Transcript
Page 1: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 2: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 3: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

DEDICATIONTo

Ephraim

Denver

Jean

iii

Page 4: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 5: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 6: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 7: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 8: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 9: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 10: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 11: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 12: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 13: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 14: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 15: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 16: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 17: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 18: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 19: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 20: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 21: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 22: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 23: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 24: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 25: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 26: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 27: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 28: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 29: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 30: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 31: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 32: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 33: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 34: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 35: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

(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

Page 36: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 37: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 38: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 39: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 40: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 41: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 42: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 43: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 44: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 45: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 46: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 47: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 48: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 49: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 50: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 51: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 52: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 53: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 54: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 55: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 56: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 57: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 58: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 59: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 60: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 61: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 62: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 63: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 64: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 65: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 66: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 67: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 68: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 69: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 70: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 71: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 72: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 73: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 74: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 75: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 76: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 77: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 78: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 79: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 80: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 81: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 82: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

services and assistance in obtaining the financing necessary for company growth”

(NBIA,2007).

lxxxii

Page 83: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 84: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 85: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 86: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 87: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 88: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 89: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 90: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 91: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 92: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 93: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 94: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 95: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 96: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 97: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 98: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 99: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 100: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 101: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 102: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 103: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 104: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 105: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 106: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 107: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 108: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 109: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 110: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 111: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 112: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 113: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 114: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 115: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 116: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 117: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 118: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 119: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 120: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 121: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 122: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 123: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 124: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 125: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 126: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 127: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 128: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 129: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 130: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 131: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 132: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 133: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 134: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 135: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 136: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 137: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 138: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 139: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 140: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 141: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 142: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 143: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 144: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 145: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 146: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 147: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 148: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 149: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 150: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 151: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 152: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 153: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 154: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 155: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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

Page 156: B I Research Findings Chapter Four (PK YT2 March)

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


Top Related