Search

This chapter aims to provide researchers and policymakers with a pragmatic understanding of three different approaches to entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) research. In particular, we aim to inform theoretical framework selection for researchers and policymakers who share an interest in the cultivation, enrichment, and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems. To do so, we illuminate three perspectives of entrepreneurial ecosystems and provide guidance on the theoretical frameworks and methods in their research application. Each of the three frameworks encapsulates a particular ecosystem epistemology (biological ecologies, complex adaptive systems, and community capitals). These frameworks converge regarding their emphasis on diversity among ecosystem elements and their inter-relationships, and situatedness within multilevel contexts. A methodological commonality here is the use of qualitative grass-roots approaches to assessing entrepreneurial ecosystems. To illustrate the similarities and differences in frameworks and their associated epistemologies and methods, we discuss how these vary in research application. Selecting a framework has implications for research methods and thus also what types of insights can be gained, such as how EEs can be designed, shaped or governed.

The second Accelerating NSW report, supported by Investment NSW, presents an analysis of CAISH-focused data from the 2023 Startup Muster survey of the Australian startup ecosystem. The new report contains quantitative analysis and targeted recommendations, building on the ecosystem mapping, literature review and insights from qualitative interviews in the first Accelerating NSW report.

This report, supported by Investment NSW, shows the state of NSW’s ecosystem of coworking spaces, accelerators, incubators, and startup hubs and outlines how policymakers and partners in the innovation ecosystem can more robustly measure the impact of these entities on the wider economy.

Entrepreneurship and learning are intrinsically linked. Entrepreneurial learning research considers entrepreneurship as a learning process, where it is assumed that within the entrepreneurship process, entrepreneurs learn from their past experiences (Politis, 2005) and failures (Cope, 2011) through experimentation and repetition, which in turn increases their confidence and expertise (Minniti & Bygrave, 2001). A central concept in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning is Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE), as one of the primary outcomes of entrepreneurial learning. However, multiple leaps in logic remain when determining how ESE is developed and measured. For example, many studies employ pre- and post-intervention surveys that lack the texture of how people learn to become entrepreneurial. This paper draws on the education literature to identify two key constructs that help link learning opportunities to the development of ESE: Learning ecologies (e.g. Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and student engagement (e.g., Fredricks et al., 2004; Lawson & Lawson, 2013). We rename the latter to learner engagement to recognise that entrepreneurial learning is not just for students. Drawing on these concepts from education, this paper addresses the growing appeals for better integration between entrepreneurship and educational science to provide theoretical foundations rooted in education and learning (Hagg & Kurczewska, 2019; Pittaway & Cope, 2007).

This paper maps the evolution of the Australian start-up and innovation ecosystem by exploring policy developments and mapping the key actors, activities, and artefacts. The study unpacks policy developments over the past two decades to show the government’s role in shaping the innovation ecosystem and the implications for start-ups. We outline the ecosystem’s key actors, including start-ups, scale-ups, support organisations, investors, research institutions, and their growth over time. We examine the artefacts of the ecosystem to understand start-up and innovation performance in a global context. We also explore the activities of the ecosystem in terms of collaboration, research, and development. The paper concludes with a discussion of policy gaps.

This is a technical note that describes and visualises 22 global value chains in a way not done before, to help non-technical readers understand the complexity and vulnerability of global value chains

Despite the benefits of modularisation and highly interconnected global value chains (GVCs), recent natural disasters have provided evidence that global supply chains can be quite vulnerable to interruptions. Risks in supply chains leading to interruption are not limited to natural disasters and can include fires and financial ruin (see Natarajarathinam et al., 2009). Simchi-Levi et al. (2014) have recently suggested it is the low-end commodity producers that expose highervalue system integrators to the greatest risks. For example, the Thai floods in 2011 disrupted electronics and auto supply chains across the globe – particularly affecting hard drive supplies (Tibken, 2011). Likewise, the Japanese earthquake in 2011 disrupted auto production from Japan to North America to Sweden (Glinton, 2011), as discussed in a National Public Radio interview between Glinton (interviewer) and Handler (auto industry expert).

The changing and dynamic nature of contemporary work is contributing to a compelling need for innovation and enterprise capabilities within organizations. Both small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and larger organizations are increasingly looking for evidence of enterprise capabilities in graduates. In response, Australian universities are endeavoring to embed entrepreneurial experiences in the curriculum with entrepreneurial work-integrated learning (WIL) emerging as a pedagogical approach for learners to develop enterprise capabilities. Through entrepreneurial WIL experiences such as innovation incubators, bootcamps and interdisciplinary industry/community projects, learners engage with industry and community partners and apply their developing enterprise capabilities to identifying opportunities and creating value. This chapter outlines four entrepreneurial WIL illustrations of practice which were re-designed with support from the multi-institutional Edge project. Drawing on these illustrations and current research, the chapter advances key considerations for WIL curriculum, seeking to develop entrepreneurial experiences with a focus on learners’ enterprise capabilities development.

Management of global value chains (GVCs) is a coordinated effort by the companies participating in the GVCs as well as by governments who impose trade policy instruments such as tariffs, quotas, antidumping or other barriers. In some cases, when a tariff or other barrier is imposed on a given industry in a given country by another country, that country then attempts to mitigate losses by retaliating by imposing barriers in another industry against the other country or by passing on the barrier to overseas suppliers of the given industry in other countries. This case illustrates how the Korean government may explore how to react to a trade barrier on its shipbuilding industry.

There is a strong conceptual link between the structure of global value chains (GVCs) and innovativeness. However, evidence of the link has largely been limited to the study of GVCs in industries that are purported to be innovative, and the studies have largely been at the level of an individual firm or product. This sampling bias and level of analysis creates a lack of an objective measure of innovativeness, which would enable generalisation to other firms in a given industry and with which to perform inter-industry comparison. This chapter extends the typology of global value architectures (GVAs) by Wixted and Bliemel to use the same trade data to quantify the structures of 22 industry complexes via a measure of significant sourcing pathways per economy (SPE). The SPE results are used to rank the industries according to their level of interconnectedness and then reveal how this measure of trade complex structure correlates to well-established innovation measures based on R&D intensity, alliancing and modularity. These correlations suggest that measures of trade in GVCs are complementary to these innovativeness measures. The chapter propose that these innovativeness measures can be replaced by SPE measures, as they are more objective, replicable and thus reliable measures of innovativeness which also explicitly accounts for the dispersion of innovation across regions, thereby representing the aggregate structure of all GVCs of a given industry.

Reinterpreting and Reimagining Megatrends in the World Economy Renu Agarwal, ... 'Global value chains are not always global – The 'global factory'and ...

The Navigator, a core unit of the new AUD$25 million state-funded Sydney School of Entrepreneurship (SSE), provides an example of how a new course is co-developed and co-delivered by an interdisciplinary group of academics across multiple universities to multiple cohorts of students from all 12 higher-education institutions (HEIs) across the State of New South Wales (NSW). What is unique about this course is the extremely diverse inter-organisational environment hosted by SSE and the speed at which the unit was designed, often adjusted only hours ahead of delivery. While the operational details of SSE still require attention, the cross-institutional collaboration to develop The Navigator is recognised as best-practice in co-development of state- or even nation-wide curriculum.

Problem solving is important in everyday situations, and it is understood to be of critical importance when attempting to confront the major challenges facing the world today. Problem framing and problem solving have received much attention over many decades, from people facing personal and professional challenges, as well as from confronting difficult workplace issues at strategic, tactical and operational levels. This chapter summarises the case for using visual tools and visual representations to gain better understanding of current situations from multiple perspectives, to generate and explore new possibilities and to systematically explore potential solutions. Creative solutions often benefit from an initial deep understanding of the problem space, gaining insights from multiple perspectives rather than moving too fast to attempting to identify possible solutions. Furthermore, the information and understanding that emerge during the exploration of the problem space with thorough investigation of multiple possibilities, including testing of emerging ideas, leads to better, more appropriate co-created solutions. We present a learning approach to problem framing and problem solving informed by multiple experiments. Visual tools and visualisation capture multiple perspectives, generate new ideas and new combinations of ideas to find new opportunities and multiple solutions. They also build creative confidence in creative thinking abilities and imagining new possibilities. Brief examples of the application of visual tools in a problem framing and problem solving framework used in real world problem solving, and suggested resources are provided.

This volume identifies and documents pedagogical and practice-based visual approaches to scaffolding and developing capacity for cross-disciplinary collaboration, innovation and entrepreneurship.

This volume identifies and documents pedagogical and practice-based visual approaches to scaffolding and developing a capacity for cross-disciplinary collaboration, innovation, and entrepreneurship. This first chapter introduces and contextualises the key themes of this book, outlining the value in supporting the acquisition of cross-disciplinary collaboration, innovation and entrepreneurship skills in students and why visual tools are particularly useful in doing this. Chapter authors, and editors of this book, have chosen to divide the content of the book into four sections: i) visual tools and artifacts for Cross-disciplinary Collaboration; (ii) visual tools and artifacts for Innovation; (iii) visual tools and artifacts for Entrepreneurship; and (iv) Integrated approaches using visual tools and artifacts. The main chapters take a social, cultural and historical look at the evolution of visual tools, followed by a final chapter which takes a look into future possibilities.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to address the role of accelerators as authentic learning-based entrepreneurial training programs. Accelerators facilitate the development and assessment of entrepreneurial competencies in nascent entrepreneurs through the process of creating a start-up venture. Design/methodology/approach: Survey data from applicants and participants of four start-accelerators are used to explore the linkages between accelerators and the elements of authentic learning. Authentic learning processes are then mapped onto the start-up processes that occur within the accelerators. Findings: Accelerators take in nascent entrepreneurs and work to create start-ups. This activity develops the participants’ entrepreneurial competencies and facilitates authentic self-reflection. Research limitations/implications: This study explores how accelerators can be useful as authentic learning platforms for the development of entrepreneurial competencies. Limitations include perceptual measures and the inability to conduct paired sampling. Practical implications: Entrepreneurship training is studied through the lens of authentic learning activities that occur within an accelerator. Participants develop and assess their mastery of and interest in entrepreneurship through tasks, exposure to experts and mentors, peer learning, and assessments such as pitching to investors at Demo Day. Originality/value: This paper reports on the authentic learning processes and its usefulness in competency development and self-appraisal by accelerators participants. The opportunity for competency development and self-appraisal by nascent entrepreneurs before escalating their commitment to a start-up may be an accelerator’s raison d’être.

AbstractAccelerators are broadly seen as platforms that government, non-profit, and for-profit organizations use to fast-track the development of entrepreneurial and SME business capabilities. Typically, this occurs as competitive, time-constrained, cohort-centered, authentic learning experiences supported by mentoring and access to the local entrepreneurial ecosystem, management development programs, and financial resources. Interest in how the ventures in the development programs evolve and contribute to the entrepreneurial ecosystem is increasing (Cantner et al. in Small Business Economics, 57, 407–423, 2021), but how the accelerators evolve has yet to be adequately researched. To better understand how accelerators evolve, we adapt Churchill and Lewis (Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30–50, 1983) conceptual framework of the stages of small business development. This study investigated the life cycle of Australian accelerators from 2013 to 2020. The accelerators ranged from short-term “pop-up” programs to permanent programs. We found through a series of four selected exemplar case studies that these accelerators exhibited a similar four-stage life cycle to their participants, including (1) gestation, (2) survival, (3) viability, and (4) decline or renewal. We also found that external support was a critical issue that determined viability. Our findings support the development of accelerator management to be more agile, resilient, and entrepreneurial, which can confront those adopting a more standardized franchise model. In addition, we adapt Kohler (Business Horizons, 59(3), 347–357, 2016) work on corporate accelerators into an inclusive framework for all forms of accelerators, including considering their geographic context or Place, the actors involved with the accelerator

AbstractAccelerators are broadly seen as platforms that government, non-profit, and for-profit organizations use to fast-track the development of entrepreneurial and SME business capabilities. Typically, this occurs as competitive, time-constrained, cohort-centered, authentic learning experiences supported by mentoring and access to the local entrepreneurial ecosystem, management development programs, and financial resources. Interest in how the ventures in the development programs evolve and contribute to the entrepreneurial ecosystem is increasing (Cantner et al. in Small Business Economics, 57, 407–423, 2021), but how the accelerators evolve has yet to be adequately researched. To better understand how accelerators evolve, we adapt Churchill and Lewis (Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30–50, 1983) conceptual framework of the stages of small business development. This study investigated the life cycle of Australian accelerators from 2013 to 2020. The accelerators ranged from short-term “pop-up” programs to permanent programs. We found through a series of four selected exemplar case studies that these accelerators exhibited a similar four-stage life cycle to their participants, including (1) gestation, (2) survival, (3) viability, and (4) decline or renewal. We also found that external support was a critical issue that determined viability. Our findings support the development of accelerator management to be more agile, resilient, and entrepreneurial, which can confront those adopting a more standardized franchise model. In addition, we adapt Kohler (Business Horizons, 59(3), 347–357, 2016) work on corporate accelerators into an inclusive framework for all forms of accelerators, including considering their geographic context or Place, the actors involved with the accelerator

AbstractAccelerators are broadly seen as platforms that government, non-profit, and for-profit organizations use to fast-track the development of entrepreneurial and SME business capabilities. Typically, this occurs as competitive, time-constrained, cohort-centered, authentic learning experiences supported by mentoring and access to the local entrepreneurial ecosystem, management development programs, and financial resources. Interest in how the ventures in the development programs evolve and contribute to the entrepreneurial ecosystem is increasing (Cantner et al. in Small Business Economics, 57, 407–423, 2021), but how the accelerators evolve has yet to be adequately researched. To better understand how accelerators evolve, we adapt Churchill and Lewis (Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30–50, 1983) conceptual framework of the stages of small business development. This study investigated the life cycle of Australian accelerators from 2013 to 2020. The accelerators ranged from short-term “pop-up” programs to permanent programs. We found through a series of four selected exemplar case studies that these accelerators exhibited a similar four-stage life cycle to their participants, including (1) gestation, (2) survival, (3) viability, and (4) decline or renewal. We also found that external support was a critical issue that determined viability. Our findings support the development of accelerator management to be more agile, resilient, and entrepreneurial, which can confront those adopting a more standardized franchise model. In addition, we adapt Kohler (Business Horizons, 59(3), 347–357, 2016) work on corporate accelerators into an inclusive framework for all forms of accelerators, including considering their geographic context or Place, the actors involved with the accelerator