Keywords

Technology, Competencies, Covid-19, Incubation, Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Introduction

The world over, business incubation is a maturing concept. In South Africa, the concept has received significant recognition. In the literature, business incubation is thought to have started in the United States of America (USA) at the Batavia Industrial Centre in New York, which was founded by Joseph Mancuso in 1959 (Al-Mubaraki & Wong, 2011). In South Africa, business incubation emerged through the formation of the Small Business Development Corporation (SBDC) in 1995 (Buys & Mbewana, 2007). Various studies have been conducted to explore business incubation from different dimensions (Lose & Tengeh, 2015); (Lose, 2019). These studies have yielded significant information on the nature, features and other imperatives for successful incubation. The present paper is based on the argument that the current operational environment is characterised by disturbances and disruptions epitomised by the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and the Covid-19 pandemic. One can therefore argue that there is a need for new competencies across all business operations in order to remain competitive. The paper inquires on the implications of the 4IR and the Covid-19 pandemic for business incubators. It focuses on the competencies that the business incubators require in order to successfully respond to these disruptions. It should be noted that business incubators have an essential role in the South African situation as they help accelerate the formation, survival and growth of businesses.

General Competencies for Business Incubation

Definitions of business incubation tend to also point out the essential competencies of business incubators as shown in Table 1. (Sahay & Sharma, 2009) opine that business incubators are organisations that aim to accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial enterprises through the provision of business support in the form of resources, services and business network contacts. This definition echoes other definitions, which are reviewed in Table 1 together with the key competencies entailed in the definitions.

The present business environment has been subjected to the advent of significant disruptions, which have made it necessary for business incubators to acquire and exhibit new competencies. These new competencies are essential to ensure the success of incubatees and also to ensure the survival of the incubator. The essential role of re-modelling business incubation to withstand emerging disruptions should be considered in the context of the general situation in the South African economy. The Global Economic Monitor (GEM, 2012) classifies national economies into factor-driven, efficiency-driven and innovation-driven economies. South Africa is an efficiency-driven economy and is expected to move to an innovation-driven economy with time. A key attribute of the innovation-driven economy is business sophistication and innovation. It is important to realise that an appropriate incubation model for South Africa should facilitate the progression from being an efficiency-driven economy to an innovation-driven economy. Furthermore, the world economic order is drifting towards the 4IR as reported by the World Economic Forum (WEF). This paper investigates the essential competencies required for South African incubators to withstand disruptions arising from the 4IR.

Disruption

Revolutions and civilisations have always been associated with shifts in the forces of production. In other words, the progression of life on earth has been related to the emergence of new phenomena or inventions which would disrupt the existing socio-economic order and take it to another level. Cases in point include the disruptions caused by the Iron Age and the Stone Age, primitive societies, the spread of the Egyptian civilisation from the Nile river, the emergence of new Greek philosophies, the French Revolution, the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and so on. It is true that every society has been subject to disruptive phenomena in its history. At the end of World War Two, the United States of America (USA) emerged as one of the superpowers that experienced minimum disruptions and for some time it had great potential to influence disruptions in the world. It is therefore not surprising that the first business incubator started in the USA. The significance of technology and related inventions in recent times has ignited the debate on issues related to the 4IR. Most theorists opine that disruption is often associated with new entrants to a sector or industries who adopt ways that defy existing models and transform traditional methods of profitability or operations (Habtay, 2012). According to (Girasa, 2020), disruptive technologies often follow stages, including the paralysis, reaction and transformation stages. At any stage of disruption, new competencies are required for the continued survival of businesses.

The 4IR is expected to result in significant changes to the socio-economic status of people around the globe. According to the WEF, the 4IR is bringing about the development of new techniques and business models, which will significantly reconfigure production processes, industry and society at large. The 4IR will result in a further shift from labour-intensive production to knowledge and skills-intensive production. In other words, intellectual capital has become vital in the next economic age. Therefore, a new model that solidifies fundamental intellectual capabilities has become important. The WEF (2019) reports that South Africa ranks below average in entrepreneurial culture and preparedness to take entrepreneurial risks. This observation implies that there is a need to improve certain ways in which entrepreneurship programmes and related support systems are undertaken (Grimaldia & Grandia, 2005). At the heart of entrepreneurship development in South Africa are incubators and reinvigorating the way incubators operate can be a tactic to improve entrepreneurship and economic development in South Africa (Lose et al., 2016). The current model of incubation being followed is arguably mainly characteristic of factor-driven economies where the provision of infrastructure, institutions and policies is central. The argument being pursued in this paper is that of an incubation model which allows and promotes the establishment of sophisticated businesses, which sustain the South African economic environment evidenced by a low rate of collapse. The rationale for new competencies for business incubation in South Africa stems from the realisation that despite the widespread concern for entrepreneurship and small business development, unemployment and mortality rates for small and medium enterprises remain high in South Africa (Lose, et al., 2016). It can be posited that something is not being done right. As the main initiative specifically for enhancing the survival of young businesses, incubation is a focal area for consideration. (GEM, 2012) statistics indicate that South Africa’s pool of intentional entrepreneurs is 14 percent, which is well below the average for efficiency-driven countries, which is 27 percent. Individuals who intend to pursue a business opportunity within the next three years are defined by the GEM as intentional entrepreneurs.

Given the above, the present paper inquired into the following questions:

1. What are the major disruptive factors of the 4IR and the Covid-19 pandemic in the South African SMME sector?

2. What are the critical competencies for small business incubators in the disruptive context?

Methodology

The study was based on a systematic review of literature related to: (1) the disruptive context of business today focusing on the 4IR and the Covid-19 pandemic in South Africa, and (2) competencies for business incubators in the disruptive context. In order to find documents for review, a library search of publications and books related to the 4IR and the Covid-19 pandemic was conducted. Publications were reviewed, purposively focusing on issues related to disruptions of existing systems due to new 4IR technologies and also due to the Covid-19 pandemic. After establishing the twelve concepts indicated in Table 2, it was found that a saturation level had been reached since no new information related to the study was emerging. After establishing the disruptive contexts, another search for publications that offered competencies to business incubators was made. Table 2 illustrates the findings.

Findings

Findings on the disruptive context of business in the South African environment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 indicates that the disruptive context arising from Covid-19 and 4IR disturbances in South Africa has resulted in economic recessions, debts, business interruptions and increased cost of doing business. These have been caused by the measures implemented to control the spread of Covid-19 such as social distancing and lockdowns. In addition, high rates of change in the technological environment, characterised by digital models, have characterised the South African landscape as a result of the 4IR.

As indicated in Table 3, the use of 4IR technologies by business incubators can be an important strategy to ensure business continuity in the Covid-19 pandemic. One of the key opportunities available for incubation in Africa, and South Africa especially, is the development of varied models to cater for new and existing ventures. It was earlier indicated that technology hubs have become more prevalent and are centred in urban areas with little attention given to rural areas. Traditional business models that require little or no use of facilities such as internet, office space or resources also seem to be lagging in the adoption of the 4IR. Independent studies done at Purdue University and Ohio University in the mid-1990s found that incubators contribute to both job creation and the survival of new businesses and therefore require a variety of models. Although the Business Incubator concept started as a resource-sharing initiative, its role and characteristics have evolved and it has become an important tool offering many services like training, consulting and networking (Peters, 2004). There are a variety of measures of incubation performance or outcomes such as occupancy rate, added value of incubator service, the number or proportion of firms graduated, growth of the tenant firms, jobs and wealth created (Phan, 2005); (Chan & Lau, 2005); (Hackett & Dilts, 2008), and number of patent applications per firm (Colombo & Delmastro, 2002). It is essential to use the new competencies established in this study in implementing measuring systems that strengthen the recognition and acknowledgement of the role of incubation as a vital tool for entrepreneurship and ultimately economic growth.

Conclusion

South Africa’s incubators face complex trade-offs between what they want to do, whom they want to serve and what funding is available for that purpose, amid the 4IR and Covid-19 disruptions. The disruptions related to the 4IR have left the incubators with technological adoption as the only major option for sustainability. On the other hand, the Covid-19 pandemic has threatened to destroy various sectors and industries. It has been established in this context, that the adoption of 4IR outcomes such as artificial intelligence, robotics, digitalization and online platforms can be a major option to ensure business continuity. Accelerator models confront the reality that certain investors such as governments, impact investors, and donors are incentivised to support activities with defined social impact and attempt to chart conducive environments for entrepreneurs to receive support. Additionally, incubators are still expected to reach sustainability in a few years, despite serving populations with limited resources. This scenario points to the need to adopt technology to withstand existing operational pressure, ensure continuance and weather disruptions. One would argue that most business incubators, similar to their incubates, have had, and will continue to have, an evolutionary path, changing what they do in response to existing disruptions and critical assessment. It is imperative to understand why technology hubs are the best mechanisms for the outcome’s incubators are trying to create, even if they are difficult to describe and even harder to measure. Technology incubation seems to have worked in its own eco-system and has translated insights into interventions for young entrepreneurs (Lose et al., 2016).

References

1. Al-Mubaraki, H., &amli; Wong, S.F. (2011). How valuable are business incubators? A case illustration of their lierformance indicators. In Euroliean, Mediterranean &amli; Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems, 30.
2. Bowmaker-Falconer, A., &amli; Herrington, M. (2020). Global Entrelireneurshili Monitor South Africa (GEM SA) 2019/2020 reliort: Igniting start-ulis for economic growth and social change. Calie Town: University of Stellenbosch Business School.
3. Brown, M., Harrell, M.li., &amli; Regner, W. (2000). Internet incubators: How to invest in the new economy without becoming an investment comliany. Business Lawyer, 56(1), 273-284.
4. Buys, A.J., &amli; Mbewana, li.N. (2007). Key success factors for business incubation in South Africa: The Godisa case study. South African Journal of Science, 103(9-10), 356-358.
5. Chan, K.F., &amli; Lau, T. (2005). Assessing technology incubator lirograms in the science liark: the good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25(10), 1215-1228.
6. Colombo, M.G., &amli; Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research liolicy, 31(7), 1103-1122.
7. Entrelireneur. (2014). “Business incubator”. [Internet: www.entrelireneur.com/encycloliedia/ downloaded on 17 August 2020.]
8. Eshun, J.li. (2009). Business incubation as strategy. Business Strategy Series, 10(3), 156-166.
9. Evans, N. (2003). Business Innovation and Disrulitive Technology. New York: lirentice Hall.
10. GEM. (2016). South Africa Reliort. University of Calie Town Graduate School of Business. [Internet: httli://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/3336 downloaded on 7 March 2020].
11. Girasa, R. (2020). Artificial intelligence as a disrulitive technology: Economic Transformation and Government Regulation. New York: lialgrave.
12. Grimaldia, R., &amli; Grandia, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111-121.
13. Hackett, S. M., &amli; Dilts, D.M. (2008). Inside the black box of business incubation: Study B-Scale assessment, model refinement, and incubation outcomes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 439-471.
14. Habtay, S.R. (2012). A firm-level analysis on the relative difference between technology-driven and market-driven disrulitive business model innovations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(3), 290-303.
15. Hughes, M., Ireland, R.D., &amli; Morgan, R.E. (2007). Stimulating dynamic value: social caliital and business incubation as a liathway to comlietitive success. Long Range lilanning, 40(2), 154-177.
16. International Labour Organisation (ILO) Sectoral Brief. (2020). COVID-19 and the textiles, clothing, leather and footwear industries. Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
17. Jackson, J.K., Weiss, M.A., Schwarzenberg, A.B., &amli; Nelson, R.M. (2020). Congressional Research Service (R46270): Version 26. Global Economic Effects of COVID-19.
18. Knight, F.H. (1921). New York: Hart, Schaffner and Marx. Risk, uncertainty and lirofit.
19. Lose, T. (2019). A framework for the effective creation of business incubators in South Africa. Doctoral Thesis, Vaal University of Technology.
20. Lose, T., &amli; Tengeh, R.K. (2015). The sustainability and challenges of business incubators in the Western Calie lirovince, South Africa. Sustainability, 7(10), 14344-14357.
21. Lose, T. (2016). The role of business incubators in facilitating the entrelireneurial skills requirements of small and medium size enterlirises in the Calie metroliolitan area, South Africa. Master’s Thesis, Calie lieninisula University of Technology.
22. Lose, T., Nxolio, Z., Maziriri, E., &amli; Madinga, W. (2016). Navigating the role of business incubators: A review on the current literature on business incubation in South Africa. Acta Universitatis Danubius, 12(5), 130-140.
23. McKibbin,W., &amli; Fernando, R. (2020). The global macroeconomic imliacts of COVID-19: Seven scenarios. [ Internet: httlis://www.brookings.edu/wlicontent/uliloads/2020/03/20200302_COVID19.lidf downloaded on 20 Aliril 2020]
24. NBIA. (2010). “What is business incubation?”. [Internet: www.nbia.org/resource_library/what_is/ downloaded on August 2020].
25. lieters, li.E. (2004). Inequalities and conflict over land in Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change, 4(3), 269-314.
26. lihan, li. (2005). Creativity, innovation and entrelireneurshili in China. Management and Organisation Review, 6(2), 175-194.
27. Sahay, A., &amli; Sharma, V. (2009). Entrelireneurshili and New Venture Creation. India: Excel Books.
28. Schwab, K., &amli; Davis, N. (2018). Shaliing the future of the fourth industrial revolution: A guide to a better world.&nbsli;&nbsli; Geneva: World Economic Fund.
29. Schumlieter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic develoliment. New Jersey: Transaction liublishers, 16.
30. Theodorakolioulos, N., Kakabadse, N., &amli; McGowan, C. (2014). What matters in business incubation? A literature&nbsli;&nbsli;&nbsli;&nbsli; review and a suggestion for situated theorising. Journal of Small Business and Enterlirise Develoliment, 21(4), 1-31.
31. Toms, S., Wilson, N., &amli; Wright, M. (2020). Innovation, intermediation, and the nature of entrelireneurshili: a historical liersliective. Strategic Entrelireneurshili Journal, 14, 105-121.
32. United Kingdom Business Incubator (UKBI). (2009). The Business Incubation Develoliment Framework. Business Incubation, Birmingham.