Why, how, what for? : motivations, actions and expectations in habitual entrepreneurship

Principal topic: Is habitual entrepreneurship different? Answering this is important to the field, however there is little systematic evidence, thus far. We addresses this by examining the role experience plays at three possible points of difference: motivations, actions and expectations; and by comparing those currently in the process of starting a business with those who have recent success in business creation. Firstly, we assess the balance of opportunity versus necessity motivation, internally versus externally stimulated decision processes and future growth aspirations. Literature suggests novices are more likely motivated to nascency out of necessity, and favour a manageable business size, while habitual entrepreneurs are more likely motivated by internally stimulated or idea driven processes. Secondly, we examine actions undertaken by successful experienced founders during gestation, contrasting ‘information collection’ and ‘opportunity definition’. Drawing on prior research we expect novices more likely to have enacted ‘information search’ while habitual entrepreneurs enact ‘opportunity definition’. Thirdly, we examine perceptions of venture success, where findings on overconfidence suggest that habitual entrepreneurs expect a higher chance of success for their ventures, while inexperience leads novices to underestimate the difficulty of entrepreneurial survival. Method: Empirical evidence to test these conjectures was drawn from a screened random sample of over 1100 Australian nascent and newly started business ventures. This information was collected during 2007/8 using a telephone survey. Results and Implications: Why do habitual entrepreneurs keep coming back? Findings suggest that while the pursuit of opportunity is shared by novice and experienced entrepreneur alike, consideration of repeat entrepreneurship may be motivated by a desire for growth. While idea driven motivations might not delineate a distinction during nascency, it does seem to be a factor contributing to the success of young firms. This warrants further research. How do habitual entrepreneurs behave differently? It seems they act to clearly define market opportunities as a matter of priority during venture gestation. What effect does entrepreneurial experience have on future expectations? Clearly a sense of realism is drawn over the difficulties that might be faced, and accords more circumspect judgements of venture survival. This finding informs practitioners considering entrepreneurship for the first time.

The importance of gestation process dynamics

Principal Topic In this paper we seek to highlight the important intermediate role that the gestation process plays in entrepreneurship by examining its key antecedents and its consequences for new venture emergence. In doing so we take a behavioural perspective and argue that it is not only what a nascent venture is, but what it does (Katz & Gartner, 1988; Shane & Delmar, 2004; Reynolds, 2007) and when it does it during start-up (Reynolds & Miller, 1992; Lichtenstein, Carter, Dooley & Gartner, 2007) that is important. To extend an analogy from biological development, what we suggest is that the way a new venture is nurtured is just as fundamental as its nature. Much prior research has focused on the nature of new ventures and attempted to attribute variations in outcomes directly to the impact resource endowments and investments have. While there is little doubt that venture resource attributes such as human capital, and specifically prior entrepreneurial experience (Alsos & Kolvereid, 1998), access to social (Davidsson & Honig, 2003) and financial capital have an influence. Resource attributes themselves are distal from successful start-up endeavours and remain inanimate if not for the actions of the nascent venture. The key contribution we make is to shift focus from whether or not actions are taken, but when these actions happen and how that is situated in the overall gestation process. Thus, we suggest that it is gestation process dynamics, or when gestation actions occur, that is more proximal to venture outcomes and we focus on this. Recently scholars have highlighted the complexity that exists in the start-up or gestation process, be it temporal or contextual (Liao, Welsch & Tan, 2005; Lichtenstein et al. 2007). There is great variation in how long a start-up process might take (Reynolds & Miller, 1992), some processes require less action than others (Carter, Gartner & Reynolds, 1996), and the overall intensity of the start-up effort is also deemed important (Reynolds, 2007). And, despite some evidence that particular activities are more influential than others (Delmar & Shane, 2003), the order in which events may happen is, until now, largely indeterminate as regard its influence on success (Liao & Welsch, 2008). We suggest that it is this complexity of the intervening gestation process that attenuates the effect of resource endowment and has resulted in mixed findings in previous research. Thus, in order to reduce complexity we shall take a holistic view of the gestation process and argue that it is its’ dynamic properties that determine nascent venture attempt outcomes. Importantly, we acknowledge that particular gestation processes of themselves would not guarantee successful start-up, but it is more correctly the fit between the process dynamics and the ventures attributes (Davidsson, 2005) that is influential. So we aim to examine process dynamics by comparing sub-groups of venture types by resource attributes. Thus, as an initial step toward unpacking the complexity of the gestation process, this paper aims to establish the importance of its role as an intermediary between attributes of the nascent venture and the emergence of that venture. Here, we make a contribution by empirically examining gestation process dynamics and their fit with venture attributes. We do this by firstly, examining that nature of the influence that venture attributes such as human and social capital have on the dynamics of the gestation process, and secondly by investigating the effect that gestation process dynamics have on venture creation outcomes. Methodology and Propositions In order to explore the importance that gestation processes dynamics have in nascent entrepreneurship we conduct an empirical study of ventures start-ups. Data is drawn from a screened random sample of 625 Australian nascent business ventures prior to them achieving consistent outcomes in the market. This data was collected during 2007/8 and 2008/9 as part of the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) project (Davidsson et al., 2008). CAUSEE is a longitudinal panel study conducted over four years, sourcing information from annually administered telephone surveys. Importantly for our study, this methodology allows for the capture and tracking of active nascent venture creation as it happens, thus reducing hindsight and selection biases. In addition, improved tests of causality may be made given that outcome measures are temporally removed from preceding events. The data analysed in this paper represents the first two of these four years, and for the first time has access to follow-up outcome measures for these venture attempts: where 260 were successful, 126 were abandoned, and 191 are still in progress. With regards to venture attributes as gestation process antecedents, we examine specific human capital measured as successful prior experience in entrepreneurship, and direct social capital of the venture as ‘team start-ups’. In assessing gestation process dynamics we follow Lichtenstein et al. (2007) to suggest that the rate, concentration and timing of gestation activities may be used to summarise the complexity dynamics of that process. In addition, we extend this set of measures to include the interaction of discovery and exploitation by way of changes made to the venture idea. Those ventures with successful prior experience or those who conduct symbiotic parallel start-up attempts may be able to, or be forced to, leave their gestation action until later and still derive a successful outcome. In addition access to direct social capital may provide the support upon which the venture may draw in order to persevere in the face of adversity, turning a seemingly futile start-up attempt into a success. On the other hand prior experience may engender the foresight to terminate a venture attempt early should it be seen to be going nowhere. The temporal nature of these conjectures highlight the importance that process dynamics play and will be examined in this research Statistical models are developed to examine gestation process dynamics. We use multivariate general linear modelling to analyse how human and social capital factors influence gestation process dynamics. In turn, we use event history models and stratified Cox regression to assess the influence that gestation process dynamics have on venture outcomes. Results and Implications What entrepreneurs do is of interest to both scholars and practitioners’ alike. Thus the results of this research are important since they focus on nascent behaviour and its outcomes. While venture attributes themselves may be influential this is of little actionable assistance to practitioners. For example it is unhelpful to say to the prospective first time entrepreneur “you’ll be more successful if you have lots of prior experience in firm start-ups”. This research attempts to close this relevance gap by addressing what gestation behaviours might be appropriate, when actions best be focused, and most importantly in what circumstances. Further, we make a contribution to the entrepreneurship literature, examining the role that gestation process dynamics play in outcomes, by specifically attributing these to the nature of the venture itself. This extension is to the best of our knowledge new to the research field.

A review of models of spatial innovation infrastructures in support of high growth SMEs

This Paper first provides a review and analysis of the recent trends on innovation infrastructures developed in industrialised countries to promote innovation and competitiveness for high growth SMEs. It specifically aims to examine various spatial models developed to support provision of innovation infrastructure for high growth sector.

Value creation and value capture fro open source software publisher : a new business model based on mutualisation

Key topics: Since the birth of the Open Source movement in the mid-80's, open source software has become more and more widespread. Amongst others, the Linux operating system, the Apache web server and the Firefox internet explorer have taken substantial market shares to their proprietary competitors. Open source software is governed by particular types of licenses. As proprietary licenses only allow the software's use in exchange for a fee, open source licenses grant users more rights like the free use, free copy, free modification and free distribution of the software, as well as free access to the source code. This new phenomenon has raised many managerial questions: organizational issues related to the system of governance that underlie such open source communities (Raymond, 1999a; Lerner and Tirole, 2002; Lee and Cole 2003; Mockus et al. 2000; Tuomi, 2000; Demil and Lecocq, 2006; O'Mahony and Ferraro, 2007;Fleming and Waguespack, 2007), collaborative innovation issues (Von Hippel, 2003; Von Krogh et al., 2003; Von Hippel and Von Krogh, 2003; Dahlander, 2005; Osterloh, 2007; David, 2008), issues related to the nature as well as the motivations of developers (Lerner and Tirole, 2002; Hertel, 2003; Dahlander and McKelvey, 2005; Jeppesen and Frederiksen, 2006), public policy and innovation issues (Jullien and Zimmermann, 2005; Lee, 2006), technological competitions issues related to standard battles between proprietary and open source software (Bonaccorsi and Rossi, 2003; Bonaccorsi et al. 2004, Economides and Katsamakas, 2005; Chen, 2007), intellectual property rights and licensing issues (Laat 2005; Lerner and Tirole, 2005; Gambardella, 2006; Determann et al., 2007). A major unresolved issue concerns open source business models and revenue capture, given that open source licenses imply no fee for users. On this topic, articles show that a commercial activity based on open source software is possible, as they describe different possible ways of doing business around open source (Raymond, 1999; Dahlander, 2004; Daffara, 2007; Bonaccorsi and Merito, 2007). These studies usually look at open source-based companies. Open source-based companies encompass a wide range of firms with different categories of activities: providers of packaged open source solutions, IT Services&Software Engineering firms and open source software publishers. However, business models implications are different for each of these categories: providers of packaged solutions and IT Services&Software Engineering firms' activities are based on software developed outside their boundaries, whereas commercial software publishers sponsor the development of the open source software. This paper focuses on open source software publishers' business models as this issue is even more crucial for this category of firms which take the risk of investing in the development of the software. Literature at last identifies and depicts only two generic types of business models for open source software publishers: the business models of ''bundling'' (Pal and Madanmohan, 2002; Dahlander 2004) and the dual licensing business models (Välimäki, 2003; Comino and Manenti, 2007). Nevertheless, these business models are not applicable in all circumstances. Methodology: The objectives of this paper are: (1) to explore in which contexts the two generic business models described in literature can be implemented successfully and (2) to depict an additional business model for open source software publishers which can be used in a different context. To do so, this paper draws upon an explorative case study of IdealX, a French open source security software publisher. This case study consists in a series of 3 interviews conducted between February 2005 and April 2006 with the co-founder and the business manager. It aims at depicting the process of IdealX's search for the appropriate business model between its creation in 2000 and 2006. This software publisher has tried both generic types of open source software publishers' business models before designing its own. Consequently, through IdealX's trials and errors, I investigate the conditions under which such generic business models can be effective. Moreover, this study describes the business model finally designed and adopted by IdealX: an additional open source software publisher's business model based on the principle of ''mutualisation'', which is applicable in a different context. Results and implications: Finally, this article contributes to ongoing empirical work within entrepreneurship and strategic management on open source software publishers' business models: it provides the characteristics of three generic business models (the business model of bundling, the dual licensing business model and the business model of mutualisation) as well as conditions under which they can be successfully implemented (regarding the type of product developed and the competencies of the firm). This paper also goes further into the traditional concept of business model used by scholars in the open source related literature. In this article, a business model is not only considered as a way of generating incomes (''revenue model'' (Amit and Zott, 2001)), but rather as the necessary conjunction of value creation and value capture, according to the recent literature about business models (Amit and Zott, 2001; Chresbrough and Rosenblum, 2002; Teece, 2007). Consequently, this paper analyses the business models from these two components' point of view.

Built environment procurement practice: Impediments to innovation and opportunities for changes

This report was commissioned by the Built Environment Industry Innovation Council and funded by the Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

Effective communication in innovation processes

Innovation processes are rarely smooth and disruptions often occur at transition points were one knowledge domain passes the technology on to another domain. At these transition points communication is a key component in assisting the smooth hand over of technologies. However for smooth transitions to occur we argue that appropriate structures have to be in place and boundary spanning activities need to be facilitated. This paper presents three case studies of innovation processes and the findings support the view that structures and boundary spanning are essential for smooth transitions.

The critical competences needed for innovative organizational inter-firm and intra-firm integration

In today's highly challenging business environment, an innovative and systemic approach is imperative to survival and growth. Organisational integration and technological integration, are often seen as a catalyst of change that could lead to significant improvements in organisations. The levels of improvement in inter and intra firm integration should arise from a detailed understanding and development of competences within and between organisations. Preliminary findings suggest that lack of trust across organisational cultures within the firms has a negative influence on the development of the capabilities to integrate and align technological innovations and hinders implementation and the effectiveness of the operations. Additionally, poor communication and conflict effects customer satisfaction. Firms need to transfer the competences that support cooperative integration, developed through interaction with supply chain partners, to their relationship arrangements with other supply chain partners, as these are key to ensuring low operational costs.

Enhancing research and development: designing collaborative environments for innovation

Work environments have previously been studied to identify the strategies, structures and processes which increase the likelihood of creativity, innovation and collaboration for productive workplaces. A number of perspectives have emerged which identify social and cognitive factors known to contribute to or to restrict innovation and collaboration. Recently more attention has been given to designing physical environments to encourage processes relevant to innovation such as creativity (McCoy & Evans, 2002) knowledge sharing (Hemlin, Allwood & Martin, 2008) and collaboration (Bozeman & Corley, 2004). Some attention has been given specifically to research and development environments (Boutellier et al, 2008) but little integration of this research has occurred. In the context of the construction of new purpose-built premises which will bring together under one roof separate public sector agencies engaged in research and development in agriculture, natural resource systems and the environment, this paper examines the extant literature and develops initial propositions for research relevant to the transition, collaboration and performance of research and development in new organizational environments where traditional boundaries have been redrawn.

Developing an integrative model for understanding innovation adoption

We develop and test a theoretically-based integrative model of organizational innovation adoption. Confirmatory factor analyses using responses from 134 organizations showed that the hypothesized second-order model was a better fit to the data than the traditional model of independent factors. Furthermore, although not all elements were significant, the hypothesized model fit adoption better than the traditional model.

Key performance indicators for innovation implementation : perception vs. actual usage

This paper aimed to explore the proportion associated with the perceived importance and the actual use of performance indicators from manufacturing and non manufacturing industries. The sample was 86 small and medium sized-organizations in Thailand. The perceived importance and the actual use of financial and non financial indicators were found to be significantly related among manufacturing and non manufacturing industries. KPI 3, 9, and 12 (i.e. sales and sales growth; quality of products and /or services; and process time) were perceived the most importance among manufacturing managers (85.3%, 79.4% and 76.5% respectively). While KPI 6, 9, and 12 (i.e. customer satisfaction, quality of products and /or services; and process time) were perceived the most importance among non manufacturing managers (84.8%, 93.5%, and 84.8% respectively). Interestingly, the most used KPIs for manufacturing were sales and sales growth (64.7%); profit margins (61.8%); and customer satisfaction (84.8) while non manufacturing used quality products/services (60.9%); sales and sales growth (54.3%) and employee development (54.3%) respectively. Limitation and implication were also discussed.

An exploratory study of innovation effectiveness measurement between Australian and Thai SMEs

The advantages of using a balanced approach to measurement of overall organisational performance are well-known. We examined the effects of a balanced approach in the more specific domain of measuring innovation effectiveness in 144 small to medium sized companies in Australia and Thailand. We found that there were no differences in the metrics used by Australian and Thai companies. In line with our hypotheses, we found that those SMEs that took a balanced approach were more likely to perceive benefits of implemented innovations than those that used only a financial approach to measurement. The perception of benefits then had a subsequent effect on overall attitudes towards innovation. The study shows the importance of measuring both financial and non-financial indicators of innovation effectiveness within SMEs and discusses ways in which these can be conducted with limited resources.

Innovation implementation effectiveness : a multiorganizational test of Klein Conn and Sorra’s model.

In an empirical test and extension of Klein Conn and Sorra’s model of innovation implementation effectiveness, we apply structural equation modelling to identify the generalizability of their data-modified model in comparison with their theorised model. We examined the implementation of various types of innovations in a sample of 135 organizations. We found that the data supported the original model rather than the data-modified model, such that implementation climate mediated polices and practices and implementation effectiveness, while implementation effectiveness partially mediated the relationship between implementation climate and innovation effectiveness. Furthermore, we extend their model to suggest that non-financial resources availability plays a critical role in implementation policies and practices.