SEGUROS PARA HORTALIZAS, FLORES Y ORNAMENTALES

During the data collection process a number of distinguishing characteristics of the firms were observed. These factors were the firms’ stage of development and age and on entry into the incubator; the type of product they produced; the location of their head office; the

governance and investment structure; the background of the interview participant; the firms’

duration in the incubator; and the number of employees. Also included were factors affecting the firms’ relationship with the incubators, namely their level of interaction with the

incubator advisor, and with other firms in the incubator.

The data is presented in two tables: Tables 23 and 24. In Table 23 the firms are ordered according to the number of provisions that they had used; in Table 24 the firms are ordered according to the number of strategy developments they made due to the incubators’

influence. Provision awareness and use, and strategy developments are analysed separately as firms that use more provisions may not correspondingly make more strategy developments.

The purpose of these two tables is to identify if there are any patterns in the data.

Table 22

Key to Characteristics of Firms

Stage of development on entry (Strand 3) Type of product (Strand 3) Location of head office (Strand 2) Governance structure (Strand 2) External investment (Strand 3) Background of participant (Strand 3) Age of firm before entering incubator (Strand three) Duration in incubator (Strand 2) Number of people employed (Strand 2) Level of interaction with advisor (Strand 2) Level of interaction with other firms (Strand 2)

Concept only Physical, low technology In incubator None, just founder/s None Technical <6 months <6 months 1 Almost daily Almost daily

Prototype developed Physical, high technology At the home of the founder Advisory board Friends and family Industry that firm is in 6–12 months 6–12 months 2–4 Several times a month Several times a month

Trading Information communica- tion technology In a separate office Board of directors Independent investors Business related 1–2 years 1–2 years 5+ Once a month or less Once a month or less

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Other > 2 years > 2 years N/A Never Never

137: Findings and analysis – Firm-specific factors

Table 22 shows how the data for each factor were grouped. Some of the data were

categorical, for example, the location of the firms’ head office was either in the incubator, at the home of the founder, or in a separate office. Other factors which were analysed consisted of interval data, for example, duration in the incubator. Table 22 is the key and it shows how these types of groupings are represented as either distinct colours or gradations of colours to illustrate the measures within each category. This approach enabled easy visual identification of the extent to which the factor occurred.

138: Findings and analysis – Firm-specific factors

6.2.1 Firms ordered by provision-usage rates Table 23

Characteristics of Firms’ Ordered by Number of Provisions Used (Note. The firms that used provisions the most are at the top of the table.)

Firm

head office Governance

structure External

139: Findings and analysis – Firm-specific factors

The purpose of Table 23 is to establish whether the firm-specific factors are related to the firms’ usage levels of provisions.

Some minor patterns were noticed based on the colour gradations and these served as triggers for the need to do further analysis on certain firm-specific factors. Firms that had external governance and external investment used slightly more provisions as evident in the lighter colour being more apparent at the top. No relationships were observed between the number of people employed in the firms, the stage of development on entry into the incubator, or the background of the interview participants, and the number of provisions used. It could have been expected that interview participants that were from a business, as opposed to a technical or industry background, would have used fewer incubator provisions because of their prior knowledge and experience, but this did not appear to be the case.

Firms that were older on entry into the incubator, that had spent longer in the incubator, and that had greater levels of interaction with their advisors and with other firms, used slightly more provisions. However some of these relationships could be expected, as they relate to proximity and duration, that is, the more time you spend, and the physically closer you are to something, the more likely you may be to interact with it. No patterns were apparent when comparing the type of product with the provision usage rates, but firms with low-technology products (LTFs) appeared to have lower usage rates of provisions. This may be because the four firms in question had all been in their respective incubators for only about four months.

There appeared to be no notable relationship between a firm’s development stage on entry and the number of provisions used.

In summary, several patterns were apparent when comparing the firm-specific factors and the usage rates of provisions. Notably the governance and investment structure of the firm, and the duration-related factors (firms’ age before entry and duration in incubator) appeared to be somewhat related to higher usage rates of provisions.

6.2.2 Firms ordered by number of strategy developments

In Table 24 the firms are ordered according to the levels of strategy development that were influenced by the incubator, with the firms with the highest number of instances at the top.

Like the analysis of the usage of provisions in Table 23, some interesting patterns were apparent when analysing the firm-specific factors.

140: Findings and analysis – Firm-specific factors

Firms with information-technology related products (ITFs) underwent noticeably more strategy developments that were influenced by incubators than firms with high-technology products (HTFs). However, as explained earlier, there were no notable differences in provision usage for these two groups, apart from the ITFs having a higher number provisions that they only knew about and had not used.

Firms that were older on entry into the incubator and that had been in it for a longer time underwent slightly more strategy developments, a similar result to the usage of provisions, as discussed earlier. However the firms’ stage of development on entry did not appear to be related to their level of strategy development. Firms that had both an external governance structure and external investment appeared slightly less likely to undergo strategy

developments as a consequence of incubator influence.

Minor patterns were observed regarding the number of strategy developments and the number of people employed and the background of the interview participant. The

participants whose backgrounds were from specific industries, that is, not from a technical or business background, appeared to undergo marginally higher levels of strategy developments.

The location of the head office did not seem to have any bearing on the number of strategy developments occurring as a result of the incubators’ influence. However firms which had their head offices in the incubator used a greater number of provisions. A possible reason for this anomaly is that firms which have head offices outside of the incubator may use

provisions in a more considered manner, and avoid using provisions just because they are more readily accessible due to their closer proximity. Firms that interacted with their incubator advisor once a month or less had marginally fewer strategy developments.

Similar to the provision usage rates, patterns were apparent when analysing the firm-specific factors and the number of strategy developments that were made due to the incubators’

influence. These were most apparent in the type of product and, to a lesser extent, the duration that the firm had been in the incubator and their governance structure.

141: Findings and analysis – Firm-specific factors

Table 24

Characteristics of Firms Ordered by the Number of Strategy Developments Made (Note. The firms that made the most strategy developments are at the top of the table.)

Firm Number of

142: Findings and analysis – Firm-specific factors