Venture creation and resource processes : using Bricolage sustainability ventures

Principal Topic: Resource decisions are critical to the venture creation process, which has important subsequent impacts on venture creation and performance (Boeker, 1989). Most entrepreneurs however, suffer substantial resource constraints in venture creation and during venture growth (Shepherd et al., 2000). Little is known about how high potential, sustainability ventures (the ventures of interest in this research), despite resource constraints, achieve continued venture persistence and venture success. One promising theory that explicitly links to resource constraints is a concept developed by Levi Strauss (1967) termed bricolage. Bricolage aligns with notions of resourcefulness: using what's on hand, through making do, and recombining resources for new or novel purposes (Baker & Nelson 2005). To the best of our knowledge, previous studies have not systematically investigated internal and external constraints, their combinations, and subsequent bricolage patterns. The majority of bricolage literature focuses on external environmental constraints (e.g. Wieck 1989; Baker & Nelson 2005), thereby paying less attention to in evaluating internal constraints (e.g. skills and capabilities) or constraint combinations. In this paper we focus on ventures that typically face resource-poor environments. High potential, nascent and young sustainability ventures are often created and developed with resource constraints and in some cases, have greater resource requirements owing to higher levels of technical sophistication of their products (Rothaermel & Deeds 2006). These ventures usually have high aspirations and potential for growth who ''seeks to meet the needs and aspirations without compromising the ability to meet those of the future'' (Brundtland Commission 1983). High potential ventures are increasingly attributed with a central role in the development of innovation, and employment in developed economies (Acs 2008). Further, increasing awareness of environmental and sustainability issues has fostered demand for business processes that reduce detrimental environmental impacts of global development (Dean & McMullen 2007) and more environmentally sensitive products and services: representing an opportunity for the development of ventures that seek to satisfy this demand through entrepreneurial action. These ventures may choose to ''make do'' with existing resources in developing resource combinations that produce the least impact on the environment. The continuous conflict between the greater requirements for resources and limited resource availability in high potential sustainable ventures, with the added complexity of balancing this with an uncompromising focus on using ''what's on hand'' to lessen environment impacts may make bricolage behaviours critical for these ventures. Research into bricolage behaviour is however, the exception rather than the rule (Cunha 2005). More research is therefore needed to further develop and extend this emerging concept, especially in the context of sustainability ventures who are committed to personal and social goals of resourcefulness. To date, however, bricolage has not been studied specifically among high potential sustainable ventures. This research seeks to develop an in depth understanding of the impact of internal and external constraints and their combinations on the mechanisms employed in bricolage behaviours in differing dynamic environments. The following research question was developed to investigate this: How do internal, external resource constraints (or their combinations) impact bricolage resource decisions in high potential sustainability ventures? ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: 6 case studies will be developed utilizing survey data from the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) large-scale longitudinal study of new venture start-ups in Australia. Prior to commencing case studies, 6 scoping interviews were conducted with key stakeholders including industry members, established businesses and government to ensure practical relevance in case development. The venture is considered the unit of analysis with the key informant being the entrepreneur and other management team members where appropriate. Triangulation techniques are used in this research including semi-structured interviews, survey data, onsite visits and secondary documentation website analysis, resumes, and business plans. These 6 sustainability ventures have been selected based on different environmental dynamism conditions including a traditionally mature market (building industry) and a more dynamic, evolving industry (renewable energy/solar ventures). In evaluating multidisciplinary literature, we expect the following external constraints are critical including: technology constraints (seen through lock-in of incumbents existing technology), institutional regulation and standards, access to markets, knowledge and training to nascent and young venture bricolage processes. The case studies will investigate internal constraints including resource fungability, resource combination capabilities, translating complex science/engineering knowledge into salient, valuable market propositions, i.e. appropriate market outcomes, and leveraging relationships may further influence bricolage decisions. ---------- Results and Implications: Intended ventures have been identified within the CAUSEE sample and have agreed to participate and secondary data collection for triangulation purposes has already commenced. Data collection of the case studies commenced 27th of May 2009. Analysis is expected to be completed finalised by 25th September 2009. This paper will report on the pattern of resource constraints and its impact on bricolage behaviours: its subsequent impact on resource deployment within venture creation and venture growth. As such, this research extends the theory of bricolage through the systematic analysis of constraints on resource management processes in sustainability ventures. For practice, this research may assist in providing a better understanding of the resource requirements and processes needed for continued venture persistence and growth in sustainability ventures. In these times of economic uncertainty, a better understanding of the influence on constraints and bricolage: the interplay of behaviours, processes and outcomes may enable greater venture continuance and success.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition and exploitation in development projects

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the specifications of the three variants of the aircraft; Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and the Carrier Variant (CV). Because the Navy requires a plane that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, that required a special variant of the aircraft design, adding complexity to the project. Technical complexity occurs in a project using technology that is immature or where design characteristics are unknown or untried. Developing a plane that can take off on a very short runway and land vertically created may highly interdependent technological challenges to correctly locate, direct and balance the lift fans, modulate the airflow and provide equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft and at the same time control engine temperatures. These technological challenges make costing and scheduling equally challenging. Structural complexity in a project comes from the sheer numbers of elements such as the number of people, teams or organizations involved, ambiguity regarding the elements, and the massive degree of interconnectedness between them. While Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, they are assisted in major aspects of the JSF development by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engineer Team and innumerable subcontractors. In addition to identifying opportunities to achieve project goals, complex projects also need to identify and exploit opportunities to increase agility in response to changing stakeholder demands or to reduce project risks. Complexity Leadership Theory contends that in complex environments adaptive and enabling leadership are needed (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey, 2007). Adaptive leadership facilitates creativity, learning and adaptability, while enabling leadership handles the conflicts that inevitably arise between adaptive leadership and traditional administrative leadership (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2007). Hence, adaptive leadership involves the recognition and opportunities to adapt, while and enabling leadership involves the exploitation of these opportunities. Our research questions revolve around the type or source of complexity and its relationship to opportunity recognition and exploitation. For example, is it only external environmental complexity that creates the need for the entrepreneurial behaviours, such as opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? Do the internal dimensions of project complexity, such as technological and structural complexity, also create the need for opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? The Kropp, Zolin and Lindsay model (2009) describes a relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), opportunity recognition (OR), and opportunity exploitation (OX) in complex projects, with environmental and organizational contextual variables as moderators. We extend their model by defining the affects of external complexity and internal complexity on OR and OX. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: When the environment complex EO is more likely to result in OR because project members will be actively looking for solutions to problems created by environmental change. But in projects that are technologically or structurally complex project leaders and members may try to make the minimum changes possible to reduce the risk of creating new problems due to delays or schedule changes. In projects with environmental or technological complexity project leaders who encourage the innovativeness dimension of EO will increase OR in complex projects. But projects with technical or structural complexity innovativeness will not necessarily result in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities due to the over-riding importance of maintaining stability in the highly intricate and interconnected project structure. We propose that in projects with environmental complexity creating the need for change and innovation project leaders, who are willing to accept and manage risk, are more likely to identify opportunities to increase project effectiveness and efficiency. In contrast in projects with internal complexity a much higher willingness to accept risk will be necessary to trigger opportunity recognition. In structurally complex projects we predict it will be less likely to find a relationship between risk taking and OP. When the environment is complex, and a project has autonomy, they will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. When a project experiences high competitive aggressiveness and their environment is complex, project leaders will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. This paper reports the first stage of a three year study into the behaviours of managers, leaders and team members of complex projects. We conduct a qualitative study involving a Group Discussion with experienced project leaders. The objective is to determine how leaders of large and potentially complex projects perceive that external and internal complexity will influence the affects of EO on OR. ---------- Results and Implications: These results will help identify and distinguish the impact of external and internal complexity on entrepreneurial behaviours in NPDP. Project managers will be better able to quickly decide how and when to respond to changes in the environment and internal project events.

Do board contacts matter? : an analysis of the relationship between boards of directors’ ties and the performance of Australia’s largest companies.

Boards of directors are thought to provide access to a wealth of knowledge and resources for the companies they serve, and are considered important to corporate governance. Under the Resource Based View (RBV) of the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984) boards are viewed as a strategic resource available to firms. As a consequence there has been a significant research effort aimed at establishing a link between board attributes and company performance. In this thesis I explore and extend the study of interlocking directorships (Mizruchi, 1996; Scott 1991a) by examining the links between directors’ opportunity networks and firm performance. Specifically, I use resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) and social capital theory (Burt, 1980b; Coleman, 1988) as the basis for a new measure of a board’s opportunity network. I contend that both directors’ formal company ties and their social ties determine a director’s opportunity network through which they are able to access and mobilise resources for their firms. This approach is based on recent studies that suggest the measurement of interlocks at the director level, rather than at the firm level, may be a more reliable indicator of this phenomenon. This research uses publicly available data drawn from Australia’s top-105 listed companies and their directors in 1999. I employ Social Network Analysis (SNA) (Scott, 1991b) using the UCINET software to analyse the individual director’s formal and social networks. SNA is used to measure a the number of ties a director has to other directors in the top-105 company director network at both one and two degrees of separation, that is, direct ties and indirect (or ‘friend of a friend’) ties. These individual measures of director connectedness are aggregated to produce a board-level network metric for comparison with measures of a firm’s performance using multiple regression analysis. Performance is measured with accounting-based and market-based measures. Findings indicate that better-connected boards are associated with higher market-based company performance (measured by Tobin’s q). However, weaker and mostly unreliable associations were found for accounting-based performance measure ROA. Furthermore, formal (or corporate) network ties are a stronger predictor of market performance than total network ties (comprising social and corporate ties). Similarly, strong ties (connectedness at degree-1) are better predictors of performance than weak ties (connectedness at degree-2). My research makes four contributions to the literature on director interlocks. First, it extends a new way of measuring a board’s opportunity network based on the director rather than the company as the unit of interlock. Second, it establishes evidence of a relationship between market-based measures of firm performance and the connectedness of that firm’s board. Third, it establishes that director’s formal corporate ties matter more to market-based firm performance than their social ties. Fourth, it establishes that director’s strong direct ties are more important to market-based performance than weak ties. The thesis concludes with implications for research and practice, including a more speculative interpretation of these results. In particular, I raise the possibility of reverse causality – that is networked directors seek to join high-performing companies. Thus, the relationship may be a result of symbolic action by companies seeking to increase the legitimacy of their firms rather than a reflection of the social capital available to the companies. This is an important consideration worthy of future investigation.