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.

Organizational ambidexterity and corporate entrepreneurship : the differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal processes

Most corporate entrepreneurship studies have focused on either innovation, venturing or strategic renewal making comparison between the antecedents of all three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship difficult. Moreover, studies on corporate entrepreneurship hardly address organizational antecedents, while simultaneously managing and organizing CE and mainstream activities has been seen as a major challenge for incumbent firms. Our findings show that organizational ambidexterity has strong and differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal. We find, for example, that innovation is affected by horizontal integration, while strategic renewal is significantly influenced by integration on top management team level.

PSED II and the comprehensive Australian study of entrepreneurial emergence (CAUSEE)

Two current longitudinal studies in advanced countries, PSED II in the US and CAUSEE in Australia, have attempted to harmonize the major features of the research design. A comparison of the initial screening and first detailed interviews indicates a higher participation in new firm creation in the U.S. Similar types of persons are involved in both countries, albeit more immigrants, older individuals with more work experience and more established individuals in Australia. The nascent enterprises in the two countries are similar on many characteristics, although those in Australia report greater emphasis on new technology and international customers. Assessment of the prevalence of nascent enterprises and new firms from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor surveys indicates a higher prevalence of new firms in Australia. These two longitudinal projects may help determine if this reflects a high proportion of new firm births or greater survival in the early years among Australian new firms.

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.

Drivers of technology substitution : successive generations of high tech products

Principal Topic High technology consumer products such as notebooks, digital cameras and DVD players are not introduced into a vacuum. Consumer experience with related earlier generation technologies, such as PCs, film cameras and VCRs, and the installed base of these products strongly impacts the market diffusion of the new generation products. Yet technology substitution has received only sparse attention in the diffusion of innovation literature. Research for consumer durables has been dominated by studies of (first purchase) adoption (c.f. Bass 1969) which do not explicitly consider the presence of an existing product/technology. More recently, considerable attention has also been given to replacement purchases (c.f. Kamakura and Balasubramanian 1987). Only a handful of papers explicitly deal with the diffusion of technology/product substitutes (e.g. Norton and Bass, 1987: Bass and Bass, 2004). They propose diffusion-type aggregate-level sales models that are used to forecast the overall sales for successive generations. Lacking household data, these aggregate models are unable to give insights into the decisions by individual households - whether to adopt generation II, and if so, when and why. This paper makes two contributions. It is the first large-scale empirical study that collects household data for successive generations of technologies in an effort to understand the drivers of adoption. Second, in comparision to traditional analysis that evaluates technology substitution as an ''adoption of innovation'' type process, we propose that from a consumer's perspective, technology substitution combines elements of both adoption (adopting the new generation technology) and replacement (replacing the generation I product with generation II). Based on this proposition, we develop and test a number of hypotheses. Methodology/Key Propositions In some cases, successive generations are clear ''substitutes'' for the earlier generation, in that they have almost identical functionality. For example, successive generations of PCs Pentium I to II to III or flat screen TV substituting for colour TV. More commonly, however, the new technology (generation II) is a ''partial substitute'' for existing technology (generation I). For example, digital cameras substitute for film-based cameras in the sense that they perform the same core function of taking photographs. They have some additional attributes of easier copying and sharing of images. However, the attribute of image quality is inferior. In cases of partial substitution, some consumers will purchase generation II products as substitutes for their generation I product, while other consumers will purchase generation II products as additional products to be used as well as their generation I product. We propose that substitute generation II purchases combine elements of both adoption and replacement, but additional generation II purchases are solely adoption-driven process. Extensive research on innovation adoption has consistently shown consumer innovativeness is the most important consumer characteristic that drives adoption timing (Goldsmith et al. 1995; Gielens and Steenkamp 2007). Hence, we expect consumer innovativeness also to influence both additional and substitute generation II purchases. Hypothesis 1a) More innovative households will make additional generation II purchases earlier. 1 b) More innovative households will make substitute generation II purchases earlier. 1 c) Consumer innovativeness will have a stronger impact on additional generation II purchases than on substitute generation II purchases. As outlined above, substitute generation II purchases act, in part like a replacement purchase for the generation I product. Prior research (Bayus 1991; Grewal et al 2004) identified product age as the most dominant factor influencing replacements. Hence, we hypothesise that: Hypothesis 2: Households with older generation I products will make substitute generation II purchases earlier. Our survey of 8,077 households investigates their adoption of two new generation products: notebooks as a technology change to PCs, and DVD players as a technology shift from VCRs. We employ Cox hazard modelling to study factors influencing the timing of a household's adoption of generation II products. We determine whether this is an additional or substitute purchase by asking whether the generation I product is still used. A separate hazard model is conducted for additional and substitute purchases. Consumer Innovativeness is measured as domain innovativeness adapted from the scales of Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) and Flynn et al. (1996). The age of the generation I product is calculated based on the most recent household purchase of that product. Control variables include age, size and income of household, and age and education of primary decision-maker. Results and Implications Our preliminary results confirm both our hypotheses. Consumer innovativeness has a strong influence on both additional purchases (exp = 1.11) and substitute purchases (exp = 1.09). Exp is interpreted as the increased probability of purchase for an increase of 1.0 on a 7-point innovativeness scale. Also consistent with our hypotheses, the age of the generation I product has a dramatic influence for substitute purchases of VCR/DVD (exp = 2.92) and a strong influence for PCs/notebooks (exp = 1.30). Exp is interpreted as the increased probability of purchase for an increase of 10 years in the age of the generation I product. Yet, also as hypothesised, there was no influence on additional purchases. The results lead to two key implications. First, there is a clear distinction between additional and substitute purchases of generation II products, each with different drivers. Treating these as a single process will mask the true drivers of adoption. For substitute purchases, product age is a key driver. Hence, implications for marketers of high technology products can utilise data on generation I product age (e.g. from warranty or loyalty programs) to target customers who are more likely to make a purchase.

Venture idea newness, relatedness and performance in nascent ventures

Principal Topic The study of the origin and characteristics of venture ideas - or ''opportunities'' as they are often called - and their contextual fit are key research goals in entrepreneurship (Davidsson, 2004). We define venture idea as ''the core ideas of an entrepreneur about what to sell, how to sell, whom to sell and how an entrepreneur acquire or produce the product or service which he/she sells'' for the purpose of this study. When realized the venture idea becomes a ''business model''. Even though venture ideas are central to entrepreneurship yet its characteristics and their effect to the entrepreneurial process is mysterious. According to Schumpeter (1934) entrepreneurs could creatively destruct the existing market condition by introducing new product/service, new production methods, new markets, and new sources of supply and reorganization of industries. The introduction, development and use of new ideas are generally called as ''innovation'' (Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006) and ''newness'' is a property of innovation and is a relative term which means that the degree of unfamiliarity of venture idea either to a firm or to a market. However Schumpeter's (1934) discusses five different types of newness, indicating that type of newness is an important issue. More recently, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) called for research taking into consideration not only the variation of characteristics of individuals but also heterogeneity of venture ideas, Empirically, Samuelson (2001, 2004) investigated process differences between innovative venture ideas and imitative venture ideas. However, he used only a crude dichotomy regarding the venture idea newness. According to Davidsson, (2004) as entrepreneurs could introduce new economic activities ranging from pure imitation to being new to the entire world market, highlighting that newness is a matter of degree. Dahlqvist (2007) examined the venture idea newness and made and attempt at more refined assessment of the degree and type of newness of venture idea. Building on these predecessors our study refines the assessment of venture idea newness by measuring the degree of venture idea newness (new to the world, new to the market, substantially improved while not entirely new, and imitation) for four different types of newness (product/service, method of production, method of promotion, and customer/target market). We then related type and degree of newness to the pace of progress in nascent venturing process. We hypothesize that newness will slow down the business creation process. Shane & Venkataraman (2000) introduced entrepreneurship as the nexus of opportunities and individuals. In line with this some scholars has investigated the relationship between individuals and opportunities. For example Shane (2000) investigates the relatedness between individuals' prior knowledge and identification of opportunities. Shepherd & DeTinne (2005) identified that there is a positive relationship between potential financial reward and the identification of innovative venture ideas. Sarasvathy's 'Effectuation Theory'' assumes high degree of relatedness with founders' skills, knowledge and resources in the selection of venture ideas. However entrepreneurship literature is scant with analyses of how this relatedness affects to the progress of venturing process. Therefore, we assess the venture ideas' degree of relatedness to prior knowledge and resources, and relate these, too, to the pace of progress in nascent venturing process. We hypothesize that relatedness will increase the speed of business creation. Methodology For this study we will compare early findings from data collected through the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE). CAUSEE is a longitudinal study whose primary objective is to uncover the factors that initiate, hinder and facilitate the process of emergence and development of new firms. Data were collected from a representative sample of some 30,000 households in Australia using random digit dialing (RDD) telephone survey interviews. Through the first round of data collection identified 600 entrepreneurs who are currently involved in the business start-up process. The unit of the analysis is the emerging venture, with the respondent acting as its spokesperson. The study methodology allows researchers to identify ventures in early stages of creation and to longitudinally follow their progression through data collection periods over time. Our measures of newness build on previous work by Dahlqvist (2007). Our adapted version was developed over two pre-tests with about 80 participants in each. The measures of relatedness were developed through the two rounds of pre-testing. The pace of progress in the venture creation process is assessed with the help of time-stamped gestation activities; a technique developed in the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED). Results and Implications We hypothesized that venture idea newness slows down the venturing process whereas relatedness facilitates the venturing process. Results of 600 nascent entrepreneurs in Australia indicated that there is marginal support for the hypothesis that relatedness assists the gestation progress. Newness is significant but is the opposite sign to the hypothesized. The results give number of implications for researchers, business founders, consultants and policy makers in terms of better knowledge of the venture creation process.

Trust and strong ties in the selection and evaluation of business advisors by small firms

Principal Topic A small firm is unlikely to possess internally the full range of knowledge and skills that it requires or could benefit from for the development of its business. The ability to acquire suitable external expertise - defined as knowledge or competence that is rare in the firm and acquired from the outside - when needed thus becomes a competitive factor in itself. Access to external expertise enables the firm to focus on its core competencies and removes the necessity to internalize every skill and competence. However, research on how small firms access external expertise is still scarce. The present study contributes to this under-developed discussion by analysing the role of trust and strong ties in the small firm's selection and evaluation of sources of external expertise (henceforth referred to as the 'business advisor' or 'advisor'). Granovetter (1973, 1361) defines the strength of a network tie as 'a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie'. Strong ties in the context of the present investigation refer to sources of external expertise who are well known to the owner-manager, and who may be either informal (e.g., family, friends) or professional advisors (e.g., consultants, enterprise support officers, accountants or solicitors). Previous research has suggested that strong and weak ties have different fortes and the choice of business advisors could thus be critical to business performance) While previous research results suggest that small businesses favour previously well known business advisors, prior studies have also pointed out that an excessive reliance on a network of well known actors might hamper business development, as the range of expertise available through strong ties is limited. But are owner-managers of small businesses aware of this limitation and does it matter to them? Or does working with a well-known advisor compensate for it? Hence, our research model first examines the impact of the strength of tie on the business advisor's perceived performance. Next, we ask what encourages a small business owner-manager to seek advice from a strong tie. A recent exploratory study by Welter and Kautonen (2005) drew attention to the central role of trust in this context. However, while their study found support for the general proposition that trust plays an important role in the choice of advisors, how trust and its different dimensions actually affect this choice remained ambiguous. The present paper develops this discussion by considering the impact of the different dimensions of perceived trustworthiness, defined as benevolence, integrity and ability, on the strength of tie. Further, we suggest that the dimensions of perceived trustworthiness relevant in the choice of a strong tie vary between professional and informal advisors. Methodology/Key Propositions Our propositions are examined empirically based on survey data comprising 153 Finnish small businesses. The data are analysed utilizing the partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modelling with SmartPLS 2.0. Being non-parametric, the PLS algorithm is particularly well-suited to analysing small datasets with non-normally distributed variables. Results and Implications The path model shows that the stronger the tie, the more positively the advisor's performance is perceived. Hypothesis 1, that strong ties will be associated with higher perceptions of performance is clearly supported. Benevolence is clearly the most significant predictor of the choice of a strong tie for external expertise. While ability also reaches a moderate level of statistical significance, integrity does not have a statistically significant impact on the choice of a strong tie. Hence, we found support for two out of three independent variables included in Hypothesis 2. Path coefficients differed between the professional and informal advisor subsamples. The results of the exploratory group comparison show that Hypothesis 3a regarding ability being associated with strong ties more pronouncedly when choosing a professional advisor was not supported. Hypothesis 3b arguing that benevolence is more strongly associated with strong ties in the context of choosing an informal advisor received some support because the path coefficient in the informal advisor subsample was much larger than in the professional advisor subsample. Hypothesis 3c postulating that integrity would be more strongly associated with strong ties in the choice of a professional advisor was supported. Integrity is the most important dimension of trustworthiness in this context. However, integrity is of no concern, or even negative, when using strong ties to choose an informal advisor. The findings of this study have practical relevance to the enterprise support community. First of all, given that the strength of tie has a significant positive impact on the advisor's perceived performance, this implies that small business owners appreciate working with advisors in long-term relationships. Therefore, advisors are well advised to invest into relationship building and maintenance in their work with small firms. Secondly, the results show that, especially in the context of professional advisors, the advisor's perceived integrity and benevolence weigh more than ability. This again emphasizes the need to invest time and effort into building a personal relationship with the owner-manager, rather than merely maintaining a professional image and credentials. Finally, this study demonstrates that the dimensions of perceived trustworthiness are orthogonal with different effects on the strength of tie and ultimately perceived performance. This means that entrepreneurs and advisors should consider the specific dimensions of ability, benevolence and integrity, rather than rely on general perceptions of trustworthiness in their advice relationships.

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.

Creativity, design and entrepreneurship : management education and development for innovation

Creativity, design and entrepreneurship, have been recognized as important contributors to a firm’s innovation and to the nation’s economic growth. Creativity and design play important roles in the fuzzy front end of a firm’s innovation process and also in corporate venturing processes, but the relationship between creativity, design and entrepreneurship to a large extent has not explicitly been examined. This exploratory conceptual paper briefly reviews the separate bodies of research on creativity, design and entrepreneurship, identifying similarities and differences in constructs and applications and identifying implications for business and for management education.

What are the lessons for entrepreneurship from creativity and design?

Entrepreneurship and innovation make significant contributions to the success of firms and both notions are often linked directly or indirectly to notions of creativity and more recently design (Drucker, 1985; Kelley, 2001; Nystrom, 1993). This theoretical paper investigates the processes involved in entrepreneurship, creativity and design and identifies key processes relevant to entrepreneurial practice.

The differential effects of organizational antecedents on dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship

This study seeks to further delineate how organizational antecedents differentially influence the three components of corporate entrepreneurship: innovation, venturing or strategic renewal. We argue that structural differentiation may help organizations to maintain multiple and often conflicting demands of entrepreneurial and mainstream activities. Taking a social capital perspective, our study further examines two contingencies in the form of informal integration mechanisms (i.e. connectedness and TMT social integration). Our findings show structural differentiation has a positive effect on all three components of corporate entrepreneurship, yet the effect is moderated by integration mechanisms. Interunit connectedness has a positive moderation effect regarding innovation and venturing, and TMT social integration has a negative moderation effect regarding strategic renewal. This reveals that innovation is influenced by informal integration mechanisms on the organizational level, strategic renewal on top management team level, while venturing is influenced by integration mechanisms on both levels.

Entrepreneurship and family firms : growth and survival

Family businesses dominate in a majority of economies (Astrachan and Shanker, 2003; Chrisman, Chua, and Sharma, 2005; Morck and Yeung, 2004). As entrepreneurial activities have been shown to be central to economic growth it is essential that family businesses, irrespective of ownership patterns, not only survive but also grow thus growing the economy overall. While a great deal is known about entrepreneurial activities and a body of knowledge is being developed in relation to entrepreneurial processes in family firms, more needs to be understood in relation to the dynamics of entrepreneurial activities at the individual family firm level. One area of particular interest is the dynamics within the business and the family and how these dynamics impact upon entrepreneurial activities. Specifically how relationships between and among family members engaged in the business can interact with professional non-family member senior executives. The senior executives can actively use their positions in such ways that initiatives suggested by family members are less successful than they might be. This paper addresses how ‘family’ aspects of a business can assist or impede the entrepreneurial activities of individuals. It takes into account some of the unique features of family businesses – such as the importance of ‘familiness’ as a competitive advantage; the direct links between ownership and control of a business and the recognition (often implicit) that individuals in families do make a difference to how the business functions (Habbershon and Williams, 1999, Sharma, 2004; and Tokarczyk, Hansen Green, and Down, 2007). This emphasis on individuals in families fits well with the idea of entrepreneur as individual, as expressed by Schumpeter (1934), Baumol et al (2007). The theoretical approach that adopted to explore the dynamics of processes occurring within family firms is structuration theory combined with a theory of embeddeness (Dacin, Ventresca and Beal, 1999; Giddens, 1979, 1984, Jack and Anderson, 2002; and Sarason, Dean and Dillard, 2006).

Small Business and entrepreneurship policy

There are two key approaches to entrepreneurship, each of which has different implications for small business policy (Danson 2002). The first conceives of entrepreneurship as an economic process and can be traced to the work of Joseph Schumpeter who developed the concept of creative destruction to describe the entrepreneurial process that led to the simultaneous elimination of old industries and activities and the creation of new activities through the commercial application of new ideas. While entrepreneurship as a process of creative destruction might include start up activity amongst small firms, it does not exclusively involve small firms as large firms may contribute to the entrepreneurial process through the generation of new knowledge and by assisting in financing the development of new ideas amongst small firms. Although innovation occurs in large as well as small firms, the literature on small enterprise innovation draws heavily on Schumpeter’s depiction of the central role of the entrepreneur in the process of creative destruction, whereby the economic system is transformed from within and new cycles in economic life emerge in which new industries and markets replace old industries and markets. Schumpeter argued that entrepreneurs drove the process of innovation and that innovation was a stimulus to economic development and involved the development of new products, processes, methods of production or new forms of commercial or financial organisation (Schumpeter 1911). At a time when technological development and structuraleconomic change are occurring at a rapid pace, small firm innovation is seen to be critically important because empirical evidence, although not undisputed, indicates that SMEs make an important contribution to radical innovations in new industries (Nooteboom 1994). The second view of entrepreneurship focuses on the individual entrepreneur more than the entrepreneurial process. The entrepreneur is depicted as an owner of small businesses, and is regarded as having particular personal characteristics such as self-reliance, individual initiative and self-motivation. Entrepreneurs are also considered to have a behavioural orientation towards the exploitation of new ideas and opportunities. They are the risk takers who are able to see an opportunity and pursue it commercially despite the uncertainty of rewards. The capacity to plan, manage and lead is also seen to be identifying characteristics of entrepreneurs. Different small business policy approaches arise from these different perspectives on entrepreneurship. Small business policy approaches that emphasise the process by which new ideas are generated and applied commercially arise from the first and broader view of entrepreneurship. Policies designed to generate a population of risk taking and self-motivated individuals with highly developed management and commercial skills are more in keeping with the second approach, which is focused on the individual entrepreneur rather than the entrepreneurial process.

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.