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 i
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DECLARATION
This Research proposal is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in
any other University.
Signature ………………………….. Date …………………………
Name: Ruth Wanjiru Ruhiu
HD 413-0012/2008
This Research proposal has been submitted for examination with our approval as
University supervisors.
Signature ………………………………. Date …………………….
Name: Dr. P. Karanja Ngugi
JKUAT, Kenya
Signature ……………………………….. Date …………………….
Name: Dr. Gichuhi A. Waititu
JKUAT, Kenya
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank the almighty God for the far He has brought me.
Special thanks go to my research supervisors at JKUAT, Dr. Karanja Ngugi and Dr.
Waititu for their constructive criticism, guidance; knowledge and understanding that
equipped me with direction and motivation of this research proposal. My peer review
group: Lucy, Juliet, and Bancy for advice and sharing to soldier on.
I also acknowledge the importance of the University library NCBD campus for furnishing
me with the adequate reading and research materials with its State of the art computer
and internet systems that was necessary for this undertaking.
facilities, technological services, and market linkages)
e = Error term
The study conceptual framework indicates that the incubatee characteristics was a
moderating variable and hence the following model will be used;-
Y=β0+ β1x1+ β2x2+ β3x3+ β4x4+ β5x5+ β6x6+e
Where
x6 = moderating variable in this case incubate characteristics
The model is essential in making important inferences on the relationship between the
dependent, moderating and independent variables. This model will conclusively clearly
how that business incubation played certain roles in growth of incubatee enterprises in
Kenya.
lxv
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The study sought to investigate the effects of business incubation on the growth of micro
and small enterprises in Kenya. The specific variables of the study included; managerial
skills, financial services, technology services, market linkages, infrastructure and
facilities. This chapter presents empirical findings using descriptive research design and
data presented interprets the effects of business incubation phenomenon. The section
shows the analysis of data and its interpretation as was collected from the sample. Data
analysis was done using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) and interpretation
of the characteristics and discussion of variables are presented below.
4.2 Sample DistributionThe study was conducted in Nairobi County on 67 Public incubators and 122 Private
incubators bringing a total sample of 189 selected in stratified random sampling
technique. Questionnaires were administered to all the 128 incubatees of micro and small
enterprises from Government institutions, Universities and private incubators. The MSEs
that formed the sample was calculated using the sampling formula (Mugenda &
Mugenda, 2003). This approach is more applicable to this research because it has a higher
statistical efficiency and it is much easier to carry out, Zikmund (2010).
lxvi
4.2.2 Response Rate A total of 128 questionnaires were distributed and out of that, 123 questionnaires were
returned and analyzed, this gave a percentage respondent rate of 96% (see table 4.2.2).
This percentage is rated as very good. According to Mugenda & Mugenda, a response
rate of 50% is adequate, 60% is good and 70% and above very good ( Mugenda &
Mugenda 2003). Babbie (2002) observes that in descriptive research a response rate of
above 50% is adequate for analysis. Therefore, 96% response rate in this study is
adequate for analysis.
Table 4.1: Response rate
Incubators Sample Response
MSE’sfrequency
Percentage
Public Incubators
Private Incubators
TOTAL Response
45
83
42 81
123
32.8
63.3
96.1
lxvii
4.3 Incubatees Profile
4.3.1 Gender of incubatees
Figure 4.3.2 Gender of incubatees
The analysis of gender as indicated in Graph 1 above shows that a majority of the
incubatees were male with 70.7% compared to the female who contributed only 29.3%.
The research therefore found that more men are more likely to come up with business
ideas for incubation compared to their female counterparts possibly because most
incubators in Kenya are technology-based. Similar sentiments were echoed by Kinoti and
Miemie (2011) as majority of the incubatees respondents, 69.4% (n=86) were males,
while females constituted 30.6 % (n=38) of the Sample size.
NBIA (2009) estimates that“40 percent of incubators are technology focused; 30 percent
are mixed use, accepting a wide variety of clients; and the remainder focuses on service,
light industry and niche markets or on assisting targeted populations.” Watkins &
Watkins (1984) study showed that 50% of the women entrepreneurs had no prior
experience in the area of their business venture as compared to a mere 5% of men. Men
lxviii
therefore have higher risk propensity of starting and operating businesses due to prior
information. According to Steward and Gorrino (1997), MSEs are always highly
dependent on external knowledge sources, and technological innovation is important for a
small firm. Robert (1991) study showed that high technology industry sectors are
considered to be male dominated. This support the findings of the research since most
incubators provide technological service therefore the research found the majority of the
respondents were male.
4.3.2 Age of incubatees
Figure 4.3.2 Age of Incubatees
The survey information on age is presented in Graph 4.2. A majority of incubatees fall
between 21 and 40 years, forming a total of 86.6% probably because young graduates
from tertiary institutions and universities have embraced incubation concept and
entrepreneurship. Incubatees below 21 years and those above 50 years had the least
lxix
frequency of 1 incubatee in each case which translated to only 0.8%. Those that had an
age of between 41 and 50 years were only 9.8%. This contradicts finding reflected in a
study on the perspectives of young entrepreneurs in Swaziland which found out that
entrepreneurship is typically not a preferred career choice of young entrepreneurs, but a
last resort activity undertaken after other plans fail and therefore societal attitudes need
to change, where entrepreneurship would be viewed as an activity to which society
assigns a high value (UN, 2005). This can be viewed that in Kenya an enterprise culture
among the youth has developed especially in technology- related enterprises which are
largely incubated.
It is also in agreement with the findings by Price (2006) who maintained that there are
two natural age peaks correlated to entrepreneurship, namely the late twenties and mid-
forties. The study findings are almost similar to a study done in America by Muijanack,
Vroonhof and Zoetmer (2003) who determined that the optimum age for entrepreneurs
was 25-35.
lxx
4.3.3 Incubatees Marital StatusTable 4. 3.4: Incubatees Marital Status
Marital status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Single 61 49.6 49.6 49.6
Married 57 46.3 46.3 95.9
Divorced 3 2.4 2.4 98.4
Widowed 2 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
The research found that incubates vary with marital status (Table 4.3). 49.6% and 46.3%
of incubates were single and married respectively. Divorced and widowed respondents
scored the least frequencies of 3 and 2 incubates or 2.4% and 1.6% respectively.
The findings agree to those of Aldrich & Cliff, 2003) who found that having a partner
with an income makes it easier for women to take risks in venture creation than women
who’s family depend on only them (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003). Winn (2005) found that
women are more supportive and active in their spouse’s business than men are in the
businesses of their wives. Some studies have identified the marital status is an element
that may influence the type of entrepreneurial activities engaged in (Davidsson &Honig,
2003, Renzulli, Aldrich &Moody, 2000). Marriage has been considered a tie and a
potential constraint. The potential constraint on economic activities within the married
people is due gender-based expectations that they have. Since single women are similar
lxxi
to married men in their ability to allocate their time to business activities, it is more
probable that single women are more likely to identify and start more technological
business. This characteristics has an influence in this study whereby many single people
than married are incubatees.
3.4 Level of formal educationTable 4.3. 2: Level of Formal Education
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Secondary 1 .8 .8 .8
Tertiary 38 30.9 30.9 31.7
University 84 68.3 68.3 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
Table 3 clearly shows that education is essential for one to be an incubatee. All incubates
had secondary education and above. Similar findings were echoed by Kinoti & Miemie
(2011) where the findings indicated that 61.3% of them held bachelor degrees and above,
with approximately 64.5% of them with formal education that entrepreneurial subjects.
As expected those who had university education had the highest percentage, 68.3%
followed by those with tertiary level education, and 30.9%. There was only 1 incubatee
who had secondary level education which translated to an insignificant 0.8%.
lxxii
The above findings also agree with Kourilsky (1980) and Bates (1986b), they established
that educational attainment levels are positively associated with self-employment and
new business formation while the probability of self-employment increases with
education. The concept of business incubation has been embraced by universities and
other tertiary institutions in Kenya having been included in Kenya’s vision 2030 policy
document. This has sensitized many graduates towards self employment.
It can therefore be inferred that in today’s constantly fluctuating business environment,
education is one of the factors that impact positively on growth of firms and that those
entrepreneurs with larger stocks of human capital, in terms of education and (or)
vocational training, are better placed to adapt their enterprises to such unexpected
fluctuations. This shows that the academic qualification affects the growth of Small and
medium enterprises in Kenya.
4.3.5 Nature of Business The research sort to find out the distribution of the incubatees based on the nature of
business. It was found that 76.4% of the incubatees fell under the manufacturing sector
while 23.6% fell under the service sector. This is because the manufacturing sector
requires infrastructural facilities that are the major provision of an incubator. According
to Wiggins and Gibson (2003), business and technology incubators provide
infrastructure, operational and strategic support services to its client companies.
lxxiii
Figure 4.3.5 Nature of Business
Figure 4.3.6 Business Ownership
The cost of running in incubation is quite high and scares aware private investors. This
explains why a majority of the incubators (74.0%) were owned by institutions and or
universities which can fund the incubation with ease. Those that were owned by private
individuals were 26.0%. Business incubator variations exist but are primarily designated
as either nonprofit or for- profit. NBIA estimates that of the existing business incubators,
lxxiv
75 percent are nonprofit and 25 percent are for profit. Nonprofit business incubators are
normally owned by governments and universities while for- profit incubators are
privately owned (NBIA 2009).
Age of the business
Table 4. 3: Age of the Business
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Below 15 12.2 12.2 12.2
One year 28 22.8 22.8 35.0
Two years 23 18.7 18.7 53.7
Three years 17 13.8 13.8 67.5
Over three years
40 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 123 100.0 100.0
As shown in Table 4.5, 12.2% had incubator experience of below 1 year, 22.8% had one
year experience, 18.7% had two years experience, and 13.8% percent had three years
experience. Though these incubatees seemed to be evenly distributed on incubation
experience, the research notes that those with over three years had the highest percentage
(32.5%). It is therefore evident that incubation services were very essential for one to
start, operate and grow the business.
lxxv
The findings agree with those of Sherman and Chappell, (1998) indicated that business
incubators play an intricate part in small businesses’ potential for long - term survival as
they are responsible for providing an environment that is conducive for managers of
small businesses to acquire these much - needed skills. According to NBIA reports
(2006) business incubators reduce the risk of small business failures. NBIA member
incubators report that 87 percent of all firms that graduated from incubators are still in
business.
lxxvi
Table 4. 4: Managerial Skills
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Do you consider training in managerial skills to have any effect on growth of business
.0% .0% .0% 48.8% 51.2%
Do you believe business counseling is essential to your business
.0% .0% .8% 62.6% 36.6%
Has consultancy services assisted you to operate your business
.0% 3.3% 6.5% 63.4% 26.8%
Technical skills and advice provided by the incubator are adequate
.0% .8% 1.6% 61.8% 35.8%
Is human relations skill training adequate for business?
.0% .8% 1.6% 69.1% 28.5%
Is analytical and problem solving skill training adequately provided by the incubator?
.0% 30.9% 17.1% 42.3% 9.8%
Managerial skill offered by the incubator has helped me to operate my business well
.0% .0% 3.3% 65.0% 31.7%
lxxvii
All the incubatees either agreed (48.8%) or strongly agreed (51.2%) that training in
managerial skills had an effect on the growth of the business.” On business counseling,
62.6% and 23.6% agreed and strongly agreed that business counseling was essential to
the business. Consultancy services were helpful when it comes to running the incubation
business, 63.4% agreed and 26.8% strongly agreed. Only 6.5% were not sure.
The study findings relate to those of According to Ahire (2001), “lack of professional
managerial expertise accounts for about 90 percent of small business failures. While
these skills deficiencies are ever present in new business start- ups, small business owners
and managers can reduce the risk of small business failure due to managerial
inadequacies. An opportunity to overcome these deficiencies is the option of participating
in business incubator programs (NBIA, 2009).
Technical skills and advice, human relation training skills and managerial skills offered
by incubators were found to be adequate in the running of the business. All of the
respondent either agreed (over 60%) or strongly agreed (over 30%). The research found
that 30.9% disagreed that analytical and problem solving skill training were adequately
provided by the incubators, 17.1% were not sure while 52.1% either agreed (42.3%) or
strongly agreed (9.8%).
The findings collaborate with those of Papulova and Mokros (2007) who observed that
technical skills are important in businesses that relate to engineering and other technical
orientations. Rue and Byers (1992) in their theory of management competencies view
technical skills as very important to lower level managers. The study findings show that lxxviii
technical skills contribute to a moderate and to a very great extent on the growth of SMEs
in Kenya.
Technical skills and advice, human relation training skills and managerial skills offered
by incubators were found to be adequate in the running of the business. Incubators
provide the assistance that fills the knowledge gap, reduces early - stage operational
costs, and establishes entrepreneurs in a local enterprise support network (Allen and
Rahman ,1985). Thus, business incubation provides the mechanics in the process of
starting and growing companies. By providing entrepreneurs with business expertise,
vital networks, and management tools they need to make their ventures successful. All of
the respondent either agreed (over 60%) or strongly agreed (over 30%). The research
found that 30.9% disagreed that analytical and problem solving skill training were
adequately provided by the incubators according to Allen and Rahman (1985) although
entrepreneurs may have specialized knowledge, they often lack a full array of business
skills. 17.1% were not sure while 52.1% either agreed (42.3%) or strongly agreed (9.8%).
lxxix
Table 4. 5: Access to Finance
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly
Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Has access to finance from lenders influenced increase in sales turnover
.0% 6.5% 1.6% 61.0% 30.9%
The incubator loan facility has increased my capital investment
.0% 10.6% 4.9% 69.9% 14.6%
Has venture capital accessibility influenced your business expansion
.0% 1.6% 19.5% 67.5% 11.4%
Incubator financial access to lenders is adequate for business growth
.0% 1.6% 4.1% 56.1% 38.2%
Incubator funding through loan facility is adequate for business growth
.8% .8% 8.9% 51.2% 38.2%
Incubator linkage to ventures capital is adequate
.0% 1.6% 15.4% 66.7% 16.3%
My own source of finance is very important for business growth
.0% 1.6% .0% 56.9% 41.5%
Useful financial services are lacking in the incubator
3.3% 55.3% 17.9% 16.3% 7.3%
Access to finance from lenders influenced increase in sales turnover for most of the
incubatees as can be seen from Table 6. 61.0% agreed and an additional 30.9% strongly
agreed. The incubator loan facility increased incubates capital investment for a total of
lxxx
84.5% incubates and only 10.6% who disagreed with this fact. 67.5% agreed and 11.4%
strongly agreed that venture capital accessibility influenced their business expansion.
Venture capital investment in SME’s has facilitated wealth creation and economic impact
realized in terms of sales growth, profit, assets and improvement in management of
finance and other resources (Memba et al, 2012).
Majority of incubates 56.1% agreed and 38.2% strongly agreed that financial access to
lenders through the incubator was adequate for business growth. Only 1.6% of the
respondents disagreed and another 4.1% uncertain about it. According to the research,
incubator funding through loan facility was adequate for business growth to 89.4% of the
respondents. An insignificant 0.8% each disagreed and strongly disagreed while 8.9%
were not sure if indeed funding through loan facility was adequate for business growth.
Incubator linkage to venture capital was also found to be essential in incubation
according to 83.0% of the incubatees. Almost all the respondents (98.4%) agreed and
strongly agreed that their own finance was very important in their business Therefore,
incubatee access to capital is an important predictor of new venture growth but not
necessarily important for the founding of a new venture (Hurst & Lusardi, 2004).
The research also sought to determine if financial services were lacking in the incubator.
To this, 3.3% strongly disagreed, 55.3% disagreed, 17.9% were uncertain, 16.3% agreed
and 7.3% strongly agreed. These findings concurred with the NBIA definition of business
incubation as a program that provides “management guidance, technical assistance and
consulting tailored to young growing companies as well as access to appropriate rental
space and flexible leases, shared business services and equipment, technology support
lxxxi
services and assistance in obtaining the financing necessary for company growth”
(NBIA,2007).
lxxxii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Incubator is lacking very important infrastructural facilities for my business
8.9% 39.0% 30.1% 10.6% 11.4%
lxxxiii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
The results of Table 4.8 gives the results of items that were used to determine if
infrastructure and facilities influenced the growth of incubate business. 41.5% and 57.7%
agreed and strongly agreed that the space to operate was adequate for their businesses. lxxxiv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
This totals to 99.2% making infrastructure and facilities the major reason why incubates
seek services of an incubator.
lxxxv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
The study findings agree with those of Kinoti& Miemie (2011) who found that
incubatees rated the services they received; facilities and infrastructure was rated highest
followed by training, then technology support and then business support. The efficiency lxxxvi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
of ICT was gauged using item two in table 7; 63.4% agreed and 23.6% strongly agreed
that ICT facilities were up-to date and efficient. Only 10.6% had a different opinion to
this and another 2.4% did were not sure. According to the United Kingdom Business lxxxvii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Incubation (UKBI,2009), business incubation provides MSEs and start-ups with the ideal
location to develop and grow their businesses, offering everything from virtual support,
rent-a-desk through to state of the art laboratories and everything in between. lxxxviii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
A majority of incubates (55.3%) agreed that they had adequate amenities such as power,
water in the incubator and 43.9% strongly agreed. None of the respondents disagreed or
strongly disagreed to this question. Space was an important factor for the incubatees lxxxix
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
business growth with 44.7% agreeing and 53.7% strongly agreeing. Only 0.8% thought
that space was not an important factor in business growth. Similarly, 57.7% and 39.0%
agreed and strongly agreed that ICT facilities were important for business growth.xc
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Amenities such as power influenced business growth to a majority of the respondents
(45.5% agreed and 49.6% strongly agreed). None of the respondents had a different
opinion, 4.9% were not sure of this. Incubator ambience and incubator facilities xci
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
influenced the growth of the business according to 90.3% and 97.6% of the respondents
respectively. 57.7% and 39.8% of the respondents agreed and strongly agreed that
incubator facilities are adequate for business growth. These findings conflicts with xcii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
earlier findings on incubatees perception of incubator services that actual services
received fall short of incubates expectations and incubates received
xciii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xciv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xcv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xcvi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xcvii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
xcviii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
lesss
xcix
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
c
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
ci
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
ciii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
civ
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cvi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cvii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cviii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cix
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cx
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxiii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxiv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxvi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxvii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxviii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxix
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxx
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
cxxi
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
cxxii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Has the incubator technology development
improved your product design and
process?
.0% .8% 4.1% 69.9% 25.2%
cxxiii
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Has availability of equipment and tools
increased you production efficiency?.0% .0% 2.4% 53.7% 43.9%
Do patenting and copyrights services affect
your competitive advantage?.0% 8.9% 17.9% 60.2% 13.0%
cxxiv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Do you think assistance in product design
is adequate.0% 4.1% 43.1% 37.4% 15.4%
My business has received enough received
enough guidance in production methods.0% 9.8% 7.3% 75.6% 7.3%
cxxv
Table 4.8 Infrastructural facilities
Strongly Disagree Disagree
Not Sure Agree
Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %Row N %
Row N % Row N %
Space to operate is adequate for my business
.0% .8% .0% 41.5% 57.7%
ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
.0% 10.6% 2.4% 63.4% 23.6%
Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
.0% .0% .8% 55.3% 43.9%
Space is important for my business growth
.0% .8% .8% 44.7% 53.7%
ICT facilities are important for business growth
.8% 2.4% .0% 57.7% 39.0%
Amenities such as power influences my business growth
.0% .0% 4.9% 45.5% 49.6%
Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business
.0% 1.6% 8.1% 66.7% 23.6%
Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business
.0% .0% 2.4% 56.9% 40.7%
Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
.8% .8% .8% 57.7% 39.8%
Patenting and copyrights assistance is
effectively provided by the incubator.0% 11.4% 57.7% 18.7% 12.2%
Important technological services as lacking
in the incubator.8% 81.3% 4.1% 9.8% 4.1%
cxxvi
Table 4. 9 Incubator Technological Services
As shown in Table 4.9, incubator technology development improved the product design
and process of 95.1%, (69.9% agreed and 25.2% strongly agreed). Similarly, 53.7% and
43.9% of the respondents agreed that availability of equipment and tools increased their
production efficiency. Since a business Incubator is a facility designed to assist
businesses to become established and profitable during their incubation period (KeKoBi,
2006) then from the findings we find out that incubators have the capacity to improve the
product design and process. Patenting and copyrights services were found to affect the
competitive advantage of 73.2% while this did no affect 8.9% of the respondents.
Another 17.9% of the respondents were not sure of this. When adequacy in assistance
product design was measured, 4.1% disagreed, 37.4% agreed and 15.4% strongly agreed
that assistance in product design was adequate. Those who were not sure were very high,
at 43.1%. 75.6% agreed that their businesses have received enough guidance in
production method, another 7.3% strongly agreed to this. 9.8% disagreed while 7.3%
were not sure. This study concludes that incubators provide guidance in production
method, another study made conclusion that they could also be businesses that are
already set up and running but need to be boosted to grow. Each one of them needs a
different approach to convert them into vibrant business outfits (Gatheru, 2008). .
Patenting and copyrights assistance was effectively provided by the incubator to a small
percentage of the respondents (18.7% agreed and 12.2% strongly agreed). 11.4%
cxxvii
disagreed that patenting and copyright assistance was effectively provided by the
incubator. For this question, those who were not sure were very high at 57.7%. Most of
the respondents 81.3% disagreed that important technological services were lacking in
the incubator. A total of 13.9% either agreed (4.1%) or disagreed (9.8%) that important
technological services were lacking in the incubator.
cxxviii
Table 4.10 Effect of incubator Market linkages
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Market information is adequate from the incubator for business growth
.0% .8% .0% 30.1% 69.1%
Customer links are adequately provided by the incubator
.0% 7.3% 4.1% 63.4% 25.2%
Suppliers links are provided adequately by the incubator
.0% 17.1% 4.9% 68.3% 9.8%
Market information has enabled my business to cope with competition
.0% 1.6% 3.3% 75.6% 19.5%
Customer links has increased my market share
.8% 3.3% 9.8% 50.4% 35.8%
Supplier links has enabled my business to grow
.8% 7.3% 19.5% 41.5% 30.9%
Market linkages established by the incubator has influenced growth in sales volume
.0% .8% 9.8% 69.1% 20.3%
Market linkages has resulted in increased capital investments
.0% 1.6% 8.9% 73.2% 16.3%
For overall business growth market linkages are important
.0% .8% .0% 29.3% 69.9%
The results in Table 4.10 show that 30.9% and 69.1% agreed and strongly disagreed that
market information was adequate from the incubator for business growth.
Both customer and supplier links were adequately provided by the incubator according to
88.6% and 78.1% of the respondents respectively. 7.3% disagreed that customer links
were adequately provided by the incubator while 17.1% disagreed that supplier links
were provided by the incubator.
Market information was essential in enabling businesses to cope with competition (75.6%
agreed and another 19.5% strongly agreed). There was only 1.6% of the respondent
cxxix
disagreeing with this. 50.4% of the respondents agreed that customer links had increased
their market share. 38.8% strongly agreed that customer links had increased their market
share. 3.3% disagreed while 0.8% strongly disagreed. Of those interviewed, 9.8 were not
sure if this customer links increased their market share.
Supplier links positively affected the growth of business to a majority of the respondents
with 41.5% agreeing and 30.9% strongly agreeing. 8.1% thought that supplier links did
not positively affect the growth of business while 19.5% were not sure. According to
Muteti (2005), forging market linkages between enterprises and foreign multinational
corporations can hasten MSE development in developing countries like Kenya.
Market linkages established by influenced growth in sales volume to most of the
respondents (69.1% agreed and 20.3% strongly agreed). Having an extensive social
network is a valuable asset, as it can help an entrepreneur obtain access to information
(e.g., leads about profitable business opportunities) and resources (e.g., credit).
Entrepreneurs often take advantage of opportunities to invest in social networks when
there is an apparent pay off in terms of MSE growth (Berry, 2003). An insignificant 0.8%
disagreed while 9.8% were not sure. Similarly, market linkages resulted in increased
capital investments (73.2% agreed and another 16.3% strongly agreed) 99.2% of the
respondents felt that for overall business growth market linkages were important. A very
small percentage (0.8%) disagreed with this
cxxx
Table 4.11 Influence of incubate characteristics on business growth
Strongly Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N % Row N %
Has your entrepreneurial motivation before incubation influenced business growth?
.0% .0% .0% 70.7% 29.3%
Level of education is instrumental in growing my business
.0% 4.9% 6.5% 68.3% 20.3%
Age influences business growth
.0% 48.8% 30.9% 16.3% 4.1%
Creativity has helped business to growth
.0% .0% 2.4% 47.2% 50.4%
Innovativeness has helped my business to grow
.8% 2.4% 3.3% 44.7% 48.8%
Marital status has influence on business growth
.0% 76.4% 10.6% 9.8% 3.3%
Gender affects business growth
.0% 69.9% 11.4% 14.6% 4.1%
Entrepreneurial motivation before incubation was found to influence business growth,
100% either agreed (70.7%) or strongly agreed (29.3%). Similarly, level of education was
found to be instrumental in the growth of business with 68.3% agreeing and 29.3%
strongly agreeing. A small percent of 4.9% disagreed with this fact. GEMINI studies in
Sub-Saharan Africa revealed that entrepreneurs completing secondary school were more
likely to grow in Kenya and Zimbabwe but found no significant effect of primary
education on MSE expansion (Mead and Liedholm, 1998; Parker, 1995; McPherson,
1991). cxxxi
47.2% and 50% agreed and strongly agreed that creativity had helped the growth of their
incubation business. None was found to disagree. On innovativeness, 44.7% agreed and
48.8% strongly agreed that innovativeness had helped the growth of their business. A
total of 3.2% either disagreed or strongly disagreed this had helped their business growth.
The effect of age and marital status to business growth did not vary much. Fewer
respondents thought agreed or strongly agreed that age positively affected their business
growth (20.4%) while 48.8% disagreed with this. On the other hand, 13.1% agreed or
strongly agreed that marital status had an influence on business growth while 76.4%
disagreed with the same. Similarly, 69.9% of the respondents disagreed that gender
affects business growth with only 14.6% agreeing and 4.1% strongly agreeing that gender
affects business growth. Of the respondents interviewed, 11.4% were not sure if gender
affected business growth. The World Bank (1994) observed that a great disparity exist
between men and women entrepreneurs in Africa especially in terms of literacy rate,
earned income and other economic activities and the type of enterprises they start. This
research establishes gender has minimal impact on business growth.
cxxxii
Table 4.12 Incubation Growth Effects
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly Agree
Row N % Row N %
Row N %
Row N %
Row N %
High profitability .0% 2.4% 2.4% 74.0% 21.1%
Increased assets .0% 4.1% 6.5% 73.2% 16.3%
Management improvement
.0% .8% 1.6% 61.8% 35.8%
Expansion to other branches
.0% 51.2% 19.5% 22.0% 7.3%
Developing other products and services
.0% 4.9% 22.8% 64.2% 8.1%
Increase in sales turnover .0% .8% 4.1% 82.1% 13.0%
Important technological services as lacking in the incubator
.0% 17.9% 29.3% 41.5% 11.4%
Increase in total capital investment
.0% .8% 12.2% 72.4% 14.6%
Increase in market share 1.6% 1.6% 5.7% 72.4% 18.7%
From Table 11, 95.1% agreed or strongly agreed that they had achieved high profitability
in their business, 2.4% disagreed and another 2.4% were not sure. Most of the
respondents also agreed (73.2%) or strongly agreed (16.3%) that they had achieved
increased assets. 4.1% disagreed with and 6.5% were not sure.
cxxxiii
Almost all respondents agreed (61.8%) or strongly agreed (35.8%) that they had achieved
management improvement in their businesses. Many incubates were found not to have
achieved businesses expansion to other branches with 51.2% disagreeing 19.5% not sure,
22.9% agreeing and 7.3 percent strongly agreeing that they had expanded to other
branches. 64.2% agreed they had achieved development of other products and services,
8.1% agreed, 22.8% were not sure and 4.9% disagreed. According to Wiggins and
Gibson (2003), business and technology incubators provide infrastructure, operational
and strategic support services to its client companies which influence growth of business.
Increase in turnover had been achieved by 95.1% of the respondents of which 82.1%
agreed and 13.0% strongly agreed. The same result was realized for total capital
investment and increase in market share where 72.4% agreed in both cases while 14.6%
and 18.7% strongly agreed that they had achieved capital investment and increase in
market share respectively. Growth in the business determined by Parameters like sales,
rate of capital increase, level of profit, management improvement, addition of workers,
technology advancement among others (Bhide, 2000). In addition to the most commonly
used measures, namely employment and turnover, these include assets, market share,
physical output, and various measures of profitability (Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007). This
research findings show that the incubatees had achieved high profitability, increase in
asset, improved management, and increase in sale turn over, increase in market share and
increase capital which proves the incubators had facilitated growth in their business.
cxxxiv
ReferencesAerts, Kris, Paul M., and Koen V., (2007). Critical role and screening practices of
European business incubators. Technovation 27, (5) (5): 254-267. Ahire, S.L. (2001). Roles of management science techniques in small firms [Electronic
version]. Production and Inventory Management Journal; Alexandria; Second Quarter 2001, 14-28.
Aldrich, H.E. (1999).Organisations Evolving. Sage PublicationsAldrich, H.E., & Cliff, J. (2003), “The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship:
toward a family embeddedness perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, 18,573-596.
Aldrich, H.E & Zimmer. (1986), “Entrepreneurship through Social Networks”, In Donald Sexton and Raymond Smulor.ed., The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. New York: Ballinger, 3-23.
Allen, David N., and Richard M.,( 1990). Structure, policy, services, and performance in the business incubator industry. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 15, (2) (Winter): 61-77.
Allen, D.N., & Rahman, S. (1985).Small business incubators: a positive environment for entrepreneurship [Electronic version]. Journal of Small Business Management;
July1985, v23, 12- 23.
Alvarez, S. & Busentiz, L., (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755-755.
Amadi A.N., (2006). 1st Incubator Manager Training Series, KeKoBi Enterprises Training Report. Nairobi, Kenya.
Anderson, A., &Miller, C. (2003), “Class matters: human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process”,The Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 17-36.
Andreu, R. & Ciborra C., (1996). Organizational Learning and Core Capabilities Development: The Role of IT, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 5, 111-127.
Barney, J.B., (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 17, (1).
Baumgartner, T.A (2002). Conducting and reading research in health and human performance (3rd edition) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Beck T, Demirgu¨c¸-Kunt A, Laeven L, Levine R. 2005. Finance, firm size and growth.World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 3485.
Becker, (1975), “Human Capital. Chicago”, IL: Chicago University Press.
cxxxv
Begley, T.M., & Boyd, D.P. (1987), “Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses”, Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 79-93
Berry, Sara. (2003). NoCondition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change inSub-SaharanAfrica. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press (Chapter 7: Investing in Networks—
Farmers’Useof Incomeand Their Significance for Agrarian Change).
Berthon, P., Ewing, M.T & Napoli, J. (2008). Brand Management in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management. 46(1).
Binks, M.R & Ennew, C.T (1997). The relationship between U.K banks and their small business customers. Small Business Economics, 9, 167-178.
Birley, S (1989). Female entrepreneurs: are they really any different? Journal of Small
Business Management Vol. 27 ,37.
Blanchflower, D., Oswald, A., & Stutzer, A. (2001), “Latent entrepreneurship across nations?” European Economic Review, 45,680-691.
Bonnett, C & Furnham, A. (1991), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of Adolescents interested in a Young Enterprise scheme”, Journal of Economic Psychology 12,465-78.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Journal, 23,509-520.
Business Dictionary. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/managerial-kill.html#ixzz2KDZ9ZtHQ retrieved January 2013
Bwisa, H. (2005). The Kenyan Experience in Business Incubators. A Paper presented at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology Workshop, 12th -14th, May 2005, Garden Hotel, Machakos, Kenya.
Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Greene, P. and Hart, M. (Eds) (2006), Growth
Oriented Women Entrepreneurs and their Businesses: A Global Research Perspective, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Chandler, G., & Hanks, S. (1998), “An examination of the substitutability of founder’s human and financial capital in emerging business ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13,353-369.
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.
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
Gibb, A. & Davies, L. (1990) In pursuit of frameworks for the development of growth models of the small business, International Small Business Journal, 1, 15-31.
Gibb, A.A. & Davies, L.G. (1991), ‘Methodological problems in the development and testing of a growth model of business enterprise development’, in L.G. Davies & A.A. Gibb eds Recent Research in Entrepreneurship, Avebury, Aldershot, England, 286-323.
Goldberg, A. I., G & Fiegenbaum A. (2003). Reputation Building: Small Business Strategies for Successful Venture Development. Journal of Small Business Management. 41(2), 168-186.
Grant, R. M. (2008), Contemporary strategic analysis, Blackwell Publish. 6th Edition.
Gulati, R. (1995), “Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances”, Academy of Management Journal, 38. 1. 85-112.
Hackett, Sean M., and David M. Dilts. 2004. A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research. Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (1) (January 1): 55-82. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed October 19, 2007).
cxxxviii
Hanks, S.H., Watson, C.J., Jansen, E. & Chandler, G.N. (1993), ‘Tightening the life-cycle construct: a taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-technology organizations’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 2, 5-29.
Hisrich, R. D. (1989). Women entrepreneurs: Problems and prescriptions for success in
the future. In O. Hagan, C. Rivchin & D. Sexton (Eds.), Women-owned Businesses (pp. 3- 32). New York: Praeger.
Ho, T.S. & Koh, H.C. (1992), “Differences in psychological characteristics between entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates in Singapore”, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change: An International Journal, 1, 43-5
Holtz-Eakin, D., Joulfaian, D., & Rosen, H, S. (1994), “Sticking it out: Entrepreneurial Survival and Liquidity Constraints, Journal of Political Economy, 1,1024.
Hurst, E. & Lusardi, A. (2004), “Liquidity Constraints, Household Wealth, Entrepreneurship, Journal of Political Economy, 2,112.
Ikiara, K. (1988). The Role of Government Institutions in Kenya?s Industrialization in Kenya. In Coughlin, P. & Ikiara,
Information for Development Programme. (2006). Promoting Innovation & Entrepreneurship in Africa, Africa Regional Workshop: InfoDev Incubator Initiative, 3rd - 5th May, Accra, Ghana.
Jansson, H. & Boye, P. (2007) Gaining internationalization of Medium-sized Enterprises from China: The Take-off Phase, Conference paper. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 2006. 13, 2.
Ji Z.H (2005). Brand Growth pattern of Small and medium sized enterprise. Value engineering, 8.
Johnson, B. (1990), “Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achievement and the entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship: Theory& Practice, 14, 39-54.
Katz, R. (1974).Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct, 90-102.
Keasey, K. Short, H. & Watson, R. (1994), Director’s ownership and the performance of small and medium sized firms in the UK, Small Business Economics, 6: 225-236.
KeKobi (2005) launching the first National Business Incubator: A progress report www.jkuat-cbi.co.ke
KeKobi, (2006). 1st incubator manager Training series. Training report www.kekobi.co.ke
Kiraka, Ruth (2009) Innovative private sector development Instruments- an African Perspective, working paper on investing in the development of small and medium enterprises, January 2009.
Kim, P., Aldrich, H.E., &Keister, L.A. (2003). Access (not) denied: The Impact of financial, human and cultural capital on becoming a Nascent Entrepreneur. Working paper.
Kinoti, A. & Miemie, S. (2011) an Evaluation of the Entrepreneurs perception of Business- Incubation Services in Kenya. International Journal of Business Administration 2 , 4. sciedu press.
Kombo, D.K., & Tromp, D.L.A. (2009). Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction. Nairobi, Kenya, Pauline Publications Africa.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques (Revised Edition), Delhi, India, New Age International Publishers.
Kourilsky, M. L., & Walstad, W. B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth:
Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol 13 pp 77-88.
Kwabena, (2011). European Journal of Business and Management 2222-1905 (Paper 2222-2839 (Online) 3, 6, 2011
Lancaster G.A., Dodd, S.,Williamson P.R (2010) Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendation for good practice. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 10:2
Landstrom, H. (1998).The Roots of Entrepreneurship Research, Conference proceedings, Lyon, France, November 26-27.
Lewis David A, (2008). Guide to Business Incubation for Elected Officials in New York State, University of Albany, 1-5.
Maijoor, S. & Witteloostuijin, A., (1996). An Empirical Test of the Resource-Based Theory: Strategic Regulation in the Dutch Audit Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 549-569.
McClelland, D.C. (1961).The Achieving Society, NJ: Van Nostrand, Princeton.
Memba, SF., Gakure W.R. & Karanja K.(2012) Venture capital (VC): Its Impact on Growth of Small and Medium Enterprises in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 3, 6: special issue on Contemporary Research in Business and Economics, Centre for promoting Ideas, USA.
Mohar, Y .M.S, Singh, J & Kishore, K. (2007), “Relationship Between psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial inclination: A Case Study of Students at
cxl
University Tun Abdul Razak”, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 8. ProQuest Information and Learning Publishers
Murphy, J.P, Liao, J & Welsch, P.H. (2006), “A Conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought”, Journal of Management History. 12, 9-24.
Mugenda A., (2008) Social Science Research, Theory and principles
Mugenda A. & Mugenda O. (2012). Research Methods Dictionary. Nairobi: Applied Research & Training Services,
Mugenda A. & Mugenda O. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative & Qualititive approaches. African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi, Kenya.
Nachmias, C.F. & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. (5 th
ed). London: Edward Arnold.
National Business Incubation Association. “Suggested Metrics.” National Business Incubation Association, https://www.nbia.org/impact/suggested_metrics.php (accessed March 14, 2013).
National Business Incubation Association (October 24, 2009). Principles and practices of
successful business incubators. Retrieved March 4, 2014 from http://www.nbia.org.
O'Neal, Thomas. (2005). Evolving a successful university-based incubator: Lessons learned from the UCF technology incubator. Engineering Management Journal 17, (3) (9): 11-25.
Patti L. Wilber. (2003) The Impact of Business Incubators on Small Business Survivability. Northwestern Oklahoma State University Leonard Dixon, Nova Southeastern University.
Pervin, L.A. (1980). Personality: Theory, Assessment and Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Republic of Kenya, (2005), Sessional Paper, 2, on Development of Micro and Small Enterprises for Wealth and Employment Creation for Poverty Reduction, Nairobi 2005.
Republic of Kenya, (2003).Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment creation. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Republic of Kenya, (2012).Economic Survey. Nairobi, Kenya. Government printers.
cxli
Reynolds, P., & Miller, B. (1992). New Firm Gestation: Conception, Birth, and Implications for Research. Journal of Business Venturing 7, 405-417.
Reynolds, P.D. (1991), “Sociology and entrepreneurship: concepts and contributions”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16(2), 47-70
Remedios, R.K. B. & Cornelius B. (2003). Cracks in the Egg: Improving Performance in Business Incubation Research. A paper for the Small Enterprise Association of Australia & New Zeal&, 16th Annual Conference, 28th September to 1st October, University of Ballarat.
Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray.
Robb and Coleman (2009). Are successful women entrepreneurs different from men?
Accessed from www.kuuffman.org/uploadfiles/succ. on 21st September 2011.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., & Hunt, H.K. (1991a), “An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15 (4)13-32.
Rotter, J. (1966), “Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control reinforcements”,Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No.609.
Say, J.B. (1803). Traité D'économie Politique, ou Simple Exposition de la Manière Dont se Forment, se Distribuent, et se Composent les Richesses, A.A. Renouard, Paris.
Sarri, K., and A. Trihopoulou (2005). "Female Entrepreneurs' Personal
Characteristics and Motivation: A Review of the Greek Situation," Women in Management Review, Vol.20. pp 24-36.
Shane, S.A & Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”, Academy of Management Review.
Shane, S.A. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Shane, S.A &Eckhardt, J.T. (2003), “Opportunities and Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Management, 29 (3), 333-349.
Shaver, K.G & Scott, L.R. (1991), “Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16, 23-45.
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.
Wiggins J. and Gibson, D.V.(2003), Overview of US incubators and the case of The Austin Technology Incubator, International Journal, Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3.56-66.
World Bank. (2004).World Bank Group Support for Small Businesses. World Bank: Washington, DC.
World Bank Survey, (1994). “The Role of Women in Development”. United Nations
Publications.www.sciedu.ca/ijba International Journal of Business Administration 2, 4; November 2011, retrieved February, 201
Yeo Ronald K., (2008) "Identifying the competitive sword: learning to be cutting-edge for organizational development", Business Strategy Series, Vol. 9 Iss: 1, pp.30 - 36
Zikmund, W. G. (2010). Business Research Methods, Florida: The Dryden Press.
APPENDIX I
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
Date…………………………
To. ………………………………………….
……………………………………………
cxliv
Dear Sir/Madam,
REF: COLLECTION OF RESEARCH DATA
My name is Ruth Ruhiu a PhD student in Entrepreneurship at Jomo Kenyatta University
of Agriculture and Technology. Currently I am carrying out a research on “Effects of
Business Incubation on the Growth of Micro and Small Enterprises in Kenya”. I am in
the process of gathering data and I have identified you as one of the respondents in this
study. I kindly ask you to take some time to respond to the attached questionnaire. I
assure you that your responses will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be
used solely for the purpose of this study.
Thank you in advance for your time and responses.
Yours Sincerely,
Ruth Ruhiu
HD 413/0012/2008
APPENDIX II
Questionnaire: To incubator managers and incubatees operating business within the
incubator
Kindly fill your responses in the space provided or tick (√) appropriately
SECTION ONE
cxlv
Demographic information
1. Name of the incubatee (optional)..............................................................................2. Gender: (tick) Male Female3. Age:
a) below 21 years b) 21-30 years c) 31-40 yearsd) 41-50 yearse) Over 50 years
4. Marital statusSingle Married Divorced Widowed
5. Level of formal Educationa) Noneb) Primaryc) Secondaryd) Tertiarye) university
6. Nature of business ( tick (√) as appropriate) manufacturing Service
7. Business ownership (tick (√)) Institution/university Private other (specify)
……………………………………………………………………
8. Age of the business:a) Below one year b) One year c) Two years d) Three yearse) Over three years
9. Which of the following incubation services do you consider important to a business? (Give rating 1-5: 1being most important, 2 important, 3 somehow important, 4 least important and 5 not important).i) Managerial skills ii) Financial servicesiii) Infrastructure and facilitiesiv) Technological services
cxlvi
v) Market linkages
10. Do you think incubation is instrumental in growth of an enterprise? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION TWOManagerial skills
Fill the following table by ticking (√) whether the business management skills provided by the incubator have had an effect for starting and operating and growth of business.
cxlvii
Type of skills Stronglyagree
Agree Not sure
Disagree StronglyDisagree
1Do you consider managerial skills to have any effect on growth of your business?
2Do you believe business counseling is essential to your business?
3 Has consultancy services assisted you to operate your business?
4Do you think the technical skills provided by the incubator are adequate?
5 Is human relations skill training adequate for your business?
6Is analytical and problem solving skill training adequately provided by the incubator?
7Managerial skill offered by the incubator has helped me to operate my business well
9. Please make any other relevant comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION THREE
Financial services
Do you think the following financial services offered by the incubator influence growth of your business? (Tick (√) as appropriate)
cxlviii
Financial services Stronglyagree Agree Not
sure Disagree StronglyDisagree
1Has access to finance from lenders influenced increase in sales turnover?
2Has loans offered by incubator of any impact on your capital investment?
3Has venture capital accessibility influenced your business expansion?
4Incubator financial access to lenders is adequate for business growth.
5Incubator funding through loan facility is adequate for business growth.
6 Incubator linkage to venture capital is adequate.
7.My own source of finance is very important for business growth
8. Useful financial services are lacking in the incubator
9. Please make any other relevant comments …………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION FOUR
Infrastructure and Facilities
Has the following infrastructure and facilities influenced the growth of your business? (Tick (√) as appropriate)
Infrastructure & Facilities Stronglyagree
Agree Not sure Disagree Stronglydisagree
cxlix
1 Space to operate is adequate for my business
2 ICT facilities are up-to date and efficient
3 Amenities such as power, water are adequate in the incubator
4 Space is important for my business growth
5 ICT facilities are important for business growth
6 Amenities such as power influences my business growth
7 Incubator ambience has influenced growth of my business.
8 Incubator facilities such as equipment influences growth of business.
9 Incubator facilities are adequate for business growth
10 incubator is lacking very important infrastructural facilities for my business