Resource coordination and control through strategic networking: insights from biotechnology incubators in Sweden

Biotechnology firms typically originate at universities or research institutes, where scientists turn into research-driven entrepreneurs by commercializing their discoveries (Gurdon and Samsom, 2010). In general, scientists lack business skills, infrastructure and resources. Moreover, the development of biotechnology innovation requires long timelines. As a consequence, biotechnology startups suffer high risks in development and require huge investments (Sridhar et al., 2013).

An incubator is a form of organization created with the purpose of nurturing and supporting the growth of startups to survive their initial stage (Aernoudt, 2004). They are either funded through internally generated financial resources or through external financial resources, sponsorship from the government or corporations (Hausberg and Korreck, 2020; van Weele et al., 2017). Typically, incubators are intermediary organizations that connect various actors in a business ecosystem, including startups, investors, academic institutions and government (Dutt et al., 2016). For such an organization, networking with the stakeholders is crucial. More specifically, relationships and connections among mentors, entrepreneurs, investors, industry experts and other stakeholders facilitate the knowledge sharing, collaboration and exchange of resources, essential for the success of the startups in the early stage (Hong et al., 2019). Through this, incubators provide their incubatees with both tangible resources, such as rental space, shared equipment and funding, and intangible resources, such as knowledge, consulting services and network access. It has been shown that biotechnology firms in life science incubators typically have a better success rate than those functioning on their own (Holzwarth, 2019). Moreover, for the incubator itself, effective network development enhances its ability to attract investment, talent and expertise, which in turn benefits the incubatees toward their growth and market competitiveness (Di Fatta et al., 2018).

However, although building and developing networks in business incubators are important, such networks are heterogeneous, and connections involve many stakeholders, including incubatees, industry partners, investors, educational institutions and government agencies (Shih and Aaboen, 2019). Managing those networks in a strategic way is no easy task. Some incubator managers are uncertain about forming collaborations or lack a strategic plan to establish ties with external firms (Phillips, 2022). Many incubator articles studying networks focus on investigating the impact of networks. There are fewer studies on the networking of incubators at the strategic level, and fewer still looking at a specific industry or sector. To fill the gap, this study aims to study the strategic management of biotechnology incubators in developing their network to control and coordinate resources. We identify key partners of biotechnology incubators and study how the incubators connect to these partners.

Besides the introduction in Section 1, the remaining sections of this paper are organized as follows. Section 2 provides the literature review. In Section 3, we provide an overview of the method used in this paper. Sections 4 and 5 present the results and discussion, and the paper is concluded in Section 6.

Starting with the introduction of biotechnology incubators and their role in business development, this section summarizes networking in business incubators and how these networks have developed. This section concludes with how the concept of a resource-based view (RBV) affects the strategic management of incubators.

Biotechnology incubators, as proposed by Tonukari (2008), are designed primarily to help young entrepreneurs with limited funds and strong potential for biotechnology innovation. The translation process of biotechnology discoveries into market-ready products or technologies takes a long time requires huge investment in infrastructure and expertise from various fields and needs support from large biotechnology companies and venture capital firms (Sridhar et al., 2013). Biotechnology incubators play a pivotal role in this process by providing specialized support, especially in intellectual property protection, technology transfer and regulatory requirements, as well as a well-equipped space with the right resources and services for accelerating research and business growth. As all biotechnology products need to be in compliance with applicable regulations, such as safety, standard operating procedures, waste disposal and environmental regulations, a valuable contribution by incubators specialized in biotechnology is knowledgeable staff with expertise in regulatory matters. Additionally, life science incubators provide shared equipment such as plate readers, centrifuges and HPLC systems. This means incubated firms do not have to purchase every single instrument, leading to cost savings and a quicker lab setup process (Holzwarth, 2019).

Biotechnology incubators operate within highly specialized and resource-intensive innovation ecosystems. Prior research across different geographical contexts, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe, emphasizes that access to critical resources, such as venture capital, scientific knowledge, laboratory infrastructure, and regulatory expertise, is strongly embedded in networked relationships among multiple actors (Calza et al., 2020; Edmunds et al., 2019; Prabhu et al., 2024; Segers, 2015). These ecosystems are typically structured around a triple-helix configuration of university–industry–government interactions, where hybrid organizations such as science parks, incubators and technology transfer offices play boundary-spanning roles in facilitating collaboration and resource exchange (Edmunds et al., 2019).

Across regions, anchor institutions including leading universities, teaching hospitals and large pharmaceutical firms, are consistently identified as central to resource access and cluster development. In the United States, life science clusters illustrate how proximity to research-intensive universities and dense venture capital networks supports startup formation, knowledge spillovers and access to funding (Calza et al., 2020; Owen and Vedanthachari, 2022; Prabhu et al., 2024). Similarly, large pharmaceutical firms increasingly engage in collaborative partnerships and innovation platforms to access early-stage technologies and support commercialization pathway (Fishburn, 2014; Stevens, 2017).

In the United Kingdom and Europe, studies highlight the importance of regional innovation systems and hybrid actors in shaping resource access. The HealthTIES framework demonstrates how incubators and science parks facilitate knowledge flows across institutional boundaries while revealing variation in governance and funding structures (Edmunds et al., 2019). Research on European clusters further emphasizes the role of public funding, venture capital and institutional support in enabling biotechnology development, particularly in regions with less concentrated private capital (Carvalho and Vale, 2018; Segers, 2015). Across contexts, proximity to universities and science parks is consistently associated with improved access to technological and knowledge resources and enhanced opportunities for collaboration.

Thus, existing literature provides a well-established understanding of what resources biotechnology incubators and startups require and who the key actors are. Moreover, incubators and science parks are increasingly recognized as important intermediaries that connect these actors and facilitate access to resources within life science ecosystems (Bettanti et al., 2022; Edmunds et al., 2019).

However, while prior research extensively documents resource access and network embeddedness, less attention has been given to how incubators strategically manage, coordinate and control these resource flows. In particular, the mechanisms through which incubators structure relationships, select partners and govern interactions among universities, investors and industry actors remain underexplored (Edmunds et al., 2019; Friesl et al., 2019).

This study addresses this gap by focusing on how biotechnology incubators actively orchestrate their networks to coordinate and control critical resources, thereby moving beyond a focus on resource access toward a deeper understanding of strategic resource management within innovation ecosystems.

Although the initial incubators were created in the United States in the late 1950s, the concept did not achieve worldwide popularity until in the 1980s, with an emphasis on innovation development through growing technology-based firms and academic entrepreneurship (Hackett and Dilts, 2004; Mian et al., 2016). Three generations of incubators are defined (Bruneel et al., 2012). Firstly, classic business incubators focused primarily on infrastructure benefits and economies of scale, such as affordable office space under preferential terms, complemented by shared amenities such as meeting rooms, laboratory space and research equipment. Secondly, later incubators started including business support services, such as coaching and training. From the 1990s onward, the third generation of business incubators started emphasizing the use of their external network to provide access to services (Bruneel et al., 2012), as well as focusing on intangibles and high-value services (Cantù, 2015; Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005). Business incubators exploit their network to provide incubated firms with preferential access to potential partners, such as customers, suppliers and investors (Hansen et al., 2000). The significance of business incubators in fostering network development has been recognized as important (Antunes et al., 2021; Pettersen et al., 2016). Furthermore, not only do these incubators encourage commercialization within their own ecosystem, but they also attract significant foreign biotechnology entities to the ecosystem, stimulating economic development and competitiveness (Tonukari, 2008). Biotechnology start-ups located within the incubators have significantly greater success than those operating on their own (Holzwarth, 2019).

Successful incubators provide networks that help technology-based firms enhance resource allocation and knowledge sharing (Hong et al., 2019). Networking has a significant impact on business performance (Kiran and Bose, 2020; Soetanto and Jack, 2013) propose that highly innovative companies collaborate with incubators and universities to support an environment where they can access both tangible and intangible resources. The firms with the most connections within the incubator ecosystems act as central players in shaping innovation development. They foster innovative collaborations with other incubated firms (Di Fatta et al., 2018). Previous study suggested that too limited networking inside incubators can hinder firms from benefiting fully from the advantages of proximity and collaboration with other incubatees and universities (Bakouros et al., 2002). Finally, although internal networks help develop the competitiveness of firms, entrepreneurs seek external networks for access to financial support and market inputs (Eveleens et al., 2017; Hughes et al., 2007).

Because of the high impact of networks on the success of both incubators and incubatees, strategies for building and developing networks should be developed (Akçomak, 2009). Network actors can be divided into internal and external networks. The internal network refers to the connections and relationships formed within the incubator environment, while external networks connect the incubator and its incubatees to external stakeholders such as universities, investors, market experts and potential customers (Soetanto and Jack, 2013). Networking can be formal, through interactive activities such as meetings, training workshops, conferences and events (Chan and Lau, 2005; Soetanto and Jack, 2013). It can also be informal, and it has been argued that relationships typically rely on informal arrangements (Bøllingtoft and Ulhøi, 2005), and in particular that face-to-face communication is conducive to relationships (McAdam et al., 2006). Frequency of interaction is key for collaboration (Soetanto and Jack, 2013). Meetings between incubated firms and non-incubated firms help overcome weak network problems to gain financial resources (van Rijnsoever, 2020). Several studies find that geographical proximity, which includes sharing space and social events taking place at the incubator, can influence the frequency and quality of interactions leading to network formation (McAdam et al., 2006; McAdam and McAdam, 2006; Shih and Aaboen, 2019).

Similarly, the proximity between the incubator and the university aids in fostering contact and personal interaction between entrepreneurs and academic researchers (McAdam and Marlow, 2008). Proximity within the incubator effectively nurtured both internal and external relationships, enhancing the connectedness. This interconnected approach not only solidifies the network but also improves the sense of belonging and trust for the incubated firms, making them feel more integrated and supported (Eveleens et al., 2017). Previous research has emphasized the role of trust in fostering networked relationships in incubators (Bøllingtoft and Ulhøi, 2005; McAdam and McAdam, 2006), and in that sense, trust can be seen as a fundamental element of network strategy. The previous study suggested that management of incubators should focus on building trust for the successful development of the network (McAdam and Marlow, 2008). Incubatees, mentors and investors are more likely to collaborate when there is mutual trust. This is supported by a study in Denmark, showing that mutual trust has greater significance than formal contact (Bøllingtoft and Ulhøi, 2005). Trust can be influenced by proximity and reputation gained through frequent interactions (McAdam and Marlow, 2008). Previous research showed that reputation can help overcome the liability of newness, enhancing the credibility and legitimacy of new ventures and facilitating the development of relationships with potential partners (Roseira et al., 2014).

However, the strategy for developing networks in incubators should be deliberate, especially in specific industry incubators such as ICT and biotechnology incubators. It is essential to identify collaborative relationships that empower the incubator to successfully nurture its role in developing the network (Shih and Aaboen, 2019). Incubators are heterogeneous in reflection of the needs of the incubated firms (Soetanto and Jack, 2013). If there are too many different incubatees in an incubation program, they may not understand each other's business. On the other hand, if their businesses are too similar, they may avoid sharing information and making relationships (Eveleens et al., 2017). Entrepreneurs may hesitate to share sensitive information due to fear of copying and stealing ideas (Akçomak, 2009). Moreover, excessive initial relationships can discourage incubated firms from engaging in further network opportunities (Shih and Aaboen, 2019).

Despite the extensive literature on networks and biotechnology ecosystems, existing studies have primarily focused on how networks enable access to resources. However, less attention has been given to how biotechnology incubators actively use these networks to coordinate and manage resources. To address this gap, this study adopts a RBV to examine how incubators build and utilize network relationships to mobilize and deploy critical resources.

In the field of strategic management, the RBV theory has long been used to explain why some firms consistently outperform others. Under the RBV, organizations are seen as a collection of resources and capabilities that can be leveraged to create a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). RBV focuses on the different resources that a firm requires and how they allocate them. According to the RBV theory, firms can attain sustainable competitive advantage if they get access to resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable. These resources can be tangible or intangible resources (Amit and Paul, 1993; Barney, 1991). For the incubator context, RBV is used to gain an understanding of the resources that play a pivotal role in the success of incubation programs and how incubators manage and control these resources to support start-ups (Gassmann and Becker, 2006). While RBV traditionally focuses on firm-level resources, in the context of biotechnology incubators, many critical resources are accessed through inter-organizational networks. Therefore, networks can be understood as mechanisms through which incubators mobilize and coordinate valuable resources, linking relational structures to resource-based advantages.

However, RBV only focuses on the internal resources of firms. Instead, the resource-dependent theory is used to address the external resources of firms (Eisenhardt, 1989; Roundy and Bayer, 2019). The resource-dependent theory explores how external resources affect organizational behavior. According to the resource-dependent theory, firms are not able to produce all resources. They need to search for external resources from the environment (Roundy and Bayer, 2019). When applying this theory to the concept of business incubators, incubators use both internal and external resources to provide services to their incubated firms. In the context of biotechnology incubation, competitive advantage can be understood as the ability of startups to survive early-stage uncertainty, secure funding and progress through development stages toward commercialization. From the RBV perspectives, several resources identified in this study exhibit VRIN characteristics. Specialized scientific knowledge and expertise are valuable and difficult to imitate, while access to established investor networks and institutional credibility associated with leading universities can be considered rare and non-substitutable resources. These characteristics are particularly important in biotechnology, where high uncertainty, long development cycles and regulatory complexity increase the importance of unique and hard-to-replicate resources.

Figure 1 displays the conceptual framework of this research. Using a resource perspective, the resources influencing the management of business incubators are divided into four main categories: human resources, financial resources, organizational resources and technological resources (Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2014; Somsuk et al., 2012). Human resources refer to knowledge, skills and experience from talented managers, coaching and on-site business expertise (Kiani Mavi et al., 2019; Somsuk et al., 2012). Human resources are seen as the most important resource that increases start-up survival rates (Blank, 2021; Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2014). Financial resources refer to different kinds of financial support or monetary resources, such as venture capitalists, business angels, and equity investors (Heirman and Clarysse, 2004). An incubator can be seen as a central hub for financial activities, partnering with a variety of financial and other organizations, and giving advice or information regarding available funding options (Somsuk et al., 2012). Organizational resources refer to operational routines and the quality of services offered to start-ups. This also includes the selection process of tenants, as incubators have to develop their collaborations with the community and government agencies for a more effective operational process (Lose, 2021). Technological resources refer to physical infrastructure with affordable prices, such as rental spaces, laboratory equipment and facilities (Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2014).

Start-ups often rely on networks to overcome their weak reputations and scarce resources. Incubators play an important role in promoting partnerships and networks within and outside the incubator. These networks are used as a key resource to support their incubatees (Galvão et al., 2019; Dourado Freire et al., 2022) highlight the importance of creating a strong network of contacts with various types of actors. A study from (Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2014) also suggests that incubators have to build a strong collaboration with universities, crucial external experts and other institutes for supplementing and complementing resources. A strong network capacity can enhance the ability of technology business incubators to innovate and improve their service offerings (Dong et al., 2023). Furthermore, in a Chinese setting Lin et al. (2012) find that external support resources are positively correlated with operating and networking capabilities, resources highlighted as the most significant in enhancing incubator service performance. Therefore, networking capabilities were also found to play an important role in determining the success in the incubators. In line with this, the studies from (Dong et al., 2023; Kiran and Bose, 2020) find that networking has a positive and significant impact on incubator performance. Through the networks of incubators, start-ups access accurate resources, resulting in improved entrepreneurial performance (Wu et al., 2023). It is important for incubator managers to leverage the network for resource acquisition. So, the research questions of this study are as follows.

This study examines the strategic management practice of Swedish biotechnology incubators. This study focuses on biotechnology and life science in Sweden for a number of reasons. Firstly, Sweden has a strong life science cluster, hosting more than 3,000 companies with upwards of 40,000 employees (Innovation, 2020). Sweden is also recognized for its innovative capabilities, ranking as the high innovative country in the EU and having a significant portion of GDP derived from life science exports (BioStock, 2022; Innovation, 2020).

The research approach is a qualitative case study (Gomm et al., 2000; Yin, 2018). This approach has been widely used for understanding complex phenomena (Dubois and Araujo, 2007; Miles and Huberman, 1994). It is also used to build and test theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). We purposefully selected seven prominent biotechnology and life science incubators in Sweden, including Karolinska Innovation, Sting, Uppsala Innovation Center, Medeon, Smile, GU Venture and Umeå Biotech Incubator (see Table 1). This selection encompassed a significant portion of biotechnology and life science incubators in Sweden, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the strategic management practices of the incubators in Sweden (Innovation, 2020). In this study, regional incubators refer to incubators embedded within local or regional innovation systems, typically supported by municipalities or regional development agencies, and primarily focused on fostering startups within a specific geographic area.

The participants are CEOs and board members of the selected incubators, and in one case, an experienced investment director, chosen for their responsibility for decision-making and strategic direction. The profiles of the respondents are presented in Table 2.

For each incubator, we read documents (annual reports, information material, vision documents, plans) and read through their webpages, both for the incubators and their holding companies. Semi-structured interviews (Clark et al., 2021; Kvale, 1996) were conducted between August 2023 and February 2024. The interviews were conducted either face-to-face or via video conferencing, depending on the preferences of the interviewee. All interviews, which were conducted in English and lasted for approximately one hour, focused on how incubators build their network to get access to their key resources. A semi-structured interview guide was used, structured around four main topics: key incubator resources, network development, key partners and collaboration, and success factors. All interviews were recorded with the participant's consent and then transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and integrity in data analysis.

A qualitative content analysis was conducted to interpret interview data. In the deductive phase, transcripts were coded according to categories from the RBV, including human, financial, technological and operational resources, to examine how these resources were coordinated and controlled within incubator networks. The second, inductive phase involved identifying the key network partners engaged in these resource exchanges and exploring how interactions among them facilitated coordination and control.

Biotechnology incubators provide business coaches to support incubatees. They are typically industry experts with entrepreneurial experience within the life science, pharmaceutical and MedTech industries. This ensures that the guidance offered is informed by practical, industry-specific experience.

Coaches are selected to suit the individual incubatees in the incubator, both in terms of the specific field and the need at different stages.

While coaches at some incubators are full-time employees, ensuring their commitment and availability to the incubatees they mentor, other incubators do not have full-time coaches, instead keeping a list of coaches in different special fields.

Apart from coaches, incubators require experts. Service provider organizations offer expertise, ranging from specialized legal advice and intellectual property management to technical support and market analysis. For example, experts from a Clinical Research Organization are required to assist incubatees in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical fields in the clinical trial process. IP firms and legal expertise are also required for the patenting issue.

Financial resources consist of the funding of the incubator operations, and second, the funding of the startups. The main source of funding for incubator operations is public, of which the main part comes from Vinnova, Sweden's innovation agency. For the university incubators, they also obtain funding through their university holding company, where they sometimes co-invest in the incubatees. Furthermore, the fact that most biotechnology incubators in Sweden are located in different cities means that they also receive some public funding and support from the state and municipality. Another source of public funding is from international collaboration with EU funding.

What's more, incubators supplement public funding with private investments, mitigating the risk of dependency on government funds, which may be subject to policy shifts and changing agendas.

Besides external funding from public and private sources, some incubators use internally generated funding. Many incubators do not take ownership of the incubatees, instead relying on public funding for operating their work and supporting incubatees.

In contrast, other incubators do take ownership when investing in incubatees and the profit will be reinvested in the next batch of incubatees in the program.

Turning to the funding of the incubatees, some of the earliest funding is supplied by the incubator, while later funding is supplied by the investor network connected to the incubator.

The reason for this is that investors do not want to take on the high risk of investing in early-stage innovation.

As the field of biotechnology is broad, most of our interviewees emphasized the importance of offering tailored programs.

Customization could also be done according to different developmental stages, ranging from early stage, such as open coaching, to more structured incubation and acceleration programs lasting from 1 to 2 years.

However, as all incubatees are research-based, the absolute majority lack business skills. They need to gain all sorts of business knowledge.

There are also pre-incubator training programs provided by incubators. If the ideas are not mature enough, the incubatees will be convinced to take courses, some of which are available online.

Other than this, the incubator also has collaborations with other partners such as other incubators, universities, hospital, providing more specific support for incubatees.

One such collaboration is when incubators organize events like CEO lunches, breakfast talks and alumni discussions, which provide valuable opportunities for entrepreneurs to share challenges, tips and solutions related to their entrepreneurial journeys, thereby promoting a culture of peer-to-peer support, enhancing the startup ecosystem.

The interviewees mention two main resources; on the one hand, the classic incubator resource facilities, and on the other hand, the actual research ideas that turn into incubatees. The management of facilities and lab space in biotechnology incubators is an infrastructure that is vital for the incubatees to conduct research and development. Having access to fully equipped labs at heavily discounted prices allows incubatees to pursue high-level scientific projects without the initial burden of large capital investments, such as purchasing a mass spectrometer.

Moreover, the incubators provide not just a lab space or instruments but also a technician, service and training.

However, not all biotechnology incubatees need lab space. MedTech startups, focusing on developing health applications, do not require specialized testing laboratories.

In line with this, some interviewees argued that incubators should not provide lab space. Instead, they provide their incubatees with access to business parks and universities where such facilities are available.

The second technological resource is the deal flow of ideas. These ideas constitute the fundamental input of technological knowledge for biotechnology incubators. In Sweden, many biotechnology and life science companies start from an idea in a university lab. Research universities, such as Karolinska Institutet, play an important role by spotting and encouraging these early ideas.

Incubators leverage governmental and institutional support to secure financial aid, expand their professional networks and enhance their technological capabilities. Most of the biotechnology incubators in Sweden are state-owned and integral components of the regional and national strategy to promote innovation in biotechnology.

Financial resources are the cornerstone of the collaboration between government entities and biotechnology incubators. Government grants and funding programs are primarily channeled to support operational costs. Incubators access these financial resources through formal collaboration by applying for specific government programs. This method not only secures necessary funding but also aligns the incubator's activities with governmental economic and scientific objectives.

These incubators often run co-projects with government agencies investing in the early stages of the company. These co-projects provide not just capital but also strategic guidance and access to the broader network. Incubators also guide their incubatees through the process of applying for government funding. They provide information and actively encourage incubatees to take advantage of available funding. Moreover, government agencies organize meetings that connect diverse networks of biotechnology and life science incubators. These meetings and activities are designed to encourage the exchange of insights and the best practice among incubators, creating a community of incubators.

Universities offer financial resources, operational resources and technological resources. The close collaboration with the university not only enhances the resource pool available to the incubators but also facilitates a smoother translation of academic research into commercial success.

Firstly, financial resources are important. In Sweden, the universities, being founders or stakeholders of the incubators, often provide direct financial support to incubators for operating incubating programs.

Furthermore, universities support incubatees by co-investing with incubators through a university holding company. This means that the incubators work closely with university-holding companies. In Sweden, university holding companies are one of the board members in the incubators.

Besides, working closely with the university helps incubators access broader funding networks. Affiliation with prominent university brands adds considerable credibility, thereby enhancing the ability of incubatees to attract external investors and venture capital.

Besides financial resources, operational resources are facilitated by close collaboration between incubators and universities, such as shared educational courses and joint incubation projects. Incubators participate in or co-develop courses and workshops that are designed to equip entrepreneurs with necessary skills and knowledge. This integration is facilitated by close physical proximity to universities and regular strategic meetings.

Lastly, universities provide essential technological resources, including innovative ideas, laboratory equipment, and facilities. Incubators access these resources through deep collaborative ties with university innovation offices and technology transfer offices. These organizations work closely with researchers encouraging them to commercialize their discovery.

The geographical proximity and regular meetings help maintain a close relationship, enabling a transfer of technology and innovation from the academic to the commercial products.

Many incubators in Sweden are university-owned. These incubators sustain strong collaborative relationships with the universities through formal partnerships. University officials are represented on the boards of these incubators.

This representation ensures that the strategic direction of the incubators is consistent with the university's mission to foster innovation. However, it does not extend to intervening in the incubators' investment decisions.

Incubators situated in close proximity to science parks gain access to lab spaces, advanced equipment, office space and specialized facilities. Science parks provide structured events and meetups where incubatees can connect with potential partners, investors and industry leaders. Proximity to other businesses, institutions and resources in science parks, enables interaction and collaboration. Communication and the rapid exchange of ideas among businesses can accelerate innovation and problem-solving.

Swedish biotechnology incubators operate as regional entities, focusing on local startups. This strategic focus not only enhances participation rates but also fosters a collaborative and supportive community among regional entrepreneurs.

Interviewees highlighted that these spaces are designed to facilitate networking, collaboration and the sharing of experiences and ideas. The ability to connect with others in the same field is perceived as a key factor in the success of incubatees, as it allows for the exchange of knowledge and the formation of support systems.

Furthermore, association with reputable science parks significantly boosts the credibility and brand image of an incubator, thus attracting more innovative ventures and investors.

Incubators provide incubatees with access to a wide range of expertise through established networks that include experienced professionals and local service providers. These experts regularly contribute to workshops aimed at delivering specialized knowledge and skills. Sometimes, incubators also facilitate direct contact with these experts when incubatees require specialized support. Incubators offer various activities, including training programs, courses and workshops covering a variety of topics crucial to business development, including business planning, marketing strategies, financial management and legal considerations.

Incubators form partnerships with many service providers, to meet the varied and specialized needs of their incubatees. This collaborative approach integrates incubatees into a supportive network. Service providers offer specialized expertise in essential areas such as legal, IT and marketing.

Incubators connect to these service providers through local networks, taking advantage of geographic proximity to foster rapid and direct interactions, giving incubatees immediate access to the expertise they require.

Strategically, the incubators maintain these relationships through regular updates and meetings to evaluate the benefits each partner offers and to plan future collaborations.

Investment funding and strategic support are the primary resources that incubators seek from investors.

The incubators proactively engage with business angels and investors, facilitating early-stage interactions with the companies they nurture. Although investors prefer providing capital for a later stage, it is important to invite them in the early stage, following the development of the company. Thus, the relationships built during these initial stages lay the foundation for future funding.

Furthermore, these early interactions provide critical feedback that can steer the company's development in the right direction.

Incubators organize three different kinds of interactions between investors and incubatees: large pitching events, smaller meetings and pairings.

This active participation helps incubators to continuously expand their network and ensure that their incubatees have access to a diverse of investors. These pitch events also serve as networking platforms. These events help incubatees in access to investment opportunities and broaden their network of investors. During special events like annual innovation days arranged by incubators, incubatees get the chance to present their projects and ideas to external visitors.

Pitching and meetings are also beneficial for investors, as they prevent an excessive number of individual companies approaching them for funding. By participating in these events, investors can meet many interesting companies.

However, there are only 2–3 pitching events a year. In the early phase of incubator programs, the incubator may invite potential investors to a private meeting where incubators and incubatees can present their ideas. This activity not only provides funding but also provides strategic guidance and a network of investors to the incubatees.

In addition to hosting pitching events and meetings, some incubators also engage in even more individualized matchmaking, pairing companies with potential investors based on the project's scope and the investor's interest areas. They maintain an extensive list of investors, which enables them to effectively match incubatees with investors who have a specific interest in their business ideas.

Pairing may be particularly useful as biotechnology investors often have specific interests and expertise, varying from medical devices and pharmaceuticals to agricultural biotechnology and environmental sciences. Thus, some incubators employ this approach because they think that matchmaking ensures that investors are matched with ventures that align with their areas of expertise and interest.

In addition to the investor–incubatee interactions described, incubators send their investor networks regular updates. This not only helps in securing ongoing support but also increases the chances of securing subsequent rounds of investment.

Furthermore, incubators strategically use conferences to maintain and expand their network of investors. These conferences are face-to-face interactions that help initiate relationships.

By attending these conferences, incubators also gather valuable business intelligence, necessary for understanding current investment trends and investor interests.

In order to attract and retain investors, incubators need to have credibility, to inspire trust and to be able to offer mutually beneficial relationships to investors. Incubators gain credibility primarily through their track record in selecting companies with a strong business plan and growth potential for investors.

Besides track record, an important part of credibility lies in the brand image. Incubators build their brand and reputation by being associated with a strong university brand, and by attending the conferences mentioned above, presenting their success stories, enhancing their reputation and brand visibility. The strong branding makes them more attractive to potential investors.

Trust is fostered by involving investors early in the incubatee's journey, by inviting them to initial meetings and follow-ups. This approach helps investors feel involved and informed, which is crucial for building long-term relationships.

Finally, it is about creating mutually beneficial–symbiotic–relationships, ensuring that both incubatees and investors benefit from their collaborations, including support for further funding and growth.

The final stakeholder in our study consists of other incubators and international partners. When an incubator collaborates with other incubators or with international partners, relationships are formed through networking events, membership in international networks and co-projects. Firstly, networking through events. Incubators regularly participate in and sometimes host international meetings and events. For example, partnerships with other European incubators provide a platform for regular meetings and mutual visits. This method of connection not only expands their network but also opens doors to new markets and collaboration opportunities, effectively broadening their resource acquisition channels.

Secondly, through membership in international networks such as the Nordic network and EU projects, incubators gain access to resources including market research, academic collaborations and technological advancements from across different states and regions.

Lastly, incubators engage in collaborative projects with other incubators both within Sweden and internationally. Incubators participate in or co-organize programs like biotechnology boot camps and specialized training workshops to facilitate the direct transfer of technical knowledge and operational skills.

Regular interactions and project collaborations help maintain strong, active links between incubators.

Across the cases, geographical proximity emerges as an important enabling condition for network development. Many interactions between incubatees, service providers and other stakeholders are facilitated through co-location within science parks or shared spaces. Interviewees highlight how informal encounters, such as daily interactions and proximity to specialized expertise, enable faster knowledge exchange and collaboration. In addition, several incubators emphasize the importance of maintaining local partner networks, for example by requiring partners to have a local presence, which highlights how physical proximity supports trust-building and efficient coordination of resources.

While the results highlight the key resources accessed through incubator networks, the findings also suggest that incubators play an active role in enabling startups to mobilize and combine these resources. These enabling mechanisms are further discussed in the following section.

In the empirical section of the paper, we have described the resources and the stakeholders in the incubator network. To provide a clearer overview of the findings, Table 3 summarizes how biotechnology incubators coordinate different types of resources through their networks. The table highlights the relationships between resource types, key partners, coordination mechanisms and the strategic choices made by incubators.

Table 3 illustrates that resource coordination is not uniform but involves distinct strategic configurations. Incubators actively combine resources, partners and coordination mechanisms through specific capabilities, such as resource matching and network orchestration, to support startups. This section also synthesizes key strategic patterns observed across Swedish biotechnology incubators and develops a conceptual understanding of how incubators manage resource acquisition. We agree with the previous study by (Kulkov et al., 2021) that biotechnology incubators in Sweden are primarily focused on regional development. The majority of the deal flow is from local universities. There are biotechnology ecosystems in the big cities where universities, tech transfer offices, incubators and science parks are located close to each other. Key important factors for developing biotechnology incubators are accessing human resources and securing financial resources. Incubators consistently highlight human capital as a key strategic factor, especially the contribution of experienced coaches and mentors with deep expertise in developing the biotechnology industry. Many incubators use a coach-on-demand model that provides incubatees with both internal mentorship and access to a network of external advisors when specialized knowledge is required. This demand-driven is crucial for the biotechnology sector, where startups face challenges that general business coaches may not tackle effectively. Unlike conventional incubators, which may follow a structured coaching program, biotechnology incubators enable incubatees to receive guidance that aligns with their technical and operational needs. In addition to human capital, Swedish biotechnology incubators rely heavily on public funding sources such as Vinnova, Sweden's innovation agency. Due to the high risk of early-stage investment in this industry, public funding is crucial for incubators to operate and assist new ventures secure their finance by not fully dependent on private capital. Nevertheless, biotechnology incubators are motivated to seek additional private funding to broaden their income streams and better prepare for fluctuations in public funding.

Our study also reveals strategic variation among incubators in terms of operational models and equity strategies. For instance, some incubators take equity stakes in exchange for their funding and services, thereby generating returns that can be reinvested into new batches of incubatees. In contrast, other incubators choose not to take equity, instead focusing on fostering innovation in their local areas and attracting a greater number of incubatees. Both strategies are effective in attracting deal flows, which indicate that there is no right or wrong choice. Each approach aligns with the business model and funding strategy of the incubator.

Another distinct strategy among the incubators is their approach to provide laboratory spaces and facilities. In some regional innovation ecosystems where the university, technology transfer offices or science parks already offer laboratory spaces and equipment, the incubator often focuses on providing coaching, mentorship and a network of investors. In other setups, some incubators directly provide these facilities, recognizing that not only specialized technology and equipment are crucial for biotechnology startups to succeed but also a research environment where researchers in these firms can share and discuss their successes or challenges from experiments. In spite of these different strategies, our study found that there is a consensus across biotechnology incubators on the necessity of providing laboratory spaces and facilities. However, the responsibility for providing these resources remains debated.

Our study also emphasizes how biotechnology incubators play a strategic role in resource acquisition by creating and maintaining a robust network with universities, incubators, science parks and other incubators. Our findings underscore how incubators maximize resource access through collaborative alliances. Our findings also suggest that geographical proximity plays a key role in enabling resource coordination, particularly by facilitating frequent interactions and informal exchanges among actors. Co-location within science parks and proximity to universities allow incubatees to access expertise, infrastructure and partners more efficiently. This supports previous studies on cluster dynamics but also extends them by showing how proximity operates as a mechanism for network orchestration, rather than merely a structural condition.

We offer key strategic approaches for resource coordination and control. The first key approach is university partnerships for core resources. Collaborations with universities provide biotechnology incubators with essential financial, operational and technological resources. Universities not only fund or co-invest in incubatees, but they also contribute through holding companies, board membership and branded credibility. The close collaboration between the local university and the incubators enhances sharing and the transfer of resources. This relationship benefits from geographical proximity, enabling academic innovation to transition smoothly into the commercial market. Investor networks for early and growth-stage funding are the second key approach. Building relationships with investors through early networking events, meetings and pitching events may enable incubatees to connect with funding sources and validate business concepts. Incubators serve as intermediaries to introduce incubatees to investors at early stages and set the stage for future investment. Additionally, some incubators have matchmaking events that align investor interests with incubatees' specific fields, e.g. pharmaceuticals or MedTech, which may enhance the precision of resource matching and increase investment success rates. The next approach is collaboration with science parks for infrastructure and expertise. Science parks offer incubators access to advanced laboratory equipment, office spaces and collaborative work environments, which create a setting that facilitates peer-to-peer learning and collaboration. The geographical proximity of incubators to science parks fosters daily interactions that allow startups to exchange ideas and resources. This integrated environment demonstrates how incubators can leverage local innovation hubs to support incubatees with infrastructure. The final approach is the strategic use of service providers for specialized expertise. Partnerships with service providers such as legal advisors, IP consultants, and marketing experts may expand the incubator's capacity to offer specialized support. By connecting incubatees with these providers, incubators build a network where companies can access expertise as needed.

Beyond providing access to resources, our findings suggest that biotechnology incubators also develop specific capabilities that enable startups to effectively utilize these resources. While the results section identified four main resource categories, including human, financial, operational and technological. These resources alone do not automatically translate into competitive advantage for incubated firms. Rather, incubators play an active role in enabling startups to mobilize and combine these resources through a set of coordination activities.

First, incubators demonstrate resource-matching capabilities, particularly in connecting startups with appropriate mentors, investors and service providers. Instead of simply providing access to a broad network, incubator managers actively match companies with partners whose expertise aligns with the specific technological or business needs of the venture. Second, incubators develop network orchestration capabilities, coordinating interactions among universities, investors, service providers and other ecosystem actors. Through activities such as pitch events, targeted investor meetings, workshops and collaborative programs, the incubator's structure facilitates interactions that allow startups to access and mobilize resources more efficiently. Third, incubators facilitate trust-building and legitimacy-building capabilities. By acting as intermediaries between startups and external stakeholders, incubators enhance the credibility of early-stage biotechnology firms, which is particularly important in a sector characterized by high uncertainty and long development cycles. These capabilities illustrate that incubators not only provide access to resources but also support the deployment and combination of resources through coordinated activities. From an RBV perspective, such capabilities can enhance the ability of startups to transform available resources into competitive advantages, for example, by improving survival prospects, securing investment and advancing through stages of technological development.

This study adds to the research on the strategic management of biotechnology incubators. Our findings contribute to network development for resource acquisition by illuminating how relational, structural and strategic inputs shape the capacity of biotechnology incubators to support new biotechnology ventures.

First, based on the literature on the management of incubators, our results presented four strategic resources biotechnology incubators need based on a RBV perspective, including human resources, financial resources, operational resources and technological resources. We agree with (Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2014) that human resources and financial resources are more important for incubators than the other two resources. Coaches are the most important need for the success of biotechnology firms. This is in line with research from Kotte et al. (2020) indicating that a coach with specialized knowledge and experience is essential for fostering innovation and growth in incubatees. The study from Harada et al. (2021) also revealed that business alliances and mentorship are vital for navigating the high costs and uncertainties associated with drug discovery and development.

Second, we offer three key inputs for network development in biotechnology incubators. The first one is a trust-based partnership. Biotechnology incubators should maintain relational inputs and trust-based partnerships. The study emphasizes that trust and relational capital with universities, investors and service providers are necessary to create networks that consistently provide specialized resources. The challenges faced during the incubation process, such as legal issues and infrastructure limitations, can be mitigated through strong trust-based relationships among partners (Jiang et al., 2022). The second is to create space for informal interaction. Both formal and informal engagement methods are crucial in developing an incubator's network. However, we agree with Galvão et al. (2019) that incubator networking is found to be informal. Our study showed that many informal activities, such as CEO lunch and informal seminars, can maintain active and responsive networks.

The third input is to focus the incubator on specialized needs. We agree with Klofsten et al. (2020) that the specialization and size of incubators can influence their networking capabilities. Our study indicates that biotechnology incubators strategically select partnerships and resources that meet the unique demands of life sciences and biotechnology startups, such as clinical testing support, intellectual property advice and access to scientific expertise. By aligning network inputs with specific needs, incubators can optimize the relevance and impact of their support networks. Finally, the fourth input is the importance of the geographical proximity of incubators and other support institutions. Our study highlights that geographical proximity to universities, science parks and local service providers enables rapid, face-to-face interactions that bolster incubators' networks. Geographic proximity is not only essential for collaboration, but it also significantly facilitates knowledge sharing and enhances trust within the network (Schutjens and Kruger, 2020). Thus, close locations enable faster access to specialized resources and strengthen relational bonds within the ecosystem. In line with several studies that emphasized that proximity allowed biotechnology firm managers to engage in informal knowledge sharing among biotechnology firms (Allen et al., 2016; Brennecke et al., 2016).

Importantly, this study extends prior research by shifting the focus from resource access to resource orchestration, highlighting how incubators actively structure relationships and coordinate interactions among ecosystem actors. This provides a more process-oriented understanding of how incubators enable the effective deployment of resources to support biotechnology ventures.

This study suggests that policymakers should move beyond a focus on infrastructure and funding provision and instead support the development of coordination capabilities within biotechnology incubators. While previous policies have emphasized physical infrastructure and financial support, our findings indicate that the effectiveness of these resources depends on how they are coordinated and mobilized through networks.

In particular, policymakers can support incubators by funding intermediary roles and activities, such as investor matchmaking, partnership facilitation and network orchestration programs. These roles are critical in enabling incubators to connect startups with appropriate partners and to structure interactions across universities, investors and service providers.

Furthermore, policies that encourage co-location and proximity should be complemented with initiatives that enhance interaction intensity, such as networking programs, joint events and collaborative platforms. This ensures that proximity translates into actual resource coordination rather than merely spatial clustering.

For incubator managers, the findings highlight the importance of adopting an active role in resource orchestration, rather than acting solely as providers of space or access. This involves developing capabilities to strategically match startups with relevant partners, coordinate interactions among ecosystem actors and build trust across networks.

In particular, incubator managers should focus on selective partner alignment, ensuring that collaborations with universities, investors and service providers are tailored to the specific technological and developmental needs of biotechnology startups. This includes designing targeted matchmaking processes and structured interaction formats, such as curated investor meetings and specialized mentoring sessions. Moreover, the findings suggest that effective incubation relies on combining both formal coordination mechanisms (e.g. structured programs, workshops) and informal interaction spaces (e.g. networking events, co-location environments), which together facilitate knowledge exchange and relationship building. Finally, while global network participation can expand access to resources, the results indicate that local networks and proximity remain critical for enabling frequent interaction and trust-building. Therefore, incubator managers should balance global outreach with strong local network integration.

Our study has limitations that can create an opportunity for further research. Firstly, the scope of this study focuses on the Swedish biotechnology incubator ecosystem, and the results may vary across regions. The support policies for the biotechnology sector, incubators and biotechnology clusters may differ. Future studies could analyze incubators in other locations to determine if similar funding and support models apply globally. Additionally, tracking long-term outcomes for incubatees could provide insights into the effectiveness of public–private funding structures in ensuring startup success.