Dimensions of the venture creation process : amount, dynamics, and sequences of action in nascent entrepreneurship

This research examines the entrepreneurship phenomenon, and the question: Why are some venture attempts more successful than others? This question is not a new one. Prior research has answered this by describing those that engage in nascent entrepreneurship. Yet, this approach yielded little consensus and offers little comfort for those newly considering venture creation (Gartner, 1988). Rather, this research considers the process of venture creation, by focusing on the actions of nascent entrepreneurs. However, the venture creation process is complex (Liao, Welsch, & Tan, 2005), and multi-dimensional (Davidsson, 2004). The process can vary in the amount of action engaged by the entrepreneur; the temporal dynamics of how action is enacted (Lichtenstein, Carter, Dooley, and Gartner 2007); or the sequence in which actions are undertaken. And little is known about whether any, or all three, of these dimensions matter. Further, there exists scant general knowledge about how the venture creation process influences venture creation outcomes (Gartner & Shaver, 2011). Therefore, this research conducts a systematic study of what entrepreneurs do as they create a new venture. The primary goal is to develop general principles so that advice may be offered on how to ‘proceed’, rather than how to ‘be’. Three integrated empirical studies were conducted that separately focus on each of the interrelated dimensions. The basis for this was a randomly sampled, longitudinal panel, of nascent ventures. Upon recruitment these ventures were in the process of being created, but yet to be established as new businesses. The ventures were tracked one year latter to follow up on outcomes. Accordingly, this research makes the following original contributions to knowledge. First, the findings suggest that all three of the dimensions play an important role: action, dynamics, and sequence. This implies that future research should take a multi-dimensional view of the venture creation process. Failing to do so can only result in a limited understanding of a complex phenomenon. Second, action is the fundamental means through which venture creation is achieved. Simply put, more active venture creation efforts are more likely more successful. Further, action is the medium which allows resource endowments their effect upon venture outcomes. Third, the dynamics of how venture creation plays out over time is also influential. Here, a process with a high rate of action which increases in intensity will more likely achieve positive outcomes. Forth, sequence analysis, suggests that the order in which actions are taken will also drive outcomes. Although venture creation generally flows in sequence from discovery toward exploitation (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Shane, 2003), processes that actually proceed in this way are less likely to be realized. Instead, processes which specifically intertwine discovery and exploitation action together in symbiosis more likely achieve better outcomes (Sarasvathy, 2001; Baker, Miner, & Eesley, 2003). Further, an optimal venture creation order exists somewhere between these sequential and symbiotic process archetypes. A process which starts out as symbiotic discovery and exploitation, but switches to focus exclusively on exploitation later on is most likely to achieve venture creation. These sequence findings are unique, and suggest future integration between opposing theories for order in venture creation.

Early stage start-ups : evidence from the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE)

In this chapter, the picture of Australian small business is supplemented by using data from the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) . This data tracks large numbers of on-going business start-ups over time. The Australian Centre of Entrepreneurship Research at Queensland University of Technology collected data in four annual waves. (Wave 1 to Wave 4) from 2007 to 2011. CAUSEE allows the analysis of entrepreneurial entrants at two stages of development, i.e. nascent and young firms. Nascent firms are defined as firms in the process of being created, but not yet established in the market, and young firms are defined as having been operational for up to four years. An analysis of nascent firms provides unique insights, as no other known Australian database captures and follows the development of business start-ups at the pre-operational stage. In addition, the project captured judgment over samples of high-potential start-ups.

A portrayal of new entrants into the Australian economy (Entrepreneurial individuals and ventures)

This paper provides a descriptive overview of the venture creation in Australia, those who participate in it and the types of firms they build. Findings of interest in this paper include: • The majority of business founders (89 per cent) state the motivation to start a new business is opportunity-driven rather than necessity driven. • The extent of under-representation of women business founders in Australia appears to be lower than international comparisons and has decreased over time. • Australian business founders tend to possess significant ‘human capital’ many are university-educated, and large shares have different types of experience that may benefit the start-up. • The major industries for start-up activities are Retailing; various service industries (Business Consulting; Health, Education and Social; other Consumer services); Construction, Manufacturing, and Agriculture. • A large proportion of CAUSEE respondents (49 per cent nascent firms and 46 per cent young firms) are members of start-up teams, which is similar to international comparisons.

Illustrating outcomes for Australian nascent and young firm entrepreneurial activity

This paper examines the outcomes of nascent and young entrepreneurial firms in Australia. Findings of interest in this paper include: • After three years similar proportions of nascent firms reach an operational state (31 per cent), i.e. sales regularly exceed costs, compared with those that have terminated (35 per cent), and those who are still trying to achieve venture creation (34 per cent). This outcome closely mirrors the outcomes in the US PSED study. • The young firm sample shows that these new ventures remain more robust to firm closure. The vast majority of young firms (78 per cent) continue to be active in the market the last time they participated in CAUSEE. • The annual termination rate for young firms is 9 per cent at most, and 14 per cent cumulatively, while cumulatively only 8 per cent of young firms experience a drop-off in activity to be considered as having uncertain status. • The average number of employees in Nascent Firms is one person, the average number of Young Firm employees increases from two at first sampling to three after three years. • While the founders of exiting Nascent Firms are more likely to return to their old job upon termination of their business, Young Firm founders move on to new jobs. Regardless the majority of exiting firm founders rate their experience as positive and are prepared to attempt business creation in the future.

Innovation and change in new ventures

This paper examines the innovativeness of nascent and young entrepreneurial firms in Australia. Findings of interest in this paper include: • The vast majority of new ventures offer some degree of innovation in some aspect of their business, be it the product, the process, their market selection or their marketing approach. • With close to 75 per cent claiming they do more than taking mere imitations to the market, novelty in the product/service is the type of innovation most commonly offered by start-up firms. • The innovativeness of start-ups varies by industry. Construction start-ups stand out as particularly low in innovation across all indicators, while Manufacturing stands out the most in the positive direction. • Team start-ups other than spouse teams have higher novelty, as do ventures started by founders with prior start-up experience. • There is no association between the founders’ level of education and the novelty of the ventures they (try to) create.

What it means to be green : an examination of early stage environmental and sustainability focused firms

This paper examines ‘green’ entrepreneurial nascent and young firms in Australia. Findings of interest in this paper include: • Green entrepreneurs are more likely to be highly educated and have an extended depth of experience within their industry and are more likely to have started a business prior to their current venture. • Green entrepreneurs exhibit increased levels of innovation, with an increased focus on new & high technology, R&D and the development of proprietary technology. • Green entrepreneurs are most likely to be based upon a product rather than a service and have a higher emphasis upon growth when compared with non-green entrepreneurs. • Green entrepreneurial firms tend to have a longer venture creation process and draw financial resources from a larger number of sources and rely more upon equity as a means of financing their venture.

New venture internationalisation

This paper investigates the international background and international activities of Australian start-up firms. Findings of interest in this paper include: • Due to their small scale, young age and distant location firm founders then to favour the domestic market rather that engage internationally. • Firms that do engage internationally tend to do so at the very early stages of venture creation. • Firms that do engage in exporting activities tend to rely on intermediaries rather than more direct forms of export actions.

Capturing gazelles : features of high potential firms and new venture growth

This paper investigates the characteristics of ventures which have the potential to reach high growth and compares this with ‘everyday’ new ventures. Findings of interest in this paper include: • HP firms are characterised by higher human capital, are more likely to have a team of founders, are more likely to be product based. • HP firms are more likely to achieve more extreme levels of growth (both positive and negative). • HP ventures that make a loss are more likely to do so early in the venture process. Those that do hold on show that there can higher levels of loss made later on in firm development. HP firms have higher resource needs, in terms of seeking external finance, but are no more likely to receive external finance than regular firms.

Unpacking the venture creation process

This paper investigates the dimensions of time and effort and how these factors impact on the venture creation process in Australia. Findings of interest in this paper include: • First and foremost business planning is used as a thinking tool within the boundaries of the firm. • Business planning is more strongly associated with firms that are more ambitious, being built by teams, draw on more experience or education. • Industry characteristics in part drive the duration required for venture creation. Manufacturing and Agriculture based firms seemingly take longer timeframes than other industries. Extended venture creation times frames are also associated with firms that aim to bring more novel concepts to market.

Identifying important success factors in new venture creation

This paper seeks to uncover the factors that lead to a successful entrepreneurial experience and or venture. Findings of interest in this paper include: • A venture’s initial aspirations are a double edged sword. Ambition may lead to improved performance by striving to reach harder goals. Harder goals are more difficult therefore this may lead to some dissatisfaction, and possibly abandonment of the venture. • Venture legitimacy is important to establish where possible. Firms that formalize their legal form are more successful, as are those set up a shop-front in order to makes sales. • Increased use of technology and higher levels of novelty does not guarantee success early on. Firms of this nature have longer processes, and attempting to create brand new markets is difficult to achieve. At the same time developing your own technology and securing this intellectual property is important for success. • Having goals to work towards and business planning may be useful, but only if the plan is actively revised. Just having a business plan does not matter. Business plans are more useful as a thinking tool than as a blueprint for action. It is the process of thinking through while reviewing the plan that provides the benefit, not following its instruction to the letter.

ACE research vignette 038 : Cracking the start-up code : does it matter when you do what?

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international Entrepreneurship researchers. This vignette deals with the process of new venture creation, and specifically the sequence in which different ‘start-up activities’ are undertaken.

Literature: I. Robert Burns. II. Sir Walter Scott. III. Lord Byron; from the Chicago record.

Mode of access: Internet.

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.