Capturing opportunities for business and innovation in knowledge intensive services

Research on opportunity has been extensively studied in contexts of new firm or new venture creation (Choi & Shepherd, 2004; Mullins & Forlani, 2005; Ozgen & Baron, 2007) where start-ups and new ventures use both opportunity discovery and opportunity creation (Alvarez & Barney 2005, 2007). Less research is found on examining the relationship between opportunity and innovation in existing firms (with Drucker (1985) an exception). In large firms, opportunity recognition has been analysed in terms of antecedent conditions, elements and outcomes (Ireland, Covin & Kuratko, 2009), but to date less attention has been given to how small and medium enterprises capture and use opportunities to remain competitive. Little research has been carried out regarding how smaller firms use opportunities to create new business with existing customers or use technological advances with new customers to create new economic activity, growth and competitive advantage. This study presents findings from a comparative case analysis of 20 diverse firms in the spatial information industry and identifies constructs associated with identifying opportunities that lead to better business performance and firm level innovation.

Knitted images : cartographies

Through the making of these works I research teachers. Here, I push a/r/tography (Irwin & Springgay 2008) into ca/r/tography - a process of mapping that is multitexural, mutable; moving between theorization, creation, process, research, and mapped by me as I wander between artist, researcher, teacher...

ACE research vignette 032: Potentially valuable or acquired resources?

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international Entrepreneurship researchers. In this vignette, Dr Martin Bliemel and his research team consider a trade-off entrepreneurs face when managing their network: should they form stronger relationships to acquire key resources, or should they reach out to more potential partners to access new resources?

ACE research vignette 033: Learning (about) entrepreneurship through experiential learning opportunities at university

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international Entrepreneurship researchers. In this vignette, Dr Martin Bliemel considers the state of entrepreneurship education in universities and the degree to which students actually internalize what it is like to be an entrepreneur.

The QUT innovation space : a trans-disciplinary learning environment for entrepreneurship education : final report

In the current climate of global economic volatility, there are increasing calls for training in enterprising skills and entrepreneurship to underpin the systemic innovation required for even medium-term business sustainability. The skills long-recognised as the essential for entrepreneurship now appear on the list of employability skills demanded by industry. The QUT Innovation Space (QIS) was an experiment aimed at delivering entrepreneurship education (EE), as an extra-curricular platform across the university, to the undergraduate students of an Australian higher education institute. It was an ambitious project that built on overseas models of EE studied during an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Teaching Fellowship (Collet, 2011) and implemented those approaches across an institute. Such EE approaches have not been attempted in an Australian university. The project tested resonance not only with the student population, from the perspective of what worked and what didn’t work, but also with every level of university operations. Such information is needed to inform the development of EE in the Australian university landscape. The QIS comprised a physical co-working space, virtual sites (web, Twitter and Facebook) and a network of entrepreneurial mentors, colleagues, and students. All facets of the QIS enabled connection between like-minded individuals that underpins the momentum needed for a project of this nature. The QIS became an innovation community within QUT. This report serves two purposes. First, as an account of the QIS project and its evolution, the report serves to identify the student demand for skills and training as well as barriers and facilitators of the activities that promote EE in an Australian university context. Second, the report serves as a how-to manual, in the tradition of many tomes on EE, outlining the QIS activities that worked as well as those that failed. The activities represent one measure of QIS outcomes and are described herein to facilitate implementation in other institutes. The QIS initially aimed to adopt an incubation model for training in EE. The ‘learning by doing’ model for new venture creation is a highly successful and high profile training approach commonly found in overseas contexts. However, the greatest demand of the QUT student population was not for incubation and progression of a developed entrepreneurial intent, but rather for training that instilled enterprising skills in the individual. These two scenarios require different training approaches (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). The activities of the QIS evolved to meet that student demand. In addressing enterprising skills, the QIS developed the antecedents of entrepreneurialism (i.e., entrepreneurial attitudes, motivation and behaviours) including high-level skills around risk-taking, effective communication, opportunity recognition and action-orientation. In focusing on the would-be entrepreneur and not on the (initial) idea per se, the QIS also fostered entrepreneurial outcomes that would never have gained entry to the rigid stage-gated incubation model proposed for the original QIS framework. Important lessons learned from the project for development of an innovation community include the need to: 1. Evaluate the context of the type of EE program to be delivered and the student demand for the skills training (as noted above). 2. Create a community that builds on three dimensions: a physical space, a virtual environment and a network of mentors and partners. 3. Supplement the community with external partnerships that aid in delivery of skills training materials. 4. Ensure discovery of the community through the use of external IT services to deliver advertising and networking outlets. 5. Manage unrealistic student expectations of billion dollar products. 6. Continuously renew and rebuild simple activities to maintain student engagement. 7. Accommodate the non-university end-user group within the community. 8. Recognise and address the skills bottlenecks that serve as barriers to concept progression; in this case, externally provided IT and programming skills. 9. Use available on-line and published resources rather than engage in constructing project-specific resources that quickly become obsolete. 10. Avoid perceptions of faculty ownership and operate in an increasingly competitive environment. 11. Recognise that the continuum between creativity/innovation and entrepreneurship is complex, non-linear and requires different training regimes during the different phases of the pipeline. One small entity, such as the QIS, cannot address them all. The QIS successfully designed, implemented and delivered activities that included events, workshops, seminars and services to QUT students in the extra-curricular space. That the QIS project can be considered successful derives directly from the outcomes. First, the QIS project changed the lives of emerging QUT student entrepreneurs. Also, the QIS activities developed enterprising skills in students who did not necessarily have a business proposition, at the time. Second, successful outcomes of the QIS project are evidenced as the embedding of most, perhaps all, of the QIS activities in a new Chancellery-sponsored initiative: the Leadership Development and Innovation Program hosted by QUT Student Support Services. During the course of the QIS project, the Brisbane-based innovation ecosystem underwent substantial change. From a dearth of opportunities for the entrepreneurially inclined, there is now a plethora of entities that cater for a diversity of innovation-related activities. While the QIS evolved with the landscape, the demand endpoint of the QIS activities still highlights a gap in the local and national innovation ecosystems. The freedom to experiment and to fail is not catered for by the many new entities seeking to build viable businesses on the back of the innovation push. The onus of teaching the enterprising skills, which are the employability skills now demanded by industry, remains the domain of the higher education sector.

Business Creation Processes in Australia : What Start-Up Attempts Get Up and Running, and Why? - A Preliminary Assessment

The Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) is the largest study of new firm formation that has ever been undertaken in Australia. CAUSEE follows the development of several samples of new and emerging firms over time. In this report we focus on the drivers of outcomes – in terms of reaching an operational stage vs. terminating the effort – of 493 randomly selected nascent firms whose founders have been comprehensively interviewed on two occasions, 12 months apart. We investigate the outcome effects of three groups of variables: Characteristics of the Venture; Resources Used in the Start-Up Process and Characteristics of the Start-Up Process Itself.

Unpacking the entrepreneurial process : A step-by-step guide to a successful venture in the entertainment industry

Unpacking the Entrepreneurial Process: A Step-by-Step Guide to a Successful Venture in the Entertainment Industry introduces a step-by-step guide to either students, entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs to fully understand the necessary steps to both unleash their entrepreneurial capabilities and to foster the development of new ones.

Design process excludes users : the co-creation activities between user and designer

User needs are a fundamental element of design. If the design process does not properly reflect user needs, the design will be severely compromised. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate how the user is, and user needs are, understood in the design process. In this article, three accepted linear process models for web site and interactive media design are reviewed in terms of the designer and user participation. The article then proposes a user-evolving collaborative design process which is built on co-creation activities between designer and user. Co-creation activities across the entire design process structurally and ontologically reposition the users, and user needs, centrally, which allows the designers to holistically approach to the user needs through building a partnership with the users. Co-creation creates an equal evolving participatory process between user and designer towards sharing values and knowledge and creating new domains of collective creativity.

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.

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.

The comprehensive Australian Study of entrepreneurial emergence (CAUSEE) high potential nascent entrepreneurs : some preliminary findings

Principal Topic The Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) represents the first Australian study to employ and extend the longitudinal and large scale systematic research developed for the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) in the US (Gartner, Shaver, Carter and Reynolds, 2004; Reynolds, 2007). This research approach addresses several shortcomings of other data sets including under coverage; selection bias; memory decay and hindsight bias, and lack of time separation between the assessment of causes and their assumed effects (Johnson et al 2006; Davidsson 2006). However, a remaining problem is that any a random sample of start-ups will be dominated by low potential, imitative ventures. In recognition of this issue CAUSEE supplemented PSED-type random samples with theoretically representative samples of the 'high potential' emerging ventures employing a unique methodology using novel multiple screening criteria. We define new ''high-potential'' ventures as new entrepreneurial innovative ventures with high aspirations and potential for growth. This distinguishes them from those ''lifestyle'' imitative businesses that start small and remain intentionally small (Timmons, 1986). CAUSEE is providing the opportunity to explore, for the first time, if process and outcomes of high potentials differ from those of traditional lifestyle firms. This will allows us to compare process and outcome attributes of the random sample with the high potential over sample of new firms and young firms. The attributes in which we will examine potential differences will include source of funding, and internationalisation. This is interesting both in terms of helping to explain why different outcomes occur but also in terms of assistance to future policymaking, given that high growth potential firms are increasingly becoming the focus of government intervention in economic development policies around the world. The first wave of data of a four year longitudinal study has been collected using these samples, allowing us to also provide some initial analysis on which to continue further research. The aim of this paper therefore is to present some selected preliminary results from the first wave of the data collection, with comparisons of high potential with lifestyle firms. We expect to see owing to greater resource requirements and higher risk profiles, more use of venture capital and angel investment, and more internationalisation activity to assist in recouping investment and to overcome Australia's smaller economic markets Methodology/Key Propositions In order to develop the samples of 'high potential' in the NF and YF categories a set of qualification criteria were developed. Specifically, to qualify, firms as nascent or young high potentials, we used multiple, partly compensating screening criteria related to the human capital and aspirations of the founders as well as the novelty of the venture idea, and venture high technology. A variety of techniques were also employed to develop a multi level dataset of sources to develop leads and firm details. A dataset was generated from a variety of websites including major stakeholders including the Federal and State Governments, Australian Chamber of Commerce, University Commercialisation Offices, Patent and Trademark Attorneys, Government Awards and Industry Awards in Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Industry lead associations, Venture Capital Association, Innovation directories including Australian Technology Showcase, Business and Entrepreneurs Magazines including BRW and Anthill. In total, over 480 industry, association, government and award sources were generated in this process. Of these, 74 discrete sources generated high potentials that fufilled the criteria. 1116 firms were contacted as high potential cases. 331 cases agreed to participate in the screener, with 279 firms (134 nascents, and 140 young firms) successfully passing the high potential criteria. 222 Firms (108 Nascents and 113 Young firms) completed the full interview. For the general sample CAUSEE conducts screening phone interviews with a very large number of adult members of households randomly selected through random digit dialing using screening questions which determine whether respondents qualify as 'nascent entrepreneurs'. CAUSEE additionally targets 'young firms' those that commenced trading from 2004 or later. This process yielded 977 Nascent Firms (3.4%) and 1,011 Young Firms (3.6%). These were directed to the full length interview (40-60 minutes) either directly following the screener or later by appointment. The full length interviews were completed by 594 NF and 514 YF cases. These are the cases we will use in the comparative analysis in this report. Results and Implications The results for this paper are based on Wave one of the survey which has been completed and the data obtained. It is expected that the findings will assist in beginning to develop an understanding of high potential nascent and young firms in Australia, how they differ from the larger lifestyle entrepreneur group that makes up the vast majority of the new firms created each year, and the elements that may contribute to turning high potential growth status into high growth realities. The results have implications for Government in the design of better conditions for the creation of new business, firms who assist high potentials 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.

A new look at leadership in collaborative networks : process catalysts

Collaborative networks have come to form a large part of the public sector’s strategy to address ongoing and often complex social problems. The relational power of networks, with its emphasis on trust, reciprocity and mutuality provides the mechanism to integrate previously dispersed and even competitive entities into a collective venture(Agranoff 2003; Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Mandell 1994; Mandell and Harrington 1999). It is argued that the refocusing of a single body of effort to a collective contributes to reducing duplication and overlap of services, maximizes increasingly scarce resources and contributes to solving intractable or 'wicked’problems (Clarke and Stewart 1997). Given the current proliferation of collaborative networks and the fact that they are likely to continue for some time, concerns with the management and leadership of such arrangements for optimal outcomes are increasingly relevant. This is especially important for public sector managers who are used to working in a top-down, hierarchical manner. While the management of networks (Agranoff and McGuire 2001, 2003), including collaborative or complex networks (Kickert et al. 1997; Koppenjan and Klijn 2004), has been the subject of considerable attention, there has been much less explicit discussion on leadership approaches in this context. It is argued in this chapter that the traditional use of the terms ‘leader’ or ‘leadership’ does not apply to collaborative networks. There are no ‘followers’ in collaborative networks or supervisor-subordinate relations. Instead there are equal, horizontal relationships that are focused on delivering systems change. In this way the emergent organizational forms such as collaborative networks challenge older models of leadership. However despite the questionable relevance of old leadership styles to the contemporary work environment, no clear alternative has come along to take its place.

Joint venture behaviour in construction industry : an Australia case study

Joint ventures can take many forms and can be formed for different reasons, from sharing resources to creating future business opportunities. At the same time, there is increasing interest and discussion of alternative procurement methods, moving away from traditional procurement systems to relational approaches. Business systems and strategies need to be redefined and move from a short-term project to project culture to a more strategic, long-term perspective. Joint ventures of construction organisations, global and local, have become increasingly popular to deliver large-scale infrastructure construction projects. However, successful strategic collaborations require project organisations to formulate a fit between contractual and operational arrangements for each situation. This study reviews the movement from traditional procurement methods towards relational contracting approaches in Queensland, Australia. The study examines the organisational factors that facilitates sustainable relationship between project organisations and hence, lead to long-term business success. This paper reports on initial findings captured from a survey undertaken with construction contracting organisations in Australia, focusing on the supply chain relationships. Contractors’ perceptions of the relationship management process and the engagement of the supply chain are also presented.

Explaining International new venture internationalisation: an innovation adoption model

The increasing prevalence of International New Ventures (INVs) during the past twenty years has been highlighted by numerous studies (Knight and Cavusgil, 1996, Moen, 2002). International New Ventures are firms, typically small to medium enterprises, that internationalise within six years of inception (Oviatt and McDougall, 1997). To date there has been no general consensus within the literature on a theoretical framework of internationalisation to explain the internationalisation process of INVs (Madsen and Servais, 1997). However, some researchers have suggested that the innovation diffusion model may provide a suitable theoretical framework (Chetty & Hamilton, 1996, Fan & Phan, 2007).The proposed model was based on the existing and well-established innovation diffusion theories drawn from consumer behaviour and internationalisation literature to explain the internationalisation process of INVs (Lim, Sharkey, and Kim, 1991, Reid, 1981, Robertson, 1971, Rogers, 1962, Wickramasekera and Oczkowski, 2006). The results of this analysis indicated that the synthesied model of export adoption was effective in explaining the internationalisation process of INVs within the Queensland Food and Beverage Industry. Significantly the results of the analysis also indicated that features of the original I-models developed in the consumer behaviour literature, that had limited examination within the internationalisation literature were confirmed. This includes the ability of firms, or specifically decision-makers, to skip stages based om previous experience.

Explaining international new venture internationalisation : an innovation adoption mode

The increasing prevalence of International New Ventures (INVs) during the past twenty years has been highlighted by numerous studies (Knight and Cavusgil, 1996, Moen, 2002). International New Ventures are firms, typically small to medium enterprises, that internationalise within six years of inception (Oviatt and McDougall, 1997). To date there has been no general consensus within the literature on a theoretical framework of internationalisation to explain the internationalisation process of INVs (Madsen and Servais, 1997). However, some researchers have suggested that the innovation diffusion model may provide a suitable theoretical framework (Chetty & Hamilton, 1996, Fan & Phan, 2007).The proposed model was based on the existing and well-established innovation diffusion theories drawn from consumer behaviour and internationalisation literature to explain the internationalisation process of INVs (Lim, Sharkey, and Kim, 1991, Reid, 1981, Robertson, 1971, Rogers, 1962, Wickramasekera and Oczkowski, 2006). The results of this analysis indicated that the synthesied model of export adoption was effective in explaining the internationalisation process of INVs within the Queensland Food and Beverage Industry. Significantly the results of the analysis also indicated that features of the original I-models developed in the consumer behaviour literature, that had limited examination within the internationalisation literature were confirmed. This includes the ability of firms, or specifically decision-makers, to skip stages based om previous experience.