories of performance: financial, cus- identify which jobs (human capital), systems
tomer, internal processes, and learning and (information capital) and type of climate (or-
growth (KAPLAN; NORTON, 1997). ganizational capital) are needed to support
The financial perspective is respon- the internal processes of value creation.
sible for defining the expected financial These assets must be connected certainly
performance of the strategy and to pro- with each other and aligned with the critical
vide the main targets for the objectives internal processes (KAPLAN; NORTON,
and measures of all other perspectives 2004). Furthermore, “the improvements
of the scorecard. Financial performance in the results of learning and growth are
measures strategy tangible results, which trend indicators for the internal processes,
show whether the organization is head- customers and financial performance” (KA-
ing for success. Two main themes guide PLAN; NORTON, 2004, p. 7).
this perspective: revenue growth and The BSC has been improved and has be-
increased productivity (KAPLAN; NOR- come complemented by a management tool
TON, 2004). called “Strategy Map”, used to describe the
According to BSC subjacent logic, im- strategy through goals interconnected in
proved financial performance is closely relat- cause and effect relationships in the four
ed to the success in meeting customer desires perspectives (KAPLAN; NORTON, 2004).
and needs. Thus, it is necessary to carefully The strategy map provides further details
establish the organization’s value proposition, about each perspective, improving the strat-
which will clarify the context for intangible egy’s clarity and focus.The internal processes
assets and internal processes to create value. perspective, for example, became to present
The success of the customer’s perspective four strategic groups of activities, and the
can be measured by results indicators such as customer perspective, to present more pa-
satisfaction, customer retention, and growth rameters related to attributes of products
of success with customers. and services, relationships and image.
While the financial and client perspec-
tives describe the expected results of the DIAGNOSIS OF THE PROBLEM
strategy implementation (constitute the SITUATION
external sides of performance), the internal Research strategy
processes perspective identifies the critical The research diagnosis was based on
few processes that must exert the greatest a multiple case study. This research strat-
impact on strategy (KAPLAN; NORTON, egy is justified to understand a complex
2004, p. 32). These are the processes that phenomenon that is not very well un-
will create and fulfill the value proposition derstood (MEREDITH; RATURI; AMOA-
for customers and indicate improvement KO-GYAMPAH; KAPLAN, 1989), also that
it is indicated to analyze complex subjects The interviews took place at each sci-
(YIN, 2014). Therefore, this study used ence park researched, after a formal con-
multiple case study to identified in science tact presenting the study, its objectives and
parks’ context the factor that contributes the roadmap of semi-structured questions
most to explain their performance. Ac- (Table 1). As well as the interviews, second-
cording to Barratt, Choi, and Li, (2011) is ary data were collected through direct ob-
possible to increase the research practical servation and institutional documents. This
relevance thought manager experience. triangulation increased the internal validity
of the research findings.
Data collection
To carry out this research, primary and Science parks context
secondary data were collected. Initially, the The parks chosen represent ventures in
literature review on science parks, critical different stages of maturity and regional con-
success factors, performance evaluation, texts, allowing a broader spectrum of analysis
BSC and strategic maps based on the draft- of management practices, important for the
ing of the semi-structured questionnaire construction of reference models. Taking in
covering science parks’ planning and stra- account the parks contexts and cities where
tegic performance management. In the next they are located, respectively, the tecnoPARQ
stage, were held ten semi-structured inter- (Science Park of Viçosa) was opened in 2011,
views with operational and strategic level is the first science park of Minas Gerais state
managers of three science parks in oper- to come into operation. With a total area of
ation in Brazil: tecnoPARQ (Viçosa, Minas 214 hectares, only 40 hectares are intended
Gerais state), BH-TEC (Belo Horizonte, for urbanization and occupancy by technolo-
Minas Gerais state), and Sapiens Parque gy-based companies and centers of research,
(Florianópolis, Santa Catarina state). development, and innovation.
TABLE 1 – Information about the interviewee’s profile
Case Interviewee Code Education level How long in the park
Post-graduated in Occupational Safety
TecnoPARQ coordinator TEC1 Since 2013
Engineering (UFV)
New business manager TEC2 Master in Vegetal Physiology (UFV) From 2011 to 2015
tecnoPARQ Project and engineering manager TEC3 Master in Civil Engineering (UFV) Since 2014
Business assistance manager TEC4 Graduated in Economic Science (UFV) Since 2012
Post-graduated in Business Communica-
Marketing and communication
TEC5 tion, Advertising, and Propaganda (Uni- From 2013 to 2016
manager
viçosa)
International relations and universi- Post-graduated in Strategic Management
TEC6 Since 2014
ty-industry links manager (USP)
Environmental manager TEC7 Graduated in Forest Engineering (UFV) Since 2011
Executive manager BHT1 Master in Production Engineering (UFMG) Since 2003
BH-TEC Ph.D. in Electric Engineering (Texas Uni-
Director President BHT2 Since 2010
versity)
Sapiens Post-graduated in Business Management
Executive manager SAP1 Since 2009
Parque (FGV)
Source:
As an important anchor, tecnoPARQ building potential estimated at 1,3 million

has the Federal University of Viçosa (UFV), square meters. It is housed in an innova-
a reference in teaching and research in the tive ecosystem, with traditional universities
country, especially in agricultural areas. In and research institutes, such as the Federal
2014, tecnoPARQ had 11 resident compa- University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) and
nies, that obtained revenue of about US$ the Foundation Reference Center for In-
1,5 million (www.centev.ufv.br/tecnoparq/ novative Technologies (Fundação CERTI).
pt-br/ accessed in 07 Jan. 2019). Viçosa is a According to information obtained
small town, with about 70.000 inhabitants, from this research, today the park has
a GDP per capita of around US$ 4.891,00 17 tenant companies, which employ 240
and a Human Development Index (HDI) of employees. Over the next two years, it
0,775 (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e is expected that more 35 companies are
Estatística – IBGE, 2019). setting up in the venture. Florianópolis, in
The BH-TEC (Science Park of Belo Hori- turn, is the capital of Santa Catarina state
zonte) has opened in 2012, is the second sci- and has 421.240 inhabitants, a GDP per
ence park in Minas Gerais state to come into capita of around US$ 10.151,00 and an
operation. Located near the Federal University HDI of 0,847 (IBGE, 2019).
of Minas Gerais (UFMG), it has approximately
535.000 m2 of total area. Of these, approxi- Strategic planning and performance
mately 185.000m2 are for the construction management of science parks
of 12 buildings with a building potential esti- For the analysis, the content analysis
mated at 235.241m2 (www.http://bhtec.org. technique was used, more specifically the-
br/ accessed in 25 Jan. 2019). The institutional matic analysis (VAISMORADI; TURUNEN;
building 1 is operating on full occupancy. BONDAS, 2013). In this sense, relat-
Currently, the park has 25 partner compa- ed information from the interviews was
nies, being 18 residents and seven associated grouped and four thematic categories have
but non-residents. In 2014, these companies been formulated, addressing (i) critical suc-
achieved a turnover of US$ 32,63 million, cess factors, (ii) service portfolio, (iii) per-
paid US$ 2,5 million in taxes and employed formance indicators, and (iv) positioning,
120 professionals with a post-graduate de- strategy and strategic objectives of the
gree (www.http://bhtec.org.br/ access in 25 parks. On the following topic, the analysis
Jan. 2019). Belo Horizonte is the capital of and discussion of the results are present-
Minas Gerais, and has a population of about ed. The analysis of the literature and inter-
2.375.151 inhabitants, with a GDP per capi- views based on the drafting of the Refer-
ta of around US$ 10.296,00 and an HDI of ence Model for Performance Management
0,810 (IBGE, 2019). of Science Parks. This model is anchored in
Sapiens Parque (Science Park of Flori- the management tools Strategic Map and
anópolis) was opened in 2006 as a relative Balanced Scorecard and relates objectives
pioneer park in the country. Located in and performance indicators for the strate-
the state capital of Santa Catarina, in the gic management of these ventures.
south of Brazil, it has a total area of ap- Approached the general outline of the
proximately 430 hectares, with a maximum surveyed parks, it is worth remembering
that the data collected from semi-struc- inputs for the elaboration of the science
tured interviews with its managers were parks’ performance management model.
grouped and analyzed in four thematic cat-
egories related to the strategic planning Critical success factors
and performance management of science In contraposition to the high number
parks: (1) critical success factors; (2) ser- of success factors mentioned in the liter-
vices portfolio; (3) results indicators; (4) ature, the park managers simultaneously
positioning, strategy and strategic objec- highlighted only two aspects as critical to
tives. The data analysis enabled the com- the science parks’ performance: (1) physi-
parison between theory and practice and cal space and infrastructure for the estab-
showed the managers’ views on the issues lishment of companies; (2) close knowledge
addressed. The key aspects of the experi- source (strong scientific, technological, re-
ence of those involved were also used as search, and innovation basis).
TABLE 2 – Science parks’ critical success factors

Success factor tecnoPARQ BH-TEC Sapiens References
(AURP, 2013; PARRY, 2006; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
The strong scientific and techno-
X X X SCIENCES, 2009; SAUBLENS et al., 2007; VEDOVEL-
logical base
LO; JUDICE; MACULAN, 2006)
Governance process (stakehold- (CHIOCHETTA, 2010; JÚNIOR et al., 2015; KHARAB-
ers’ alignment and focus and SHEH; MAGABLEH; ARABIYAT, 2011; PHAN; SIEGEL;
decision-making process) WRIGHT, 2005)
(ANGLE TECHNOLOGY, 2003; LINK; SCOTT, 2003;

Physical location X
PARRY, 2006; VEDOVELLO, 1997)
(AURP, 2013; GARGIONE; PLONSKI; LOURENÇÃO,

Infrastructure X X X 2005; PARRY, 2006; VEDOVELLO, 1997; VEDO-
VELLO; JUDICE; MACULAN, 2006)
(KHARABSHEH, 2012; PARRY, 2006; SAUBLENS et

Innovation culture in the region X
al., 2007)
Entrepreneurial culture in the (KHARABSHEH, 2012; PARRY, 2006; SAUBLENS et

X
region al., 2007)
(AURP, 2013; KHARABSHEH, 2012; KHARABSHEH;

Qualified management team X
MAGABLEH; ARABIYAT, 2011; PARRY, 2006)
(ANGLE TECHNOLOGY, 2003; AURP, 2013; GAR-

GIONE; PLONSKI; LOURENÇÃO, 2005; JOHNSON,
Value-added service establishment X
2008; KHARABSHEH; MAGABLEH; ARABIYAT, 2011;
PARRY, 2006; SAUBLENS et al., 2007)
Anchor companies (PARRY, 2006; WASIM, 2014)
(HANSSON; HUSTED; VESTERGAARD, 2005; PAR-

Network X X
RY, 2006; SAUBLENS et al., 2007)
(SAUBLENS et al., 2007; VEDOVELLO; JUDICE; MA-
Government support X X
CULAN, 2006)
Source:
Besides, other relevant aspects men- two indicators as the main results of a sci-
tioned were government support, presence park: innovative products and services
ence, and demand of business, resources, with commercial success and the evolution
the connection of companies with universi- of the tenant companies’ revenues. How-
ties, cooperation between companies, clus- ever, other performance indicators were
tering, qualified management team, with mentioned, such as registration of patents,
market experience, value-added services investments made, internationalization of
for businesses, entrepreneurial culture and companies, joint projects between firms and
decentralized management (Table 2). projects in partnership with universities.
According to the analysis of the inter-
Services portfolio views and considering the literature re-
The range of services offered by science view, it can be said that the main results
parks for tenant companies was evidenced of a science park are concentrated in two
in many ways of support. Among those main categories of performance: scientific
highlighted are the support for raising in- and technological development and so-
stitutional funds or investors, supporting cio-economic development, as shown in
the development of projects, events pro- Table 4. On the first, it can be seen aspects
motion, and legal advice. related to innovations in products and ser-
Notably, an aspect of the services port- vices and the creation of new businesses
folio was simultaneously emphasized by all and technology-based companies through
the park managers: the networking with applied research. On the second, there are
universities, other companies, and institu- indicators such as job creation, taxes, and
tional partners.This observation reinforces income linked to the development and per-
the importance of institutional cooperation formance of the business from the park.
between university-industry-government
for the parks’ success, consolidating the Positioning, strategy and strategic
triple-helix concept (Table 3). objectives
Each park has its vision of future and
Results indicators hopes to see in it more clearly defined its
In this category of analysis, managers business focus: the tecnoPARQ wants to
were again highlighting simultaneously only specialize in all the extensive animal and hu-
TABLE 3 – High value-added services provided by science parks

High value-added services tecnoPARQ BH-TEC Sapiens References
Support in the development of joint projects X X X (ANGLE TECHNOLO-
Attraction and selection of companies with high innovative GY, 2003; AURP, 2013;
potential GARGIONE; PLONSKI;
Prospecting and attracting anchor companies LOURENÇÃO, 2005;
Promoting and supporting the university-company interaction X X X JOHNSON, 2008; KHAR-
Facilitating access to laboratories and research facilities ABSHEH; MAGABLEH;
Establishing interaction with research groups and researchers X X X ARABIYAT, 2011; PAR-
Networking promotion (internal and external) X X X RY, 2006; SAUBLENS et
Support access to the investors and funding X X al., 2007)
TABLE 4 – Science parks’ results indicators

Results indicators
Results indicators tecnoPARQ BH-TEC Sapiens References
deployed
Patents X
Innovative products X X X
Joint projects X X
Creation of start-up and
Scientific and X (ANGLE TECHNOLOGY,
spin-off
Technological 2003; BIGLIARDI et al., 2006;
development Establishment of R&D DABROWSKA, 2011; FER-
projects financed with NANDES, 2014; FERRARA;
public or private re- LAMPERTI; MAVILIA, 2016; RO-
sources DEIRO-PAZOS; CALVIO-BABIO,
X
Strengthening of the 2012; VEDOVELLO; JUDICE;
X X X MACULAN, 2006)
local economy
Companies revenues X X
Creation of new busi-
Socioeconomic X
ness
development
Job creation X X X
Taxes X X
Attracting both public
and private investments
man biotechnology chain; the BH-TEC aims of value-added services to enterprises, to

to focus on the sectors of biotechnology overcome the difficulties of the geograph-
and information technology; and Sapiens ical location. In this sense, the park seeks
Parque seeks to stand out in the clusters of competitiveness through “a qualified team
information technology, creative economy, and a present follow-up, giving support to
sustainable energy, and life sciences, focusing companies and trying to minimize prob-
on the development of drugs. lems that may arise” (TEC1).
Regarding the parks’ development strat- BH-TEC seeks to create the brand of
egies, which involve their value propositions a science park that promotes econom-
for the tenant companies, there is a com- ic development guided by the innovation
mon concern for promoting competitive- and development of borderline products.
ness through the services offered by the This way, its strategy is “the selection of
parks. In this sense, some interesting views academic spin-offs, of relevant technology
are: “we focus a lot on the maturity of these companies, at least to the regional sce-
value-added services that we provide to nario, together with the establishment of
companies” (TEC1), “we have a great bat- technology centers and laboratories that
tle in this, to create value for companies” are anchors for the development of other
(BHT2), and “we become more competitive ventures.” (BHT1)
by offering a better service” (SAP1). By its turn, the Sapiens Parque emphasiz-
More specifically, each venture establish- es the strengthening of the university-indus-
es its development strategy. In tecnoPARQ, try cooperation, understanding that applied
great emphasis is placed on the maturation research and technology transfer is essential
for the park success. Emphasizing collabora- ing and growth perspective, Internal process
tion between innovation actors (firms and perspective, Tenant companies’ perspective,
universities), “the main strategy of the park Technical and scientific perspective, and Sus-
is the creation of clusters for the generation tainable development perspective, as shown
of products, services, networking and con- in Table 5. The adoption and definition of
nections seeking competitiveness” (SAP1). these perspectives were made considering
Regarding the strategic objectives, com- the science parks’ success factors, the ser-
mon features were also found. All parks vices portfolio (value-added services usually
highlighted the importance of the physical offered to companies), and the most com-
space settlement, by attracting more tech- mon performance measures and strategic
nology-based firms, anchor companies, and objectives of science parks, according to the
centers of technology or research.Another literature and the analysis of the cases.
obvious difficulty is the need for expansion From the definition of perspectives, as
and improvement of infrastructure since all shown in Table 5, and considering their re-
surveyed parks require more investments lationship with critical success factors (Table
and greater agility in the works of urban- 2), high value-added services (Table 3) and re-
ization and structuring of physical space. sults indicators (Table 4), it was proposed the
performance management model of science
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION parks in Figure 1.The management model in-
ANALYSIS AND BALANCED tegrates performance perspectives, strategic
SCORECARDS MODEL PROPOSAL goals and performance indicators in a strate-
As a reference model, the strategic map gic map and a BSC for science parks.
that integrates the strategic objectives and The model perspectives are entwined
performance indicators based on the BSC systematically, through cause and effect
in the context of science parks, proposed relationships, and represent internal and
here, needs to be adapted by managers to external dimensions of performance, con-
the environment in which it will be applied, sidered strategic in the context of science
taking into consideration the specificities parks. As seen in the literature review, the
of the park and its boundary conditions. As Strategic Map and the Balanced Scorecard
a planning and management tool, the model are complementary tools, since the Strate-
can be used by science parks in different gic Map aims to describe the strategy, while
stages of development (planning, installa- the BSC aims to measure the strategy.
tion, and operation) and by ventures in op- As shown in the model, the sustainable
eration as a performance evaluation tool. development perspective goes beyond the
In this sense, the model can contribute to traditional measures of financial and inno-
the building of a park strategic system of vation performance expected by most ven-
performance management that promotes tures. It reflects a dimension of the park val-
alignment and focus of its strategic policies ue to the stakeholders and society or the
and actions with its mission and goals. fulfillment of the park mission as a local and
In the proposed theoretical-conceptual regional development vector. The sustain-
model, the original four dimensions of BSC able development perspective is responsible
are established in the following way: Learn- for defining the expected performance of
TABLE 5 – Perspectives’ definition for the science parks’ performance management model
Perspective Perspective definition Elements considered for performance management
- The strong scientific and technological base
Learning and Growth - Entrepreneurial culture in the region
- Innovation culture in the region
- Robust regional economy
It is a perspective that con- - Effective leadership actuation (park managers and other stakeholders)
siders the environmental - Presence of a business incubator
conditions under which the - Qualification of entrepreneurs
park can have an influence - Ability to attract and retain talent
and that systematically can - Work in strategic and effective network
What are the boundary con- impact its success. - Governance processes (stakeholders’ alignment and focus and
ditions that may influence the decision-making process)
structure and the performance - Government support
of the park? - Qualified park management team (with technical and market
knowledge)
- Management model appropriated to the park features
Internal Processes It is an internal perspec-
- Establishment of value-added services
tive of performance relat-
- Support in the development of joint projects
ed to high-value services
- Attraction and selection of companies with high innovative potential
offered, which depend on
- Prospecting and attracting anchor companies
What are the processes, ser- the planning and the ma-
- Promoting the university-company interaction
vices, and actions that the park turity of the park, and that
- Promoting partnership networks and networking (internal and
can establish and execute to impact business perfor-
external)
promote the company’s performance, consequently the
- Communication and marketing plan
mance? success of the park.
- The reputation of the park, nationally and internationally
- Support to the university-company interaction
- Access to university laboratories and research facilities
Tenant Companies
- Interaction with research groups and researchers (assistance and
It is an external perspec-
consulting, knowledge transfer, spin-offs creation)
tive of performance that
- The availability of value-added services (assistance, training, and
reflects the conditions that
qualifications)
What are the aspects of the the park should offer to
- The reputation of the park
value proposition offered by promote technological in-
- Interaction between the park companies
the park that can impact the novation and business ac-
- Networking with key players (large companies, HEIs, international
performance of companies tivities, and consequently
science parks)
and, therefore, the success of their competitiveness.
- Access to the investors and funding
the park?
- Excellent physical infrastructure
- Promotion of internationalization actions
- Support for the creation of technology centers of the latest

generation
Techno-scientific - Models for the development of spin-offs and startups
It is an external perspec-
- Interaction with the business incubator
tive of performance, that
- Agreements and joint projects with universities
the park can influence
- Establishment of R, D&I projects financed by public or private
through the promotion and
What are the actions that the resources
strengthening of the uni-
park can perform to contribute - Support in the injection of resources for the university
versity-company relation-
to the construction of entrepre- - Stimulating scientific and technical production as a business
ship, which reflects in the
neurial universities and with performance measure
scientific and technological
scientific and technological de- - Stimulating intellectual property generation as a business
development.
velopment? performance measure
- Stimulating the generation of products and services that present
commercial success as a business performance measure
Perspective Perspective definition Elements considered for performance management

It is an external perspective - Attracting innovative companies to the region
Sustainable Development
of performance, which re- - Attracting large companies to the region
flects the perceived value - Creation and consolidation of technology-based companies
of the park by society and - Strengthening and diversification of the local economy through
stakeholders, according to innovation (income, jobs and taxes generation)
What are the park guidelines,
the park’s performance in - Attracting public and private investments
which unfolded in goals, can
the dimensions of sustain- - Insertion/participation of the local community in activities develo-
contribute to the sustainable
able development of the ped by the park (workshops, lectures, and courses)
development of the region?
region. - Integrated actions for sustainable development
Source:
FIGURE 1 – Reference model for performance management of science parks
the park’s strategy and provides the neces- gible results of the strategy, which show
sary outcomes for planning major strategic whether the science park is heading for
objectives and measures of all other per- success. For science parks, the ultimate cri-
spectives of the scorecard. In this context, teria of success are not the financial per-
four main axes guide this perspective: social, formance of the park itself or the creation
economic, financial and environmental. of sustainable value for resident compa-
The performance of the sustainable de- nies, but the performance in fulfilling its
velopment perspective measures the tan- mission. Thus, the success of a science park
cannot be measured exclusively by the per- From the perspective of this model, the
formance of resident companies. But this is BSC customers dimension is represented
a very important metric for local and re- by the tenant companies, which are the
gional economic development. “real basic cell of the ecosystem, for being
Considering the logic of the BSC pro- the organizations effectively responsible for
posed for the model, the success of a science the introduction of solutions or new prod-
park is also related to the performance re- ucts or services in the market successful-
sults of the tenant companies and research ly” (FIATES, 2014, p. 80). The success of the
and education institutions involved more di- tenant companies’ perspective is measured
rectly with the science park (techno-scientif- by performance indicators unfolded on
ic perspective). If on one hand, companies, two main axes: competitiveness and value.
by definition, are the agents of innovation, It is understood that the competitiveness
the excellent scientific and technological of resident companies will be achieved
basis is responsible, in large part, for pro- through the intensity of technological inno-
viding the knowledge and the necessary re- vation and business development. The val-
sources to the development of research and ue, or the value proposition, consists of the
development projects, the raw material for solutions that businesses receive from the
innovation.The park management, in turn, is park, which added to the access to financ-
responsible for much of the interaction ini- ing and quality of infrastructure, can con-
tiatives between the innovation actors and tribute to improving their performance.
among stakeholders in general. In the model, Following the BSC logic, the perspec-
the performance of the park management is tives of sustainable development, scientific
contemplated in the Internal Processes and and technological development and tenant
Learning and Growth perspectives. companies are external dimensions of the
The presence of a strong scientific and park performance, which measure the ex-
technological base is seen as a sine qua non pected results of the implementation of the
condition for the establishment of a science venture mission. For its part, the perspective
park. But only the geographical proximity of internal processes shows the work that
does not guarantee a strong relationship the park must take to fulfill its mission, con-
between university-company type (LINK; sidering the processes that will create the
SCOTT, 2003; SIEGEL; WALDMAN; LINK, value proposition for the tenant companies.
2003; VEDOVELLO, 1997). Therefore, the Thus, the internal processes perspective
park must establish strategic objectives and the learning and growth perspective
to strongly influence this performance have been established to ensure the offer-
perspective, considering the context of ing of the park’s value proposition for tenant
scientific and technological development companies. The perspective of internal pro-
and the promotion of the entrepreneurial cesses is planned considering the need of
university.Thus, the technical-scientific per- providing value-added services to tenant
spective has four areas: university-business companies and therefore considers four
relationship, creation of spin-offs, research, strategic themes: technological partnerships,
development and innovation institutions business base, facilities, and communication.
(R, D&I) projects and intellectual property. The learning and growth perspective,
based on BSC, represents the intangible process, with the definition of activities and
assets (like competences and skills) that responsibilities for all involved.
enable the creation and development of
a science park and that are, therefore, re- CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL
quired to support the internal processes CONTRIBUTIONS
of value creation. The learning and growth The purpose of this paper is proposing a
perspective have four main areas: scientific model for the performance management of
and technological base, leadership, culture, science parks, using the Balanced Scorecard
and governance. These intangible assets are reference (KAPLAN; NORTON, 1997; 2000;
interconnected and the outcome indicators 2004). Traditionally in the literature, the per-
of the strategic objectives of this perspective formance of science parks has been evaluated
should be considered in the planning of the through the performance of resident compa-
axes of the internal processes’ perspective. nies. However, research on the importance
The strategic objectives proposed for the of the science parks for the improvement of
model represent short- and long-term goals, tenant companies performance (LÖFSTEN;
leading to the park the establishment of tar- LINDELÖF, 2002; SIEGEL; WESTHEAD;
gets for the proposed indicators, according to WRIGHT, 2003A; SIEGEL; WESTHEAD;
the corresponding performance perspective WRIGHT, 2003b) and the relationships be-
and strategic planning. Setting goals for the tween companies and universities (LINK;
indicators associated with different strategic SCOTT, 2003; SIEGEL; WALDMAN; LINK,
objectives mean defining clearly and reliably, 2003; VEDOVELLO, 1997) had shown in-
the performance level or the rate of improve- conclusive results (BAKOUROS; MARDAS;
ment needed. Obviously, for each proposed VARSAKELIS, 2002; DABROWSKA, 2011;
strategic objective it should be developed a HELMERS, 2011; MONCK; PETERS, 2009;
plan of action, addressing operational actions, SCHMIDT; BALESTRIN, 2015).
budgets, and specifications of how to achieve Another difficulty associated with the
the goals. In turn, the performance indicators generalization of the results of science
refer to measures to assess whether the stra- parks’ performance evaluation, considering
tegic objective of the proposed perspective is only the context of resident companies or
being achieved or not. As a reference model, the university-industry relationship, is asso-
objectives and indicators can also vary over ciated with the fact that the park has many
time according to the maturity of the park. stakeholders with different institutional
The proposed performance management missions. The science parks “serve many
model of parks is not limited, therefore, to masters with different interests and expec-
measure only the performance of the sci- tations” (HANSSON; HUSTED; VESTER-
ence park. It is, in essence, a path for park GAARD, 2005, p. 1040) and to manage all of
managers so that they can establish a stra- these interests is a complex task (JÚNIOR
tegic management system capable of pro- et al., 2015). By observing this evidence, the
moting alignment and focus, considering the proposed management model tried to in-
different interests of stakeholders and the clude the contributions and expectations of
mission of the park.This path means that the key stakeholders: park management team,
park should make the strategy a continuous tenant companies, university, and society.
Many parks and their managers are re- (iv) Improvement of feedback and stra-
sistant to performance evaluation, in part tegic learning.
because they are concerned about the Thus, the reference model established
consequences of a bad evaluation by its here is intended to be a management tool
stakeholders and on the other hand be- that enables managers and park stakehold-
cause they consider that the assessment ers to conduct the planning and the actions
can be a costly and time-consuming pro- for the future of the park, in a systemic and
cess that adds extra demands on their re- integrated manner. In the opinion of the au-
sponsibilities and can distract them from thors, this aspect makes this work unique
their main management objectives (MON- in the literature.A second aspect differenti-
CK; PETERS, 2009). However, science parks ating the work is the proposition of perfor-
have been traditionally financed with pub- mance perspectives, according to the BSC,
lic funds (DABROWSKA, 2011; SIEGEL; considering the success factors, the service
WESTHEAD; WRIGHT, 2003), and, there- portfolio, the performance measures and
fore, despite all the difficulties and implica- the strategic objectives of science parks,
tions, performance needs to be evaluated, based on literature review and the analy-
even as a way to check the directions and sis three representative ventures. Finally,
conduct new public policies. the third aspect of exclusivity is the pre-
Thus, as important as the performance sentation of the Strategic Map for science
evaluation results of science parks, as pre- parks, integrated with strategic objectives
sented in the literature, is the management and performance indicators.
of the performance evaluation process as Despite the issue’s complexity, the pro-
a management tool. Therefore, the model posed reference model sought to present,
of management and performance evalua- in a parsimonious and objective manner,
tion proposed here is not intended to pro- a systemic view of the important aspects
vide a set of unchangeable indicators that for the management of a science park. The
tell if the science park is a success or not. model perspectives are connected consis-
Especially because the concept of success tently and represent internal and external
or failure is relative, and must be evaluated performance dimensions, considered stra-
according to goals and targets set in the tegic in the science parks’ context. It is also
context of each venture. important to say that these performance
In short, the model aims to establish dimensions and indicators are being empir-
an organizational reference framework of ically tested through a survey with resident
the strategic management system, enabling entrepreneurs of various Brazilian science
four critical management processes (KA- parks. Thus, it is understood that the re-
PLAN; NORTON, 1997): sults achieved here can be extended and
(i) Clarification and translation of the refined considering the application and
vision and strategy; model validation in different contexts, as
(ii) Communication and association of well as the in-depth study of the cause and
objectives and strategic indicators; effect relations between the indicators and
(iii) Planning, goal setting, and alignment the dimensions considered in the strategic
of strategic initiatives; map for science parks.
MECANISMOS INTUITIVO E RACIONAL: VALIDAÇÃO DE ESCALA PARA TOMADA DE DECISÃO
REFERÊNCIAS
ANGLE TECHNOLOGY. Evaluation ty-industry-government relations. GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA –
of the past & future economic Social Science Information, v. IBGE. 2019. Available in: <http://
contribution of the UK Sci- 42, n. 3, 293-337, 2003. www.cidades.ibge.gov.br> Ac-
ence Park Movement. Cam- ETZKOWITZ, H.; LEYDESDORFF, L. cess in: 25 fev. 2019.
bridge: United Kingdom Science The future location of research JOHNSON, W. H. Roles, resources
Park Association (UKSPA), 2003. and technology transfer. Journal and benefits of intermediate or-
ANDREEVNA, M. A. The Balanced of Technology Transfer, 24, ganizations supporting triple helix
Scorecard for estimation of sci- 111-123, 1999. collaborative R&D: The case of
ence and technology parks. FERNANDES, S. C. R. Avaliação de Precarn. Technovation, 28, 495-
World Applied Sciences Jour- Parques Tecnológicos: uma 505, 2008.
nal, 25(5), 720-727, 2013. proposta de modelo para JÚNIOR, A. C. P.; PORTO, G. S.;
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSI- parques de 3a geração. (Mas- PACÍFICO, O.; JÚNIOR, A. P. Proj-
TY RESEARCH PARKS. Driv- ter thesis). Instituto COPPEAD ect stakeholder management: a
ing regional innovation and de Administração, Universidade case study of a Brazilian science
growth: the 2012 survey of Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de park. Journal of Technology
North America University Janeiro, 2014. Management & Innovation, v.
Research Parks, 2013. Available FERRARA, M.; LAMPERTI, F.; MAVILIA, 10, n. 2, 39-49, 2015.
in: <https://aurp.memberclicks. R. Looking for best performers: a KAPLAN, R.; NORTON, D. A es-
net/assets/documents/aurp_ pilot study towards the evaluation tratégia em ação: balanced
batelllestudy2012-final.pdf> Ac- of science parks. Scientomet- scorecard. 18. ed. Rio de Janeiro:
cess in: January 10th of 2018. rics, 106, 717-750, 2016. Elsevier, 1997.
BARRATT, M.; CHOI, T.Y.; LI, M. Qual- FIATES, J. E. A. Influência dos Ecos- KAPLAN, R.; NORTON, D. Organi-
itative case studies in operations sistemas de Empreendedoris- zação orientada para estraté-
management: trends, research mo Inovador na Indústria de gia: como as empresas que
outcomes, and future research Venture Capital: Estratégias adotam o Balanced Score-
implications, Journal of Opera- de apoio às Empresas inovado- card prosperam no novo am-
tions Management, v. 29 n. 4, ras. (Doctoral dissertation). Uni- biente de negócios. 8. ed. Rio
329-342, 2011. versidade Federal de Santa Catarina de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2000.
BELLAVISTA, J.; SANZ, L. Science and – Programa de Pós-Graduação em KAPLAN, R.; NORTON, D. Mapas
technology parks: habitats of in- Engenharia e Gestão do Conheci- estratégicos – Balanced
novation: introduction to special mento, Florianópolis, 2014. Scorecard: convertendo ati-
section. Science and Public GARGIONE, L. A.; PLONSKI, G. A.; vos intangíveis em resultados
Policy, 36(7), 499-510, 2009. LOURENÇÃO, P. T. DE M. Fatores tangíveis. 9. ed. Rio de Janeiro:
CHIOCHETTA, J. C. Proposta de Críticos de Sucesso para Mod- Elsevier, 2004.
um modelo de governança elagem de Parques Tecnológicos KHARABSHEH, R. Critical Sucess
para Parques Tecnológicos. Privados no Brasil. Seminário Factors of Technology Parks in
Dissertation (Ph.D. of Engineer- Latino-Iberoamericano de Australia. International Journal
ing). Programa de Pós-Graduação Gestión Tecnológica. Salvador, of Economics and Finance, v.
em Engenharia de Produção, Uni- Brazil, 9, 2005. 4, n. 7, July, 2012.
versidade Federal do Rio Grande GUY, I. A look at Aston Science Park. KHARABSHEH, R.; MAGABLEH, I.
do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2010. Technovation, 16(5), 217-218, K.; ARABIYAT, T. S. Obstacles of
DABROWSKA, J. Measuring the 1996. Success of Technology Parks: the
success of science parks: perfor- HANSSON, F.; HUSTED, K.; VESTER- case of Jordan. International
mance monitoring and evaluation. GAARD, J. Second-generation sci- Journal of Economics and Fi-
World Conference on Sci- ence parks: from structural holes nance, v. 3, n. 6, November, 2011.
ence and Technology Parks, jockeys to social capital catalysts LINK, A. N.; SCOTT, J. T. U. S. Science
Copenhagen, Denmark, 28, 2011. of the knowledge society. Tech- Parks: the diffusion of an inno-
ETZKOWITZ, H. Innovation in inno- novation, v. 25, 1039-1049, 2005. vation and its effects on the ac-
vation:The Triple Helix of universi- INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE ademic missions of universities.
ANNA CECÍLIA CHAVES GOMES, ANDERSON LUIZ REZENDE MÓL, MAYARA CARLA MARQUES
International Journal of In- incubators in converging coun- of their performance and the
dustrial Organization, v. 21, tries: Evidence from Portugal. parameters of success. London:
1323-1356, 2003. Technovation, 30, 278-290, 2010. The London School of Economics
MONCK, C.; PETERS, K. Science parks RODEIRO-PAZOS, D.; CAL- and Political Science, 2009.
as an instrument of regional com- VO-BABIO, N. El rol de los VAISMORADI, M.; TURUNEN, H.;
petitiveness: measuring success parques científico-tecnológicos BONDAS, T. Content analysis and
and impact. World Conference em el empreendimento universi- thematic analysis: Implications for
on Science and Technology tario: propuesta de um catálogo conducting a qualitative descrip-
Parks, Malaga, Spain, 16, 2009. de indicadores de evaluación. Glo- tive study. Nursing & health
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCI- balización, Competitividad Y sciences, 15(3), 398-405, 2013.
ENCES. Understanding Re- Governabilidad, 6(2), 2012. VEDOVELLO, C. Science parks and
search, Science and Tech- SAUBLENS, C. Regional research in- university-industry interaction: geo-
nology Parks: Global Best tensive clusters and science parks. graphical proximity between the
Practice: Report of a Sym- European Comission, 2007. agents as a driving force. Techno-
posium. Washington: National Avalable in: <ec. europa. eu/re- vation, v. 17, n. 9, 491-502, 1997.
Academies Press, 2009. search/regions/pdf/sc\_park. Pdf> VEDOVELLO, C. A.; JUDICE, V. M. M.;
PARRY, M. The planning, develop- Accessed in: 10th January of 2018. MACULAN, A. D. Revisão críti-
ment and operation of science SIEGEL, D. S.; WALDMAN, D.; LINK, ca às abordagens a parques tec-
parks (2. ed.). Cambridge: UK Sci- A. Assessing the impact of organi- nológicos: alternativas interpre-
ence Park Association, 2006. zational practices on the relative tativas às experiências brasileiras
PHAN, P. H.; SIEGEL, D. S.; WRIGHT, productivity of university technol- recentes. Revista de Admin-
M. Science parks and incubators: ogy transfer offices: an explorato- istração e Inovação, v. 3, n. 2,
observations, synthesis and future ry study. Research Policy, v. 32, 103-118, 2006.
research. Journal of Business 27-48, 2003. VILÀ, P.; PAGÈS, J. Science and tech-
Venturing, v. 20, 165-182, 2005. TSAMIS, A. Science and Technolo- nology parks. Creating new envi-
RATINHO, T.; HENRIQUES, E. The gy Parks in the less favored re- ronments favorable to innovation.
role of science parks and business gions of Europe: an evaluation Paradigmes, (0), 141-149, 2008.

Faces Journal 2020

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Faces Journal 2020

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PROPOSTA DE MODELO BALANCED SCORECARD PARA

Juliane de Almeida Ribeiro Marcelo Bronzo Ladeira

Adriana Ferreira de Faria Submissão: 21/08/2019. Aceitação: 06/11/2019.

Os parques tecnológicos se espalharam pelo mundo como mecanismos para

Parques tecnológicos. Fatores críticos de sucesso. Gestão de desempenho. Ba-

Science parks. Critical success factors. Performance management. Balanced scorecard.

INTRODUCTION versities and companies. By facilitating the

As an important anchor, tecnoPARQ building potential estimated at 1,3 million

TABLE 2 – Science parks’ critical success factors

(ANGLE TECHNOLOGY, 2003; LINK; SCOTT, 2003;

(AURP, 2013; GARGIONE; PLONSKI; LOURENÇÃO,

(KHARABSHEH, 2012; PARRY, 2006; SAUBLENS et

Entrepreneurial culture in the (KHARABSHEH, 2012; PARRY, 2006; SAUBLENS et

(AURP, 2013; KHARABSHEH, 2012; KHARABSHEH;

(ANGLE TECHNOLOGY, 2003; AURP, 2013; GAR-

Anchor companies (PARRY, 2006; WASIM, 2014)

(HANSSON; HUSTED; VESTERGAARD, 2005; PAR-

TABLE 3 – High value-added services provided by science parks

TABLE 4 – Science parks’ results indicators

man biotechnology chain; the BH-TEC aims of value-added services to enterprises, to

- Support for the creation of technology centers of the latest

Perspective Perspective definition Elements considered for performance management

FIGURE 1 – Reference model for performance management of science parks

Você também pode gostar