Needs of Global Start-up companies (Deliverable 2) GlobalStart wp1 Studies Deliverable 2 Needs of Global Start-up Companies Table of contents p
Paul Kirwan, Peter van der Sijde and Aard Groen, University of Twente
Download 1.73 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- INTRODUCTION
- ENTREPRENEURSHIP-IN-NETWORKS APPROACH
- Unknown
- German Venture Capital Company
Paul Kirwan, Peter van der Sijde and Aard Groen, University of TwenteABSTRACT
This paper presents the findings of an exploratory study of potential global start-up firms from six European countries. Global start-up firms are entrepreneurial firms that from inception seek to recognise and exploit opportunities by combining resources from and selling outputs in multiple regions around the world (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; Wakkee, 2004). The importance of networks for the development of start-up companies is widely reported in the literature. Firms use their networks for accessing resources, improving their strategic positions, controlling transaction costs, learning new skills, gaining legitimacy, and positively coping with rapid technological changes (Alvarez & Barney, 2001; Bonaccorsi, 1992; Das & Teng, 1998; Hitt & Ireland, 2000; Gulati, 1995). However, with respect to global start-up firms there is a relative dearth of investigation of network aspects in the international new venture literature (Kirwan, 2004). Using an entrepreneurship-in-networks approach an analysis of this literature was conducted and three propositions developed with respect to the development of the networks of these firms. These propositions explore the role networks play in the company acquiring the necessary resources enabling it to realise its global potential. Using data collected by the consortium members of the GloablStart¹ project three propositions are investigated and the results showed strong support for all the propositions. INTRODUCTIONFrom social network theory, the entrepreneurial process involves the gathering of scarce resources (knowledge, suppliers, clients, etc.) from the environment (Birley & Cromie, 1988). In the process of starting up a firm in a high-tech context, these resources which have to be gathered are internationally dispersed. This practice among start up firms has been widely reported and evidenced in the international entrepreneurship literature. The growing numbers of firms who are global from inception and acquire resources and carry out their marketing and sales world-wide are known as “global start-ups.” Owing to the nature of the technology being employed or the industry setting in which they operate many of these high tech firms have global potential. However, this does not mean that all high tech start-ups achieve this global potential. Setting up global activities while still in the start-up phase remains a very complex task. Global start-ups and their entrepreneurs have to deal with the usual problems associated with the launching of a new venture, such as accumulating resources, building reputation, finding partners and attracting customers (Autio, Yli-Renko & Salonen, 1997; Brush et al., 2001; O’Farrell & Hitchens, 1988). Although these problems are inherent in most newly established ventures, they are possibly even perceived stronger by high tech global start-ups. There are several reasons for this. First, their high tech nature often implies that significant investments have to be made in R&D, in order to create high quality, innovative applications that meet global market needs. These resources cannot be used for other purposes, like marketing or establishing a distribution channel. Furthermore, initiating global activities often means extensive travelling abroad to obtain information about specific markets. Such travels take up not only financial resources, but also time. Often the entrepreneur cannot dedicate sufficient time to this, as he has to take care of other issues. Also, setting up international activities requires knowledge of international markets and an international network that, usually, has not yet been established at this early stage in the firm’s development. These activities all require substantial resources (Diamantopoulos and Inglis, 1988) and high-tech global start-up firms are notoriously resource-poor and may lack the necessary time, capital and capabilities to adequately prepare international markets (Doutriaux, 1992). These problems can be overcome through effective networking, e.g. network provides the entrepreneur with support, contact and credibility (Ostgaard & Birley, 1996) and global start-up firms with limited resources employ “hybrid” structures in order to obtain leverage from external resources (Saarenketo, 2003). Therefore, the focus of this paper is on the network development of potential global start-up companies, exploring the role networks play in the company acquiring the necessary resources enabling it to realise its global potential. The paper also investigates whether differences in the structural and relational aspects of the networks emerge depending on the industry setting. The following section outlines the theoretical framework of this study. Subsequently, the previous research in the field is summarised and from this 3 propositions are derived. Next the method is described and following this is a report on the results. The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings, including some limitations and suggestions for further research. ENTREPRENEURSHIP-IN-NETWORKS APPROACHEntrepreneurship can be seen as the process in which actors interact in such a way that opportunities are recognised, preparatory steps are taken in order to exploit the recognised opportunity, which subsequently lead to the creation of value (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, 2001; Singh, 2001). Van der Veen and Wakkee (2004) used this process approach to structure their review of more than 100 articles. In the first stage of the entrepreneurial process, opportunity recognition, the discovery and evaluation of opportunities are the key elements. Initial ideas are developed into fully-fledged business opportunities. The second step is to match necessary resources and perceived market needs in order to enable exchange with the market. This preparation will lead to the translation of the business opportunity into a concrete business concept. The opportunity exploitation results in value creation when the concrete offering is absorbed by the market in the third stage of the process. The entrepreneurial process, as depicted in these three stages, is not a linear process. Changing circumstances may require entrepreneur to alter or come back to decisions made in an earlier stage. The course of action is influenced by the environment and sensitive to various variables. And although this model of the entrepreneurial process is opportunity-based, the entrepreneur is the driving force throughout the process. Yet, the entrepreneur is not an independent actor. Rather, we regard the entrepreneur as being embedded in a social context and needs to interact with other actors to exchange information and resources to exploit the opportunity and create value. Recognizing that the entrepreneurial process includes multiple-actors and multiple levels of aggregation, where actors interact and construct new technologies into new business, we use a multidimensional framework inspired by the work of Parsons on social systems theory (e.g. Groen, 1994; Groen et al., 2002; Parsons, 1951, 1977). A basic axiom is that entrepreneurs act purposeful in interaction with other actors (see also Granovetter, 1985, 1992). Originally, a social system was defined by Parsons as follows: “….a social system consists in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental aspect, actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the “optimization of gratification” and whose relation to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of culturally structured and shared symbols” (Parsons 1964, pp. 5-6). Four mechanisms are embedded in this definition: (1) interaction between actors; (2) striving for goal attainment; (3) optimisation of processes; and (4) maintaining patterns of culturally structured and shared symbols. Each of these mechanisms produces its own type of processes, with its own specific type of capital needed. Each mechanism can be related to a specific “capital.” Striving for goal attainment (mechanism 2) is associated with the scope dimension, and deals with strategic goals strived for and the strategic capital needed. Optimisation of processes (mechanism 3) refers to the efficient organisation of entrepreneurial processes and is in that sense related to the scale dimension with money as the basic resource, i.e. economic capital. Skills and values, related to pattern maintenance and institutionalisation of shared symbol (mechanism 4) are embodied in cultural and human capital, as they can be found in organisations, values, knowledge, skills, experience, and technology. Interactions between actors (mechanism 1), finally, is related to the social network capital. The central assumption in this theoretical framework is that enterprises will need sufficient ‘capital’ to be sustainable over time, implying that starting entrepreneurs need to have sufficient capital in all four areas to establish a viable enterprise. REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE 44 empirical studies on international new ventures were identified and examined, to ascertain the explicit research areas studied therein. Specifically, the individual hypotheses in these studies were classified and grouped according to which capital, from the “entrepreneurship in networks” approach. This approach is especially appropriate in exploring the development of potential global start-up companies as they strive to assemble the necessary resources and information to survive as a business entity. This section gives a brief overview of those studies which dealt with network issues (social capital) and develops propositions to be explored through the case studies. The network dimension is under researched in the international new Venture literature in comparison to the other capitals. It is a relatively new area of interest with only one contribution pre 2000 and there are only a limited number of researchers/research groups working in the area. Further, the network element has only been researched as a small part of larger studies and as such these contributions are limited as they only add to the body of knowledge but do not confirm/cement existing theory. Only one of the research contributions, Rippolés et al. (2002), explores elements based on the use of existing theory from the network literature, i.e. the role of personal networks, measuring the network frequency, size, and density. There were five main areas which were addressed in the contributions studied: (1) Industry Structure Factors (McDougall et al., 2003; McNaughton, 2003); (2) Strategic Alliances/Partnerships (Arenius and Autio, 2002; Preece et al., 1998; Reuber and Fischer, 1997; Rialp-Criado et al., 2002; Saarenketo, 2002); (3) Environmental Situation/Market Characteristics (Deeds et al., 1996; Nummela et al., 2002; Preece et al., 1998; Saarenkto & Sundqvist, 2002;) (4) The Role of Personal Networks (Rippolés et al., 2002); (5) Global Competition (Saarenketo, 2003). These five areas can be grouped into are two distinct and separate fields (1) actual network relationships and (2) the competitive environment in which those relationships takes place, this paper focuses on the former. Network Relationships McDougall et al. (1994) report that owners of ventures that have international sales at start-up relied heavily on foreign partners. The role of network relationships was studied by several authors in various guises by the authors in the reviewed literature for the current study. Reuber and Fischer (1997) and Arenius and Autio (2002) both studied the relationship between international new ventures and their foreign partners. However, both Preece et al. (1998) and Saarenketo (2003) included domestic partnerships as well as foreign partnerships in their analysis. Domestic partners were also included to ensure that the broader impact of co-operation was incorporated. The use of alliances/partnerships were found to have a positive effect in several areas, e.g. they have a positive effect on the relationship between the team’s international experience and the firm’s degree of internationalisation (Reuber & Fischer, 1997). How well partners in a relationship kept their promises and how flexible they were in a relationship reflected increased co-operation in new product development and technology sharing respectively (Arenius & Autio, 2002). Saarenketo (2003) found that the greater the number of partnerships a company had the more markets that company entered into and the greater the share of revenues they gained from international operations. However, the more partners a company had resulted in a slower start to that company’s internationalisation (Saaranketo, 2003) this finding warrants further research attention. These different guises of network relationships reflect the “alternative governance structures” that start-up company’s use as control mechanisms to overcome their asset deficiency (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994). Further evidence of the importance of relationships is drawn from an analysis of case studies on start-up companies (Wakkee et al., 2004), which concluded that global start-up companies usually have a relationship with one strong partner, e.g. a university research group or a venture capitalist. This leads to the first proposition: Proposition 1 (a): The potential global start-up company will have a relationship with at least one strong partner. The first resources (e.g., education, experience, reputation, knowledge of the industry, network contacts) of a firm exist in the entrepreneur (Brush, et al., 2001) and the entrepreneur leverages these resources to grow the firm. Ripplolés et al. (2002) found that the personal relationships, which the entrepreneur had at the beginning of a venture, provide the company with the necessary resources for successful early internationalisation. From network theory, the importance of relationships is also highlighted; it is the network that provides the entrepreneur with support, contact, and credibility (Ostgaard & Birley, 1996). In the small business context there may be a significant overlap between the entrepreneur’s and the organisation’s networks, this is caused because of the entrepreneur identifies strongly with the firm (Szarka, 1990). This simultaneity of the entrepreneur’s and the emerging firm’s network (Hite & Histerly, 2001) is most evident during the opportunity exploration phase. During this phase entrepreneur’s fulfil the role of resource co-ordinators and agents for a firm (Bhide, 1999), with their personal network being the most valuable asset they bring to the company in that it provides the resources for successful emergence (Aldrich, Rosson & Woodward, 1987). During emergence the social network of the entrepreneur is virtually synonymous with the firm’s network as network ties initially exist on the interpersonal level (Bhide, 1999). In many case, the technology, contacts, and industry knowledge are embodied in a team of founders (Brush et al., 2001). Therefore, the following proposition is put forward: Proposition 1 (b): This strong partner will come from the personal network of the founding entrepreneur(s) In the International New Venture literature the network dimension is only ever investigated from a static perspective, i.e. at one particular point in time. However, over time it is expected that the firm’s network will evolve from it’s emergence to early growth. Through this dynamic network evolution firms adapt and align their networks to gain the resources they need to ensure successful emergence and early growth (e.g. Golden and Dollinger, 1993; Ostgaard and Birley, 1994). This leads to the third proposition: Proposition 2: Through dynamic network evolution, the networks of the entrepreneur and the firm merge and become embedded in the global network of the strong partner, firms adapt and align their networks to gain the resources they need to ensure successful emergence and early growth METHOD The propositions outlined above are explored by means of in-depth case analysis. Following a specifically created protocol a series of case studies were conducted among the consortium members of the European Union project GlobalStart. The method employed was interviews with the founding entrepreneurs, supported by document analysis of secondary sources. The current analysis includes 24 technology firms based in 6 different countries; representing different industry sectors (see Table 1 for a complete overview). The consortium members selected their case studies based on the expert opinion of the director’s of their respective technology transfer offices4. These people are deemed as being best placed to judge the global potential of the companies as they have regular contact with the spin-off companies. All the interviews were reported in English and in a universal manner. The analysis of the case studies was conducted by a central source, which communicated with the individual partners the need to collect further data to ensure the homogeneity and comparability of the case studies. Definitions and Operationalisations Potential global start-up: Based on an extensive literature search and case analysis Wakkee et al. (2004) developed twelve propositions as to what constitutes a global start-up. In the analysis of the case studies, these characteristics were applied to the starting firms to examine if they did in fact display characteristics of global start-ups. As global start-ups are only ever measured retrospectively this method can only be used as a predictor. This leaves the possibility that following a six-year period some of these firms may not have realized their global potential. Strong partner: In her dissertation Wakkee (2004) proposes that the presence of a domestic or international partner with international contacts is a critical success factor for global start-up firms. In this paper we refer to that partner as the “strong partner,” i.e. that partner who contributes most to the development of the firm. Yli-Renko et al. (2001) studied the effects of key customer relationships examining the effect of the largest customer, i.e. the one that accounts for the highest proportion of sales revenue, on knowledge acquisition and knowledge exploitation. In this paper the strong partner relationship is viewed in similar terms, however, its relevance is focused on the acquisition of further “capitals.” Personal Network: Here the personal network of the entrepreneur includes all those family, friends, and acquaintances with whom the entrepreneur relates to primarily on a social level (Szarka, 1990) and those network contacts the entrepreneur has from his educational and work experience prior to starting the enterprise. Proposition 2 states that: Through dynamic network evolution, the networks of the entrepreneur and the firm merge and become embedded in the global network of the strong partner, firms adapt and align their networks to gain the resources they need to ensure successful emergence and early growth. Put simply it is expected that the relationship with the strong partner will evolve over time, as the new firm establishes new contacts and uses these to acquire the resources necessary for continued growth. To address this proposition, two questions were posed (1) Does the strong partner belong to an international network? And (2) Does the strong partner introduce desirable resources and/or new partners? Also, the capital contributions of the strong and other partners were investigated. RESULTS The data collected on the case studies investigated 3 key propositions and the analysis shows strong support. Table 2 provides a representation of the results of the analysis of Propositions 1 (a) and 1 (b). Proposition 1 (a) stated that the potential global start-up company will have a relationship with at least one strong partner. In 22 of the 24 cases there is a least one strong partner, while in six of the case studies there is evidence of multiple strong partners. The most identified strong partner is a university, occurring in fifteen of the sixteen cases of single strong partners, and being present as one of the multiple strong partners in all cases. The other partner identified as the strong partner in the single incidences was a foreign software firm with whom the company had a strategic partnership. For the multiple case companies the strong partner was either a parent firm, where the technology was first developed (2 cases) an international venture capital company (1) or individual people (2) or a network organisation. In the instances of multiple partners they are not necessarily operating at the same time but more often than not the second strong partner arrives at a different stage of venture development. In two of the cases there is no evidence of a strong partner at play, thus showing that there is strong support for hypothesis 1 (a). Proposition 1 (b) states that the strong partner will come from the personal network of the founding entrepreneur. In all but two of the cases the founding entrepreneur had a prior relationship with the strong partner, mostly through having worked at a research institute of the university. Where multiple strong partners were present and especially where the second strong partner came on board at a later stage of the company development the new partner was not part of the personal network of the entrepreneur, rather this contact arose through the networking activities of the firm. Again, in only two of the cases there was no apparent link between the strong partner and the starting entrepreneurs, so again, there is strong support for this proposition. The second proposition states that through dynamic network evolution, the networks of the entrepreneur and the firm merge and become embedded in the global network of the strong partner, firms adapt and align their networks to gain the resources they need to ensure successful emergence and early growth. From the case studies it can be seen that in all cases where there is a strong partner that this strong partner is involved in an international network and that this strong partner provides the starting entrepreneur with access to desirable resources (see the capital contribution in Table 3, the capital contribution of the strong partner is represented in the capital contribution section of table 2) or access to new partners, who in turn provide access to resources necessary for the firm’s growth and development. This in itself provides strong support for the second proposition; the implications of these relationships will be elaborated upon in the discussions section. DISCUSSION The findings revealed strong support for the existence of a relationship between the potential global start-up and strong partners. There are several possibly explanations for the two instances in which there was no relationship with a strong partner. In both cases the founding entrepreneurs were not academics, one was a business graduate and the other had worked in industry for several years. They were both the sole possessor of the knowledge/idea on which they were founding the firm and were very driven in their pursuit of establishing the enterprise. Their networking activities appeared to be more proactive than in the other cases, with the graduate reporting knocking on doors and taking bold steps to find the necessary contacts. Their networks were characterised by many different smaller partners all contributing different capitals. This finding suggests that there is further research necessary on the backgrounds and entrepreneurial orientation of the entrepreneurs. It is obvious from the case that the academic entrepreneurs sometimes lack necessary business skills, in several cases we see instances of university technology transfer offices appointing experienced business people in the new venture to overcome this gap. There was strong support for the proposed relationship that the strong partner would come from the personal network of the entrepreneur. In the case of university spin-offs and where the university is the strong partner this relationship is to be expected. A limitation of this study is that it includes just a subset of global start-up companies, i.e. university spin-offs and two corporate spin-offs, the parent companies having originated from a university environment. From this perspective the relationship with a strong partner and its origin requires further empirical examination on a wider sample of global start-up firms. Although, previous research Wakkee (2004) indicated that non-university global start-ups also have relationships with strong partners. What is interesting are the instances where there are multiple strong partners as these show the arrival of strong partners at different stages of the development of the firm. The central assumption in the entrepreneurship-in-network approach is that on each of the four dimensions, enterprises will need sufficient “capital” to be sustainable over time, which also implies that starting enterprises need to cover these four dimensions in order to establish a viable enterprise. From Table 2 it can be seen that in nine of the cases the strong partner provides an input to all of the capitals, these are supplemented in all cases with relationships with other partners, e.g. regional development agencies, venture capital companies, government trade associations, private enterprises. In the majority of cases, thirteen the entrepreneur possesses the cultural capital, he developed the idea or technology on which the firm was based. In the other cases the knowledge or technology was developed through university research or the work of the parent company. In all cases the entrepreneur needs to assemble the required other capitals to allow for the development of the company and these are normally supplied through the strong partner. The arrival of strong partners at different stages of the development of the firm shows the dynamic nature of this process. The firms use their available relationships to acquire the necessary resources to reach a certain point where there can operate as a venture, what this base level is we cannot measure at this present time but it is an area worthy of further research. Having reached this base level the firm continues to grow and as it does so new capitals are required, the addition of new partners, which in half of the six cases were introduced by the strong partner, is a means to acquire these additional capitals, which thus allows the firm to progress to the next stage of development. This type of dynamic network interaction with new ventures using their strong partners and other partners at different periods of their development cements the support for Proposition 2. NOTES ¹ For information on the GlobalStart project see www.globalstartups.org ² See Kirwan and van der Sijde (2004); this paper is forthcoming as a book chapter. Contact the lead author for publication details. ³ In their sample of Canadian software product SMEs not all firms were international new ventures. Ten percent of the firms had no foreign sales at all and 51% had at most one foreign partner. On the other hand, for 20% of the firms, at least 90% of their sales were foreign. Fourteen percent of the sample had foreign sales within the first year of operation, and 51% had foreign sales by their fourth year (Reuber & Fishcer, 1997, p.813). 4 The Twente case companies were taken from the list of TOP (www.utwente.nl/top) companies formed after the 1st of January 2000. This gave a possible sample of 56 firms. Following discussions with the two directors of the TOP programme this list was reduced to 11 firms, which because of their technology/product offerings and their knowledge of the companies and their business plans, the directors deemed to have global potential. To further assist in the selection process the authors used the 12 propositions as to what constitutes a global start up (see Wakkee, et al., 2004) to further examine the global potential of these firms, this was completed using company websites and other available public information. As this published information did not in all cases provide sufficient to assess the global potential of the firms it was decided to carry out preliminary telephone interviews to ascertain the necessary information. Following these interviews five companies with global potential were chosen for in-depth study. REFERENCES Aldrich, H., Rosen, B., & Woodward, W. (1987) “The Impact of Social Networks on Business Founding and Profit: A Longitudinal Study.” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Alvarez, S.A. & Barney, J.B. (2001) “How Entrepreneurial Firms Can Benefit From Alliances With Large Partners”. Academy of Management Executive 15: 139-148. Arenius, Pia & Autio, Erkko (2002) “International Social Capital and its Effects on Resource Acquisition in Born Global Firms.” Paper presented at EURAM Annual Conference, Stockholm, May 2002.
Based Firms: A Resource-Based Network Model.” Journal of Enterprising Culture 5(1): 57-73.
Oxford.
Paper presented at the Enterprise in Action Conference, Belfast, September.
Entrepreneurial Challenge of Constructing a Resource Base.” Academy of Management Executive 15(1) Das, T.K. & Teng, B.S. (1998) “Resource and Risk Management in the Strategic Alliance Making Process.” Journal of Management 24: 21-42. Deeds, D., DeCarolis, D., & Coombs, J. (1996) “The Development of Firm Specific Capabilities and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms: Evidence From New Biotechnology Firms.” Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Cincinnati, OH.
Involvement Exporters.” International Marketing Review 5: 52–60. Doutriaux, J. (1991). “High-Tech Start-ups, Better Off With Government Contracts Than With Subsidies: New Evidence in Canada.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 38: 127-135. Golden P.A., & Dollinger, M. (1993) “Cooperative Alliances and Competitive Strategies in Small Manufacturing Firms.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Summer, 43–56. Granovetter, M. (1985) “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91(3) (November): 481-510. Granovetter, M.S. (1992) “Problems of Explanations in Economic Sociology.” In Handbook of Economic Sociology, eds. N. Nohria and R. Eccles, 453-475. Boston: Princeton University Press. Groen, A.J. (1994) “Milieu en MKB: Kennis en Kennissen, milieuinnovatie in de grafische industrie: modelmatig verklaard, (Environment and SME; Environmental Innovation in Printing Industry Quantitatively Explained).” Groningen Ph.D. Thesis in Economics, Management & Organization, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof. Groen, A.J., P.C. de Weerd-Nederhof, I.C. van Drongelen-Kerssens, R.A.J. Badoux, & G.P.H. Olthuis (2002) “Creating and Justifying Research and Development Value: Scope, Scale, Skill and Social Networking of R&D.” Creativity and Innovation Management 11(1): 2-15. Gulati, R. (1995) “Social Structure and Alliance Formation Patterns: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Administrative Quarterly 40: 619-652. Hite, J.M. & Hesterly, W.S. (2001) “The Evolution of Firm Networks: From Emergence to Early Growth of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 22: 275–286. Hitt, M.A. & Ireland, R.D. (2000) “The Intersection of Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Research.” In The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, eds. D.L. Sexton and H. Landstrom, 45-63. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Kirwan P. (2004) “Internationalising High Technology Small Firms: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Presentation given at the 12th Annual High Tech Small Firms Conference, University of Twente, Netherlands, June 25th. Kirwan, P. & van der Sijde, P. (2004) “Networks and International New Ventures: Review of the Empirical Literature and Relevance for University Spin-offs.” Forthcoming as a book chapter; contact the lead author for publication details.
and Strategic Breadth on New Venture Performance and Strategy Content.” Strategic Management Journal 15(7): 537-554. McDougall, P.P., Oviatt, B.M. & Shrader, R.C. (2003) “A Comparison of International and Domestic New Ventures.” Journal of International Entrepreneurship 1(1): 59-82. McNaughton, Rod B. (2003) “The Number of Export Markets that a Firm Serves: Process Models Versus the Born-Global Phenomenon.” Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(3): 297-311. Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S. & Puumalaninen, K. (2002) “Global Mindset – A Prerequisite for Successful Internationalisation?” Proceedings of the 5th McGill Conference on International Entrepreneurship 2002, Montreal, Canada, September 13-16, 2002. Ostgaard, T.A. & Birley, S. (1994) “Personal Networks and Firm Competitive Strategy – a Strategic or Coincidental Match?” Journal of Business Venturing, 9: 281–305. Ostgaard, T.A. & Birley, S. (1996) “New Venture Growth and Personal Networks.” Journal of Business Research, 36: 37-50 Oviatt, B. & McDougall, P. (1994) “Toward a Theory of International New Ventures.” Journal of International Business Studies 25(1): 45-64. O'Farrell, P.N. & Hitchens, D.M.W.N. (1988) “Alternative Theories of Small-Firm Growth: A Critical Review.” Environment and Planning 20(2): 1365-1383. Parsons, T. (1951, 1964) The Social System. New York: The Free Press.
Press.
of Early-Stage Technology-Based Firms.” Journal of Business Venturing 14(3): 259-281.
the Internationalization Behaviors of SMEs.” Journal of International Business Studies 28(4): 807-825. Rialp-Criado, A., Rialp-Criado, J. & Salas, V. (2002) “Faster and Highly Successful Exporters: An Explanation of Born Globals Firms from the Resource-Based View.” Paper presented at the RENT XVI Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 16th Workshop, Barcelona, Spain, November 21-22. Ripollés, M., Menguzzato, M. & Iborra, M. (2002) “The Internationalisation of New Ventures: The Spanish Case.” The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 3(3): 191-200. Saarenketo, S. (2003) “Born Global Approach to Internationalisation of High Technology Small Firms – Antecedents and Management Challenges.” In New Technology Based Firms in the New Millennium, eds. Wim During & Ray Oakey, Volume III. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 2003. Saarenketo, S. & Sundqvist, S. (2002) “Comparisons of Born Global and Traditionally Internationalizing Firms: Effects of Industry and Managerial Characteristics.” In Beyond Boundaries: Challenges of Leadership, Innovation, Integration, and Technology, eds. Nejdet Delener & Chinag-nan Chao, Proceedings of Global Business and Technology Association International Conference (GBATA) 2002, Rome, Italy June 25-29, 2002, p. 1058-1065. Shane, S. & S. Venkataraman (2001) “Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research: A Response to Zahra and Dess, Singh, and Erikson.” The Academy of Management Review 26(1): 13-16. Singh, R.P. (2001) “A Comment on Developing the Field of Entrepreneurship Through the Study of Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation.” The Academy of Management Review 26(1): 10-12. Szarka, J. (1990) “Networking and Small Firms.” International Small Business Journal 8(2) July- September: 10–22. Van der Veen, Marijke & Ingrid Wakkee (2004) “Understanding the Entrepreneurial Process.” In ARPENT, Annual Review of Progress in Entrepreneurship Research, ed. David Watkins,114-152, Volume 2, 2002-2003. Wakkee, I. (2004) Starting Global. An Entrepreneurship-In-Networks Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. Febodruk B.V., Enschede. Wakkee, I., Kirwan, P. & van der Sijde. P. (2004) “An Empirical Exploration of the Global Startup Concept in an Entrepreneurship Context.” Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference “Creating Actionable Knowledge,” New Orleans, August 6-11, 2004. This paper has been further developed and is currently under review with an International Journal.
Exploitation in Young Technology-Based Firms.” Strategic Management Journal 22: 587-613. Table 1. Overview of the Case Companies
Table 2. (Propositions 1(a) and 1(b))
Table 2. (Propositions 1(a) and 1(b)) continued
*Companies were assigned numbers to protect the confidentiality of the case companies Table 3. Proposition 2
IN = International Network; DR = Desirable Resource; NP = New Partners; CC = Capital Contribution Directory: pub pub -> Project Scoring Template Pre-Construction Phase New Core/Branch Campus Projects pub -> Acm word Template for sig site pub -> The german unification, 1815-1870 pub -> Baltic Olympiads in Informatics: Challenges for Training Together pub -> Preparation of Papers for ieee transactions on medical imaging pub -> Forthcoming meetings and conferences pub -> Asilomar Conference on Circuits, Systems & Computers, Pacific Grove, ca, November 1978, pp. 55 58 pub -> Forthcoming meetings and conferences pub -> Harmonised compatibility and sharing conditions for video pmse in the 7 9 ghz frequency band, taking into account radar use Download 1.73 Mb. Share with your friends:
|
INDUSTRY
CONSORTIUM PARTNER