Decisions of technology innovation: the role of indicators

This work presents research conducted to understand the role of indicators in decisions of technology innovation. A gap was detected in the literature of innovation and technology assessment about the use and influence of indicators in this type of decision. It was important to address this gap because indicators are often frequent elements of innovation and technology assessment studies. The research was designed to determine the extent of the use and influence of indicators in decisions of technology innovation, to characterize the role of indicators in these decisions, and to understand how indicators are used in these decisions. The latter involved the test of four possible explanatory factors: the type and phase of decision, and the context and process of construction of evidence. Furthermore, it focused on three Portuguese innovation groups: public researchers, business R&D&I leaders and policymakers. The research used a combination of methods to collect quantitative and qualitative information, such as surveys, case studies and social network analysis. This research concluded that the use of indicators is different from their influence in decisions of technology innovation. In fact, there is a high use of indicators in these decisions, but lower and differentiated differences in their influence in each innovation group. This suggests that political-behavioural methods are also involved in the decisions to different degrees. The main social influences in the decisions came mostly from hierarchies, knowledge-based contacts and users. Furthermore, the research established that indicators played mostly symbolic roles in decisions of policymakers and business R&D&I leaders, although their role with researchers was more differentiated. Indicators were also described as helpful instruments to conduct a reasonable interpretation of data and to balance options in innovation and technology assessments studies, in particular when contextualised, described in detail and with discussion upon the options made. Results suggest that there are four main explanatory factors for the role of indicators in these decisions: First, the type of decision appears to be a factor to consider when explaining the role of indicators. In fact, each type of decision had different influences on the way indicators are used, and each type of decision used different types of indicators. Results for policy-making were particularly different from decisions of acquisition and development of products/technology. Second, the phase of the decision can help to understand the role indicators play in these decisions. Results distinguished between two phases detected in all decisions – before and after the decision – as well as two other phases that can be used to complement the decision process and where indicators can be involved. Third, the context of decision is an important factor to consider when explaining the way indicators are taken into consideration in policy decisions. In fact, the role of indicators can be influenced by the particular context of the decision maker, in which all types of evidence can be selected or downplayed. More importantly, the use of persuasive analytical evidence appears to be related with the dispute existent in the policy context. Fourth and last, the process of construction of evidence is a factor to consider when explaining the way indicators are involved in these decisions. In fact, indicators and other evidence were brought to the decision processes according to their availability and capacity to support the different arguments and interests of the actors and stakeholders. In one case, an indicator lost much persuasion strength with the controversies that it went through during the decision process. Therefore, it can be argued that the use of indicators is high but not very influential; their role is mostly symbolic to policymakers and business decisions, but varies among researchers. The role of indicators in these decisions depends on the type and phase of the decision and the context and process of construction of evidence. The latter two are related to the particular context of each decision maker, the existence of elements of dispute and controversies that influence the way indicators are introduced in the decision-making process.

The role of crowdfunding in promoting entrepreneurship

Crowdfunding is a collaborative initiative, usually via internet, where people network to collectively raise funds in order to invest in and support projects delivered by other people or organizations. Tools such as crowdfunding are born and thrive in a grassroots environment, with a strong potential to positively disrupt the entrepreneurial generation setting and grow to a position of significant relevance in society, namely at a time when alternatives to traditional forms of finance are welcome and the technology to deliver them is abundant. Entrepreneurship is the act of transforming ideas and projects into economic products or services. Entrepreneurship related to starting new businesses is better known as start‐up ventures. Entrepreneurs face a series of challenges, from idea conception and business plan design, to obtaining finance, promoting new products and services, generating revenues and profits and generally growing and sustaining a business for the long‐run. These challenges can be overwhelming, namely in the start‐up phase of a new venture, leaving several ideas on paper without them having a chance to “grow legs and walk”. This paper and its analysis offer important insights about the contribution of crowdfunding to facilitate the attainment of critical factors for successful entrepreneurship. With extensive use of real practical examples, leveraging previous analytical studies of other crowdfunding implications and reviewing expert literature, by interviewing entrepreneurs, crowdfunding platform owners and by benefitting from hands on experience of working in such an organization, we intend to clarify the impact of crowdfunding in what we considered to be 7 key entrepreneurial requirements detailed further in the introduction section and later in the body of the paper. The findings have implications for entrepreneurs, naturally, and for business generation theory, extending current entrepreneurial guidelines with innovative tools and methodologies capable of sustaining successful ventures in a newly highlighted cooperative world. We live in innovative times where the channels for the transfer of funds and resources suffer disruptive changes with the potential to significantly improve the ability to generate new initiatives for the well‐being of entrepreneurs and all related communities.

Community indentification in peer-t-peer collaborative consumption services

Even though collaborative consumption (CC) is gaining economic importance, research in CC is still in its infancy. Consumers’ reasons for participating have already been investigated but little research on consequences of participation has been conducted. This article examines whether interactions between customers in peer-to-peer CC services influence the willingness to coproduce service outcomes. Drawing on social exchange theory, it is proposed that this effect is mediated by consumers’ identification with the brand community. Furthermore, continuance intention in CC is introduced as a second stage moderator. In a cross-sectional study, customers of peer-to-peer accommodation sharing are surveyed. While customer-to-customer interactions were found to have a positive effect on brand community identification, brand community identification did not positively affect co-production intention. Surprisingly, the effect of brand community identification on co-production intention was negative. Moreover, continuance intention of customers did not moderate this relationship. Bearing in mind current challenges for researchers and companies, theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.