Managing a portfolio of corporate venture units : challenges in achieving within-unit focus and between-unit coordination

Principal Topic: There is increasing recognition that the organizational configurations of corporate venture units should depend on the types of ventures the unit seeks to develop (Burgelman, 1984; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008). Distinction have been made between internal and external as well as exploitative versus explorative ventures (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008; Narayan et al., 2009; Schildt et al., 2005). Assuming that firms do not want to limit themselves to a single type of venture, but rather employ a portfolio of ventures, the logical consequence is that firms should employ multiple corporate venture units. Each venture unit tailor-made for the type of venture it seeks to develop. Surprisingly, there is limited attention in the literature for the challenges of managing multiple corporate venture units in a single firm. Maintaining multiple venture units within one firm provides easier access to funding for new ideas (Hamel, 1999). It allows for freedom and flexibility to tie the organizational systems (Rice et al., 2000), autonomy (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003), and involvement of management (Day, 1994; Wadwha and Kotha, 2006) to the requirements of the individual ventures. Yet, the strategic objectives of a venture may change when uncertainty around the venture is resolved (Burgelman, 1984). For example, firms may decide to spin-in external ventures (Chesbrough, 2002) or spun-out ventures that prove strategically unimportant (Burgelman, 1984). This suggests that ventures might need to be transferred between venture units, e.g. from a more internally-driven corporate venture division to a corporate venture capital unit. Several studies suggested that ventures require different managerial skills across their phase of development (Desouza et al., 2007; O'Connor and Ayers, 2005; Kazanjian and Drazin, 1990; Westerman et al., 2006). To facilitate effective transfer between venture units and manage the overall venturing process, it is important that firms set up and manage integrative linkages. Integrative linkages provide synergies and coordination between differentiated units (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Prior findings pointed to the important role of senior management (Westerman et al., 2006; Gilbert, 2006) and a shared organizational vision (Burgers et al., 2009) to coordinate venture units with mainstream businesses. We will draw on these literatures to investigate the key question of how to integratively manage multiple venture units. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: In order to seek an answer to the research question, we employ a case study approach that provides unique insights into how firms can break up their venturing process. We selected three Fortune 500 companies that employ multiple venturing units, IBM, Royal Dutch/ Shell and Nokia, and investigated and compared their approaches. It was important that the case companies somewhat differed in the type of venture units they employed as well as the way they integrate and coordinate their venture units. The data are based on extensive interviews and a variety of internal and external company documents to triangulate our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The key proposition of the article is that firms can best manage their multiple venture units through an ambidextrous design of loosely coupled units. This provides venture units with sufficient flexibility to employ organizational configurations that best support the type of venture they seek to develop, as well as provides sufficient integration to facilitate smooth transfer of ventures between venture units. Based on the case findings, we develop a generic framework for a new way of managing the venturing process through multiple corporate venture units. ---------- Results and Implications: One of our main findings is that these firms tend to organize their venture units according to phases in the venture development process. That is, they tend to have venture units aimed at incubation of venture ideas as well as units aimed more at the commercialization of ventures into a new business unit for the firm or a start-up. The companies in our case studies tended to coordinate venture units through integrative management skills or a coordinative venture unit that spanned multiple phases. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we extend prior venturing literature by addressing how firms manage a portfolio of venture units, each achieving different strategic objectives. Second, our framework provides recommendations on how firms should manage such an approach towards venturing. This helps to increase the likelihood of success of their venturing programs.

Do strategy choices matter for nascent firms? A study on effectuation and causation impacts on new ventures outcomes

Principal Topic : Nascent entrepreneurship has drawn the attention of scholars in the last few years (Davidsson, 2006, Wagner, 2004). However, most studies have asked why firms are created focussing on questions such as what are the characteristics (Delmar and Davidsson, 2000) and motivations (Carter, Gartner, Shaver & Reynolds, 2004) of nascent entrepreneurs, or what are the success factors in venture creation (Davidsson & Honig; 2003; Delmar and Shane, 2004). In contrast, the question of how companies emerge is still in its infancy. On a theoretical side, effectuation, developed by Sarasvathy (2001) offers one view of the strategies that may be at work during the venture creation process. Causation, the theorized inverse to effectuation, may be described as a rational reasoning method to create a company. After a comprehensive market analysis to discover opportunities, the entrepreneur will select the alternative with the higher expected return and implement it through the use of a business plan. In contrast, effectuation suggests that the future entrepreneur will develop her new venture in a more iterative way by selecting possibilities through flexibility and interaction with the market, affordability of loss of resources and time invested, development of pre-commitments and alliances from stakeholders. Another contrasting point is that causation is ''goal driven'' while an effectual approach is ''mean driven'' (Sarasvathy, 2001) One of the predictions of effectuation theory is effectuation is more likely to be used by entrepreneurs early in the venture creation process (Sarasvathy, 2001). However, this temporal aspect and the impact of the effectuation strategy on the venture outcomes has so far not been systematically and empirically tested on large samples. The reason behind this research gap is twofold. Firstly, few studies collect longitudinal data on emerging ventures at an early enough stage of development to avoid severe survivor bias. Second, the studies that collect such data have not included validated measures of effectuation. The research we are conducting attempts to partially fill this gap by combining an empirical investigation on a large sample of nascent and young firms with the effectuation/causation continuum as a basis (Sarasvathy, 2001). The objectives are to understand the strategies used by the firms during the creation process and measure their impacts on the firm outcomes. Methodology/Key Propositions : This study draws its data from the first wave of the CAUSEE project where 28,383 Australian households were randomly contacted by phone using a specific methodology to capture emerging firms (Davidsson, Steffens, Gordon, Reynolds, 2008). This screening led to the identification of 594 nascent ventures (i.e., firms that are not operating yet) and 514 young firms (i.e., firms that have started operating from 2004) that were willing to participate in the study. Comprehensive phone interviews were conducted with these 1108 ventures. In a likewise comprehensive follow-up 12 months later, 80% of the eligible cases completed the interview. The questionnaire contains specific sections designed to distinguish effectual and causal processes, innovation, gestation activities, business idea changes and ventures outcomes. The effectuation questions are based on the components of effectuation strategy as described by Sarasvathy (2001) namely: flexibility, affordable loss and pre-commitment from stakeholders. Results from two rounds of pre-testing informed the design of the instrument included in the main survey. The first two waves of data have will be used to test and compare the use of effectuation in the venture creation process. To increase the robustness of the results, temporal use of effectuation will be tested both directly and indirectly. 1. By comparing the use of effectuation in nascent and young firms from wave 1 to 2, we will be able to find out how effectuation is affected by time over a 12-month duration and if the stage of venture development has an impact on its use. 2. By comparing nascent ventures early in the creation process versus nascent ventures late in the creation process. Early versus late can be determined with the help of time-stamped gestation activity questions included in the survey. This will help us to determine the change on a small time scale during the creation phase of the venture. 3. By comparing nascent firms to young (already operational) firms. 4. By comparing young firms becoming operational in 2006 with those first becoming operational in 2004. Results and Implications : Wave 1 and 2 data have been completed and wave 2 is currently being checked and 'cleaned'. Analysis work will commence in September, 2009. This paper is expected to contribute to the body of knowledge on effectuation by measuring quantitatively its use and impact on nascent and young firms activities at different stages of their development. In addition, this study will also increase the understanding of the venture creation process by comparing over time nascent and young firms from a large sample of randomly selected ventures. We acknowledge the results from this study will be preliminary and will have to be interpreted with caution as the changes identified may be due to several factors and may not only be attributed to the use/not use of effectuation. Meanwhile, we believe that this study is important to the field of entrepreneurship as it provides some much needed insights on the processes used by nascent and young firms during their creation and early operating stages.

Characteristics of sustainable entrepreneurship : some early explorations from the CAUSEE study

Principal Topic: For forward thinking companies, the environment may represent the ''biggest opportunity for enterprise and invention the industrial world has ever seen'' (Cairncross 1990). Increasing awareness of environmental and sustainability issues through media including the promotion of Al Gore's ''An Inconvenient Truth'' has seen increased awareness of environmental and sustainability issues and increased demand for business processes that reduce detrimental environmental impacts of global development (Dean & McMullen 2007). The increased demand for more environmentally sensitive products and services represents an opportunity for the development of ventures that seek to satisfy this demand through entrepreneurial action. As a consequence, increasing recent market developments in renewable energy, carbon emissions, fuel cells, green building, and other sectors suggest an increasing importance of opportunities for environmental entrepreneurship (Dean and McMullen 2007) and increasingly important area of business activity (Schaper 2005). In the last decade in particular, big business has sought to develop a more ''sustainability/ green friendly'' orientation as a response to public pressure and increased government legislation and policy to improve environmental performance (Cohen and Winn 2007). Whilst much of the literature and media is littered with examples of sustainability practices of large firms, nascent and young sustainability firms have only recently begun generating strong research and policy interest (Shepherd, Kuskova and Patzelt 2009): not only for their potential to generate above average financial performance and returns owing to a greater popularity and demand towards sustainability products and services offerings, but also for their intent to lessen environmental impacts, and to provide a more accurate reflection of the ''true cost'' of market offerings taking into account carbon and environmental impacts. More specifically, researchers have suggested that although the previous focus has been on large firms and their impact on the environment, the estimated collective impact of entries and exits of nascent and young firms in development is substantial and could outweigh the combined environmental impact of large companies (Hillary, 2000). Therefore, it may be argued that greater attention should be paid to nascent and young firms and researching sustainability practices, for both their impact in reducing environmental impacts and potential higher financial performance. Whilst acknowledging this research only uses the first wave of a four year longitudinal study of nascent and young firms, it can still begin to provide initial analysis on which to continue further research. The aim of this paper therefore is to provide an overview of the emerging literature in sustainable entrepreneurship and to present some selected preliminary results from the first wave of the data collection, with comparison, where appropriate, of sustainable and firms that do not fulfil this criteria. ''One of the key challenges in evaluating sustainability entrepreneurship is the lack of agreement in how it is defined'' (Schaper, 2005: 10). Some evaluate sustainable entrepreneurs simply as one category of entrepreneurs with little difference between them and traditional entrepreneurs (Dees, 1998). Other research recognises values-based sustainable enterprises requiring a unique perspective (Parrish, 2005). Some see the environmental or sustainable entrepreneurship is a subset of social entrepreneurship (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Dean & McMullen, 2007) whilst others see it as a separate, distinct theory (Archer 2009). Following one of the first definitions of sustainability developed by the Brundtland Commission (1987) we define sustainable entrepreneurship as firms which ''seek to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future''. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: In this exploratory paper we investigate sustainable entrepreneurship using Cohen et al.'s (2008) framework to identify strategies of nascent and young entrepreneurial firms. We use data from The Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE). This study shares the general empirical approach with PSED studies in the US (Reynolds et al 1994; Reynolds & Curtin 2008). The overall study uses samples of 727 nascent (not yet operational) firms and another 674 young firms, the latter being in an operational stage but less than four years old. To generate the sub sample of sustainability firms, we used content analysis techniques on firm titles, descriptions and product descriptions provided by respondents. Two independent coders used a predefined codebook developed from our review of the sustainability entrepreneurship literature (Cohen et al. 2009) to evaluate the content based on terms such as ''sustainable'' ''eco-friendly'' ''renewable energy'' ''environment'' amongst others. The inter-rater reliability was checked and the Kappa's co-efficient was found to be within the acceptable range (0.746). 85 firms fulfilled the criteria given for inclusion in the sustainability cohort. ---------- Results and Implications: The results for this paper are based on Wave one of the CAUSEE survey which has been completed and the data is available for analysis. It is expected that the findings will assist in beginning to develop an understanding of nascent and young firms that are driven to contribute to a society which is sustainable, not just from an economic perspective (Cohen et al 2008), but from an environmental and social perspective as well. The CAUSEE study provides an opportunity to compare the characteristics of sustainability entrepreneurs with entrepreneurial firms without a stated environmental purpose, which constitutes the majority of the new firms created each year, using a large scale novel longitudinal dataset. The results have implications for Government in the design of better conditions for the creation of new business, firms who assist sustainability in developing better advice programs in line with a better understanding of their needs and requirements, individuals who may be considering becoming entrepreneurs in high potential arenas and existing entrepreneurs make better decisions.

The growth-profitability relationship : strategic orientations as moderator

Principal Topic: In this study we investigate how strategic orientation moderates the impact of growth on profitability for a sample of Danish high growth (Gazelle) firms. ---------- Firm growth has been an essential part of both management research and entrepreneurship research for decades (e.g. Penrose 1959, Birch 1987, Storey 1994). From a societal point of view, firm growth has been perceived as economic generator and job creator. In entrepreneurship research, growth has been an important part of the field (Davidsson, Delmar and Wiklund 2006), and many have used growth as a measure of success. In strategic management, growth has been seen as an approach to achieve competitive advantages and a way of becoming increasing profitable (e.g. Russo and Fouts 1997, Cho and Pucic 2005). However, although firm growth used to be perceived as a natural pathway to profitability recently more skepticism has emerged due to both new theoretical development and new empirical insights. Empirically, studies show inconsistent and inconclusive empirical evidence regarding the impact of growth on profitability. Our review reveals that some studies find a substantial positive relationship, some find a weak positive relationship, some find no relationship and further some find a negative relationship. Overall, two dominant yet divergent theoretical positions can be identified. The first position, mainly focusing on the environmental fit, argues that firms are likely to become more profitable if they enter a market quickly and on a larger scale due to first mover advantages and economic of scale. The second position, mainly focusing the internal fit, argues that growth may lead to a range of internal challenges and difficulties, including rapid change in structure, reward systems, decision making, communication and management style. The inconsistent empirical results together with two divergent theoretical positions call for further investigations into the circumstances by which growth generate profitability and into the circumstances by which growth do not generate profitability. In this project, we investigate how strategic orientations influence the impact of growth on profitability by asking the following research question: How is the impact of growth on profitability moderated by strategic orientation? Based on a literature review of how growth impacts profitability in areas such as entrepreneurship, strategic management and strategic entrepreneurship we develop three hypotheses regarding the growth-profitability relationship and strategic orientation as a potential moderator. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: The three hypotheses are tested on data collected in 2008. All firms in Denmark, including all listed and non-listed (VAT-registered) firms who experienced a 100 % growth and had a positive sales or gross profit over a four years period (2004-2007) were surveyed. In total 2,475 fulfilled the requirements. Among those 1,107 firms returned usable questionnaires satisfactory giving us a response rate on 45 %. The financial data together with data on number of employees were obtained from D&B (previously Dun & Bradstreet). The remaining data were obtained through the survey. Hierarchical regression models with ROA (return on assets) as the dependent variable were used to test the hypotheses. In the first model control variables including region, industry, firm age, CEO age, CEO gender, CEO education and number of employees were entered. In the second model, growth measured as growth in employees was entered. Then strategic orientation (differentiation, cost leadership, focus differentiation and focus cost leadership) and then interaction effects of strategic orientation and growth were entered in the model. ---------- Results and Implications: The results show a positive impact of firm growth on profitability and further that this impact is moderated by strategic orientation. Specifically, it was found that growth has a larger impact on profitability when firms do not pursue a focus strategy including both focus differentiation and focus cost leadership. Our preliminary interpretation of the results suggests that the value of growth depends on the circumstances and more specifically 'how much is left to fight for'. It seems like those firms who target towards a narrow segment are less likely to gain value of growth. The remaining market shares to fight for to these firms are not large enough to compensate for the cost of growing. Based on our findings, it therefore seems like growth has a more positive relationship with profitability for those who approach a broad market segment. Furthermore we argue that firms pursuing af Focus strategy will have more specialized assets that decreases the possibilities of further profitable expansion. For firms, CEOs, board of directors etc., the study shows that high growth is not necessarily something worth aiming for. It is a trade-off between the cost of growing and the value of growing. For many firms, there might be better ways of generating profitability in the long run. It depends on the strategic orientation of the firm. For advisors and consultants, the conditional value of growth implies that in-depth knowledge on their clients' situation is necessary before any advice can be given. And finally, for policy makers, it means they have to be careful when initiating new policies to promote firm growth. They need to take into consideration firm strategy and industry conditions.

Micro-family-owned business : transitory survival mechanism or long term wealth creator?

Principal Topic: Entrepreneurship is key to employment, innovation and growth (Acs & Mueller, 2008), and as such, has been the subject of tremendous research in both the economic and management literatures since Solow (1957), Schumpeter (1934, 1943), and Penrose (1959). The presence of entrepreneurs in the economy is a key factor in the success or failure of countries to grow (Audretsch and Thurik, 2001; Dejardin, 2001). Further studies focus on the conditions of existence of entrepreneurship, influential factors invoked are historical, cultural, social, institutional, or purely economic (North, 1997; Thurik 1996 & 1999). Of particular interest, beyond the reasons behind the existence of entrepreneurship, are entrepreneurial survival and good ''performance'' factors. Using cross-country firm data analysis, La Porta & Schleifer (2008) confirm that informal micro-businesses provide on average half of all economic activity in developing countries. They find that these are utterly unproductive compared to formal firms, and conclude that the informal sector serves as a social security net ''keep[ing] millions of people alive, but disappearing over time'' (abstract). Robison (1986), Hill (1996, 1997) posit that the Indonesian government under Suharto always pointed to the lack of indigenous entrepreneurship , thereby motivating the nationalisation of all industries. Furthermore, the same literature also points to the fact that small businesses were mostly left out of development programmes because they were supposed less productive and having less productivity potential than larger ones. Vial (2008) challenges this view and shows that small firms represent about 70% of firms, 12% of total output, but contribute to 25% of total factor productivity growth on average over the period 1975-94 in the industrial sector (Table 10, p.316). ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: A review of the empirical literature points at several under-researched questions. Firstly, we assess whether there is, evidence of small family-business entrepreneurship in Indonesia. Secondly, we examine and present the characteristics of these enterprises, along with the size of the sector, and its dynamics. Thirdly, we study whether these enterprises underperform compared to the larger scale industrial sector, as it is suggested in the literature. We reconsider performance measurements for micro-family owned businesses. We suggest that, beside productivity measures, performance could be appraised by both the survival probability of the firm, and by the amount of household assets formation. We compare micro-family-owned and larger industrial firms' survival probabilities after the 1997 crisis, their capital productivity, then compare household assets of families involved in business with those who do not. Finally, we examine human and social capital as moderators of enterprises' performance. In particular, we assess whether a higher level of education and community participation have an effect on the likelihood of running a family business, and whether it has an impact on households' assets level. We use the IFLS database compiled and published by RAND Corporation. The data is a rich community, households, and individuals panel dataset in four waves: 1993, 1997, 2000, 2007. We now focus on the waves 1997 and 2000 in order to investigate entrepreneurship behaviours in turbulent times, i.e. the 1997 Asian crisis. We use aggregate individual data, and focus on households data in order to study micro-family-owned businesses. IFLS data covers roughly 7,600 households in 1997 and over 10,000 households in 2000, with about 95% of 1997 households re-interviewed in 2000. Households were interviewed in 13 of the 27 provinces as defined before 2001. Those 13 provinces were targeted because accounting for 83% of the population. A full description of the data is provided in Frankenberg and Thomas (2000), and Strauss et alii (2004). We deflate all monetary values in Rupiah with the World Development Indicators Consumer Price Index base 100 in 2000. ---------- Results and Implications: We find that in Indonesia, entrepreneurship is widespread and two thirds of households hold one or several family businesses. In rural areas, in 2000, 75% of households run one or several businesses. The proportion of households holding both a farm and a non farm business is higher in rural areas, underlining the reliance of rural households on self-employment, especially after the crisis. Those businesses come in various sizes from very small to larger ones. The median business production value represents less than the annual national minimum wage. Figures show that at least 75% of farm businesses produce less than the annual minimum wage, with non farm businesses being more numerous to produce the minimum wage. However, this is only one part of the story, as production is not the only ''output'' or effect of the business. We show that the survival rate of those businesses ranks between 70 and 82% after the 1997 crisis, which contrasts with the 67% survival rate for the formal industrial sector (Ter Wengel & Rodriguez, 2006). Micro Family Owned Businesses might be relatively small in terms of production, they also provide stability in times of crisis. For those businesses that provide business assets figures, we show that capital productivity is fairly high, with rates that are ten times higher for non farm businesses. Results show that households running a business have larger family assets, and households are better off in urban areas. We run a panel logit model in order to test the effect of human and social capital on the existence of businesses among households. We find that non farm businesses are more likely to appear in households with higher human and social capital situated in urban areas. Farm businesses are more likely to appear in lower human capital and rural contexts, while still being supported by community participation. The estimation of our panel data model confirm that households are more likely to have higher family assets if situated in urban area, the higher the education level, the larger the assets, and running a business increase the likelihood of having larger assets. This is especially true for non farm businesses that have a clearly larger and more significant effect on assets than farm businesses. Finally, social capital in the form of community participation also has a positive effect on assets. Those results confirm the existence of a strong entrepreneurship culture among Indonesian households. Investigating survival rates also shows that those businesses are quite stable, even in the face of a violent crisis such as the 1997 one, and as a result, can provide a safety net. Finally, considering household assets - the returns of business to the household, rather than profit or productivity - the returns of business to itself, shows that households running a business are better off. While we demonstrate that uman and social capital are key to business existence, survival and performance, those results open avenues for further research regarding the factors that could hamper growth of those businesses in terms of output and employment.