DECLARATION
This Research proposal is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in
any other University.
Signature ………………………….. Date …………………………
Name: Ruth Wanjiru Ruhiu
HD 413-0012/2008
This Research proposal has been submitted for examination with our approval as
University supervisors.
Signature ………………………………. Date …………………….
Name: Dr. P. Karanja Ngugi
JKUAT, Kenya
Signature ……………………………….. Date …………………….
Name: Dr. Gichuhi A. Waititu
JKUAT, Kenya
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank the almighty God for the far He has brought me.
Special thanks go to my research supervisors at JKUAT, Dr. Karanja Ngugi and Dr.
Waititu for their constructive criticism, guidance; knowledge and understanding that
equipped me with direction and motivation of this research proposal. My peer review
group: Lucy, Juliet, and Bancy for advice and sharing to soldier on.
I also acknowledge the importance of the University library NCBD campus for furnishing
me with the adequate reading and research materials with its State of the art computer
and internet systems that was necessary for this undertaking.
ii
DEDICATIONTo
Ephraim
Denver
Jean
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION...........................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...........................................................................................ii
DEDICATION............................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................viii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................ix
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER ONE...........................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................2
1.1 Background information.......................................................................................2
1.2 Statement of the Problem......................................................................................8
1.3 Objectives..............................................................................................................10
1.3.1 General Objective of the Study...........................................................................10
1.3.2 Specific Objectives..............................................................................................10
1.4 Research Questions..............................................................................................11
1.5 Scope of the Study................................................................................................11
1.6 Justification of the Study.....................................................................................12
1.7 Limitations of the Study......................................................................................13
1.8 Definition of Terms..............................................................................................13
CHAPTER TWO.......................................................................................................15
LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................15
2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................15
2.2 Theoretical Review...............................................................................................16
2.2.1 Economic Entrepreneurship Theories.................................................................16
2.2.2. Psychological Entrepreneurship Theories..........................................................18
iv
2.2.3 Sociological Entrepreneurship Theory................................................................21
2.2.4 Resource- Based Entrepreneurship Theories......................................................22
2.3 Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................25
2.4 Operationalization of Variables........................................................................27
2.4.1 Managerial skills.................................................................................................28
2.4.2 Financial resources..............................................................................................30
2.4.3 Infrastructural Resources....................................................................................31
2.4.4 Technological Services.......................................................................................31
2.4.5 Market Linkages..................................................................................................33
2.4.6 Individual Incubatee Characteristics...................................................................35
2.4.7 MSEs Growth......................................................................................................37
2.5 Empirical Review.................................................................................................40
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................46
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................46
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................46
3.2 Research Design...................................................................................................46
3.3 Population.............................................................................................................46
3.4 Sampling Technique.............................................................................................47
3.5 Data Collection Methods.....................................................................................51
3.6 Pilot study.............................................................................................................52
3.8 Data Analysis........................................................................................................53
CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................56
DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.............................................56
4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................56
4.2 Sample Distribution.............................................................................................56
4.2.2 Response Rate.....................................................................................................57
4.3 Incubatees Profile.................................................................................................58v
4.3.1 Gender of incubatees...........................................................................................58
4.3.2 Age of incubatees................................................................................................59
4.3.3 Incubatees Marital Status....................................................................................61
4.3.4 Level of formal Education……………………………………………………………..62
4.3.5 Nature of Business……………………………………………………..………………63
4.3.6 Business Ownership……………………………………………………………………64
4.3.7 Age of Business…………………………………………………………………………65
4.4 Managerial Skills………………………………………………………………………….68
4.5 Assess to Finance …………………………………………………………………………70
4.6 Infrastructural Facilities ……………………………………………………………..……73
4.7 Incubator Technological Services……………………………………………………..…..75
4.8 Incubator Market Linkages ………………………………………………………………77
4.9 Incubatee Characteristics……………………………………………………………..…..79
4.1.0 Incubation Growth Effects………………………………………………………..……81
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………83
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………….93
Appendix 1: Letter of Introduction……………………………………………………93
Appendix 2: Questionnaire……………………………………………………………94
Appendix 3: Budget estimates………………………………………………… ……..103
Appendix 4: Work plan………………………………………………………………. 104
vi
LIST OF FIGURESFigure: 2.1 Conceptual Framework…………..…….…………………………………22
Figure: 2.2 Enterprise lifecycle model…………..…………………………………….31
Figure: 4.3.2 Gender of Incubatees …………………………………………………. 67
Figure: 4.3.5 Nature of Business …………………………………………………….72
Figure: 4.3.6 Business Ownership ………………………………………………….. 73
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Number of persons engaged in the informal sector by Province, 2006-2010 …………………………………….........……….………….2
Table 2.1 Types of Business Development Services ……………………………….25
Table 3.1 Sampling Matrix ………………………………………………………….45
Table 3.2 Sample of the study ……………………………………………………….45
Table: 3.3 Sampling Frame …………………………………………………………. 48
Table: 4.1 Response Rate …………………………………………………………… 65
Table: 4.3.3 Incubatees Marital Status ……………………………………………… 70
Table: 4.3.4 Level of Formal Education …………………………………………….. 71
Table: 4.5 Age of Business ………………………………………………………….. 74
Table: 4.6 Managerial Skills ………………………………………………………… 75
Table: 4.7 Access to Finance ………………………………………………………... 78
Table: 4.8 Infrastructural facilities …………………………………………………... 80
Table: 4.9 Incubator Technological Services ………………………………………... 83
Table: 4.10 Incubator Market Linkages ……………………………………………….85
Table: 4.11 Incubatee Characteristics ……………………………………………….. 87
viii
Table: 4.12 Incubator Growth Effects ……………………………………………….. 89
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BI Business Incubators
BIAK Business Incubation Association of Kenya
DEC Department of Commerce
DFID Department For International Development
GoK Government of Kenya
InfoDev Information for Development program
KIRDI Kenya Industrial Research Development Institute
LDC’s Less Developed Countries
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MSEs Micro and Small Enterprises
ix
NBIA National Business Incubation Association
TBIs Technology Business Incubators
SBA Small Business Administration
SE’s Small Businesses
SSE Small Scale Enterprises
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
RoK Republic of Kenya
USA United States of America
ABSTRACT
Micro and Small businesses are key players in Kenya’s economy. Historically, the
research focus has been on small businesses that failed rather than those which have
thrived. While small businesses have been susceptible to high failure rates, there exists
resurgence in the survivability of small businesses. Small businesses are now succeeding
at unprecedented rates. One of the reasons for this paradigm shift can be attributed to the
advent of business incubators. In Kenya business incubation is gaining prominence in
Government policy, private sector and the academia. This study seeks to shed light about
the effects of business incubation in Kenya specifically on the growth of the Micro and
Small enterprises. Our literature search revealed that, to date, very little research has been
conducted on the effects of business incubation on the growth of Small Enterprises in
Kenya. The research design will be descriptive resulting in both qualitative and
quantitative data. A sample of 127 incubatee businesses from the target population of 189
x
government, private and institutional incubator businesses in Nairobi County will be
selected using systematic random sampling. For data collection, a 5 point Likert scale
questionnaire will be administered to the incubatees as well as open- ended questions to
incubator managers. A pilot test will also be carried out to test the validity and reliability
of the research instruments. Data will be tabulated and analyzed using descriptive
statistics and multiple regression analysis to show the relationship between the
independent variables as well as their effects on the dependent variable. Statistical
package for social science (SPSS) version 19 will be used in data analysis.
xi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background informationThe study seeks to find out the effects of business incubation on the growth of micro and
small enterprises. The role of micro and small enterprise (MSE) development in
contributing to poverty reduction and the general achievement of Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) has widely been recognized the world over ( Beck, 2005).
For example it has been argued that a dynamic and growing MSE sector can contribute to
the achievement of a wide range of development objectives, including: the attainment of
income distribution and poverty reduction (DFID, 2000); creation of employment
(Daniels, 1994,); provision of the seedbed of industrialisation (World Bank, 2004);
savings mobilisation (Beck, 2005); and production of goods and services that meet the
basic needs of the poor (Cook and Nixson, 2005).
The Kenya Government has widely recognized that Micro and Small enterprises (MSE’s)
play a very important role in economic growth and development of a country, (RoK,
2005). In reaction to this, The Kenya Government plan of action is to develop
mechanisms to promote business incubation for the small enterprise sector as a strategy
to enhance skills and technological capacity (RoK, 2005). In this connection Kenya’s
vision 2030 flagship projects plans are ready to establish Konza city popularly referred to
as silicon savannah. In addition, 47 MSE parks will be established in all counties in
Kenya (RoK, 2005). The main reason for this is that in Kenya, employment within the
MSEs accounted for 74.2% of total employment and contributes up to 18.4% of the
xii
country’s gross domestic product. However, in Kenya like in many developing countries,
the survival rate for start-up business is only between 10-20% (Kekobi, 2005).
Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) play an important role in the development of a
country. MSEs contribute to the economic development in various ways: creating
employment for the rural and urban labour force; providing desirable sustainability and
innovation in the economy as a whole. MSEs have their significant effect on the social
income distribution, tax revenue, and employment, efficient utilization of resources and
stability of the family income (Fida, 2008). In Support of these sentiments, the table
below shows MSEs sector employment levels in Kenya.
Table 1.1 Number of persons engaged in the informal sector by Province, 2006-2010
000Province 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Nairobi
Central
Nyanza
Western
Rift Valley
Eastern
Coast
North Eastern
1,712.1
1,118.9
832.6
514.0
1,337.0
646.8
874.2
33.0
1,824.5
1,187.2
878.4
548.5
1,417.5
680.4
930.7
34.4
1,945.1
1,256.4
920.9
586.2
1,498.2
709.8
990.5
35.4
2,061.1
1,326.7
968.0
621.9
1,581.1
744.4
1,048.8
36.9
2,179.4
1,396.0
1,012.1
658.6
1,662.3
775.7
1,107.7
38.1
TOTAL 7,068.6 7,501.6 7,942.5 8,388.9 8,829.9
Of which
Urban
Rural
2,756.8
4,311.8
2,925.6
4,576.0
3,097.4
4,837.7
3,276.0
5,112.9
3,441.0
5,388.9
Source: Economic Survey 2011.
xiii
MSEs contribute to long-run industrial growth by producing an increasing number of
firms that grow up and out of the small sector. In Kenya, "micro-enterprises" are those
with 10 or fewer workers, "small enterprises" have from 11 to 50 workers, and "medium
enterprises" have from 51 to 100 workers (RoK, 2005). In general “Small Enterprises”
are considered to be those enterprises employing 1-49 workers. Micro and Small
Enterprises comprise the lion's share of enterprises in Kenya, while there are a few
medium enterprises (Parker &Torres 1994).
A Business Incubator is a facility designed to assist businesses to become established and
profitable during their incubation period (KeKoBi, 2006). Over time, researchers
recognized that incubators that simply provided cheaper rents and shared facilities were
not as successful as incubators that offered extensive business support. As a result, the
definition of a small business incubator evolved to focus less on shared facilities and
more on the nurturing environment that incubators offered to entrepreneurs (Allen &
McCluskey,1990).
Incubatees come from individuals interested in promoting an innovative idea that they
have so that it becomes a business, yet they may have no skills in business. Consequently
they need to learn more to change the concept into business. Allen and Rahman (1985)
also states that: “Although entrepreneurs may have specialized knowledge, they often
lack a full array of business skills … incubators provide the assistance that fills the
knowledge gap, reduces early - stage operational costs, and establishes entrepreneurs in a
local enterprise support network” (pp. 1- 2). Thus, business incubation provides the
xiv
mechanics in the process of starting and growing companies. By providing entrepreneurs
with business expertise, vital networks, and management tools they need to make their
ventures successful, the incubator program accomplishes its mission.
The second category of incubatees may be people who have clear documented business
concepts based on an innovative idea they already have but which again may not be
converted into business due to resource constraints. They could also be businesses that
are already set up and running but need to be boosted to grow. Each one of them needs a
different approach to convert them into vibrant business outfits (Gatheru, 2008).
According to the United Kingdom Business Incubation (UKBI,2009), business
incubation provides MSEs and start-ups with the ideal location to develop and grow their
businesses, offering everything from virtual support, rent-a-desk through to state of the
art laboratories and everything in between. They also provide direct access to hands on
intensive business support, access to finance and expertise from other entrepreneurs and
suppliers to really make businesses and entrepreneurs to grow. National Business
Incubation Association (NBIA) defines business incubation as a program that provides
“management guidance, technical assistance and consulting tailored to young growing
companies as well as access to appropriate rental space and flexible leases, shared
business services and equipment, technology support services and assistance in obtaining
the financing necessary for company growth” (NBIA,2007).Business incubation is a
process of nurturing and nourishing small and start-up initiatives to relative maturity to
become self-sustaining, healthy, wealthy-generating entities within a reasonable time
frame (Kekobi, 2006). According to Wiggins and Gibson (2003), business and
xv
technology incubators are ‘idealabs’, ‘hatcheries’, ‘eco-nets’, ‘greenhouses’ that provide
infrastructure, operational and strategic support services to its client companies. The
importance of business incubators is twofold; they favour the setting up of new
companies and provide the appropriate business support needed to increase the chances
of their survival and growth (Jorge, 2002).
In 1959, the Batavia (New York) Industrial Centre opened as the first incubator in the
United States. Real estate developer Charles Mancuso founded the first small business
incubator in Batavia, New York in 1959 in an 850,000 square foot facility vacated by a
large manufacturing firm (Hackett & Dilts, 2004). Unable to find a tenant to rent the
entire space, Mancuso subdivided the factory and rented smaller sections to a variety of
tenants. When several of these tenants began to ask Mancuso for business advice and
help in raising capital, the first small business incubator was born (Hackett & Dilts,
2004). From these humble beginnings, the incubator industry has matured into an
international economic development tool, boosting nearly 5,000 programs in more than
100 different countries.
Small business incubators spread slowly during the 1960s and 70s, but interest in the
concept grew as governments looked for new instruments to stimulate economic
development and job creation. In the 1960s, the University of Pennsylvania constructed
the University City Science Center to encourage academic research to produce
commercially viable technologies (O’Neal, 2005). During the 1970s, the National
Science Foundation’s Innovation Centers Program began to fund other projects that
xvi
mimicked the University City Science Center concept (Hackett & Dilts, 2004). Following
the creation of the first small business incubator in 1959, few additional incubators were
established, but growing support for the idea converged with a number of factors in the
1980s to cause a small business incubator boom.
Internationally industrialized countries adopted variations of incubation before it spread
to newly industrialized and less developed nations (Lewis, 2003). The United States
remains the leader in the industry, with approximately 1,115 incubators as of 2006- up
from merely 12 in 1980 and approximately 400 in 1992. This increase is as a result of
strong Government support. In 1995 to 2005, there was greater than 250% increase in the
number of Technology Business Incubators (TBIs) in North America. In the U.S., there
are currently 400 TBI programs where 16% are for profit and 80% not-for-profit while
the remaining 4% are in “other” categories (Lewis, 2008).
The history of business incubators in Kenya can be traced back to 1967 when the
Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation (ICDC) established the Kenya
Industrial Estate (KIE) as its subsidiary. Modeled along the concept of industrial estates,
the first task of the Kenya Industrial Estate was to provide sheltered real estate services
countrywide, along with the provision of financial and business development services
(BDS), as a strategy geared toward local adaptation and industrialisation (Kinoti and
Miemie,2011). Later, other types of business incubators sprang up that include; firstly,
virtual incubators like Willpower Business Solutions Centre. Secondly, incubators
without walls include some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and churches
xvii
based institutions. Thirdly, incubators with walls include the International Finance
Corporations Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Solution Centre, the Kenya Kountry
Business Incubator (Kekobi), and the Kenya Industrial Research and Development
Institute (KIRDI) (Bwisa, 2005).
The goal of business incubation is to produce successful firms that will leave the
incubation program financially viable and freestanding. In theory, these incubator
graduates have the potential to create jobs, revitalize neighborhoods, commercialize new
technologies, and stimulate an entrepreneurial culture in the host community (Lewis,
2008). Business incubation reduces failure rates of start-up initiatives. Whereas the
survival rates of start-ups outside incubation has been cited at only 20% or less those
under incubation has been cited as 80% or more (Kekobi 2006). Most importantly,
business incubators have an average success rate of 98% of businesses succeeding whilst
in the incubator (compared to a national average of less than 50% of all small and
medium sized companies registered) and 87% surviving after 5 years of starting (UKBI,
2009).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In Kenya Business incubation is regarded as an intervention measure to speed up
industrialization through commercialization of inventions and innovations. The Ministry
of Trade, Export Processing Zone and Department of Micro and Small Enterprise
Development plan is to promote business incubation. Similarly, Kenya’s vision 2030
xviii
flagship projects plans are ready to establish ICT incubators in Konza city popularly
referred to as silicon savannah. Nairobi Industrial Technology Park as a joint venture
with Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology is also underway. In
addition, 47 SME parks will be established covering the 47 counties in Kenya (RoK,
2005).
According to BIAK, (2011) close to twenty-five institutions in Kenya operate some form
of business incubation services or another, and twelve could be confirmed as business
incubators per se. Over two hundred entrepreneur businesses/incubatees in Nairobi and
its environs are the main players in the business-incubation industry that comprised of
government institutions, private providers and non-governmental organizations (Kinoti &
Miemie, 2011).
According to Kinoti and Miemie (2011), incubation services provided by incubators in
Kenya fall short of incubatee firms’ expectations. Disparities of services exists form one
incubator to another mainly driven by need for incubator profit. In Kenya, study show
that 53.2% (n=66) of incubated businesses had started from outside the incubator; 36.3%
(n=45) had begun as start-ups in the incubator. Further analysis of the findings, showed
that at the time of the field study, 79% (n=98) of the businesses were residing in the
incubator (Kinoti & Miemie, 2011). This shows incubatees preference of operating
within the incubator environment and hence incubation growth in Kenya has taken an
upward trend.
xix
Remedios and Cornelius, (2006) observe that though the number of incubators is on the
upward trend, it is not known whether incubators achieve their goals or their exact impact
on the tenant. Further gaps exist in knowledge on how organizations develop in the
protected incubated environment and the impact of diverse stakeholders. Research in the
area of business incubation has thus not gone beyond investigating how many jobs are
generated and how many businesses have graduated from incubators. These very broad-
based evaluators fail to provide a detailed picture of the effects of incubator programmes
on growth of SMEs Remedios & Cornelius, 2006). This study seeks to investigate,
analyze and document the effects of business incubation on the growth of MSEs to fill
these gaps.
1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective of the StudyThe broad objective of the study is to determine the effects of business incubation on the
growth of micro and small enterprises in Kenya.
1.3.2 Specific ObjectivesGiven the above background, the research is directed to the following specific objectives:
i. To explore the effects of managerial skills offered by incubators on the growth of
MSEs in Kenya.
ii. To determine whether financial services offered by incubators have an effect on the
growth of MSEs in Kenya.
iii. To explore the effects of incubator infrastructure and facilities on growth of MSE’s in
Kenya.
xx
iv. To examine the effects of incubator technological services on the growth of MSEs in
Kenya.
v. To find out the effects of incubator market linkages on growth of MSEs in Kenya.
vi. To determine moderating effect of incubatee’s characteristics on other variables that
affect the growth of MSEs in Kenya.
1.4 Research Questionsi. What is the effect of business incubators managerial skills services on growth of
MSEs in Kenya?
ii. What are the effects of incubation financial services to growth of MSEs in Kenya?
iii. Does incubator infrastructure and facilities have any effect to growth of MSEs in
Kenya?
iv. Do business incubators technological services have any affect growth of MSEs in
Kenya?
v. What is the effect of incubator market linkages to the growth of MSEs in Kenya?
vi. Do incubatee’s characteristics have a moderating effect on other variables that affect
the growth of MSEs in Kenya?
1.5 Scope of the StudyThe scope of the study will include all business and technology incubators involved in
supporting MSEs in Kenya. “Small Enterprises” are those enterprises employing 1-49
workers and “Micro- enterprises” are those that employ 1-9 workers, (RoK 2005). The
study will consider in-house incubatees that draw services directly from the incubator.
According to Lewis (2008), some incubation programs both operate “within the walls”
and also deliver entrepreneurial support services to offsite client firms referred to as
xxi
virtual clients. This is typically referred to as incubation “without walls” or virtual
incubation. The researcher assumes that most incubatee enterprises in Kenya are mostly
Micro and Small Enterprises hence the scope. The key respondents will include the
Incubatees who deal with the daily operations of their businesses and will be useful in
articulating their business growth facts emanating from incubation. The incubator
managers will be interviewed to yield information about services provided by their
incubators which constitute the variables of this study.
1.6 Justification of the StudyThere is a variety of reasons for operating an incubator. There may be need for job
creation in the community, diversification of the local economy, transfer of technology
from the universities, corporations and research institutions, or sharing venture
experiences with new companies by successful entrepreneurs and investors. There is no
question that whatever the motivation behind incubation, it is an economic boon for the
community (yesebill,2009).This study will shed light on the benefits earned through
business incubation to sensitize Government policy implementers notably the Vision
2030, Higher Education and Industrialization Ministries to speed up establishment of
business incubators in each county.
The research will guide Institutions and Universities as well as private incubator
managers on measuring incubator impact. Of major importance to most incubator
managers is that impact data to justify incubator funding and existence. Secondly, it’s
critical to have this data to prove incubator program’s contribution to the local economy
for Government policy support. Finally, according to NBIA (2012), incubation research
xxii
data informs whether individual incubator programs’ impacts contribute to building
industry credibility.
In addition, the incubator manager can use the research findings as an opportunity to
convince potential funders, champions, and the public in general of their program’s
importance. The research will also provide useful information for individuals with
creative ideas which are ready to be turned into products and services for
commercialization. Bearing in mind that business incubation is a fairly new concept,
there are limited research studies in Kenya therefore an expectation that this study will
make a modest contribution to empirical literature.
1.7 Limitations of the StudyThe issue of non-response might crop up due to either busy schedules of incubatees or
fear of giving out information that may show inadequacy of the incubator. The researcher
will give ample time (1 week) for questionnaire response and try as much as possible to
fit in their timings. In addition, the researcher will assure respondents of adherence to the
ethical issues in research like confidentiality where data will be used for only research
purpose. Secondly, the researcher will obtain informed consent from incubator managers
and respondents before data collection and take responsibility for any research
eventualities.
1.8 Definition of TermsEnterprise- Used interchangeably with a firm or business. According to Jim (2012), the
term “enterprise” has two common meanings. Firstly, an enterprise is simply another
name for a business. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the word enterprise
xxiii
describes the actions of someone who shows some initiative by taking a risk by setting
up, investing in and running a business.
Entrepreneurship - This is an attitude that reflects an individual’s motivation and
capacity to identify an opportunity and to pursue. It has to do with change and is
commonly associated with choice-related issues. It is the process of creating something
new, with value (Hisrich& Peters, 2005).
Business Incubation - A facility that provides MSEs and start-ups with the ideal location
to develop and grow their businesses, offering everything from virtual support, rent-a-
desk through to state of the art laboratories and everything in between (UKBI, 2009).
Growth- Refers to the general growth in the business determined by Parameters like
sales, rate of capital increase, level of profit, management improvement, addition of
workers, and technology advancement. Prasad (2004) describe enterprise growth as
increase in capital investments, increase in number of employees, increase in revenue
turnover and expansion to branches.
Micro and Small enterprises – Micro-enterprises refer to enterprises employing 1-10
workers while small enterprises are those employing from 10- 49 workers. ( RoK, 2005).
xxiv
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 IntroductionThere are several reasons for reviewing the literature, including: distinguishing what has
been done from what needs to be done, discovering important variables relevant to the
topic, synthesizing and gaining a new perspective, identifying relationships between ideas
and practices, establishing the context of the topic or problem, rationalizing the
significance of the problem, enhancing and acquiring the subject vocabulary,
understanding the structure of the subject, relating ideas and theory to applications
(Zikmund ,2010) . Literature review involves the examining of documents such as books,
magazines journals and dissertations that have a bearing on the study being conducted
(Orodho A.J & Kombo D.K., 2002). The researcher carried out a literature review to
establish what other researchers had found on the research topic and also to establish the
relevant variables for the study.
This chapter deals with literature related to Micro and Small enterprises (MSEs) both in
manufacturing and service sectors and business incubation in Kenya and around the
world. The sub-topics discussed include the following; theoretical reviews of business
incubation, variables that affect the growth of SMEs, conceptual framework, review of
critical literature, empirical studies and critique. Research gaps will be identified that
justify the current study.
xxv
2.2 Theoretical ReviewAccording to Nachmias and Nachmias (1996) a theory is any conceptualization, as
opposed to observation used in the interpretation of empirical phenomena. Theories can
be classified according to their scope, function, structure and level (Easton,1966).
Several theories have been put forward by scholars to explain the field of
entrepreneurship. These theories have their roots in economics, psychology, sociology,
anthropology, and management (Kwabena, 2011). The economic entrepreneurship
theory has deep roots in the classical and neoclassical theories of economics, which
explore the economic factors that enhance entrepreneurial behavior.
2.2.1 Economic Entrepreneurship Theoriesi) Classical Theory
The classical theory extolled the virtues of free trade, specialization, and competition
(Ricardo, 1817; Smith, 1776).The theory was the result of Britain’s industrial revolution
which took place in the mid-1700 and lasted until the 1830s.The classical movement
described the directing role of the entrepreneur in the context of production and
distribution of goods in a competitive marketplace (Say, 1803). Classical theorists
articulated three modes of production: land; capital; and labour. There have been
objections to the classical theory. These theorists failed to explain the dynamic upheaval
generated by entrepreneurs of the industrial age (Murphy, Liao & Welsch, 2006). This
theory articulates the provision of infrastructure, business management training,
technology and access to financial services that incubators provide as a determinant to
enterprise growth.
xxvi
ii) Neo-classical Theory
The neo-classical model emerged from the criticisms of the classical model and indicated
that economic phenomena could be relegated to instances of pure exchange, reflect an
optimal ratio, and transpire in an economic system that was basically closed. The
economic system consisted of exchange participants, exchange occurrences, and the
impact of results of the exchange on other market actors. The importance of exchange
coupled with diminishing marginal utility created enough impetus for entrepreneurship in
the neoclassical movement (Murphy, Liao &Welsch, 2006).
Some criticisms were raised against the neo-classical conjectures. The first is that
aggregate demand ignores the uniqueness of individual-level entrepreneurial activity.
Furthermore, neither use nor exchange value reflects the future value of innovation
outcomes. Thirdly, rational resource allocation does not capture the complexity of
market-based systems. The fourth point raised was that, efficiency-based performance
does not subsume innovation and non-uniform outputs; known means/ends and perfect or
semi-perfect knowledge does not describe uncertainty. In addition, perfect competition
does not allow innovation and entrepreneurial activity. The fifth point is that, it is
impossible to trace all inputs and outputs in a market system. Finally, entrepreneurial
activity is destructive to the order of an economic system (Kwabena, 2011). This theory
puts a lot of weight on market linkages and fails to recognize the role of the incubatee
who possesses the entrepreneurial acumen and creative destruction to influence enterprise
growth.
xxvii
2.2.2. Psychological Entrepreneurship TheoriesThe level of analysis in psychological theories is the individual (Landstrom, 1998). These
theories emphasize personal characteristics that define entrepreneurship. Personality traits
need, for achievement and locus of control are reviewed and empirical evidence
presented for three other new characteristics that have been found to be associated with
entrepreneurial inclination. These are risk taking, innovativeness, and tolerance for
ambiguity.
i) Personality Traits Theory
Coon (2004) defines personality traits as “stable qualities that a person shows in most
situations”. To the trait theorists there are enduring inborn qualities or potentials of the
individual that naturally make him an entrepreneur. The obvious or logical question on
your mind may be “What are the exact traits/inborn qualities?” The answer is not a
straight forward one since we cannot point at particular traits. However, this model gives
some insight into these traits or inborn qualities by identifying the characteristics
associated with the entrepreneur. The characteristics give us a clue or an understanding of
these traits or inborn potentials. In fact, explaining personality traits means making
inference from behavior.
Some of the characteristics or behaviors associated with entrepreneurs are that they tend
to be more opportunity driven (they nose around), demonstrate high level of creativity
and innovation, and show high level of management skills and business know-how. They
have also been found to be optimistic, (they see the cup as half full than as half empty),
emotionally resilient and have mental energy, they are hard workers, show intense
commitment and perseverance, thrive on competitive desire to excel and win, tend to be
xxviii
dissatisfied with the status quo and desire improvement, entrepreneurs are also
transformational in nature, who are lifelong learners and use failure as a tool and
springboard. They also believe that they can personally make a difference, are individuals
of integrity and above all visionary (Kwabena, 2011).
ii) Locus of Control
Locus of control is an important aspect of personality. The concept was first introduced
by Julian Rotter in the 1950s. Rotter (1966) refers to Locus of Control as an individual’s
perception about the underlying main causes of events in his/her life. In other words, a
locus of control orientation is a belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are
contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or on events outside our personal
control (external control orientation). In this context the entrepreneur’s success comes
from his/her own abilities and also support from outside. The former is referred to as
internal locus of control and the latter is referred to as external locus of control. While
individuals with an internal locus of control believe that they are able to control life
events, individuals with an external locus of control believe that life's events are the result
of external factors, such as chance, luck or fate.
Empirical findings that internal locus of control is an entrepreneurial characteristic have
been reported in the literature (Cromie, 2000, Ho and Koh, 1992; Koh, 1996; Robinson et
al., 1991). In a student sample, internal locus of control was found to be positively
associated with the desire to become an entrepreneur (Bonnett & Furnham, 1991). Rauch
and Frese (2000) also found that business owners have a slightly higher internal locus of
control than other populations. Other studies have found a high degree of innovativeness,
competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy reports (Utsch et al., 1999).The same is
xxix
reported of protestant work ethic beliefs (Bonnet & Furnham, 1991), as well as risk
taking (Begley & Boyd, 1987).
iii) Need for Achievement Theory
While the trait model focuses on enduring inborn qualities and locus of control on the
individual’s perceptions about the rewards and punishments in his or her life, (Pervin,
1980), need for achievement theory by McClelland (1961) explained that human beings
have a need to succeed, accomplish, excel or achieve. Entrepreneurs are driven by this
need to achieve and excel. While there is no research evidence to support personality
traits, there is evidence for the relationship between achievement motivation and
entrepreneurship (Johnson, 1990). Achievement motivation may be the only convincing
personological factor related to new venture creation (Shaver & Scott, 1991). Risk taking
and innovativeness, need for achievement, and tolerance for ambiguity had positive and
significant influence on entrepreneurial inclination (Mohar, Singh & Kishore (2007).
However, locus of control (LOC) had negative influence on entrepreneurial inclination.
The construct locus of control was also found to be highly correlated with variables such
as risk taking, need for achievement, and tolerance for ambiguity.
The recent finding on risk taking strengthens earlier empirical studies which indicate that
aversion to risk declines as wealth rises, that is, one’s net assets and value of future
income (Szpiro, 1986). In complementing Szpiro’s observation, Eisenhauer (1995)
suggests that success in entrepreneurship, by increasing wealth, can reduce the
entrepreneur’s degree of risk aversion, and encourage more venturing. In his view,
xxx
entrepreneurship may therefore be a self-perpetuating process. Further evidence suggests
that some entrepreneurs exhibit mildly risk-loving behavior (Brockhaus, 1980).These
individuals prefer risks and challenges of venturing to the security of stable income. The
psychological theories support the intervening variable of this study which acknowledges
the incubatees risk taking, need for achievement and other entrepreneurial traits that
influence business growth. This means that given the same business environment,
enterprises operated by incubatees who exhibit high levels of business acumen will grow
faster in the incubator than enterprises owned by incubatees who lack or have limited
entrepreneurial acumen.
2.2.3 Sociological Entrepreneurship TheoryThe sociological theory is the third of the major entrepreneurship theories. Sociological
enterprise focuses on the social context .In other words, in the sociological theories the
level of analysis is traditionally the society (Landstrom, 1998). Reynolds (1991) has
identified four social contexts that relates to entrepreneurial opportunity. The first one is
social networks. Here, the focus is on building social relationships and bonds that
promote trust and not opportunism. In other words, the entrepreneur should not take
undue advantage of people to be successful; rather success comes as a result of keeping
faith with the people.
The second he called the life course stage context which involves analyzing the life
situations and characteristic of individuals who have decided to become entrepreneurs.
The experiences of people could influence their thought and action so they want to do
something meaningful with their lives. The third context is ethnic identification. One’s
xxxi
sociological background is one of the decisive “push” factors to become an entrepreneur.
For example, the social background of a person determines how far he/she can go.
Marginalized groups may violate all obstacles and strive for success, spurred on by their
disadvantaged background to make life better. The fourth social context is called
population ecology. The idea is that environmental factors play an important role in the
survival of businesses. The political system, government legislation, customers,
employees and competition are some of the environmental factors that may have an
impact on survival of new venture or the success of the entrepreneur. This theory is of
importance in forming relationships marketing where the incubatee requires
strengthening their social networks to grow their business. The incubator service will
foster market linkages and success in utilizing this service will depend on the incubatees
capacity to deal with the environmental factors identified above.
2.2.4 Resource- Based Entrepreneurship TheoriesThe Resource-based theory of entrepreneurship argues that access to resources by
founders is an important predictor of opportunity based entrepreneurship and new venture
growth (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001).This theory stresses the importance of financial,
social and human resources (Aldrich, 1999). Thus, access to resources enhances the
individual’s ability to detect and act upon discovered opportunities (Davidson &Honing,
2003). Financial, social and human capital represents three classes of theories under the
resource –based entrepreneurship theories.
Resource-based entrepreneurship theories in this study underline the need for financial
services and enabling infrastructure to impact on the growth of the MSE’s. Lack of
capital has been one of the major reasons for high mortality rate in the MSE sector. The
xxxii
economic impact of venture capital has been realized by SME in sales growth, profit,
asset and improvement in management of finance and other resources (Memba, Gakure
& Karanja, 2012).
i) Financial Capital/Liquidity Theory
Empirical research has showed that the founding of new firms is more common when
people have access to financial capital (Blanchflower et al, 2001, Evans & Jovanovic,
1989, and Holtz-Eakin et al, 1994). By implication this theory suggests that people with
financial capital are more able to acquire resources to effectively exploit entrepreneurial
opportunities, and set up a firm to do so (Clausen, 2006).However , other studies contest
this theory as it is demonstrated that most founders start new ventures without much
capital, and that financial capital is not significantly related to the probability of being
nascent entrepreneurs (Aldrich,1999, Kim, Aldrich & Keister, 2003, Hurst & Lusardi,
2004, Davidson & Honing, 2003).This apparent confusion is due to the fact that the line
of research connected to the theory of liquidity constraints generally aims to resolve
whether a founder’s access to capital is determined by the amount of capital employed to
start a new venture Clausen (2006). In his view, this does not necessarily rule out the
possibility of starting a firm without much capital. Therefore, founders access to capital is
an important predictor of new venture growth but not necessarily important for the
founding of a new venture (Hurst & Lusardi, 2004). This theory argues that entrepreneurs
have individual-specific resources that facilitate the recognition of new opportunities and
the assembling of new resources for the emerging firm (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001).
Research shows that some persons are more able to recognize and exploit opportunities
xxxiii
than others because they have better access to information and knowledge (Aldrich, 1999,
Anderson &Miller, 2003, Shane 2000, 2003, Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
ii) Social Capital or Social Network Theory
Entrepreneurs are embedded in a larger social network structure that constitutes a
significant proportion of their opportunity structure (Clausen, 2006). Shane and Eckhardt
(2003) says “an individual may have the ability to recognize that a given entrepreneurial
opportunity exist, but might lack the social connections to transform the opportunity into
a business startup.
In a similar vein, Reynolds (1991) mentioned social network in his four stages in the
sociological theory. The literature on this theory shows that stronger social ties to
resource providers facilitate the acquisition of resources and enhance the probability of
opportunity exploitation (Aldrich & Zimmers, 1986).Other researchers have suggested
that it is important for nascent founders to have access to entrepreneurs in their social
network, as the competence these people have represents a kind of cultural capital that
nascent ventures can draw upon in order to detect opportunities (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003.,
Gartner et al, 2004., Kim, Aldrich & Keister, 2003).
iii) Human Capital Entrepreneurship Theory
Underlying the human capital entrepreneurship theory are two factors, education and
experience (Becker, 1975). The knowledge gained from education and experience
represents a resource that is heterogeneously distributed across individuals and in effect
central to understanding differences in opportunity identification and exploitation
xxxiv
(Anderson & Miller, 2003, Chandler & Hanks, 1998, Gartner et al, 2005, Shane
&Venkataraman, 2000).
The human capital theory regards people as assets and proposes that investment by
organizations in people will generate positive returns. It proposes that sustainable
competitive advantage is attained when the firm has a human resource pool that cannot be
imitated or substituted by its rivals (Barney 1991).
2.3 Conceptual FrameworkA conceptual framework is a concise description accompanied by a graphical or visual
depiction of the major concepts of the study and the hypothesized relationships and
linkages among them (Mugenda and Mugenda 2012). A conceptual framework provides
links from research goals to formulation of research design, review of literature,
conceptualizing the problem and providing a means to link ideas and data to reveal
deeper connections (Kombo& Tromp, 2009). It should then provide a structure within
which to organize the content of research and frame conclusions within the context as
shown below.
xxxv
Independent Variables Moderating variable Dependent
variable
Figure: 2.1 Conceptual Framework
xxxvi
Managerial skills Training Counseling Consultancy
Financial services Access to finance Loans Venture capital
Market Linkages Market information Customer links Suppliers’ links
Infrastructure and facilities
Space ICT Amenities
Technology services Technology
development Patenting services Equipment and tools
Growth of MSE’s
Turnover
Capital investment
No. of employees
No. of branches
Effects on
Incubatees characteristics
Entrepreneurial motivation
Age Gender Marital status Level of education
2.4 Operationalization of VariablesHackett and Dilts,(2004) observe that just as a business is not merely an office in a
building, a business incubator should also be understood from the view point of myriads
of networks that operate within and outside of it, which is what business incubation is per
se. For the purpose of this research, the business-incubation process encompasses the
provision of the following business development services; management training, financial
support, technology support, facilities and infrastructure, network and market linkages.
Carney, (1998) shared similar sentiments as shown in the table below which this study
will adopt to define the aspects alongside which the variables will be measured.
Table 2.1 Types of Business Development Services
Capital Asset Relevant BDS / Indicators
Business Management
Skills
Financial support
Physical infrastructure
Technology support
Training, advice, counseling, mentoring consultancy, in technical skills, entrepreneurship and in business management.
Access to financial services support, loans, franchising and venture capital.
The provision of business space, power, water, factory sheds telecommunication, ICT, and common service equipment.
Technology development, patenting, machinery, equipments and tools
Market linkages The development networks and aftercare. Assistance with information and with linkages to customers and to suppliers.
Source: Carney (1998).
xxxvii
According to infoDev, (2009) good practice incubator evaluation system should include
four indicators; outputs of companies; resources used by the incubators- financial,
technological, material, human; organizational processes; and social economic, political
and social-cultural context. This study variables indicator will be measured using the
Likert scale of 1-5 points. According to Kothari (2004), Likert scales are good because
they show the strength of a person’s feeling to the question and contain multiple items
therefore likely to be more reliable than single items. Brown, (2011) adds that in order to
enhance the reliability, Likert scales can be checked using Cronbach alpha estimate.
Likert scales contain multiple items and can be taken to be interval scales so descriptive
statistics can be applied, as well as correlational analyses, regression analyses, analysis
of variance procedures, etc.
2.4.1 Managerial skills Business Dictionary.com (2012) defines managerial skills as the ability to make business
decisions and lead subordinates within a company. Three most common skills include:
human skills - the ability to interact and motivate; technical skills - the knowledge and
proficiency in the trade; and conceptual skills - the ability to understand concepts,
develop ideas and implement strategies. Competencies include communication ability,
response behavior and negotiation tactics. Studies have shown that years of formal
education of the entrepreneur before starting a new firm were related to eventual venture
inclination, (Hirsrich 1989). DeTienne, D. and Chandler, G. (2007), also proposes that
education and experience are antecedents to the decisions to start a business.
xxxviii
According to Katz (1974), there are three managerial skills that every manager needs.
These are: Technical Skills which is the ability to perform the given job. The lower-level
managers require more technical skills; Human Relations (Interpersonal) Skills or the
ability to understand, communicate and work with people. Human relations skills are
required by all managers at all levels of management. The reason for that is all managers
have to interact and work with people; Conceptual Skills being the ability to see the big
picture, to visualise the organisation as a whole. It includes analytical, creative, problem-
solving skills. The top-level managers require more conceptual skills and less technical
skills.
Managers working at different levels of management require different levels of skills.
The level of importance of each skill set is directly correlated with the management level
that the person has in the organization. As managers moves up in the organization, they
need more conceptual skills and less technical skills. Incubatees with the three aspects of
managerial skill are more likely to turn incubation services into business growth. Some of
the skills like conceptual and human skills emanate from inborn entrepreneurial
characteristics and is the moderating variable in this study (Katz 1974).
Bowen et al. (2009) researched on Management of business challenges among small and
micro in Nairobi Kenya. The findings of the research indicated that over 50% of MSEs
continue to have a deteriorating performance with 3 in every 5 MSEs failing within
months of establishment. Only 2.5% respondents saying their businesses were very
successful. The results also showed that 49.5% of those who had received training in their
areas of business reported that their businesses were doing well. He recommended that
there is need to get trained in an area that is relevant to the type of business. According to
xxxix
Yeo (2008), Shared vision, flexible systems and team dynamics are key characteristics of
organizational learning in which leadership is a crucial enabling agent. Contrary to
general perception, systems development would be considered the most significant
change brought about by organizational learning.
2.4.2 Financial resources"Small-scale" enterprises are identified as being registered, operating from legitimate
business premises and employing over 10 workers and having, at least, secondary level
education with some previous experience as employees. This segment is constrained by
lack of access to finance for various reasons, including having no land/property title
deeds to be used as collateral for large loans (Stevenson & St-Onge 2005).
According to Oswald (2003), the importance of financial resources for MSEs is obvious:
it helps to retain profits, grants, loans and equity, obtained from a range of sources
including self, banks, venture capitalists, government agencies and so on (Oswald, 2003).
Possible sources of financial capital include, but are not limited to, the following: liquid
assets, credit lines, loans, capital leases, financial management services, owner loans,
credit cards and trade credits (Robb & Coleman 2009).
Vargas and Rangel (2007), argue that even though the financial resources are important
for a firm to leverage performance, it was found that the development of internal
capabilities has been more important than limited financial resources in order to develop
competitive advantages, to compete with larger and multinational competitors. It has also
been argued that putting more money into start-ups is more costly than helping
established MSEs to grow faster (Storey, 1993).
xl
2.4.3 Infrastructural ResourcesThe location of the company is important. For instance, many industrial clusters in China
are located in the economic and export processing zones of the coastal areas (Johnasson,
2008). The growth issue also could be influenced by the plant and equipment the
company owned. As a part of a cluster, the competitiveness of a firm can be enhanced by
the external features of the cluster, e.g. cost advantages due to the co-location, access to
competent personnel, information and joint marketing, as well as connections to
institutions and public goods (Porter, 2000).
It is argued that entrepreneurs are the key resources of small firms. Keasey (1994), for
example, a study of directors’ ownership and small business performance, concluded that
“external shareholdings” by individual directors was an important complication and
needed to be addressed in future studies. Entrepreneurs have individual assets that can
help them recognize new opportunities and assemble resources for the new ventures
(Alvarex & Busentiz, 2001). The entrepreneur of any single SMEs is one key and unique
resource that can be especially influential on the organization (Daily, Certo & Dalton,
2000). One relevant major finding is the experience, skills, knowledge and leadership
ability of the entrepreneur are resources and capabilities of the small firms (Miller &
Toulouse, 1986). According to Scotter (2003), recruiting, training, appraising and
rewarding are the most important factors for SMEs.
2.4.4 Technological ServicesDeTienne, D. and Chandler (2007) identified that entrepreneurs who have been trained in
certain business areas are more likely to start a new ventures in the area of training and
thus entrepreneurs who have been educated and trained in high technology and have
xli
received an additional business education are more likely to recognize business
opportunities in the technology-oriented sectors of the economy. According to Steward
and Gorrino (1997), MSEs are always highly dependent on external knowledge sources,
and technological innovation is important for a small firm.
An enabling environment is an opportunity that should be utilized by the small
enterprises in Kenya. With changing governments, which come with promises of a better
tomorrow and definition of new business policies, reconstruction of economy,
improvement of infrastructures and security, small businesses are expected do well
(King& McGrath 2002). However, for MSEs to fully develop and use this potential, they
need specific policy measures to ensure that technology services and infrastructure are
provided. Further, research and development institutions that are publicly funded should
be encouraged to target the technology needs of MSEs (Ngahu, 2000).
Rothwell, (1999) believes that the innovative advantages of small firms are derived from
their flexible managerial structures, which are more responsive to changes in the market
place. Freeman (1982) pointed out that the innovation is the range of organizational
activities associated with moving from the conception of an idea to a product or service
offered for sale in the market place.
Storey (1982) pointed out that “for every Racal, Sinclair, etc. there are probably several
thousand small firms who have no wish to innovate, and a great deal more who are
incapable of doing so” (Storey, 1982). Fast-growth firms are started and run by motivated
and capable entrepreneurs, or fliers, while a low-performance firm is conversely
associated with trundlers (Storey 1994). SMEs are said to face a "liability of smallness."
xlii
Because of their size and resource limitations, they are unable to develop new
technologies or to make vital changes in existing ones. Still, there is evidence that MSEs
have the potential to initiate minor technological innovations to suit their circumstances
(Ngahu, 2000).
2.4.5 Market LinkagesMicro and Small enterprises (MSEs) in any country do contribute to economic growth.
However, there are challenges and opportunities that they face notably; linkage with
multinational companies, networks, diversification, enabling environment and franchising
opportunities (Shaw and Conway, 2000). Network involves a group of people who
exchange information, experience and contacts for professional, business or social
purposes. Networks are important during the establishment, development and growth of
small businesses. The network may include family members, or even friends, or
professionals. Networks are of growing importance to MSEs in any economy. Africans
being notoriously social, networking becomes a vital tool for success of MSEs; it
becomes like ‘an inborn trait’ or an opportunity that comes by natural flow Shaw and
Conway (2000). Brush et al (2006) identified that social networks impact on the
opportunity recognition process they established that entrepreneurs’ networks and the
way that the contacts that entrepreneurs have may affect the recognition and enterprise
creation process.
According to Tulus (2005) in an Indonesian perspective, he observes that clustering plays
an important role in the growth of small businesses and governments should support it.
Hence, close proximity is crucial to enterprise. From the context of Kenya, small
enterprises like “mitumba” (selling of second hand clothes), we find the business xliii
clustered in one place. This is aimed at creating a closely-knit network that ultimately
increases the inflow of customers. Social networks are a rich source of information that
permits the individual to identify different combinations of the means-ends deriving in
the creation of new products or services for a particular market (Christensen & Peterson,
1990). A social network provides certain benefits that are shared among its members
such as communication of information; funds (Shane et al, 1991); exchange content, or
goods and services; and a special characteristic or attribute that people expect from one
another like advice and counseling.
According to Muteti (2005), forging market linkages between enterprises and foreign
multinational corporations can hasten MSE development in developing countries like
Kenya. Linkages can be classified as either forward or backward. For instance,
multinationals may forge forward linkages with locals firms. One such linkage would be
marketing outlets where multinationals outsource the distribution of brand new products.
Franchising, according to Jim (2007) refers to an arrangement whereby a party
(franchisor), who has developed a way of running a business system successfully,
licenses to another the rights to operate that system using either his/her trademark or
name or/and other rights. The rationale behind franchising lies in acquiring support in the
area of training, which includes building personnel, management and overall opening up
of new horizons in the market place.
In Kenyan perspective, the business environment (though not all that conducive due to
heavy cost of investment and production, partly because of heavy taxation and energy
issues) has enabled a number of macro and micro enterprises to rise. More and more
xliv
micro-enterprises are seeking support from the macro ones more than ever before. This
has partly facilitated to their rapid growth (Muteti, 2005). Micro and small enterprises
have potentiality of boosting a country’s economy. Although they are faced by many
challenges, they still have opportunities to grow. These include linkage with
multinational companies, networks with other businesses, diversification of market and
products, enabling environment and franchising opportunities. Such opportunities, if well
utilized by the small enterprises can turn round their future in many developing countries
(Muteti, 2005).
2.4.6 Individual Incubatee Characteristics
Some literature that claims to identify which personal characteristics of individual
entrepreneurs might lead to firm growth and success. Developing-country MSE owners
and workers are relatively less educated than the majority of the population. This lower
level of educational attainment among MSE owners and workers is remarkable when
contrasted with developed countries, where those with higher education are more likely
to be self-employed (Woodruff, 1999).
GEMINI studies in Sub-Saharan Africa revealed that entrepreneurs completing secondary
school were more likely to grow in Kenya and Zimbabwe but found no significant effect
of primary education on MSE expansion (Mead and Liedholm, 1998; Parker, 1995;
McPherson, 1991). Downing and Daniels (1992) provide an insightful analysis of many
of the challenges constraining women’s opportunities for MSE growth. All too often,
women face asymmetrical rights and obligations limiting their labor mobility and
burdening them with disproportionate household responsibilities.xlv
Armstrong (2006) describes motivation as goal -directed behavior. People are motivated
when they expect that a course of action is likely to lead to the attainment of a goal and a
valued reward that satisfies their needs. Well motivated people, he argues are those with
clearly defined goals who take action that they expect will achieve those goals. Dessler
(2005) argues that though there is actually little research evidence to support this idea it
remains highly popular due to its intuitive attractiveness.
Managerial skill is an in-born trait in women because of their peculiar nature of home
keeping that makes them better business managers. Women are unique in that they have
the skills and competencies that help them to merge both business and family lives,
managing both effectively and intentionally (Sarri & Trihopoulou, 2005). This confirms
Birley (1989) assertion that every woman is a manager. According to him, women rely
(consciously or not) on their experiences as homemakers for types of managerial
experiences, even without professional experience and networks (Birley, 1989). The
World Bank (1994) observed that a great disparity exist between men and women
entrepreneurs in Africa especially in terms of literacy rate, earned income and other
economic activities and the type of enterprises they start.
2.4.7 MSEs Growth
xlvi
According to Mead and Liedholm, (1998), growth can be defined as an increase in the
number of employees over time. This metric is frequently employed in research on MSEs
primarily because using employment levels is believed to yield the most accurate and
comparable data. Growth refers to the general growth in the business determined by
Parameters like sales, rate of capital increase, level of profit, management improvement,
addition of workers, technology advancement among others (Bhide, 2000). In addition to
the most commonly used measures, namely employment and turnover, these include
assets, market share, physical output, and various measures of profitability (Dobbs &
Hamilton, 2007). The dilemmas associated with using such measures are well
documented and include the efficacy of using just one or a small number, the choice of
relative or absolute measures and the measurement time frame, given that growth is not
necessarily linear, sustained, or consistent over time.
Research has shown that over half of all businesses fail within one and a half years of
being started. Most of those enduring this initial “survival” stage will remain small
businesses. This is not unique to any industry, culture, or country. The transition from a
surviving entrepreneur to a growing organization presents personal challenges to the
founding entrepreneur as well as to the firm (Fenn, 1996). According to Hanks et al.
(1993) the strength of a taxonomic approach to identifying and specifying stages in an
enterprise life-cycle model as deriving from use of multivariate analysis of empirical data
to reveal common patterns and relationships in the data. This is illustrated in the growth
model below
xlvii
Figure 2.2: Enterprise Life-Cycle Model
Source: Hanks et al. (1993)
Hanks et al (1993) described the various development configurations or stages in their
taxonomic life-cycle model as Start-up young, small enterprises with simple xlviii
organisational structures and a mean of 2.20 organisational levels. The organisation is
highly centralised and quite informal. There is little functional specialisation and product
development appears to be the focal priority. Expansion being slightly older and larger
enterprises with more complex organisational structures and functional specialisation is
generally adopted. Product commercialisation appears to be the focal priority. Maturity
level although not necessarily older, on average, than in the expansion stage, enterprises
in this stage are typically more than twice as large. Organisational structures are more
complex than hitherto with formalisation increasing. Diversification where enterprises are
generally medium-sized with increasing tendency to have divisionalised structures and
formality is highest for any stage in the life-cycle model.
Hanks et al. (1993) further describe the two apparently stable and sustainable
disengagement configurations or stages in their taxonomic life-cycle model as Life-style
being enterprises that are slightly larger than those in the start-up stage, but are generally
much older. In most other respects, they are organisationally like start-up businesses.
Capped growth included those enterprises that are slightly larger than those in the
expansion stage, that are generally much older. These enterprises appear to have
disengaged from the growth process after successfully expanding to modest size
following start-up. Essentially business growth may tend to follow this trend even within
the incubator but variations are expected depending on incubator services available.
2.5 Empirical Review
xlix
Evaluation research has suggested that incubators have been successful in stabilizing
small businesses, creating limited job generation and increasing sales among incubated
firms for relatively small investments of public dollars (Lyons, 1990; Tornatzky, et.al,
1995; Sherman and Chappell, 1998).Indeed it has been suggested that cost per job created
in the USA in the incubator is about $6,580, while the cost per job of other types of
efforts ranges from $11,000 to $50,000 (Markley and McNamara, 1995; 277). According
to Lewis (2008), Research on best practices in business incubation has documented a
strong correlation between the implementation of industry best practices and successful
incubation of entrepreneurial firms. While some questions remain unanswered, the
preponderance of evidence indicates that business incubation is a cost-effective economic
development policy when best practices are implemented. According to research findings
on the role of Technology business incubators (TBI’s) in helping the new technology-
based firms’ innovation capacity, new technology-based firms make significant economic
growth in the creation of new jobs as well as catalyzing technology and knowledge
accumulation.
Wiggins and Gibson (2002) from Austin Technology Incubator argue that the added
value given by traditional university or community-based incubators become a vital
differentiator between successful and unsuccessful incubators. Study shows that in 2003,
there are more than 800 business incubators in USA mostly non-profit technology
oriented with an association to university.
l
A research study was undertaken by the University of Michigan Business School, in
collaboration with the National Business Incubation Association (NBIA), Ohio
University, and The Southern Technology Council (Sherman & Chappell, 1998), in
response to a request for proposals issued by the Economic Development Administration.
One of the purposes of this study, involving 50 business incubators and 126 of their
affiliated firms that entered the incubators between 1990 and 1996, was to determine the
financial impact of these programs on their communities. Of these 126 firms, 49 percent
were affiliated with mixed- use incubators, 40 percent were affiliated with technology
incubators, and 11 percent were affiliated with empowerment incubators.
The results of this study and the financial impact of business incubators provide strong
evidence that business incubation programs, as economic development tools, have a
significant financial impact on their communities. Key results from this study indicated
that firms that participate in business incubators show large gains in financial
performance, gross sales revenue, and total annual payroll from the time they entered into
the incubators to 1996, reflecting an average amount of gross sales revenue increase of
$239,247 annually.
Firms participating in business incubators show an average increase in employment of
2.7 full - time and 1.0 part- time positions per year. Sixty - five percent of the firms
participating in the study report that the incubation process was very important in their
success, the remaining 34.1 percent report that it was somewhat important or not
important at all. Nearly 25 percent of the firms participating in the study report that they
had a subcontract or co- provider arrangement with another incubator client, and one out
li
of every six firms report that they had collaborated with another incubator client. In 1996,
these firms employed a total of 278 people and were responsible for creating a total,
including spin - off effects, of 467 jobs in their respective communities, which added
$10.1 million to local personal income in 1996. 87 percent of the firms that had graduated
from incubators were still in operation in 1996 (Sherman & Chappell, 1998).
According to Stein (1996), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) conducted a
study of employer business starts between 1989 and 1992. The results of this study
indicates that 66 percent of the businesses remained open at least two years, 49.6 percent
remained open at least four years, and only 39.5 percent of the businesses remained open
for at least six years. These results are contrasted with the results of a 1997 study
commissioned by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development
Administration. The first study, conducted by the SBA, involves only businesses that did
not participate in the business incubation process. The second study, conducted by the
Department of Commerce (DEC), involves only businesses that did participate in the
business incubation process. A comparative analysis substantiates the fact that incubator
graduates have a much higher success rate. The DEC’s study reports that of the
businesses participating in business incubators since their inception, as early as 1987, 87
percent were still in operation in 1996.
Although neither study addressed the participating businesses by industry, length of
existence, education, nor experience level of the owners/management teams, the
assumption was that all participants were equally qualified. The results of the
lii
comparative analysis substantiated that only 39.5 percent of the businesses in operation
between 1989 and 1992, and not participating in incubator programs, had a life span of
six years. However, in contrast, 87 percent of the businesses in operation between 1987
and 1996, and participating in incubator programs, had a life span of nine years, thus
extending the businesses life cycle by three years. Business incubators create successful
companies as substantiated by the NBIA study. The NBIA reports that “Business
incubators reduce the risk of small business failures. NBIA member incubators report that
87 percent of all firms that graduated from incubators are still in business.” The NBIA
also reports that “Start - up firms served by NBIA member incubators annually increased
sales by $240,000 each and added an average of 3.7 full - and part- time jobs per firm.”
U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration (Technology Administration,
2003) report based on a study of 17 “best in class” technology business incubators in
United States of America (USA) using a qualitative research design found out that there
is a predictive relationship between incubators business assistance programmes and the
secondary business outcomes of an incubated enterprise. Tornatzky, Sherman, and
Adkins’s (Tornatzky, Sherman, & Adkins, 2003) research on technology business
incubators in the in USA using incubator managers as the exclusive respondents, yielded
no strong statistical relationships based on multiple regression analysis between incubator
business-assistance practices and primary outcomes (for example, sales and revenue
growth).
liii
A research was carried out by Kinoti and Miemie (2011) to assess the entrepreneurs’
perception of business-incubation services in Kenya on 124 incubating business
entrepreneurs. These business-incubation services were measured by a total of twenty-
seven items, based on two sets of Likert scales, where the first sought the respondents’
opinion on how important the factors were ranging from very important to not applicable.
The majority of the respondent entrepreneurs, 69.4% (n=86) were males, while females
constituted 30.6 % (n=38) of the sample size, with an age range of that varied between 22
to 62 years at mean age of 32.7 years. 61.3% (n=76) of them held bachelor degrees and
above, with approximately 64.5% (n=80) of them with formal education that
entrepreneurial subjects. Service-sector businesses ranged from one to fifteen businesses
in 75% (n=6) of the incubators (some of which were in ICT), while others were in retail
and manufacturing sector. 78.2% (n=97) sampled entrepreneurs, indicated that they had
started their businesses between year 2004 and 2008; 12.1% (n=15) had started between
1999 and 2003; 5.7 % (n=7) between year 1994-1998 and 2.97% (n=2) before 1993 and
the oldest entrant joined the incubator in 1989.
Most of the entrepreneur respondents, 47.6% (n=59) were in the service industry, 29.0%
(n=36) were ICT based businesses, 13.7% (n=17) were in the retailing business, while
5.6% (n=7) were in the manufacturing industry. On the question of ownership, 33.9%
(n=42) were private companies; 31.5% (n=39) were partnerships; 27.4% (n=34) were
sole proprietorship; 4.0% (n=5) were public-limited businesses and two were owned by
non-governmental organizations. It is evident that the highest entrepreneurs’ mean rating
on the importance of services that an incubator can provide, is for training, followed by
liv
facilities and infrastructure, then business support and networking and mentoring. In
terms of how entrepreneurs’ rated the services they received, facilities and infrastructure
was rated highest followed by training, then technology support and then business
support.
lv
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 IntroductionThis chapter discusses the methodology used in population sampling, techniques used to
gather, process, and analyse data. The chapter is divided into the following six sections:
Research design, Population of study, Sampling technique, Data collection methods, Pilot
study, and Data analysis. In addition this chapter discusses the procedure for carrying out
the research and handling the findings.
3.2 Research DesignThis study adopted a descriptive research design which yielded both qualitative and
quantitative data in order to interpret effects of business incubation phenomena.
Descriptive surveys can be used when collecting information about people’s attitude,
opinions, habits or any of the variety of education or social issues (Kombo & Tromp
2009). According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2012), research design describes how the
research strategy addresses the specific aims and objectives of the study, and whether the
research issues are theoretical or policy-oriented. The study was structured to provide
results that objectively demonstrate incubator effects on growth of the MSE’s sector in
consistence with the incubator’s mission and objectives using a range of indicators.
3.3 PopulationThe study Population included all Business incubators involved in MSE sector in Nairobi
County. The population of public incubators which includes Universities and research
institutions were 67 incubatee businesses. The private incubators population comprised of
122 incubatees making the total population as 189 incubatees. Population is the aggregate
lvi
of all that conforms to a given specification. All items in the field of inquiry constitute a
‘universe’ or ‘population (Kothari, 2004). The sampling frame comprised of incubator
managers and all incubatees being served by both public and private incubators in
Nairobi County, Kenya.
3.4 Sampling TechniqueThe sample for the survey was drawn from a list of incubators obtained from Business
Incubation Association of Kenya (BIAK). The sample was a representative of the main
players in the business-incubation industry that comprised of government institutions,
private providers and non-governmental organizations. The MSEs that formed the sample
was calculated using the sampling formula (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003) as:
nf = z2p q ¯¯¯¯¯¯ e2
Where
z = table value from the normal table
p = probability of success.
q = (1-p) probability of failure.
e = allowed error
= (1.96)2 (0.5) (0.5)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ (0.05)2
= 384
According to Mugenda and Mugenda, (2003); Zikmund (2010), when the population size
is less than 10,000 the sample size (nf) can be calculated as;
lvii
nf = nf ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 1+ nf-1 ¯¯¯¯¯¯ N = 384 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 1+ 383 ÷ 189
= 127
Out of the population of 189 incubatee enterprises, 67 were in the public sector while 122
operated in private sectors of the industry. Each stratum was properly represented so that
the sample size drawn from the stratum was proportionate to the stratum share of the total
population as indicated in the sampling frame below. This approach is more applicable to
this research because it has a higher statistical efficiency and it is much easier to carry
out, Zikmund (2010).
Table 3.1 Sampling Matrix
Incubators Population (N)
= nf
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 1+ nf-1 ¯¯N¯¯
Public Incubators
Private Incubators
TOTAL
67
122
189
384
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯1+(383/189)
127
lviii
Table 3.2 Sample of the Study
Category Population Calculation Sample
Public enterprises 67 (127/189) x 67 45
Private enterprises 122 (127/189) x 122 82
Total 189 127
The sampling frame is also the population frame comprising of all possible elements of
the study (Mugenda, 2008). A sampling frame was obtained from Business Incubation
Association of Kenya (BIAK).
lix
Table 3.3 SAMPLING FRAME
Incubators Sample size
Private Incubators
IFC, SME solution centre (82/122)x10= 7
Mlab (82/122)x10= 7
i hub (82/122)x15= 10
Nailab (Nairobi Kenya) (82/122)x10= 7
emobilis (Nairobi Kenya) (82/122)x12= 8
Afrinnovator (Nairobi Kenya) (82/122)x10= 7
Technobrain (82/122)x25= 17
Willpower (82/122)x15= 10
Sacoma (82/122)x15= 10
SUB-TOTAL 83
Public Incubators
Kenya Industrial Research Institute (KIRDI) (45/67)x15= 10
Strathmore University BI (45/67)x10= 7
Inorero University BI (45/67)x15= 10
University of Nairobi BI (45/67)x15= 10
Catholic University BI (45/67)x12= 8
SUB-TOTAL 45
TOTAL 128
Source: BIAK, (2011)
lx
3.5 Data Collection MethodsPrimary data was obtained from incubatees owning enterprises as key informants and
incubator managers who offer the various services that constitute the objectives of the
study .Secondary data sources included books, documented research, journal articles,
and electronically stored information (internet). Primary data was obtained by use of
semi-structured questionnaire. Questionnaires was prepared in various sections and
administered to incubatees within the incubator. Close-ended questionnaire detailing all
the variables of the study using 5 point Likert scale with open spaces for comments was
used for this study. In addition, open ended questions were used for each section to yield
qualitative data. The questionnaires yielded both qualitative and quantitative data in the
following sections: Section one- General and demographic information; Section two-
Managerial skills; Section three- Financial services; Section four- Infrastructural
facilities; Section five- Technology services; Section six- Market linkages; Section
seven- Role of incubate characteristics Section eight – growth of businesses.
The main method of data collection was the use of questionnaires which was
administered to the incubatees and an interview guide self-administered to incubator
managers with the help of the research assistants. The data collection commenced after
training the research assistants, pre-testing the instruments, and obtaining a research
permit from the relevant authorities. The researcher supervised the assistants and held
feedback meetings to collect completed data and ensure the research process is on course.
Data was stored appropriately after each day’s collection to safeguard any loss or
interference.
lxi
3.6 Pilot studyTo enhance validity and reliability of research instruments, a pilot test on 5 percent of the
population frame who qualifies but excluded from the final study was carried out to pre-
test the research instruments. For high precision pilot studies, 1% to 5% of the sample
should constitute the pilot test size (Lancaster, Dodd, Williamson, 2010). In this study, 5
percent of 189 incubatees and 16 incubator managers participated in the pilot study;
which is 8 incubatee businesses and 2 incubator managers. According to Saunders
(2009), pilot testing refines the questionnaire so that respondents will not have problems
in answering the questions. Ambiguity and sensitivity of the items and other issues
related to data collection are noted and the tools and procedures revised and refined
before the main study (Mugenda &Mugenda, 2012). Pre-testing enabled the researcher to
correct and improve the research instruments.
3.7 Reliability and Validity
Reliability is the consistency of a set of measurements items while validity indicates that
the instrument is testing what it should (Cronbach, 1951). According to Mugenda and
Mugenda (2012) data is said to be reliable for a decision when data collection method
and the instruments used to collect the data produce similar results when applied
repeatedly over time. This study used Cronbach’s Alpha (α) scale of 0.7 as an internal
consistency measure computed as a coefficient ranging from 0 and 1. It indicates the
extent to which a set of items can be treated as measuring a single latent variable
(Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach’s alpha is very useful for interval-level measurement
involving multi-item scales, especially to check homogeneity of internal consistency of
lxii
underlying constructs (Cooper & Schindler, 2006) based on inter-item correlation means,
in order to measure the reliability of the instruments.
Validity is the accuracy, truthfulness and meaningfulness of the data and all inferences
made from the data (Mugenda & Mugenda 2012). Validity exists if the instruments
measure what they are supposed to measure. In other words the reason all people do not
have the same test score is that they differ in terms of the attribute the test measures
(Baumgartner, 2002). For this study the instruments were pre-tested during the pilot study
to ensure they are not faulty and are understood by the respondents. During the study,
appropriate language was used to remove any ambiguity and allow free flow of
information between the researcher or assistants and the respondents.
3.8 Data AnalysisData analysis is the processing of data to make meaningful information (sounders, Lewis &
Thornbill, 2009). The questionnaires were examined, cleaned and sorted to ensure that all the
relevant data is coded, categorized and stored for analysis using statistical package for social
science (SPSS) Version 19 computer software. Data on variables was analyzed using descriptive
statistics which included measures of central tendency, measures of dispersion and measures of
association. In this case measures of central tendency shows the distribution of the data around the
common expected effects of incubation on the growth of MSE’s.
Qualitative data from the incubator managers and incubatees was organized along themes which
was guided by the research questions to establish links between data and key patterns that emerged
from the study. Qualitative data was analysed using content analysis which examines the intensity
lxiii
in which some, points of view and themes emerge (Orodho & Kombo, 2002). Qualitative content
analysis has been defined as a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of the
text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns
(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Quantitative data was tabulated and frequencies used to calculate
percentages which were presented in graphs, pie charts, histograms etc. to explain the phenomena.
Chi-square test was used to analyse frequency counts for the dependent variable; in this case growth
of MSE’s. Measures of dispersion gave information about the spread of the scores in the
distribution. Ordinal scales were used as well as non-parametric statistics such as median and mode.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the degree of relationship between the
variables in the study. This gave an indication to the strength and direction of association between
the variables. Relationships between variables were established through multiple regression
analysis.
From the conceptual frame work, the statistical model was developed. In this case
business growth being the dependent variable takes the variable [Y]. The coefficients of
the independent variables x1, x2….x6 are significant in showing the rate of how the
independent variables affect the dependent variable. Data was analysed using the
following statistical models;-
Y=β0+ β1x1+ β2x2+ β3x3+ β4x4+ β5x5+e
Where
Y= Growth of MSEs
β0 = coefficient of Intercept
β1……. β4 = regression coefficients of independent variables
lxiv
x1 .…… x5 = independent Variables (managerial skill, financial services, infrastructural
facilities, technological services, and market linkages)
e = Error term
The study conceptual framework indicates that the incubatee characteristics was a
moderating variable and hence the following model will be used;-
Y=β0+ β1x1+ β2x2+ β3x3+ β4x4+ β5x5+ β6x6+e
Where
x6 = moderating variable in this case incubate characteristics
The model is essential in making important inferences on the relationship between the
dependent, moderating and independent variables. This model will conclusively clearly
how that business incubation played certain roles in growth of incubatee enterprises in
Kenya.
lxv
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The study sought to investigate the effects of business incubation on the growth of micro
and small enterprises in Kenya. The specific variables of the study included; managerial
skills, financial services, technology services, market linkages, infrastructure and
facilities. This chapter presents empirical findings using descriptive research design and
data presented interprets the effects of business incubation phenomenon. The section
shows the analysis of data and its interpretation as was collected from the sample. Data
analysis was done using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) and interpretation
of the characteristics and discussion of variables are presented below.
4.2 Sample DistributionThe study was conducted in Nairobi County on 67 Public incubators and 122 Private
incubators bringing a total sample of 189 selected in stratified random sampling
technique. Questionnaires were administered to all the 128 incubatees of micro and small
enterprises from Government institutions, Universities and private incubators. The MSEs
that formed the sample was calculated using the sampling formula (Mugenda &
Mugenda, 2003). This approach is more applicable to this research because it has a higher
statistical efficiency and it is much easier to carry out, Zikmund (2010).
lxvi
4.2.2 Response Rate A total of 128 questionnaires were distributed and out of that, 123 questionnaires were
returned and analyzed, this gave a percentage respondent rate of 96% (see table 4.2.2).
This percentage is rated as very good. According to Mugenda & Mugenda, a response
rate of 50% is adequate, 60% is good and 70% and above very good ( Mugenda &
Mugenda 2003). Babbie (2002) observes that in descriptive research a response rate of
above 50% is adequate for analysis. Therefore, 96% response rate in this study is
adequate for analysis.
Table 4.1: Response rate
Incubators Sample Response
MSE’sfrequency
Percentage
Public Incubators
Private Incubators
TOTAL Response
45
83
42 81
123
32.8
63.3
96.1
lxvii
4.3 Incubatees Profile
4.3.1 Gender of incubatees
Figure 4.3.2 Gender of incubatees
The analysis of gender as indicated in Graph 1 above shows that a majority of the
incubatees were male with 70.7% compared to the female who contributed only 29.3%.
The research therefore found that more men are more likely to come up with business
ideas for incubation compared to their female counterparts possibly because most
incubators in Kenya are technology-based. Similar sentiments were echoed by Kinoti and
Miemie (2011) as majority of the incubatees respondents, 69.4% (n=86) were males,
while females constituted 30.6 % (n=38) of the Sample size.
NBIA (2009) estimates that“40 percent of incubators are technology focused; 30 percent
are mixed use, accepting a wide variety of clients; and the remainder focuses on service,
light industry and niche markets or on assisting targeted populations.” Watkins &
Watkins (1984) study showed that 50% of the women entrepreneurs had no prior
experience in the area of their business venture as compared to a mere 5% of men. Men
lxviii
therefore have higher risk propensity of starting and operating businesses due to prior
information. According to Steward and Gorrino (1997), MSEs are always highly
dependent on external knowledge sources, and technological innovation is important for a
small firm. Robert (1991) study showed that high technology industry sectors are
considered to be male dominated. This support the findings of the research since most
incubators provide technological service therefore the research found the majority of the
respondents were male.
4.3.2 Age of incubatees
Figure 4.3.2 Age of Incubatees
The survey information on age is presented in Graph 4.2. A majority of incubatees fall
between 21 and 40 years, forming a total of 86.6% probably because young graduates
from tertiary institutions and universities have embraced incubation concept and
entrepreneurship. Incubatees below 21 years and those above 50 years had the least
lxix
frequency of 1 incubatee in each case which translated to only 0.8%. Those that had an
age of between 41 and 50 years were only 9.8%. This contradicts finding reflected in a
study on the perspectives of young entrepreneurs in Swaziland which found out that
entrepreneurship is typically not a preferred career choice of young entrepreneurs, but a
last resort activity undertaken after other plans fail and therefore societal attitudes need
to change, where entrepreneurship would be viewed as an activity to which society
assigns a high value (UN, 2005). This can be viewed that in Kenya an enterprise culture
among the youth has developed especially in technology- related enterprises which are
largely incubated.
It is also in agreement with the findings by Price (2006) who maintained that there are
two natural age peaks correlated to entrepreneurship, namely the late twenties and mid-
forties. The study findings are almost similar to a study done in America by Muijanack,
Vroonhof and Zoetmer (2003) who determined that the optimum age for entrepreneurs
was 25-35.
lxx
4.3.3 Incubatees Marital StatusTable 4. 3.4: Incubatees Marital Status
Marital status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Single 61 49.6 49.6 49.6
Married 57 46.3 46.3 95.9
Divorced 3 2.4 2.4 98.4
Widowed 2 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
The research found that incubates vary with marital status (Table 4.3). 49.6% and 46.3%
of incubates were single and married respectively. Divorced and widowed respondents
scored the least frequencies of 3 and 2 incubates or 2.4% and 1.6% respectively.
The findings agree to those of Aldrich & Cliff, 2003) who found that having a partner
with an income makes it easier for women to take risks in venture creation than women
who’s family depend on only them (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003). Winn (2005) found that
women are more supportive and active in their spouse’s business than men are in the
businesses of their wives. Some studies have identified the marital status is an element
that may influence the type of entrepreneurial activities engaged in (Davidsson &Honig,
2003, Renzulli, Aldrich &Moody, 2000). Marriage has been considered a tie and a
potential constraint. The potential constraint on economic activities within the married
people is due gender-based expectations that they have. Since single women are similar
lxxi
to married men in their ability to allocate their time to business activities, it is more
probable that single women are more likely to identify and start more technological
business. This characteristics has an influence in this study whereby many single people
than married are incubatees.
3.4 Level of formal educationTable 4.3. 2: Level of Formal Education
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Secondary 1 .8 .8 .8
Tertiary 38 30.9 30.9 31.7
University 84 68.3 68.3 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
Table 3 clearly shows that education is essential for one to be an incubatee. All incubates
had secondary education and above. Similar findings were echoed by Kinoti & Miemie
(2011) where the findings indicated that 61.3% of them held bachelor degrees and above,
with approximately 64.5% of them with formal education that entrepreneurial subjects.
As expected those who had university education had the highest percentage, 68.3%
followed by those with tertiary level education, and 30.9%. There was only 1 incubatee
who had secondary level education which translated to an insignificant 0.8%.
lxxii
The above findings also agree with Kourilsky (1980) and Bates (1986b), they established
that educational attainment levels are positively associated with self-employment and
new business formation while the probability of self-employment increases with
education. The concept of business incubation has been embraced by universities and
other tertiary institutions in Kenya having been included in Kenya’s vision 2030 policy
document. This has sensitized many graduates towards self employment.
It can therefore be inferred that in today’s constantly fluctuating business environment,
education is one of the factors that impact positively on growth of firms and that those
entrepreneurs with larger stocks of human capital, in terms of education and (or)
vocational training, are better placed to adapt their enterprises to such unexpected
fluctuations. This shows that the academic qualification affects the growth of Small and
medium enterprises in Kenya.
4.3.5 Nature of Business The research sort to find out the distribution of the incubatees based on the nature of
business. It was found that 76.4% of the incubatees fell under the manufacturing sector
while 23.6% fell under the service sector. This is because the manufacturing sector
requires infrastructural facilities that are the major provision of an incubator. According
to Wiggins and Gibson (2003), business and technology incubators provide
infrastructure, operational and strategic support services to its client companies.
lxxiii
Figure 4.3.5 Nature of Business
Figure 4.3.6 Business Ownership
The cost of running in incubation is quite high and scares aware private investors. This
explains why a majority of the incubators (74.0%) were owned by institutions and or
universities which can fund the incubation with ease. Those that were owned by private
individuals were 26.0%. Business incubator variations exist but are primarily designated
as either nonprofit or for- profit. NBIA estimates that of the existing business incubators,
lxxiv
75 percent are nonprofit and 25 percent are for profit. Nonprofit business incubators are
normally owned by governments and universities while for- profit incubators are
privately owned (NBIA 2009).
Age of the business
Table 4. 3: Age of the Business
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Below 15 12.2 12.2 12.2
One year 28 22.8 22.8 35.0
Two years 23 18.7 18.7 53.7
Three years 17 13.8 13.8 67.5
Over three years
40 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
As shown in Table 4.5, 12.2% had incubator experience of below 1 year, 22.8% had one
year experience, 18.7% had two years experience, and 13.8% percent had three years
experience. Though these incubatees seemed to be evenly distributed on incubation
experience, the research notes that those with over three years had the highest percentage
(32.5%). It is therefore evident that incubation services were very essential for one to
start, operate and grow the business.
lxxv
The findings agree with those of Sherman and Chappell, (1998) indicated that business
incubators play an intricate part in small businesses’ potential for long - term survival as
they are responsible for providing an environment that is conducive for managers of
small businesses to acquire these much - needed skills. According to NBIA reports
(2006) business incubators reduce the risk of small business failures. NBIA member
incubators report that 87 percent of all firms that graduated from incubators are still in
business.
lxxvi
Table 4. 4: Managerial Skills
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Do you consider training in managerial skills to have any effect on growth of business
.0% .0% .0% 48.8% 51.2%
Do you believe business counseling is essential to your business
.0% .0% .8% 62.6% 36.6%
Has consultancy services assisted you to operate your business
.0% 3.3% 6.5% 63.4% 26.8%
Technical skills and advice provided by the incubator are adequate
.0% .8% 1.6% 61.8% 35.8%
Is human relations skill training adequate for business?
.0% .8% 1.6% 69.1% 28.5%
Is analytical and problem solving skill training adequately provided by the incubator?
.0% 30.9% 17.1% 42.3% 9.8%
Managerial skill offered by the incubator has helped me to operate my business well
.0% .0% 3.3% 65.0% 31.7%
lxxvii
All the incubatees either agreed (48.8%) or strongly agreed (51.2%) that training in
managerial skills had an effect on the growth of the business.” On business counseling,
62.6% and 23.6% agreed and strongly agreed that business counseling was essential to
the business. Consultancy services were helpful when it comes to running the incubation
business, 63.4% agreed and 26.8% strongly agreed. Only 6.5% were not sure.
The study findings relate to those of According to Ahire (2001), “lack of professional
managerial expertise accounts for about 90 percent of small business failures. While
these skills deficiencies are ever present in new business start- ups, small business owners
and managers can reduce the risk of small business failure due to managerial
inadequacies. An opportunity to overcome these deficiencies is the option of participating
in business incubator programs (NBIA, 2009).
Technical skills and advice, human relation training skills and managerial skills offered
by incubators were found to be adequate in the running of the business. All of the
respondent either agreed (over 60%) or strongly agreed (over 30%). The research found
that 30.9% disagreed that analytical and problem solving skill training were adequately
provided by the incubators, 17.1% were not sure while 52.1% either agreed (42.3%) or
strongly agreed (9.8%).
The findings collaborate with those of Papulova and Mokros (2007) who observed that
technical skills are important in businesses that relate to engineering and other technical
orientations. Rue and Byers (1992) in their theory of management competencies view
technical skills as very important to lower level managers. The study findings show that lxxviii
technical skills contribute to a moderate and to a very great extent on the growth of SMEs
in Kenya.
Technical skills and advice, human relation training skills and managerial skills offered
by incubators were found to be adequate in the running of the business. Incubators
provide the assistance that fills the knowledge gap, reduces early - stage operational
costs, and establishes entrepreneurs in a local enterprise support network (Allen and
Rahman ,1985). Thus, business incubation provides the mechanics in the process of
starting and growing companies. By providing entrepreneurs with business expertise,
vital networks, and management tools they need to make their ventures successful. All of
the respondent either agreed (over 60%) or strongly agreed (over 30%). The research
found that 30.9% disagreed that analytical and problem solving skill training were
adequately provided by the incubators according to Allen and Rahman (1985) although
entrepreneurs may have specialized knowledge, they often lack a full array of business
skills. 17.1% were not sure while 52.1% either agreed (42.3%) or strongly agreed (9.8%).
lxxix
Table 4. 5: Access to Finance
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly
Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Has access to finance from lenders influenced increase in sales turnover
.0% 6.5% 1.6% 61.0% 30.9%
The incubator loan facility has increased my capital investment
.0% 10.6% 4.9% 69.9% 14.6%
Has venture capital accessibility influenced your business expansion
.0% 1.6% 19.5% 67.5% 11.4%
Incubator financial access to lenders is adequate for business growth
.0% 1.6% 4.1% 56.1% 38.2%
Incubator funding through loan facility is adequate for business growth
.8% .8% 8.9% 51.2% 38.2%
Incubator linkage to ventures capital is adequate
.0% 1.6% 15.4% 66.7% 16.3%
My own source of finance is very important for business growth
.0% 1.6% .0% 56.9% 41.5%
Useful financial services are lacking in the incubator
3.3% 55.3% 17.9% 16.3% 7.3%
Access to finance from lenders influenced increase in sales turnover for most of the
incubatees as can be seen from Table 6. 61.0% agreed and an additional 30.9% strongly
agreed. The incubator loan facility increased incubates capital investment for a total of
lxxx
84.5% incubates and only 10.6% who disagreed with this fact. 67.5% agreed and 11.4%
strongly agreed that venture capital accessibility influenced their business expansion.
Venture capital investment in SME’s has facilitated wealth creation and economic impact
realized in terms of sales growth, profit, assets and improvement in management of
finance and other resources (Memba et al, 2012).
Majority of incubates 56.1% agreed and 38.2% strongly agreed that financial access to
lenders through the incubator was adequate for business growth. Only 1.6% of the
respondents disagreed and another 4.1% uncertain about it. According to the research,
incubator funding through loan facility was adequate for business growth to 89.4% of the
respondents. An insignificant 0.8% each disagreed and strongly disagreed while 8.9%
were not sure if indeed funding through loan facility was adequate for business growth.
Incubator linkage to venture capital was also found to be essential in incubation
according to 83.0% of the incubatees. Almost all the respondents (98.4%) agreed and
strongly agreed that their own finance was very important in their business Therefore,
incubatee access to capital is an important predictor of new venture growth but not
necessarily important for the founding of a new venture (Hurst & Lusardi, 2004).
The research also sought to determine if financial services were lacking in the incubator.
To this, 3.3% strongly disagreed, 55.3% disagreed, 17.9% were uncertain, 16.3% agreed
and 7.3% strongly agreed. These findings concurred with the NBIA definition of business
incubation as a program that provides “management guidance, technical assistance and
consulting tailored to young growing companies as well as access to appropriate rental
space and flexible leases, shared business services and equipment, technology support
lxxxi
services and assistance in obtaining the financing necessary for company growth”
(NBIA,2007).
lxxxii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Incubator is lacking very important infrastructural facilities for my business
8.9% 39.0% 30.1% 10.6% 11.4%
lxxxiii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
The results of Table 4.8 gives the results of items that were used to determine if
infrastructure and facilities influenced the growth of incubate business. 41.5% and 57.7%
agreed and strongly agreed that the space to operate was adequate for their businesses. lxxxiv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
This totals to 99.2% making infrastructure and facilities the major reason why incubates
seek services of an incubator.
lxxxv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
The study findings agree with those of Kinoti& Miemie (2011) who found that
incubatees rated the services they received; facilities and infrastructure was rated highest
followed by training, then technology support and then business support. The efficiency lxxxvi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
of ICT was gauged using item two in table 7; 63.4% agreed and 23.6% strongly agreed
that ICT facilities were up-to date and efficient. Only 10.6% had a different opinion to
this and another 2.4% did were not sure. According to the United Kingdom Business lxxxvii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Incubation (UKBI,2009), business incubation provides MSEs and start-ups with the ideal
location to develop and grow their businesses, offering everything from virtual support,
rent-a-desk through to state of the art laboratories and everything in between. lxxxviii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
A majority of incubates (55.3%) agreed that they had adequate amenities such as power,
water in the incubator and 43.9% strongly agreed. None of the respondents disagreed or
strongly disagreed to this question. Space was an important factor for the incubatees lxxxix
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
business growth with 44.7% agreeing and 53.7% strongly agreeing. Only 0.8% thought
that space was not an important factor in business growth. Similarly, 57.7% and 39.0%
agreed and strongly agreed that ICT facilities were important for business growth.xc
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Amenities such as power influenced business growth to a majority of the respondents
(45.5% agreed and 49.6% strongly agreed). None of the respondents had a different
opinion, 4.9% were not sure of this. Incubator ambience and incubator facilities xci
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
influenced the growth of the business according to 90.3% and 97.6% of the respondents
respectively. 57.7% and 39.8% of the respondents agreed and strongly agreed that
incubator facilities are adequate for business growth. These findings conflicts with xcii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
earlier findings on incubatees perception of incubator services that actual services
received fall short of incubates expectations and incubates received
xciii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xciv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xcv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xcvi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xcvii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xcviii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
lesss
xcix
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
c
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
ci
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
ciii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
civ
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cvi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cvii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cviii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cix
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cx
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxiii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxiv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxvi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxvii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxviii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxix
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxx
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxxi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
cxxii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Has the incubator technology development
improved your product design and
process?
.0% .8% 4.1% 69.9% 25.2%
cxxiii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Has availability of equipment and tools
increased you production efficiency?.0% .0% 2.4% 53.7% 43.9%
Do patenting and copyrights services affect
your competitive advantage?.0% 8.9% 17.9% 60.2% 13.0%
cxxiv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Do you think assistance in product design
is adequate.0% 4.1% 43.1% 37.4% 15.4%
My business has received enough received
enough guidance in production methods.0% 9.8% 7.3% 75.6% 7.3%
cxxv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Patenting and copyrights assistance is
effectively provided by the incubator.0% 11.4% 57.7% 18.7% 12.2%
Important technological services as lacking
in the incubator.8% 81.3% 4.1% 9.8% 4.1%
cxxvi
Table 4. 9 Incubator Technological Services
As shown in Table 4.9, incubator technology development improved the product design
and process of 95.1%, (69.9% agreed and 25.2% strongly agreed). Similarly, 53.7% and
43.9% of the respondents agreed that availability of equipment and tools increased their
production efficiency. Since a business Incubator is a facility designed to assist
businesses to become established and profitable during their incubation period (KeKoBi,
2006) then from the findings we find out that incubators have the capacity to improve the
product design and process. Patenting and copyrights services were found to affect the
competitive advantage of 73.2% while this did no affect 8.9% of the respondents.
Another 17.9% of the respondents were not sure of this. When adequacy in assistance
product design was measured, 4.1% disagreed, 37.4% agreed and 15.4% strongly agreed
that assistance in product design was adequate. Those who were not sure were very high,
at 43.1%. 75.6% agreed that their businesses have received enough guidance in
production method, another 7.3% strongly agreed to this. 9.8% disagreed while 7.3%
were not sure. This study concludes that incubators provide guidance in production
method, another study made conclusion that they could also be businesses that are
already set up and running but need to be boosted to grow. Each one of them needs a
different approach to convert them into vibrant business outfits (Gatheru, 2008). .
Patenting and copyrights assistance was effectively provided by the incubator to a small
percentage of the respondents (18.7% agreed and 12.2% strongly agreed). 11.4%
cxxvii
disagreed that patenting and copyright assistance was effectively provided by the
incubator. For this question, those who were not sure were very high at 57.7%. Most of
the respondents 81.3% disagreed that important technological services were lacking in
the incubator. A total of 13.9% either agreed (4.1%) or disagreed (9.8%) that important
technological services were lacking in the incubator.
cxxviii
Table 4.10 Effect of incubator Market linkages
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Market information is adequate from the incubator for business growth
.0% .8% .0% 30.1% 69.1%
Customer links are adequately provided by the incubator
.0% 7.3% 4.1% 63.4% 25.2%
Suppliers links are provided adequately by the incubator
.0% 17.1% 4.9% 68.3% 9.8%
Market information has enabled my business to cope with competition
.0% 1.6% 3.3% 75.6% 19.5%
Customer links has increased my market share
.8% 3.3% 9.8% 50.4% 35.8%
Supplier links has enabled my business to grow
.8% 7.3% 19.5% 41.5% 30.9%
Market linkages established by the incubator has influenced growth in sales volume
.0% .8% 9.8% 69.1% 20.3%
Market linkages has resulted in increased capital investments
.0% 1.6% 8.9% 73.2% 16.3%
For overall business growth market linkages are important
.0% .8% .0% 29.3% 69.9%
The results in Table 4.10 show that 30.9% and 69.1% agreed and strongly disagreed that
market information was adequate from the incubator for business growth.
Both customer and supplier links were adequately provided by the incubator according to
88.6% and 78.1% of the respondents respectively. 7.3% disagreed that customer links
were adequately provided by the incubator while 17.1% disagreed that supplier links
were provided by the incubator.
Market information was essential in enabling businesses to cope with competition (75.6%
agreed and another 19.5% strongly agreed). There was only 1.6% of the respondent
cxxix
disagreeing with this. 50.4% of the respondents agreed that customer links had increased
their market share. 38.8% strongly agreed that customer links had increased their market
share. 3.3% disagreed while 0.8% strongly disagreed. Of those interviewed, 9.8 were not
sure if this customer links increased their market share.
Supplier links positively affected the growth of business to a majority of the respondents
with 41.5% agreeing and 30.9% strongly agreeing. 8.1% thought that supplier links did
not positively affect the growth of business while 19.5% were not sure. According to
Muteti (2005), forging market linkages between enterprises and foreign multinational
corporations can hasten MSE development in developing countries like Kenya.
Market linkages established by influenced growth in sales volume to most of the
respondents (69.1% agreed and 20.3% strongly agreed). Having an extensive social
network is a valuable asset, as it can help an entrepreneur obtain access to information
(e.g., leads about profitable business opportunities) and resources (e.g., credit).
Entrepreneurs often take advantage of opportunities to invest in social networks when
there is an apparent pay off in terms of MSE growth (Berry, 2003). An insignificant 0.8%
disagreed while 9.8% were not sure. Similarly, market linkages resulted in increased
capital investments (73.2% agreed and another 16.3% strongly agreed) 99.2% of the
respondents felt that for overall business growth market linkages were important. A very
small percentage (0.8%) disagreed with this
cxxx
Table 4.11 Influence of incubate characteristics on business growth
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Has your entrepreneurial motivation before incubation influenced business growth?
.0% .0% .0% 70.7% 29.3%
Level of education is instrumental in growing my business
.0% 4.9% 6.5% 68.3% 20.3%
Age influences business growth
.0% 48.8% 30.9% 16.3% 4.1%
Creativity has helped business to growth
.0% .0% 2.4% 47.2% 50.4%
Innovativeness has helped my business to grow
.8% 2.4% 3.3% 44.7% 48.8%
Marital status has influence on business growth
.0% 76.4% 10.6% 9.8% 3.3%
Gender affects business growth
.0% 69.9% 11.4% 14.6% 4.1%
Entrepreneurial motivation before incubation was found to influence business growth,
100% either agreed (70.7%) or strongly agreed (29.3%). Similarly, level of education was
found to be instrumental in the growth of business with 68.3% agreeing and 29.3%
strongly agreeing. A small percent of 4.9% disagreed with this fact. GEMINI studies in
Sub-Saharan Africa revealed that entrepreneurs completing secondary school were more
likely to grow in Kenya and Zimbabwe but found no significant effect of primary
education on MSE expansion (Mead and Liedholm, 1998; Parker, 1995; McPherson,
1991). cxxxi
47.2% and 50% agreed and strongly agreed that creativity had helped the growth of their
incubation business. None was found to disagree. On innovativeness, 44.7% agreed and
48.8% strongly agreed that innovativeness had helped the growth of their business. A
total of 3.2% either disagreed or strongly disagreed this had helped their business growth.
The effect of age and marital status to business growth did not vary much. Fewer
respondents thought agreed or strongly agreed that age positively affected their business
growth (20.4%) while 48.8% disagreed with this. On the other hand, 13.1% agreed or
strongly agreed that marital status had an influence on business growth while 76.4%
disagreed with the same. Similarly, 69.9% of the respondents disagreed that gender
affects business growth with only 14.6% agreeing and 4.1% strongly agreeing that gender
affects business growth. Of the respondents interviewed, 11.4% were not sure if gender
affected business growth. The World Bank (1994) observed that a great disparity exist
between men and women entrepreneurs in Africa especially in terms of literacy rate,
earned income and other economic activities and the type of enterprises they start. This
research establishes gender has minimal impact on business growth.
cxxxii
Table 4.12 Incubation Growth Effects
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %
Row N %
Row N %
Row N %
High profitability .0% 2.4% 2.4% 74.0% 21.1%
Increased assets .0% 4.1% 6.5% 73.2% 16.3%
Management improvement
.0% .8% 1.6% 61.8% 35.8%
Expansion to other branches
.0% 51.2% 19.5% 22.0% 7.3%
Developing other products and services
.0% 4.9% 22.8% 64.2% 8.1%
Increase in sales turnover .0% .8% 4.1% 82.1% 13.0%
Important technological services as lacking in the incubator
.0% 17.9% 29.3% 41.5% 11.4%
Increase in total capital investment
.0% .8% 12.2% 72.4% 14.6%
Increase in market share 1.6% 1.6% 5.7% 72.4% 18.7%
From Table 11, 95.1% agreed or strongly agreed that they had achieved high profitability
in their business, 2.4% disagreed and another 2.4% were not sure. Most of the
respondents also agreed (73.2%) or strongly agreed (16.3%) that they had achieved
increased assets. 4.1% disagreed with and 6.5% were not sure.
cxxxiii
Almost all respondents agreed (61.8%) or strongly agreed (35.8%) that they had achieved
management improvement in their businesses. Many incubates were found not to have
achieved businesses expansion to other branches with 51.2% disagreeing 19.5% not sure,
22.9% agreeing and 7.3 percent strongly agreeing that they had expanded to other
branches. 64.2% agreed they had achieved development of other products and services,
8.1% agreed, 22.8% were not sure and 4.9% disagreed. According to Wiggins and
Gibson (2003), business and technology incubators provide infrastructure, operational
and strategic support services to its client companies which influence growth of business.
Increase in turnover had been achieved by 95.1% of the respondents of which 82.1%
agreed and 13.0% strongly agreed. The same result was realized for total capital
investment and increase in market share where 72.4% agreed in both cases while 14.6%
and 18.7% strongly agreed that they had achieved capital investment and increase in
market share respectively. Growth in the business determined by Parameters like sales,
rate of capital increase, level of profit, management improvement, addition of workers,
technology advancement among others (Bhide, 2000). In addition to the most commonly
used measures, namely employment and turnover, these include assets, market share,
physical output, and various measures of profitability (Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007). This
research findings show that the incubatees had achieved high profitability, increase in
asset, improved management, and increase in sale turn over, increase in market share and
increase capital which proves the incubators had facilitated growth in their business.
cxxxiv
ReferencesAerts, Kris, Paul M., and Koen V., (2007). Critical role and screening practices of
European business incubators. Technovation 27, (5) (5): 254-267. Ahire, S.L. (2001). Roles of management science techniques in small firms [Electronic
version]. Production and Inventory Management Journal; Alexandria; Second Quarter 2001, 14-28.
Aldrich, H.E. (1999).Organisations Evolving. Sage PublicationsAldrich, H.E., & Cliff, J. (2003), “The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship:
toward a family embeddedness perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, 18,573-596.
Aldrich, H.E & Zimmer. (1986), “Entrepreneurship through Social Networks”, In Donald Sexton and Raymond Smulor.ed., The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. New York: Ballinger, 3-23.
Allen, David N., and Richard M.,( 1990). Structure, policy, services, and performance in the business incubator industry. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 15, (2) (Winter): 61-77.
Allen, D.N., & Rahman, S. (1985).Small business incubators: a positive environment for entrepreneurship [Electronic version]. Journal of Small Business Management;
July1985, v23, 12- 23.
Alvarez, S. & Busentiz, L., (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755-755.
Amadi A.N., (2006). 1st Incubator Manager Training Series, KeKoBi Enterprises Training Report. Nairobi, Kenya.
Anderson, A., &Miller, C. (2003), “Class matters: human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process”,The Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 17-36.
Andreu, R. & Ciborra C., (1996). Organizational Learning and Core Capabilities Development: The Role of IT, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 5, 111-127.
Barney, J.B., (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 17, (1).
Baumgartner, T.A (2002). Conducting and reading research in health and human performance (3rd edition) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Beck T, Demirgu¨c¸-Kunt A, Laeven L, Levine R. 2005. Finance, firm size and growth.World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 3485.
Becker, (1975), “Human Capital. Chicago”, IL: Chicago University Press.
cxxxv
Begley, T.M., & Boyd, D.P. (1987), “Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses”, Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 79-93
Berry, Sara. (2003). NoCondition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change inSub-SaharanAfrica. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press (Chapter 7: Investing in Networks—
Farmers’Useof Incomeand Their Significance for Agrarian Change).
Berthon, P., Ewing, M.T & Napoli, J. (2008). Brand Management in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management. 46(1).
Binks, M.R & Ennew, C.T (1997). The relationship between U.K banks and their small business customers. Small Business Economics, 9, 167-178.
Birley, S (1989). Female entrepreneurs: are they really any different? Journal of Small
Business Management Vol. 27 ,37.
Blanchflower, D., Oswald, A., & Stutzer, A. (2001), “Latent entrepreneurship across nations?” European Economic Review, 45,680-691.
Bonnett, C & Furnham, A. (1991), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of Adolescents interested in a Young Enterprise scheme”, Journal of Economic Psychology 12,465-78.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Journal, 23,509-520.
Business Dictionary. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/managerial-kill.html#ixzz2KDZ9ZtHQ retrieved January 2013
Bwisa, H. (2005). The Kenyan Experience in Business Incubators. A Paper presented at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology Workshop, 12th -14th, May 2005, Garden Hotel, Machakos, Kenya.
Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Greene, P. and Hart, M. (Eds) (2006), Growth
Oriented Women Entrepreneurs and their Businesses: A Global Research Perspective, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Chandler, G., & Hanks, S. (1998), “An examination of the substitutability of founder’s human and financial capital in emerging business ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13,353-369.
cxxxvi
Choueke, R. & Armstrong R. (2000) Culture: a missing perspective on small and medium sized enterprise development? International journal of entrepreneur behavior & research. Vol. 6, No. 4 pp. 227-238.
Christensen, P.S. and Peterson, R. (1990) Opportunity identification: Mapping the
sources of new venture ideas. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, April. Denmark, Aarhus University Institute of Management.
Churchill, N.C. & Lewis, V.L (1983) The five stages of small business growth, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 30-50.
Clausen, T.H. (2006), “Who identifies and Exploits entrepreneurial opportunities”, Retrieved from www.ccsr.ac.uk
Cook P, Nixson F. 2005. Finance and small and medium-sized enterprise development. InFinance and Development: Surveys of Theory, Evidence and Policy, Green CJ, Kirkpatrick CH, Murinde V (eds). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
Coon, D. (2004). Introduction to Psychology (9thEd) Minneapolis: West Publishing Company.
Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2006). Business Research Methods. (8th ed). New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Cromie, S. (2000), “Assessing entrepreneurial inclination: Some approaches empirical evidence", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9, 1, 7-30.
Daniels L. 1999. The role of small enterprises in the household and national economy in Kenya: a significant contribution or a last resort?World Development27(1): 55–65.
Davidson, P., & Journal of Business Venturing, 20,121
Davidson, P., & Honing, B. (2003), “The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs”,Journal of Business Venturing, 20,121..
Daily, C., Certo T., & Daiton, D. (2000). International experience in the executive suite: The path to prosperity? Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 515-523.
David Easton.(1966), Alternative Strategies in Theoretical Research, in varieties of political Theory, Englewood cliffs.N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
David, T. & Krso, P. (2003). Networking capability: the competitive advantages of small firms. Competitive Advantage in SMEs: Organizing for Innovation and Change. Manchester Metropolitan University.
cxxxvii
DeTienne, D. and Chandler, G. (2007), “The role of human capital and gender in opportunity identification”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 31 pp 424440. de Bruin, A., Brush, C. and Welter, F. (2007), “Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’s entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 14 pp 1-10.
DFID. 2000.Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. The Department for International Development: London.
Eisenhauer, J.G. (1995), “The entrepreneurial decision: economic theory and empirical evidence”,Entrepreneurship theory & practice. Retrieved from www.allbusiness .com
Evans, D., & Jovanovic, B. (1989), “An Estimated Model of Entrepreneurial Choice under Liquidity Constraints”, The Journal of Political Economy, 97, 808-827.
Fenn, Donna, 1996. “Breakthrough Leadership: Higher Ground,” Inc., V18:5
Freeman, C. (1982) The Economics of Innovation. Pinter, London.
Frese, M (2000). Success and failure of Micro business Owners in Africa: A psychological approach. Greenwood, Westport, CT
Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Carter, N.M., & Reynolds, P.D. (2004). Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Gibb, A. & Davies, L. (1990) In pursuit of frameworks for the development of growth models of the small business, International Small Business Journal, 1, 15-31.
Gibb, A.A. & Davies, L.G. (1991), ‘Methodological problems in the development and testing of a growth model of business enterprise development’, in L.G. Davies & A.A. Gibb eds Recent Research in Entrepreneurship, Avebury, Aldershot, England, 286-323.
Goldberg, A. I., G & Fiegenbaum A. (2003). Reputation Building: Small Business Strategies for Successful Venture Development. Journal of Small Business Management. 41(2), 168-186.
Grant, R. M. (2008), Contemporary strategic analysis, Blackwell Publish. 6th Edition.
Gulati, R. (1995), “Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances”, Academy of Management Journal, 38. 1. 85-112.
Hackett, Sean M., and David M. Dilts. 2004. A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research. Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (1) (January 1): 55-82. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 19, 2007).
cxxxviii
Hanks, S.H., Watson, C.J., Jansen, E. & Chandler, G.N. (1993), ‘Tightening the life-cycle construct: a taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-technology organizations’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 2, 5-29.
Hisrich, R. D. (1989). Women entrepreneurs: Problems and prescriptions for success in
the future. In O. Hagan, C. Rivchin & D. Sexton (Eds.), Women-owned Businesses (pp. 3- 32). New York: Praeger.
Ho, T.S. & Koh, H.C. (1992), “Differences in psychological characteristics between entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates in Singapore”, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change: An International Journal, 1, 43-5
Holtz-Eakin, D., Joulfaian, D., & Rosen, H, S. (1994), “Sticking it out: Entrepreneurial Survival and Liquidity Constraints, Journal of Political Economy, 1,1024.
Hurst, E. & Lusardi, A. (2004), “Liquidity Constraints, Household Wealth, Entrepreneurship, Journal of Political Economy, 2,112.
Ikiara, K. (1988). The Role of Government Institutions in Kenya?s Industrialization in Kenya. In Coughlin, P. & Ikiara,
Information for Development Programme. (2006). Promoting Innovation & Entrepreneurship in Africa, Africa Regional Workshop: InfoDev Incubator Initiative, 3rd - 5th May, Accra, Ghana.
Jansson, H. & Boye, P. (2007) Gaining internationalization of Medium-sized Enterprises from China: The Take-off Phase, Conference paper. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 2006. 13, 2.
Ji Z.H (2005). Brand Growth pattern of Small and medium sized enterprise. Value engineering, 8.
Johnson, B. (1990), “Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achievement and the entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship: Theory& Practice, 14, 39-54.
Katz, R. (1974).Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct, 90-102.
Keasey, K. Short, H. & Watson, R. (1994), Director’s ownership and the performance of small and medium sized firms in the UK, Small Business Economics, 6: 225-236.
KeKobi (2005) launching the first National Business Incubator: A progress report www.jkuat-cbi.co.ke
KeKobi, (2006). 1st incubator manager Training series. Training report www.kekobi.co.ke
cxxxix
Kiraka, Ruth (2009) Innovative private sector development Instruments- an African Perspective, working paper on investing in the development of small and medium enterprises, January 2009.
Kim, P., Aldrich, H.E., &Keister, L.A. (2003). Access (not) denied: The Impact of financial, human and cultural capital on becoming a Nascent Entrepreneur. Working paper.
Kinoti, A. & Miemie, S. (2011) an Evaluation of the Entrepreneurs perception of Business- Incubation Services in Kenya. International Journal of Business Administration 2 , 4. sciedu press.
Kombo, D.K., & Tromp, D.L.A. (2009). Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction. Nairobi, Kenya, Pauline Publications Africa.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques (Revised Edition), Delhi, India, New Age International Publishers.
Kourilsky, M. L., & Walstad, W. B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth:
Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol 13 pp 77-88.
Kwabena, (2011). European Journal of Business and Management 2222-1905 (Paper 2222-2839 (Online) 3, 6, 2011
Lancaster G.A., Dodd, S.,Williamson P.R (2010) Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendation for good practice. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 10:2
Landstrom, H. (1998).The Roots of Entrepreneurship Research, Conference proceedings, Lyon, France, November 26-27.
Lewis David A, (2008). Guide to Business Incubation for Elected Officials in New York State, University of Albany, 1-5.
Maijoor, S. & Witteloostuijin, A., (1996). An Empirical Test of the Resource-Based Theory: Strategic Regulation in the Dutch Audit Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 549-569.
McClelland, D.C. (1961).The Achieving Society, NJ: Van Nostrand, Princeton.
Memba, SF., Gakure W.R. & Karanja K.(2012) Venture capital (VC): Its Impact on Growth of Small and Medium Enterprises in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 3, 6: special issue on Contemporary Research in Business and Economics, Centre for promoting Ideas, USA.
Mohar, Y .M.S, Singh, J & Kishore, K. (2007), “Relationship Between psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial inclination: A Case Study of Students at
cxl
University Tun Abdul Razak”, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 8. ProQuest Information and Learning Publishers
Murphy, J.P, Liao, J & Welsch, P.H. (2006), “A Conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought”, Journal of Management History. 12, 9-24.
Mugenda A., (2008) Social Science Research, Theory and principles
Mugenda A. & Mugenda O. (2012). Research Methods Dictionary. Nairobi: Applied Research & Training Services,
Mugenda A. & Mugenda O. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative & Qualititive approaches. African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya.
Nachmias, C.F. & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. (5 th
ed). London: Edward Arnold.
National Business Incubation Association. “Suggested Metrics.” National Business Incubation Association, https://www.nbia.org/impact/suggested_metrics.php (accessed March 14, 2013).
National Business Incubation Association (October 24, 2009). Principles and practices of
successful business incubators. Retrieved March 4, 2014 from http://www.nbia.org.
O'Neal, Thomas. (2005). Evolving a successful university-based incubator: Lessons learned from the UCF technology incubator. Engineering Management Journal 17, (3) (9): 11-25.
Patti L. Wilber. (2003) The Impact of Business Incubators on Small Business Survivability. Northwestern Oklahoma State University Leonard Dixon, Nova Southeastern University.
Pervin, L.A. (1980). Personality: Theory, Assessment and Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Republic of Kenya, (2005), Sessional Paper, 2, on Development of Micro and Small Enterprises for Wealth and Employment Creation for Poverty Reduction, Nairobi 2005.
Republic of Kenya, (2003).Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment creation. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Republic of Kenya, (2012).Economic Survey. Nairobi, Kenya. Government printers.
cxli
Reynolds, P., & Miller, B. (1992). New Firm Gestation: Conception, Birth, and Implications for Research. Journal of Business Venturing 7, 405-417.
Reynolds, P.D. (1991), “Sociology and entrepreneurship: concepts and contributions”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16(2), 47-70
Remedios, R.K. B. & Cornelius B. (2003). Cracks in the Egg: Improving Performance in Business Incubation Research. A paper for the Small Enterprise Association of Australia & New Zeal&, 16th Annual Conference, 28th September to 1st October, University of Ballarat.
Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray.
Robb and Coleman (2009). Are successful women entrepreneurs different from men?
Accessed from www.kuuffman.org/uploadfiles/succ. on 21st September 2011.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., & Hunt, H.K. (1991a), “An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15 (4)13-32.
Rotter, J. (1966), “Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control reinforcements”,Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No.609.
Say, J.B. (1803). Traité D'économie Politique, ou Simple Exposition de la Manière Dont se Forment, se Distribuent, et se Composent les Richesses, A.A. Renouard, Paris.
Sarri, K., and A. Trihopoulou (2005). "Female Entrepreneurs' Personal
Characteristics and Motivation: A Review of the Greek Situation," Women in Management Review, Vol.20. pp 24-36.
Shane, S.A & Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”, Academy of Management Review.
Shane, S.A. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Shane, S.A &Eckhardt, J.T. (2003), “Opportunities and Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Management, 29 (3), 333-349.
Shaver, K.G & Scott, L.R. (1991), “Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16, 23-45.
cxlii
Sherman, H., & Chappell, D.S. (1998). Methodological challenges in evaluating business
incubator outcomes [Electronic version]. Economic Development Quarterly Review, Nov 98, v2, I4, 313 (9).68, 1156-159.
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: MethuenPublishers
Soetanto D.P. (2004), The Role of the Incubation Policy in helping the Growth of New Technology- Based Firms: paper presented at Globelics Academy, PhD school of National Systems of Innovation and Economic Development, 2005 edition.
Stein, G.S. (2001). Building businesses from the ground up [Electronic version]. Central Pennsylvania, Business Journal; Harrisburg; Nov 9, 2001, 17, I46, S6 (3).
Stevenson, Lois & Annette St-Onge (2005). Creating an Entrepreneurial
Environment to Foster the Start-up and Growth of Women-Owned Enterprises: Best Practice from Atlantic Canada.” Paper presented at the World Conference of the International Council of Small Business (ICSB), Belfast, Northern Ireland,
Storey, D., Watson, R. & Wynarczyk, P. 1988, Fast Growth Small Business: Case
Studies of 40 Small Firms in the North-East of England, Research Paper No. 67,
Department of Employment, London, England.
Szpiro, G. (1986), “Measuring risk aversion: An alternative approach”, Review of Economics and Statistics,
Tornatzky, L. (1996), The art and craft of Technology Business Incubation, National Business Incubation Association (NBIA).http://www. Ukbi.uk.org
Tornatzky, L., Sherman, H., & Adkins, D. (2003). Incubating Technology Businesses: A National Benchmarking Study. Athens, OH: National Business Incubation
Utsch, A., Rauch, A., Rothfuss, R., & Frese, M. (1999), “Who becomes a small scale entrepreneur in a post-socialist environment: On the differences between entrepreneurs and managers in East Germany”, Journal of Small Business
United Nations Economic Commission of Africa: Annual Report 2005
Watkins J.M., & Watkins, D.S (1983) The female entrepreneur :Her background, and
determinants of business choice: some British data. In J.A Hornaday, J.A. Timmons,& K.H Vespers (Eds.), frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Boston, MA Babson College.
cxliii
Management 37(3), 31-41Association.
Wiggins J. and Gibson, D.V.(2003), Overview of US incubators and the case of The Austin Technology Incubator, International Journal, Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3.56-66.
World Bank. (2004).World Bank Group Support for Small Businesses. World Bank: Washington, DC.
World Bank Survey, (1994). “The Role of Women in Development”. United Nations
Publications.www.sciedu.ca/ijba International Journal of Business Administration 2, 4; November 2011, retrieved February, 201
Yeo Ronald K., (2008) "Identifying the competitive sword: learning to be cutting-edge for organizational development", Business Strategy Series, Vol. 9 Iss: 1, pp.30 - 36
Zikmund, W. G. (2010). Business Research Methods, Florida: The Dryden Press.
APPENDIX I
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
Date…………………………
To. ………………………………………….
……………………………………………
cxliv
Dear Sir/Madam,
REF: COLLECTION OF RESEARCH DATA
My name is Ruth Ruhiu a PhD student in Entrepreneurship at Jomo Kenyatta University
of Agriculture and Technology. Currently I am carrying out a research on “Effects of
Business Incubation on the Growth of Micro and Small Enterprises in Kenya”. I am in
the process of gathering data and I have identified you as one of the respondents in this
study. I kindly ask you to take some time to respond to the attached questionnaire. I
assure you that your responses will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be
used solely for the purpose of this study.
Thank you in advance for your time and responses.
Yours Sincerely,
Ruth Ruhiu
HD 413/0012/2008
APPENDIX II
Questionnaire: To incubator managers and incubatees operating business within the
incubator
Kindly fill your responses in the space provided or tick (√) appropriately
SECTION ONE
cxlv
Demographic information
1. Name of the incubatee (optional)..............................................................................2. Gender: (tick) Male Female3. Age:
a) below 21 years b) 21-30 years c) 31-40 yearsd) 41-50 yearse) Over 50 years
4. Marital statusSingle Married Divorced Widowed
5. Level of formal Educationa) Noneb) Primaryc) Secondaryd) Tertiarye) university
6. Nature of business ( tick (√) as appropriate) manufacturing Service
7. Business ownership (tick (√)) Institution/university Private other (specify)
……………………………………………………………………
8. Age of the business:a) Below one year b) One year c) Two years d) Three yearse) Over three years
9. Which of the following incubation services do you consider important to a business? (Give rating 1-5: 1being most important, 2 important, 3 somehow important, 4 least important and 5 not important).i) Managerial skills ii) Financial servicesiii) Infrastructure and facilitiesiv) Technological services
cxlvi
v) Market linkages
10. Do you think incubation is instrumental in growth of an enterprise? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION TWOManagerial skills
Fill the following table by ticking (√) whether the business management skills provided by the incubator have had an effect for starting and operating and growth of business.
cxlvii
Type of skills Stronglyagree
Agree Not sure
Disagree StronglyDisagree
1Do you consider managerial skills to have any effect on growth of your business?
2Do you believe business counseling is essential to your business?
3 Has consultancy services assisted you to operate your business?
4Do you think the technical skills provided by the incubator are adequate?
5 Is human relations skill training adequate for your business?
6Is analytical and problem solving skill training adequately provided by the incubator?
7Managerial skill offered by the incubator has helped me to operate my business well
9. Please make any other relevant comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION THREE
Financial services
Do you think the following financial services offered by the incubator influence growth of your business? (Tick (√) as appropriate)
cxlviii
Financial services Stronglyagree Agree Not
sure Disagree StronglyDisagree
1Has access to finance from lenders influenced increase in sales turnover?
2Has loans offered by incubator of any impact on your capital investment?
3Has venture capital accessibility influenced your business expansion?
4Incubator financial access to lenders is adequate for business growth.
5Incubator funding through loan facility is adequate for business growth.
6 Incubator linkage to venture capital is adequate.
7.My own source of finance is very important for business growth
8. Useful financial services are lacking in the incubator
9. Please make any other relevant comments …………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION FOUR
Infrastructure and Facilities
Has the following infrastructure and facilities influenced the growth of your business? (Tick (√) as appropriate)
Infrastructure & Facilities Stronglyagree
Agree Not sure Disagree Stronglydisagree
cxlix
1 Space to operate is adequate for my business
2 ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
3 Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
4 Space is important for my business growth
5 ICT facilities are important for business growth
6 Amenities such as power influences my business growth
7 Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business.
8 Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business.
9 Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
10 incubator is lacking very important infrastructural facilities for my business
11. Please make any other relevant comment
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
SECTION FIVE
Technology services
Has the following technological services had any effect on the growth of your enterprise? (Tick (√) appropriately)
Technology services Strongly Agree Not Disagree Strongly
cl
agree sure Disagree1 Has the incubator technology
development improved you product design and process?
2
Has availability of equipment & tools increased you production efficiency?
3 Do patenting and copyrights services affect your competitive advantage?
4 Do you think assistance in product design is adequate
5 My business has received enough guidance in production methods
6 Patenting and copyrights assistance is effectively provided by the incubator
7 There are other important technological services lacking in the incubator
11. Please make any other relevant comments
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION SIX
Market linkages
Do you think your business has experienced growth as a result of the following market linkages? (Tick (√) appropriately)
cli
Market Linkages Stronglyagree
Agree Not sure
Disagree StronglyDisagree
1 Market information is adequate from the incubator for business growth
2 Customer links are adequately provided by the incubator
3 Suppliers links are provided adequately by the incubator
4 Market information has enabled my business to cope with competition
5 Customer links has increased my market share
6 Supplier links has enabled my business manage market chain
7 Market linkages established by the incubator has influenced growth in sales turnover.
8 Market linkages has resulted in increased investments
9 For overall business growth market linkages are important
10. Please make any other relevant comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION SEVEN
Role of incubate characteristics
Do you think the following personal characteristics influence the growth of your business? (Tick (√) as appropriate)
clii
Incubatee characteristics Stronglyagree
Agree Not sure
Disagree StronglyDisagree
1 Has your entrepreneurial motivation before incubation influenced business growth?
2 Level of education is instrumental in growing my business
3 Age influences business growth
4 Creativity has helped business growth
5 Marital status has influence on business growth
6 Gender affects business growth
7 My innovativeness has helped my business to grow
10. Please make any other relevant comments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
SECTION EIGHT
Growth of Enterprise
Have you achieved any of the following effects in your business? (Tick (√) as appropriate)
cliii
Indicators Stronglyagree Agree Not
sure Disagree StronglyDisagree
1 Higher profitability
2 Increased assets
3 Management improvement
4 Expansion to other branches
5 Developing other products and services
6 Increase in sales turnover
7 Increase in the number of employees
8 Increase in total capital investment
9 Increase in market share
Please make any other relevant comments
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
APPENDIX III
BUDGET
Description Costs
cliv
Stationery/materials and internet 40,000
Communication 10,000
Production of proposal 20,000
Research instruments 20,000
Data collection and analysis inclusive of research assistants 40,000
Travel expenses 20,000
Production of final document 10,000
Subsistence for researcher for 8 months 20,000
Miscellaneous 10,000
TOTAL190,000
APPENDIX IV: WORK PLAN
Activity
Time Frame2010
– 2012 Aug.
2012 2013/2014
Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July- Nov.
Topic selection and Approval
Write a concept note
General literature review/ surveyDraft proposal and reviews by supervisors/ amendmentsDraft proposals ready for presentation
Proposal defense to University panelIncorporation of panel comments into the proposalQuestionnaire refinement
clv
Pilot study
Adjustments of data collection instrumentsData collection from selected sampleData processing and analysisReview of draft thesis by supervisors
Defense of final thesis
Incorporate defense session input
Editing the final copy
Final submission to the universityfor examination
clvi