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.

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.

Beyond the fashionable : strategic planning for critical information literacy education

The challenge for all educators is to fuse the learning of information literacy to an academic education in such a way that the outcome is systematic and sustainable learning for students. This challenge can be answered through long-term commitment to information literacy education bound to organisation-wide, renewable strategic planning and driven through systemic reform. This chapter seeks to explore the two sides of reforming information literacy education in an academic environment. Specifically, it will examine how one Australian university has undertaken the implementation of a rigorous strategic, systemic approach to information literacy learning and teaching.

Strategic directions report for the social determinants of health project

This report presents the outcomes of a project undertaken by the VACCHO Public Health Research Unit to explore ways to build capacity in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social determinants research. The project was funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health.----- The project involved a series of four social determinants research workshops conducted in July and August 2009 and a collaborative forum conducted in September 2009. Invitations to participate were extended to the VACCHO membership and the nine universities in Victoria. Three workshops were held with ACCHOs (in Bendigo, Melbourne and Gippsland), and one workshop with universities (in Melbourne).----- The workshops aimed to build VACCHO’s social determinants research capacity and provide direction for VACCHO on ways to more effectively engage in Aboriginal health research. Through the workshops, VACCHO aimed to work with ACCHOs to identify research processes and issues that are equitable and sustainable, and which address the social determinants of health.----- At the workshops, participants explored questions around the priorities for the social determinants of Aboriginal health and considered the key partnerships that might be important to social determinants research.----- At the workshops with ACCHOs, participants identified key research priorities and questions in Aboriginal social determinants and health. This focus reflects the need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives to identify the priorities in health and social determinants research. Identifying these priorities is important if researchers are to respond in a meaningful way and undertake relevant research in the most urgent areas of need. At the university workshop, participants focused on identifying research process and implementation issues in social determinants research.----- The final forum brought together ACCHOs, university representatives, invited presenters and participants from justice, education and housing departments, and representatives from non-government funding organisations. The forum aimed to provide an insight into how priorities and funding decisions are made, and how research can help to ensure they are influenced by the priorities of the community. The findings from the workshops were presented at the forum and used to develop pathways for future research.

Modeling the effects of strategic flexibility, organisational learning on e-business adoption and competitive advantage : an empirical investigation

The role of intangible firm capabilities as a source of competitive advantage has come into prominence in marketing strategy literature, due to the Resource Based View. This paper applies the Resource Based View and hypothesizes that strategic flexibility and organisation learning, conceptualised as capabilities, positively effect e-business adoption and competitive advantage. Partial Lease Squares analysis suggest that theoretical constructs function as hypothesised and explain a significant variation on e-business adoption and competitive advantage. Firms adopting e-business should develop capabilities such as strategic flexibility and organisation learning and that vendor firms may segment their potential clients based on these capabilities.

Employer branding : strategic implications for staff recruitment

In many developed economies, changing demographics and economic conditions have given rise to increasingly competitive labour markets, where competition for good employees is strong. Consequently, strategic investments in attracting suitably qualified and skilled employees are recommended. One such strategy is employer branding. Employer branding in the context of recruitment is the package of psychological, economic, and functional benefits that potential employees associate with employment with a particular company. Knowledge of these perceptions can help organisations to create an attractive and competitive employer brand. Utilising information economics and signalling theory, we examine the nature and consequences of employer branding. Depth interviews reveal that job seekers evaluate: the attractiveness of employers based on any previous direct work experiences with the employer or in the sector; the clarity, credibility, and consistency of the potential employers’ brand signals; perceptions of the employers’ brand investments; and perceptions of the employers’ product or service brand portfolio.

Capabilities for strategic infrastructure asset management

Infrastructure organisations are operating in an increasingly challenging business environment as a result of globalisation, privatisation and deregulation. Under such circumstances, asset managers need to manage their infrastructure assets effectively in order to contribute to the overall performance of their organisation. In an external business environment that is constantly changing, extant literature on strategic management advocates a resourced--�]based view (RBV) approach that focuses on factors internal to the organisation such as resources and capabilities to sustain organisation performance. The aim of this study is to explore the core capabilities needed in the management of infrastructure assets. Using a multiple case study research strategy focusing on transport infrastructure, this research firstly examines the goals of infrastructure asset management and their alignment with broader corporate goals of an infrastructure organisation. It then examines the strategic infrastructure asset management processes that are needed to achieve these goals. The core capabilities that can support the strategic infrastructure asset management processes are then identified. This research produced a number of findings. First, it provided empirical evidence that asset management goals are being pursued with the aim of supporting the broader business goals of infrastructure organisations. Second, through synthesising the key asset management processes deemed necessary to achieve the asset management goals, a strategic infrastructure asset management model is proposed. Third, it identified five core capabilities namely stakeholder connectivity, cross-functional, relational, technology absorptive and integrated information management capability as central to executing the strategic infrastructure asset management processes well. These findings culminate in the development of a capability model to improve the performance of infrastructure assets.

Strategic infrastructure asset management : a conceptual framework to identify capabilities

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework that can be used to identify capabilities needed in the management of infrastructure assets. Design/methodology/approach – This paper utilises a qualitative approach to analyse secondary data in order to develop a conceptual framework that identifies capabilities for strategic infrastructure asset management. Findings – In an external business environment that is undergoing rapid change, it is more appropriate to focus on factors internal to the organisation such as resources and capabilities as a basis to develop competitive advantage. However, there is currently very little understanding of the internal capabilities that are appropriate for infrastructure asset management. Therefore, a conceptual framework is needful to guide infrastructure organisations in the identification of capabilities. Research limitations/implications – This is a conceptual paper and future empirical research should be conducted to validate the propositions made in the paper. Practical implications – The paper clearly argues the need for infrastructure organisations to adopt a systematic approach to identifying the capabilities needed in the management of strategic infrastructure assets. The discussion on the impact of essential capabilities is useful in providing the impetus for managers who operate in a deregulated infrastructure business landscape to review their existing strategies. Originality/value – The paper provides a new perspective on how asset managers can create value for their organisations by investing in the relevant capabilities.