University of Haifa
Center for Study of Organizations & Human Resource Management
Project Report
Supported by the
Commission of the European Communities DG Enterprise
Project: IFISE; IPS029032PR
Workpackage 3
1
December 2000
The Innovation System, the Technological Incubators and
Yozma Programmes as Tools for the Encouragement of
High-Tech Industry in Israel
(Israeli Literature Survey)
Arie SADOVSKI*
*Arie SADOVSKI is a Research Associate at the University of Haifa, The Center for Study of Organizations and Human Resources Management
2
Introduction
The Israeli Hi-Tech industry
In the last ten years the Israeli economy has witnessed an intensive growth. The
growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) averaged 6 percent during 1990-
1996, and 5.5 percent during 1998-2000 (in 1997 it fell to 1.9 percent). The per
capita GDP ($16,950 in 2000) places the Israeli economy 21st among 200 countries
in the world. The contribution of the high-tech industry to this economic
development is realised in its share in the industrial exports – for example in 1997
High- tech industry export value was $7.2 billions out of a total of $20 billion
industrial exports. (CBS 2000).
The Israeli industry has been undergoing drastic structural changes since the
beginning of the 70s. The main trend of these changes is a migration of the high-
technology industries from a defence-related to a civilian market environment. In
1990 the ratio of the revenues from defence related products to the total revenue of
the electronic industry was 1/1.7, in 1995 it was 1/2.5 whereas in1999 this ratio
was 1/3.3. (IAEI 2000).
These changes have peaked in the 90s and facilitated the establishment of an
amazing number of high technology start-up companies that has been estimated to
be 3,000. The significance of this evolution has been underlined by an observation
that “Israel has the largest number of high-tech start-ups in absolute terms after the
U.S” (OCS 1997).
3
A typical characterisation of the high-tech industry in terms of its sectors
distribution is presented in Table 1. The main sectors in this industry are software
and communication.
4
Table 1. Industry Sector Distribution*
Industry Distribution %
Computer & Electronics 12Medical Devices 7Electronics-Components 6Software 43Communication 21Other 19
*Source: ICTAF 1999
The development of the high-tech industry coincided with the development of the
venture capital industry and other financial instruments as discussed further on.
The financial environment for Hi-Tech industry in Israel
The most difficult problem that entrepreneurs are facing in their efforts to set up a
new technology start up company is raising funds.
The government of Israel, similar to governments in most of the economically
developed countries, offers a variety of programmes that intend to support and
encourage the genesis of start-up companies.
Government encouragement programmes
The major landmark in the development of a policy with regard to industrial research
and development in Israel is represented in the Katchalsky Committee report
(Katchalsky report 1968). Following the committee’s recommendations the Office of
the Chief Scientist (“OCS”) at the Ministry of Industry and Trade was established and
entrusted with the responsibility to the government’s activities in this area. The OCS
has then began to implement an industrial research grant programme in which the
government participates in the research and development costs of the firms at a rate of
5
80%. The Government encouragement programmes were further defined and
formulated with in a framework of a state law: The law for the encouragement of
industrial R&D of 1984 (“1984 Law”), that was implemented under the responsibility
of OCS since September 1999 (OCS 1999).
The purpose of the “1984 Law” was to encourage the industries to invest in R&D
projects by the participation of the government in the risk inherent in such projects.
Any company, registered in Israel, is eligible for the benefits given under the law.
Within the framework of this law, OCS operates a number of different support
programmes that include R&D grants, Technological Incubators programme,
programme for generic research and Bi-national programmes such as the US-Israeli Bi-
national Industrial Research and Development Foundation (“BIRDF”).
The Israeli Export Institute, an organisation which is sponsored by the Ministry of
Industry and Trade, operates an Export Marketing Encouragement Fund (“IEI”).
Another law that provides a framework for financial support is the Law for the
Encouragement of Capital Investments of 1959 (“1959 Law”) that is implemented
under the responsibility of the Investment Centre at the Ministry of Industry and Trade.
The “1959 law” is an important instrument for stimulating growth by attracting foreign
and local investment capital. The objective of the law is to encourage the establishment
and expansion of industrial plants, industrial structures, hotels and tourist projects by
granting "approved enterprise" status to applicants seeking investment assistance. This
status allows entrepreneurs to receive the following benefits available under the law: a
disbursement of a grant for the acquisition of fixed capital or a full tax exemption on
undistributed income as specified in the investment plan approved by the Investment
Centre.
6
The government support programmes became an essential financial source for the start-
up companies. In fact until the mid 80s, all financial sources were from the government.
This situation has changed dramatically during the 90s but even today the OCS support
programmes, with a budget of nearly $400 millions, is a significant financial source for
the start-up industries.
In a recent study performed by ICTAF (ICTAF 1999) the extent of utilisation of these
programmes was determined (Table 2). In this study high-tech companies that were
established after 1990 (n=200) were surveyed.
The findings of this study indicate that 72% of the companies used some government
financial support programmes and the R&D grants were the most commonly used
(42% of the surveyed companies) followed by the marketing fund (27% of the
companies). At the same time it is noteworthy to observe that some 28% of the
companies did not use any of these programmes, a finding that may deserve additional
examination.
Table 2. The frequency of utilisation of government support
programmes by the Hi-Tech Industry *.
Programme Used Utilisation Frequency(% of Companies)
Incubators 7.6
R&D grants 42.2
BIRDF 11.1
Marketing fund 27.3
Investment Center 18.2
Non of the above 27.8
Source: ICTAF 1999.
7
Other financial sources
The information on other financial sources that is used by the start-up companies in
Israel is not fully characterised.
The ICTAF study (ICTAF 1999) shows (Table 3) that private investors were an
important source for funding. The venture capital funds were the second commonly
used source for funding and only 9% of the companies of that population turned to the
stock exchange for their funding source.
Table 3. Type of funding used by the Hi-Tech industry*
Type of funding Utilisation frequency
%
Start-up capital** 26.3
Venture capital 27.3
Private investors 68.7
Stock exchange 8.6
*Source: ICTAF 1999. ** $0.5-2M, normally obtained from VC funds.
Until 1993 (The year when the Yozma programme was installed) the financial sources
that were available to entrepreneurial activities in Israel were very scarce.
For example, the total capital raised in 1991 amounted to $58 M and in 1992 to $160
M (Reiter and. Klein 1999).
The first Israeli venture capital Company (VC) was established in 1985 with the
establishment of the VC Athena. Ten years later the situation had changed in a rather
dramatic way. The growth of the VC industry is described in the following sections of
this report. But another important source should be mentioned here: the foreign stock
markets.
In 1996 Israeli firms provided the third largest number of initial purchase offerings
(IPOs) on the NASDAQ (over-the-counter stock exchange) in New York, after the US
and Canada, and the second largest number of IPOs on the relatively new AIM
8
(Alternative Investment Market) in London (after the UK). Many leading American
investment houses and venture capital funds have established a presence in Israel in
order to support Israeli high-tech firms and benefit from the current boom (Cohen
1999).
The Yozma and the Technological Incubators Programmes
The YOZMA and the Technological Incubators Programme (TIP) were intended to
provide take-of support for new industrial enterprises in the high-tech fields.
The TIP is more attuned to support projects at their inception stages and the YOZMA
programme intends to entice private money to take part in the risky yet lucrative
activity of the venture capital industry.
The YOZMA Programme
The YOZMA programme was inaugurated at the end of 1991 and commenced its
operation in 1993.
The idea was that the participation of the government in the risks involved in VC
activity will encourage, private money and especially from foreign investors to enter
the Israeli VC industry.
The Government of Israel established a wholly owned Yozma Venture Capital
Company Ltd. with a total capital of $100M.
The purpose of this company was to participate as a partner along with investors from
the private sectors in the establishment of other VC companies.
The new VC companies that were established under this programme had a specific
commitment to invest in start-up companies having strong growth potential in the
high-tech fields and that were engaged in the development of exportable products.
9
The operational guidelines:Yozma invested in the new VC companies in a minority position. The investment sum
was $8M per company or up to 40% of the new company capital.
An entering incentive was granted to the other partners in the VC. It was in the form of
an option to buy the government (Yozma) shares under pre-determined and favourable
conditions. These include a buy-out option during the first five years of the fund’s
existence at the government investment price plus 6% annually.
Yozma in itself has managed to raise 45% of its own capital from foreign VC or other
companies.
Yozma achievements and present status:
The YOZMA programme prompted the establishment of 11 VC companies that are
listed in table 4. The total capital raised by these companies was $200M in a period of
three years of operation (1993-1995) and they invested in 130 start-up companies.
Table 4. Yozma funds
FUND NAME LEADING FOREIGN INVESTORAPAX
Eurofund Daimler-Benz, DEG(Germany)
Gemini Advent(USA)
Inventech Van Leer Group (NL)
Jerusalem Pacific Ventures Oxton (US/Far East)
Medica MVP(US)
Nitzanim AVX, Kyocera (Japan)
Polaris
Star TMV(Germany)
VERTEX Vertex international funds
Walden Walden (US)
Total capital: $200 M
10
The average size of the Yozma funds was approximately $20 M and the largest one
(Gemini Israel Fund was $33M). These values may be considered modest compared
with the current sizes of the VC companies in Israel but their impact on the venture
capital industry and on the investments hungry high-tech industry was very substantial.
The financial environment and opportunities for the high-tech firms in Israel today have
changed considerably from the 1993 reality.
In 1998, 101 capital sources were recorded with a record high capital of $ 2,865 M
(Table 5). The data in that table represent accumulative values for the years 1991-1998.
Table 5. Funds and Capital Raised (as of December 31,1998)
Fund Number $ Millions % Invested
Technology venture capital funds
Yozma Funds 10 256 90
Private Funds 43 1,512 60
Public and Other Funds 4 98 67
Total 57 1,866 53
Other private equity Funds 31 764 79
All Funds 88 2,630 60
Investment companies 13 236 70
All Capital Sources 101 2,865 60
(Source: REITER, A. KLEIN, Y. 1999)
The Yozma was privatized in 1997 and is no longer a governmental programme.
This commendable act is a good example for government intervention that has been put
in place to a good cause and at the right time and has been withdrawn when the job was
done and the market forces were able to proceed in an independent way.
11
The amazing growth of the VC industry is generally attributed to the changes that
occurred in Israel between 1993 to 1996. These included the progress in the Middle
East peace process and an increase in foreign investment influx that followed.
The Yozma programme should be given a credit as an important contributor to this
story of success.
The Hi-Tech industry used the opportunity with an ever-increasing demand for more
investments and made a distinct contribution to the country’s economy that grew at an
average of 5.5% in terms of its GDP (Reiter and Klein 1999).
The growth in capital sources for investment is demonstrated in Table 6.
The dramatic increase in venture capital investments was observed since 1993 which
coincided with the implementation of the Yozma programme.
Table 6. Capital Raise by Year ($ millions)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total
Technology Venture capital FundsYozma Funds 0 0 149 40 15 20 5 27 256
Private Funds 49 27 33 72 45 244 599 443 1,512
Public&OtherFunds
0 54 22 o o o 22 o 98
Total 49 81 204 112 60 264 626 470 1,866
Other PrivateEquity Funds
0 45 128 242 91 110 66 83 764
All Funds 49 126 332 354 151 374 692 553 2,630
Investment Companies
9 34 10 20 5 23 20 115 236
All capital sourcesTotal
58 160 342 374 156 397 712 668 2,865
( Source: REITER, A. KLEIN, Y. 1999)
12
The close interaction between the developments of the VC funds and that of the high-
tech industry is further shown in table 7. As indicated in the table, the investment
distribution of the VC funds in various industry sectors correspond to the relative sizes
of the industry sectors. And as expected the software and communication industries
receive greater portions of the overall investment.
Table 7. Industry Sector Distribution of 450 Venture Capital Backed Investments
Industry Distribution %
Medical Devices 16Computer & Electronics 12Software 29Communication 27Biotech/Pharma/Healthcare 10Other 7(Source: Fellus and Maor. 1999.)
13
Summary - The highlights of the Yozma Programme
The Government shares the risk involved in setting up new Venture Capital Funds
The programme is designed to encourage the participation of existing foreign
Funds not only as a financial source, but also as a source of knowledge and
experience in the operation of venture capital industry.
The involvement of the government is for a limited period of time and the
conditions for privatisation were set as part of the basic guidelines of the
programme.
14
The Technological incubators Programme
The Technological incubators Programme was adapted by the Israeli government in
1990 and during three years of operation (until 1993) brought to the establishment of 28
incubator organisations throughout the country, 26 of those are still in operation. (OCS
1997). A full list and description of the incubators may be found at
http://incubators.org.il or at www.science.co.il/incubator.asp. The idea was imported from the USA and was modified and fitted to the Israeli reality.
The objectives of the Israeli TIP
The objectives of the TIP are presented in official publications of the Ministry of
Industry and Trade (OCS 1994, OCS 1997) and include the following points:
To support the initiation of high-Tec (Knowledge-based) industry by supporting
novice entrepreneurs at the earliest stages of technological entrepreneurship.
To encourage new export oriented industry (To help reducing the deficit in the
trade balance).
To create new employment opportunities for skilled persons. (The programme was
adapted when the immigration waves from the Soviet block countries began to
swell, and the government was concerned with their employment situation. It was
therefore decreed that 50% of the workers in each of the projects that were
accepted to an incubator had to be new immigrants).
The preference that the programme had given to the employment of new immigrants
should be further qualified. According to Pridor (2000), the Director General of the
TIP, this preference was critical for gaining political acceptance and public funds. And
indeed, the programme was an important instrument in assisting the relocation of many
new immigrants in Israel. But from the beginning, the programme management has
been careful to insist that the quality of the proposed projects was the most important
consideration criterion for admittance and that the programme had never to function for
new immigrants exclusively.
In addition to the specific objectives of the Israeli TIP, there are other important
features that distinguish the Israeli programme from similar programmes else were:
15
The TIP in Israel maintains an identity of “technological incubator” and refrains
from drifting to a “business incubator” status.
Project are admitted to the incubator only if they are intended to develop products
that have a practical and commercial implementation potential.
The Programme supports technological development processes and refrains from
support of other aspects of development such as trade, services or strictly scientific
developments.
The support is exclusively offered to new products that are based on innovation.
The support is exclusively offered to individual entrepreneurs and not to existing
firms.
The proportional participation of the government in the budget of the incubators is
much larger and in fact dominant compared with the existing reality in the US
incubators.
The operational details of the incubator programme
Founding an incubator:The programme facilitated the establishment of incubator organisations throughout the
country. The government has established a Central Incubator Administration that
developed the policy and guidelines and monitored and inspected its implementation. It
has also the responsibility to report to the government on the use of the appropriated
funds.
The establishment of an incubator has to be initiated by a non-government public, or
industrial organisations (PO).
These organisations were selected from a list of proposers that applied in response to a
“call for proposal” that was issued to the public by The Central Incubator
Administration.
Three types of POs were considered:
Research institutes and Universities.
Municipal and Regional Authorities.
Industrial organisations in the hi-tech area that were well established, experienced
and of significant size.
The PO who were interested to set-up an incubator were screened and chosen according
to several criteria:
16
Their ability to offer an adequate facility for housing an incubator.
Each incubator facility had to be suitable and sufficiently large to house some 20
projects.
Their ability to provide financial and organisational support and assist in business
development of the incubator projects.
This support could be in the following forms:
- Municipal authorities waved the incubators from local taxes.
- The PO had to recruit the incubator manager and the board of management.
(The board members did not receive payments from the incubator).
- The PO had to demonstrate its ability to raise or provide the funds needed to
complement the government grants for the budgets of each of the projects that
were admitted to the incubator.
As it were, Pridor (2000) made a comment that the number of POs that applied to
become an incubator founder was larger than was necessary or desired.
Operating an incubatorThe incubators are functioning as non-profit organisations. They provided housing,
administrative and business support to entrepreneurs who initiated projects within the
incubators’ premises.
Each project was expected to employ approximately 5 workers. As indicated before,
each incubator was intended to have a capacity to house some 20 projects. This number
has been often debated and sometimes challenged. However experience has shown that
to ensure success this number had to be proportional to the ability and the capacity of
the incubator management to provide individual attention and guidance to each of the
projects. Modena and Shefer (1998) found that the typical project number in the
incubator is 8.
The government participation in the incubator management expenses is up to $184K
per annum for the administrative, infrastructure and operational costs (OCS 1994).
17
The operational duties of the incubators management includes:
a. Searching and selecting of project ideas.
This is done with the help of a stirring committee that is chaired by the incubator
manager and includes experts from the business community, industry and academia.
These persons performed their services without remuneration as a service to the public.
b. Managing the financial affairs of each of the projects and having the responsibility of
reporting to Incubator Administration on the progress made in each of the projects.
c. To assist in the business affairs of the projects and in the search of additional
investments.
The guidelines for the incubators companies:
Each individual project within an incubator is being incorporated into a Ltd. company,
and the project entrepreneurs transfer all intellectual property rights of the project's
inventions to this company.
The ownership distribution in the companies is set in accordance with guidelines that
are determined by the Incubators Administration.
The incubator organisation retains 20% ownership. Additional 20% is allocated to
external investors for their participation in at least 15% of the company’s budget, and
10% is kept by the incubator in escrow for the company’s employees. The
entrepreneurs retain 50% ownership.
The government assistance to the incubators companies
The financial support to the projects:
For each project a development plan and a budget request is prepared. Following
its evaluation and if approved, the project is entitled to a grant of 85% of the
approved annual budget and up to $150k for two years (total of $300k).
15% complementing funding is expected to come from the entrepreneurs or the
public organisation that sponsor the incubator or from other investors.
Obligations of the incubators companies:
The finished product that is developed by the Incubator Company must be
produced in Israel.
18
There is an obligation for a payback of the grant in the form of royalties. These
are paid from the sales revenues of the new product at a rate of 3% annually and
up to a ceiling of 100% of the grant. (The Government in return, circulates the
money back to its industry assistance programmes).
Project Selection criteria for admittance to an incubator:
These criteria are one of the key factors of success of the projects (OCS 1996).
1. The innovation level of the proposed project.
2. Export potential of the new product to be developed.
3. Possibility of the incubator company to become self sustainable within 2 years
since its admittance to the incubator.
4. The ability to secure funds to complement the government funding (15% of the
budget).
5. The quality of the project management (The manager of the project must have
proper qualifications and experience).
6. The project may not be supported by additional public grant.
Spatial distribution of the incubators and Technological specialisation
The technological incubators in Israel are widely distributed through out the
country. This is apparently a result of political preferences and most probably due
to the fact that in the regions the readiness of public organisations, such as regional
authorities, to sponsor the establishment of incubators and availability of non-
government public funds that is needed, is larger then in other areas.
Modena and Shefer (1998) studied the effects of the spatial distribution on the
performance of the incubators and concluded that the wide geographical dispersal
counteracts their rate of success. There are however exceptions to this observation
and the hot success story of the incubator graduate company: Compugen Ltd. is a
19
good example to that. This company originated at a remotely situated incubator in
Sde-Boker (Negev Desert).
The question of technological specialisation of the incubators has become
indirectly linked to the geographical location.
As stated before, the incubators are expected to provide their protege projects,
support, guidance and coaching in business development. To be successful at that,
the incubator organisation must have proper competence both in management and
in technology. Specialisation of the incubators by limiting the technological fields
of its incubating projects to a specific spectrum is important for building such
competence. At the moment most of the Israeli incubators are not specialised. Few
that are located within the metropolitan areas are considering specialisation for
improving their performance. Specialisation of incubators that are located at the
remote regions is even less likely to occur due to the relative scarcity of specialist
entrepreneurs in one particular field in the sparsely populated areas.
It seems that this question needs further attention both at the research and at the
policy planing levels.
Some performance details of the Incubator Programme
Since the beginning of the programme until the end of 1998 the government
invested approximately $180M and supported some 750 projects – approximately
500 of those, graduated. 200 projects are currently in progress (OCS 1999).
Although as stated before one of the criteria for project selection was the prospect
of it being self sustained after two years of operation the Incubators Central
Administration realises that this goal is hard to attain. It is therefore recommended
20
that this criterion should be used as a measuring yard for assessing the practical
and applied nature of the projects.
Measuring the performance of the incubators (Goncharoff 1998) with a venture
capital industry outlook will show a much lower return on investment rate
compared with the 20% rate that is common in the VC industry. But in general the
Israeli TIP is considered to be a success story and is directly linked to the success
of the Israeli high-tech industry. Pridor’s statement on the matter is:
“The essence of the programme is to start, motivate and encourage entrepreneurs
and to support an environment of innovation”. It is true that some of the projects
that were admitted to the TIP would not have been chosen by private financing
sources. Sometimes due to the nature of the entrepreneurs and other times, due to
nature of the projects. This may be cited as a drawback but at the same time it
should be considered as an asset being an efficient instrument for extracting and
realising the full innovative potential of the population.
The incubators programme objectives has both social and economic outlook. The
Israeli experience has indicated that the programme must fit the specific population
for which it is intended. It must consider the social make up of this population and
its cultural and business traditions. Another important observation is the very
important role that the management of the incubator plays in the success of its
protege companies.
One of the evaluation parameters of the TIP performance is the survival rate of the
incubators' companies following their graduation from the incubators. Table 1.
presents the available data on this parameter and indicates that some 50% of the
companies have survived the graduation phase and maintained their activity. Most
21
of them (78.7%) with additional investments that they were able to raise form
various sources.
Table 8. The Survival of Graduated Companies
C o m p a n i e s ( n u m b e r - % ) *
Total Incubator
Graduate
476 - 100%
Continuing entity 239- 50.2%
Received outside investment :78.7%
----------------------------------
Self generated funding: 21.3%
Ceased
functioning
237 - 49.8%
During Incubation period: 19.4%
-----------------------------------
Following Incubation period : 80.6%
(*. Source: Pridor 1999)
Of the 239 companies that graduated from an incubator and continued their
activities, 188 companies (79%) succeeded in attracting outside investments
following their incubation period. The total amount invested in these companies
amounted to $202 M that came mostly from Israeli sources (76%) and the rest from
various overseas sources. It is important to note that most of these sources were
venture capital companies.
Another important parameter is the ability of the incubators companies to become
self sustained and to generate revenues from the sale of their own products.
Table 9 presents the available data on this parameter and indicates that 50% of the
companies were able to generate annual revenues of $ 100K and more.
22
Table 9: Commercialisation of Incubators Graduated
Companies: Income Generated from Sales
Sales % of company numberNumber of companies: 110
$50-100k 50%
$101-500K 27%
$501K-5M 23%
(*Source: Pridor 1999)
Summary - The highlights of the Technological Incubators
Programme
The programme is designed to maximise the innovative potential that exists in the
population.
Upon migration of the programme from one country to another, the programme
must be adapted and fitted to the new cultural and business environments.
The programme provides support for projects at their infancy stage and thereby
fills in a gap in which other financial organisations refrain from operating.
The Israeli programme scope is strictly in technological development of products
or technologies that have practical commercialisation potential in the export
markets.
The Israeli incubators have a countrywide distribution even to the remote regions.
The Israeli incubators operate in all technological and industrial sectors without
specialisation.
The incubation time and funds that are made available to the incubators’ company
are equal to all the protege companies and in all the industrial sectors and is limited
to two years and $ 300K respectively.
23
Bibliography
CBS. 2000. Central Bureau of Statistics. www.cbs.gov.il
Cohen, N. 1999. The Israel High-Tech Industry –Fifty Years of Excellence. Spotlight on Israel. M.F.A. www.israel.org.il/mfa
Fellus, Y. and D. Maor. 1999. Money Tree Survey Where did the venture capital funds invest in 1998. in Israel Venture Association 1999Year Book A Survey of Venture Capital and Private Equity in Israel. Giza Group. ed.
Goncharoff, N. 1998. Do incubators work? . Global Tech Ventures. December1998.www.globaltechventures.com IAEI. 2000. Israel Association of Electronics &Information. Industries. www.iaei.org.il
ICTAF. 1999. Interdisciplinary Center for Technological Analysis & Forecastingat Tel Aviv University. Characterization of Young High-Tech Firms and Their Affiliation to the National Defense System (in Hebrew).
IEI. 1999. Israel Export Institute. www.export.org.il
Katchalski Committee. 1968. Report on the Examination of the Organization and Management of Government Research.
Modena, V. and D. Shefer .1998. Technological Incubators as creators of new High Technology firms in Israel. European Regional Science Association. 38th European Congress, Vienna, Austria. OCS. 1994. Office of the Chief Scientist. Ministry of Industry and Trade Technological Incubators-Guidelines Manual. (Hebrew)
OCS. 1996. Office of the Chief Scientist. Ministry of Industry and Trade. Technologies and Innovation.
OCS .1997. Office of the Chief Scientist. Ministry of Industry and Trade. Start Ups and Innovation.
OCS. 1999. Office of the Chief Scientist. Ministry of Industry and Trade. Incubators for Technological Enterprises. (Hebrew).
OCS. 1999. Office of the Chief Scientist. Ministry of Industry and Trade. Encouragement of Industrial R&D In Israel. September 1999.Pridor Rina.1999. An interim progress report of the technological incubator project in Israel. Ministry of Industry and Trade.
24
Pridor Rina. 2000. Director of the Incubators Programme. Ministry of Industry and Trade. Government of Israel. Personal interview. October 2000
Reiter, A. Klein, Y. 1999. The Israeli venture capital industry review .in Israel Venture Association 1999Year Book A Survey of Venture Capital and Private Equity in Israel. Giza Group. ed.
***
25