Enabling Open Innovation in Digital Startups through the Incubation Program—A Case of Qatar
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Open Innovation Policies and Barriers
2.2. Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship
2.3. Enabling OI for Startups through Incubation
3. The Case of the Incubation Center for Digital Startups (CfDS)
4. Research Method
4.1. Identification of Knowledge Areas Affecting Open Innovation
S.N. | Knowledge Area and Elements | Element Descriptions | Literature Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Knowledge area 1: Open innovation in firms | |||
1 | Element 1.1 | The budget allocated for R&D | Bogers et al. [16] |
2 | Element 1.2 | Startup IP knowledge and application | Bogers et al. [16] |
3 | Element 1.3 | Following standards | Bogers et al. [16] |
4 | Element 1.4 | Supporting OI through collaboration and interaction | Cheng and Chen [8] |
5 | Element 1.5 | Developing employees’ skills | Bogers et al. [16] |
Knowledge area 2: Government role in OI | |||
6 | Element 2.1 | Government has intellectual property laws and patent rights laws | Malik and Wei [22] |
7 | Element 2.2 | Government support for entrepreneurship | Fabricio Jr et al. [25] |
8 | Element 2.3 | Government financial support for startups | Bogers et al. [16] |
9 | Element 2.4 | Government financial support for R&D | Chesbrough et al. [27] |
10 | Element 2.5 | Government focus on providing skills to the incubated companies | Galiyeva and Fuschi [31] |
11 | Element 2.6 | Government supports the formation of derived companies from large organizations to commercialize research discoveries | Yun et al. [14] |
12 | Element 2.7 | Government is benefitting from specialized personnel as innovation resources | De Jong et al. [28] |
13 | Element 2.8 | Government allocates resources efficiently | Galiyeva and Fuschi [31] |
14 | Element 2.9 | Education system encourages general stimulation for problems | Chesbrough et al. [27], Bogers et al. [16] |
15 | Element 2.10 | Education system encourages entrepreneurship Education | Chesbrough et al. [27], Bogers et al. [16] |
16 | Element 2.11 | Government accelerates the publication of government data whenever possible. | Chesbrough et al. [27] |
17 | Element 2.12 | Utilize OI in government procurement. | Juarez et al. [10] |
18 | Element 2.13 | Government promotes the commercial application of technologies developed for it. | Yun et al. [14] |
Knowledge area 3: Market Place | |||
19 | Element 3.1 | Qatar technology market is flexible | Buss and Peukert [20] |
20 | Element 3.2 | Qatar’s market encourages knowledge migration. | Inauen and Schenker-Wicki [7,14,15,19] |
21 | Element 3.3 | There is competition in different sectors in the Qatar market. | Usman and Vanhaverbeke [13] |
Knowledge area 4: Social resources and networks. | |||
22 | Element 4.1 | Social resources (sites and communities, tools, and platforms such as Creative Commons) are evolved for OI. | Hossain [24] |
23 | Element 4.2 | Social networks are used to enlarge knowledge exploration | Hossain [24] |
4.2. Data Collection Method
5. Analysis and Results
- The mean response value of each statement was calculated and denoted as V.
- The median µ0 was calculated for the Means V for the statements representing the hypothesis.
- The median µ0 was subtracted from each mean value (V-µ0) to obtain a sign (r+, r−) as suggested in [52].
- The count of positive signs, r+, and negative sign, r−, was determined, and rmin was determined by finding the minimum (r+, r−).
- r* was determined from Table 3 based on α = 0.05 and n, the number of statements representing the hypothesis.
- decision was made based on the condition that if , then the null hypothesis is rejected.
- Startups recognize the value of investing in R&D to establish their position in the marketplace. Adequate training and mentoring are highlighted throughout their time in the incubation center.
- Startups had information on the laws and policies related to IP, and more than half of them are aware of the opportunity with these laws and policies for their business. More effort is needed to enable digital startups to support them in protecting their innovation (such as software applications). Thus, startups perceive the need to apply OI models.
- There is government funding available to initiate companies, and it is also mentioned that research-related funds are disbursed through the National Research Funds. When working in an OI context, continuous technical expertise is needed until the startup is independent. This type of support can help startups develop new products and services for the broader market.
- Entrepreneurship should be one of the core subjects in education. It should be started right from the primary level of education. If this can be done, a critical mass of entrepreneurs would be developing to take Qatar’s startup lead.
- The technology market is flexible in Qatar, and it encourages the commercialization of innovative ideas. Moreover, knowledge migrates to Qatar’s market since it is considered a rich environment for development, especially with the competition within the local digital market. Sharing motivating factors and hurdles in cross-learning on applications can help increase the likelihood of success.
- Building on social resources, including communities, platforms, and tools, would support OI’s further adoption in digital startups.
6. Discussion
- The CfDS and other science and technology organizations collaborate to provide an incubation hub and business development base. The center collaborates with the government to organize workshops to encourage entrepreneurs to list their digital businesses on Qatar’s “Theqa” e-commerce platform, which can be accessed through the link https://www.theqa.qa (accessed on 1 March 2022) The website aims to improve Qatar’s e-commerce and to grow local online purchases by enabling people and residents to trust Qatar’s e-commerce ecosystem. The successful collaboration of the incubation centers with the universities, other research centers, and government entities can support startups [57]. The collaboration may be expanded to more national and international universities and organizations to gain expertise worldwide to enable the sustainable growth of the startups [58].
- As mentioned earlier, regulations play an essential role in facilitating OI. It is highly recommended to raise awareness in startup companies with the available rules and regulations and to enhance the negotiation mechanisms to apply IP laws to digital startups [59]. These mechanisms will allow registering them under the rights holder, protecting them by law from duplication or usage without official approval from the right holder. In addition, it dramatically protects the work of the startups. It is recommended to initiate IP licensing standards and related trade, create patent pools, and develop open-source models for different sectors, specifically the ICT sector [60]. Intellectual property contracts are essential when acquiring a partnership with other organizations, where patents, trademarks, copyrights, design rights, and technical and commercial information (trade secrets) become essential [55]. An enhancement of these mechanisms may attract more digital startups to start in Qatar’s market and create various digital industries.
- Finally, government support is essential for startups, including consultancy and advisory support such as product compatibility and digital safety for digital transactions. The CfDS encourages digital startups to adapt to the latest technology trends and standards, including cloud computing, the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analysis, machine learning, cybersecurity, e-commerce, smart city solutions, and blockchain. The government’s financial support to increase R&D investment in startup companies is crucial to allow access to state-of-the-art technologies and develop innovative solutions in the marketplace. This support will help sustain startup companies and guarantee market diversity and economic growth [61]. The studies of digital startups and incubation centers are limited in the literature; accordingly, this paper contributes to the knowledge by examining how OI could benefit digital startups.
7. Conclusions and Future Research Directions
Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Knowledge Area 1 | Statements Used for the Interview | ST | Transcript of Responses |
---|---|---|---|
Element 1.1 | Your company has a budget allocated for research and development | ST1 | The startup coordinator agreed with this statement and discussed how the center communicates with other entities to secure R&D funds. Two digital startups in the incubation stage disagreed since they were at their initial stage, and all their funds were allocated to the establishment and operational activities. Two incubation startups in the Incubation stage and two in the graduation stage agreed, and a small amount is allocated to R&D due to its importance. One graduated startup had a neutral response, while two graduated startups agreed strongly, and they have the proper amount of funds allocated to R&D |
Element 1.2 | Your company has a clear and strong IP system | ST2 | The startup coordinator and one graduated startup had a neutral answer since they could not judge the clarity of the IP system. In contrast, two incubated startups and one graduated disagreed and believed that the IP system was not clear for them. Two graduated startups and one incubated strongly agreed with the statement since they are aware of the current IP system in the country. One incubated startup agreed since the IP system is available. They need to investigate more about it. |
Element 1.3 | Your company follows strong standards (in terms of organization and technology) | ST3 | The startup coordinator, four graduate startups, and two incubated startups confirmed their agreement using IT standards and organizational standards. One incubated and one graduated startup have strong standards, and they strongly agree with the statement. |
Element 1.4 | Your company supports user innovation and interaction | ST4 | Since startup companies are generally based on innovation, user innovation and interaction are the business’s sole. All incubated startups and two graduates rated their support, while three graduated startups strongly agreed. |
Element 1.5 | Your company develops employee’s skills | ST5 | Employee development is essential to foster innovation, as per graduated startups 1.3. Three graduated and incubated startups confirmed that they develop employee skills and strongly agreed with the statement. They have implemented programs to develop employees’ skills. The coordinator had a neutral response on this aspect, as it depends on a startup’s requirements. One startup disagreed with the statement, as their company promotes and depends on employee self-development. |
References
- Satalkina, L.; Steiner, G. Digital Entrepreneurship and its Role in Innovation Systems: A Systematic Literature Review as a Basis for Future Research Avenues for Sustainable Transitions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caetano, D.; Preto, M.T.; Amaral, M. University-industry linkage through business incubation: A case study of the IPN incubator in Portugal. In The Role of Knowledge Transfer in Open Innovation; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 223–244. [Google Scholar]
- Gagliardo, E.D.; Gobbo, G.; Papi, L.; Bigoni, M. The effectiveness of incubation programs in startup development. Riv. Ital. Ragioneria Econ. Aziend. 2017, 5–8, 225–239. [Google Scholar]
- Othman, F.A.A.; Sohaib, O. Enhancing Innovative Capability and Sustainability of Saudi Firms. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leitão, J.; Pereira, D.; Gonçalves, Â. Business Incubators, Accelerators, and Performance of Technology-Based Ventures: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.W. The era of open innovation. Manag. Innov. Chang. 2006, 127, 34–41. [Google Scholar]
- Inauen, M.; Schenker-Wicki, A. Fostering radical innovations with open innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 15, 212–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.C.; Chen, J. Breakthrough innovation: The roles of dynamic innovation capabilities and open innovation activities. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2013, 28, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groote, J.K.; Backmann, J. Initiating open innovation collaborations between incumbents and startups: How can david and goliath get along? Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 24, 2050011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valdez-Juárez, L.E.; Gallardo-Vázquez, D.; Ramos-Escobar, E.A. CSR and the Supply Chain: Effects on the Results of SMEs. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, Y.; Liu, J.; Ding, Y. Analysis of the relationship between open innovation, knowledge management capability and dual innovation. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2019, 32, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, S.; Kailer, N.; Dorfer, J.; Jones, P. Open innovation in (young) SMEs. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 2019, 21, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Usman, M.; Vanhaverbeke, W. How startups successfully organize and manage open innovation with large companies. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 20, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Hwang, B.; Kang, J.; Kim, D. Analysing and simulating the effects of open innovation policies: Application of the results to Cambodia. Sci. Public Policy 2015, 42, 743–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J. Open Innovation Policy in National Innovation System. In Business Model Design Compass; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 49–60. [Google Scholar]
- Bogers, M.; Zobel, A.-K.; Afuah, A.; Almirall, E.; Brunswicker, S.; Dahlander, L.; Frederiksen, L.; Gawer, A.; Gruber, M.; Haefliger, S.; et al. The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Ind. Innov. 2017, 24, 8–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Oliveira, L.S.; Echeveste, M.E.; Cortimiglia, M.N. Critical success factors for open innovation implementation. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2018, 31, 1283–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsinopoulos, C.; Sousa, C.M.P.; Yan, J. Process Innovation: Open Innovation and the Moderating Role of the Motivation to Achieve Legitimacy. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2017, 35, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsang, E.W.K. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: Learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strat. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 835–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buss, P.; Peukert, C. R&D outsourcing and intellectual property infringement. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 977–989. [Google Scholar]
- Spithoven, A.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; Roijakkers, N. Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 41, 537–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, K.; Wei, J. How external partnering enhances innovation: Evidence from Chinese technology-based SMEs. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2011, 23, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagliardi, D. Next generation entrepreneur: Innovation strategy through Web 2.0 technologies in SMEs. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2013, 25, 891–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossain, M. A review of literature on open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises. J. Glob. Entrep. Res. 2015, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carvalho, E.G.; Sugano, J.Y. Entrepreneurial orientation and open innovation in brazilian startups: A multicase study. Interações 2016, 17, 448–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de S. Fabrício, R., Jr.; da Silva, F.R.; Simões, E.; Gale-gale, N.V.; Akabane, G.K. Strengthening of Open Innovation Model: Using startups and technology parks. IFAC-Pap. Online 2015, 48, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; Bakici, T.; Lopez-Vega, H. Open Innovation and Public Policy in Europe; Science Business Publishing Ltd.: Brussels branch, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- De Jong, J.P.; Kalvet, T.; Vanhaverbeke, W. Exploring a theoretical framework to structure the public policy implications of open innovation. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2010, 22, 877–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lugasi, S.O.; Odhiambo, M.A. Implementation of Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISCs) in Kenya: Challenges and opportunities. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kautonen, M.; Pugh, R.; Raunio, M. Transformation of regional innovation policies: From ‘traditional’ to ‘next generation’ models of Incubation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 620–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galiyeva, N.; Fuschi, D.L. A research proposal for measuring the effectiveness of business incubators. J. Organ. Stud. Innov. 2018, 5, 32–46. [Google Scholar]
- van der Spuy, S.J.H. The state of business incubation in the Northern Cape: A service spectrum perspective. South. Afr. J. Entrep. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 11, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wolniak, R.; Grebski, M.E.; Skotnicka-Zasadzień, B. Comparative Analysis of the Level of Satisfaction with the Services Received at the Business Incubators (Hazleton, PA, USA and Gliwice, Poland). Sustainability 2019, 11, 2889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mu, R.; Wang, H. A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: Comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation. Public Manag. Rev. 2020, 24, 489–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, S.D.; Påske, N.; Rodil, L. Managing Ambidexterity in Startups Pursuing Digital Innovation. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2019, 44, 273–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mankevich, V.; Holmström, J. Gateways to Digital Entrepreneurship: Investigating the Organizing Logics for Digital Startups. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 2016, p. 13995. [Google Scholar]
- Hamid, N.; Khalid, F. Entrepreneurship and Innovation in the Digital Economy. Lahore J. Econ. 2016, 21, 273–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binsawad, M.; Sohaib, O.; Hawryszkiewycz, I. Factors impacting technology business incubator performance. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2019, 23, 1950007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Binsawad, M.; Sohaib, O.; Hawryszkiewycz, I. Knowledge-Sharing in Technology Business Incubator. In Information Systems Development: Advances in Methods, Tools, and Management; Isd2017 Proceedings; Paspallis, N., Raspopoulos, M., Barry, C., Lang, M., Linger, H., Schneider, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, P.; Richter, N.; Schildhauer, T. Open Innovation with digital startups using Corporate Accelerators—A review of the current state of research. Z. Polit. (ZPB) Policy Advice Political Consult. 2015, 7, 152–159. [Google Scholar]
- de Carvalho, A.C.C.C. Digital Startups Accelerators: Characteristics and Evolution Trends. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.-C.; Phillips, F.; Yang, C. Bridging innovation and commercialization to create value: An open innovation study. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 123, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, M.; Joseph, R. Qatar Emerging as the Most Attractive FDI Destination in the GCC. Int. J. Econ. Financ. 2016, 8, 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bowen, G.A. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual. Res. J. 2009, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Horton, J.; Macve, R.; Struyven, G. Qualitative research: Experiences in using semi-structured interviews. In The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 339–357. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, R.; Samaranayaka, A.; Cameron, C. Parametric vs. nonparametric statistical methods: Which is better, and why? N. Z. Med. Stud. J. 2020, 30, 61–62. [Google Scholar]
- Sohn, W.; Jeong, M.; Jeong, K. Theoretical comparative study of t tests and nonparametric tests for final status surveys of MARSSIM at decommissioning sites. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2020, 135, 106945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trawiński, B.; Smętek, M.; Telec, Z.; Lasota, T. Nonparametric statistical analysis for multiple comparison of machine learning regression algorithms. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 2012, 22, 867–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashenfelter, O.; Sullivan, D. Nonparametric Tests of Market Structure: An Application to the Cigarette Industry. J. Ind. Econ. 1987, 35, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grzegorzewski, P.; Śpiewak, M. The sign test and the signed-rank test for interval-valued data. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2019, 34, 2122–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montgomery, D.C.; Runger, G.C. Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 207–219. [Google Scholar]
- Colombo, M.G.; Laursen, K.; Magnusson, M.; Rossi-Lamastra, C. Introduction: Small Business and Networked Innovation: Organizational and Managerial Challenges. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2012, 50, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, A.; Nguyen, P.; Do, H. The effects of entrepreneurial orientation, social media, managerial ties on firm performance: Evidence from Vietnamese SMEs. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2022, 6, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boudreau, K.J.; Jeppesen, L.B.; Miric, M. Profiting from digital innovation: Patents, copyright and performance. Res. Policy 2022, 51, 104477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murati-Leka, H.; Fetai, B. Government and innovation performance: Evidence from the ICT enterprising community. J. Enterprising Commun. People Places Glob. Econ. 2022. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greco, M.; Grimaldi, M.; Cricelli, L. Benefits and costs of open innovation: The BeCO framework. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2018, 31, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fellnhofer, K. Entrepreneurial alertness toward responsible research and innovation: Digital technology makes the psychological heart of entrepreneurship pound. Technovation 2021, 102384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagedoorn, J.; Zobel, A.-K. The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2015, 27, 1050–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Ahmed, N.; Khan, S.A.Q.A.; Naz, S. Role of Business Incubators as a Tool for Entrepreneurship Development: The Mediating and Moderating Role of Business Start-up and Government Regulations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hochleitner, F.P.; Arbussà, A.; Coenders, G. Inbound open innovation in SMEs: Indicators, non-financial outcomes, and entry-timing. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 204–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Sarto, N.; Cazares, C.C.; Di Minin, A. Startup accelerators as an open environment: The impact on startups’ innovative performance. Technovation 2022, 113, 102425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, J.; Hawryszkiewycz, I.; Sohaib, O. Deriving High-Performance Knowledge Sharing Culture (HPKSC): A Firm Performance & Innovation Capabilities Perspective; Association of Information Systems: Tokyo, Japan, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Li, L.; Kang, K.; Sohaib, O. Investigating factors affecting Chinese tertiary students’ online-startup motivation based on the COM-B behaviour changing theory. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2021, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, G.; Dooley, L.; Bogue, J. Open innovation within high-tech SMEs: A study of the entrepreneurial founder’s influence on open innovation practices. Technovation 2021, 103, 102232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavallo, A.; Burgers, H.; Ghezzi, A.; van de Vrande, V. The evolving nature of open innovation governance: A study of a digital platform development in collaboration with a big science centre. Technovation 2021, 102370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Element | Element Description | Hypothesis | Statement |
---|---|---|---|
Element 1.4 | Supporting OI through collaboration and interaction | H01, H11 | ST4 |
Element 2.5 | Government focus on distinguished talents | ST10 | |
Element 2.6 | Government supports the formation of derived companies from large organizations to commercialize research discoveries | ST11 | |
Element 2.7 | Government is benefitting from specialized personnel as innovation resources | ST12 | |
Element 2.9 | Education system encourages general stimulation for problems | ST14 | |
Element 2.10 | Education system encourages entrepreneurship education | ST15 | |
Element 3.1 | Qatar technology market is flexible | H02, H12 | ST19 |
Element 3.2 | Qatar’s market encourages knowledge migration | ST20 | |
Element 3.3 | There is competition in different sectors in the Qatar market | ST21 | |
Element 4.1 | Social resources (sites and communities, tools, and platforms such as Creative Commons) are evolved for OI | ST22 | |
Element 4.2 | Social networks are used to enlarge knowledge exploration. | ST23 | |
Element 1.2 | Startup IP knowledge and application | H03, H13 | ST2 |
Element1.3 | Following standards | ST3 | |
Element 2.1 | Government has intellectual property laws and patent rights laws | ST6 | |
Element 2.2 | Government support for entrepreneurship | ST7 | |
Element 2.11 | Government accelerates the publication of government data whenever possible | ST16 | |
Element 1.1 | Budget allocated for R&D | H04, H14 | ST1 |
Element 2.8 | Government allocates resources efficiently | ST13 | |
Element 2.3 | Government financial support for startups | ST8 | |
Element 2.4 | Government financial support for R&D | ST9 |
n\α one sided test | r* α = 0.05 | r* α = 0.025 | r* α = 0.005 |
---|---|---|---|
4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
9 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
10 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Responses | Analysis | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hypothesis | Startup | Startup Coordinator | Graduated 1 | Graduated 2 | Graduated 3 | Graduated 4 | Graduated 5 | Incubated 1 | Incubated 2 | Incubated 3 | Incubated 4 | V = Mean of STx | Median µ0 of V Values | Sign of the Result of (V-µ0) | Count of Positive Signs r+ | Count of Negative signs r− | n | r* at n Records and α = 0.05 | min(r+, r−) | Result of Comparing rmin with r* |
H1 | ST4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | 3.1 | + | 3 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 2 | rmin > r* |
ST10 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3.4 | + | ||||||||
ST11 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3.1 | tie | ||||||||
ST12 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.7 | + | ||||||||
ST14 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | − | ||||||||
ST15 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | − | ||||||||
H2 | ST19 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 3.5 | tie | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | rmin > r* |
ST20 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3.4 | − | ||||||||
ST21 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3.7 | + | ||||||||
ST22 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3.1 | − | ||||||||
ST23 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4.1 | + | ||||||||
H3 | ST2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3.3 | 3.5 | − | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 2 | rmin > r* |
ST3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | + | ||||||||
ST6 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3.8 | + | ||||||||
ST7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | − | ||||||||
ST16 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3.5 | − | ||||||||
H4 | ST1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3.8 | 3.8 | tie | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 | rmin > r* |
ST8 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3.6 | − | ||||||||
ST9 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | + | ||||||||
ST13 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.1 | − |
Hypothesis | Description | Result |
---|---|---|
H1 | Hypothesis 01 (H01). Startups are not confident of the value obtained from the collaboration with the large organization in an OI model. Hypothesis 11 (H11). Startup companies are confident of the value of collaboration with a large organization to benefit from an OI model. | Null hypothesis cannot be rejected as |
H2 | Hypothesis 02 (H02). Entrepreneurs and startups cannot create the required marketplace for their innovation outcomes; therefore, the existing market is crucial as a valuable business platform. Hypothesis 12 (H12). Entrepreneurs and startups can create the required marketplace for their innovation outcomes; therefore, the existing market will not affect innovation ideas. | Null hypothesis cannot be rejected as |
H3 | Hypothesis 03 (H03). The current support mechanism to negotiate the use of portions of running IP is not adequate to enable OI in digital startups. Hypothesis 13 (H13). The current support mechanism to negotiate the use of portions of running IP is adequate to enable OI in digital startups. | Null hypothesis cannot be rejected as |
H4 | Hypothesis 04 (H04). Government support is indispensable to enable OI in digital startups. Hypothesis 14 (H14). Government support is not indispensable to enable OI in digital startups. | Null hypothesis cannot be rejected as |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Al Sharif, R.; Pokharel, S.; Ayari, M.A.; Essam, M.; Aqeel, S. Enabling Open Innovation in Digital Startups through the Incubation Program—A Case of Qatar. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116557
Al Sharif R, Pokharel S, Ayari MA, Essam M, Aqeel S. Enabling Open Innovation in Digital Startups through the Incubation Program—A Case of Qatar. Sustainability. 2022; 14(11):6557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116557
Chicago/Turabian StyleAl Sharif, Reem, Shaligram Pokharel, Mohamed Arselene Ayari, Marwa Essam, and Salwa Aqeel. 2022. "Enabling Open Innovation in Digital Startups through the Incubation Program—A Case of Qatar" Sustainability 14, no. 11: 6557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116557