Search

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present a framework for helping inventors and start‐ups identify and acquire the technical, market, financial, and human resources they need if they are to create and grow new ventures that can realise market opportunities.Design/methodology/approachThe method for this paper is a case study of a non‐profit company and four of its business clients.FindingsThe paper finds that a resource assessment framework has proven effective for assisting early stage ventures when it is combined with helping them to identify business opportunities and to improve their resource position in order to exploit these opportunities.Originality/valueThis research contributes to theory and practice by highlighting the value of creative coupling of resources and opportunities for entrepreneurs and by demonstrating a novel and effective framework customized for the needs of new emerging technology ventures.

This study quantifies the incidence and influence of rapid growth among firms in a high technology milieu. We draw on evidence from a longitudinal database of technology firms in Cambridge UK. Resource configurations and the entrepreneurial matching of resources to opportunities are addressed, using Penrosian growth theory. We examine how certain knowledge-resources of start-ups are related to firms’ subsequent growth. We examine various firm growth modes to track how they are associated with firm and regional growth.

In this paper we explore theories of opportunity discovery/creation with reference to the research, development and commercialization process of disruptive innovations. We apply this distinction (and inferences drawn in prior literature) to a number of cases of disruptive innovation (DI), using both known and new examples from mature and emerging markets. We find that the features of opportunity discovery and creation are too closely connected to be separable among the innovations studied. This leads us to question the theoretical basis of this distinction and to revisit earlier theories of entrepreneurship for an account of the way entrepreneurs innovate both in their use of means and in their choice of ends, as supported by our evidence on disruptive innovations. The aim of the paper is to clarify both the nature of disruptive innovations and the generation of opportunities.

Under what conditions can technology ventures design and implement a sustainable Intellectual Property Business Model? Many new firms in technology-intensive domains seek to adopt such models. This enables them to focus limited resources on core areas of competence, but raises significant challenges. These include the reluctance of customers to license the technology until it is generating value in applications and the experimentation needed to identify appropriate applications and markets, especially for generic technologies. Complementary assets must be fostered to transfer the technology across the value chain. Protecting the IP during scale up is problematic. In this paper we offer a detailed study of a firm that succeeded in overcoming these challenges, ARM plc. We attempt to identify what aspects of their experience (of IP generated growth) are generalizable to other firms. We define a business model as the way the firm is organized to create and capture value. We explore the kind of business ecosystem that must be nurtured for a firm to sustain growth through value creation and capture based on an intellectual property business model and find that reciprocity of benefits across the business ecosystem is needed.

This paper investigates the unaddressed potential of social ventures to implement social and technological innovations. The innovative activities of social ventures serving populations at the base of the pyramid (BOP) provide relevant evidence. Resource based theory and the concept of business ecosystems provided constructs to be operationalized through case evidence, while case studies helped integrate and adapt these theories to illuminate social entrepreneurship. The framework provides a basis for comparing two different social ventures creating value at the BOP: a technology-based social venture and another undertaking health delivery. These ventures enabled user interaction and feedback and enlisted public-private partnerships. The cases show how social ventures can develop innovative business models that combine internal resources with external resources from their ecosystem in order to build shared value. The conceptual framework can be used to identify key features of other cases of entrepreneurial value creation in conditions of poverty

Following the financial crisis of 2008, the UK government has set out new economic priorities which include jobs and returns from investment in science and technologybased activity. In this paper we show that the Cambridge area already provides a microcosm for such a future economy, one that it reveals both strengths and weaknesses. Using longitudinal county-wide data on technology firms in Cambs, we show that these firms have been resilient to recession over the past quarter century (as compared with Silicon Valley) and achieved high survival rates until the past few years. Cambridge tech firms are depicted in terms of size and sectoral distribution on the eve of the credit crisis, using new data on serial spin out from the university as a check on county-wide data. Larger firms showed a recent recovery in jobs and sales after delayed impact from the technology slump of the new millennium. However a fall in the number of start ups and firms in the smaller size groups is a cause for concern, since it is from just such a pool that the more successful Cambridge firms have emerged over the past three decades.

Can environmental legislation spur innovative response? This case describes the development of the automotive catalytic converter (ACC) at Johnson Matthey (JM), a precious metals company that entered the automotive industry as a component provider. The market was unfamiliar to JM and highly competitive, but in the 1970s the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced standards for emissions control by automotive companies well ahead of current practice. Johnson Matthew responded to the prospect of market demand for a technology that could meet the regulations. The EPA policy of technology “forcing” stimulated collaboration for innovation among companies from a variety of industries. Our case evidence shows that the key innovator, JM, achieved its breakthrough as a result of proactive R&D management by the product champion together with sustained corporate support at a high level and partnership strategies.

High-growth firms appear to be key drivers of new industries and technologies. Here we investigate the contribution of these and other types of firm to a technology cluster, in the context of ‘creative destruction’ shaping the evolution of the cluster. Evidence on the reallocation of scarce resources through processes of creative destruction is scarce. But in a cluster the effects of creative destruction can be traced through such developments as (1) firm exits and entries (2) change in firm size distribution and (3) acquisition of firms. We apply churn analysis, firm size transition analysis and analysis of acquisition to the technology cluster in Cambridge UK over twenty years. Firm growth contributed two-thirds of all new job creation, while entry-exit turbulence accounted for one third of job creation. High-growth firms accounted for a quarter of jobs created in the Cambridge cluster during this period, without ever making up more than 3% of all tech firms. There has been an increase in average firm size and profitability. A fall in entry rates and fewer firms moving up into larger size categories in recent years point to adverse conditions for innovative new firms even before the financial crash.

Innovative financing for global health may stimulate new waves of entrepreneurial activity. Global policies have created new sources of financing to accelerate knowledge generation for healthcare in resource-poor settings. This article outlines the emerging research concerned with the entrepreneurial response to opportunities and incentives at the bottom of the pyramid for healthcare. Questions arise to what kind of business models can be used to provide affordable healthcare on a viable basis. We examine public-private partnerships as one mechanism to catalyze the ecosystem and draw in stakeholders to contribute to the innovation value chain. We integrate entrepreneurship, innovation and ecosystem theories to discuss how the entrepreneurial firm builds resources and creates value in the healthcare ecosystem.

How do advanced materials ventures overcome the daunting commercialization challenges of the sector: high technology and market uncertainty over long time frames, and the need for significant complementary assets and substantial financing? Does uncertainty enhance or obstruct value creation? To address these questions, this paper draws on research on value creation, technology commercialization, and, more specifically, advanced materials commercialization, and presents new evidence from a sample of 43 advanced materials ventures. The sample ventures are compared and analyzed to elucidate risk reduction and value creation strategies. The sample is subdivided into nanomaterials, performance materials, and fuel cell ventures through a hierarchical cluster analysis, and subgroup commercialization metrics are described and compared. We argue that embracing uncertainty enhances value creation for nanomaterials and performance materials ventures but diminishes value creation for fuel cell ventures. High value creators in our sample lend further support to this argument through their commercialization strategies: reduction of uncertainty by fuel cell ventures, and embracing uncertainty by nanomaterials ventures. All of the successful advanced materials ventures commercialize radical technologies, emphasize strategic alliances, and begin demonstrating value with near-term, substitution applications.

Investors have been showing interest in prospects for new environmental technologies launched by innovative enterprises. We analyse the experience of young environmental technology firms going public on London’s alternative stock market, AiM. While firms that launched in the boom attracted needed funds, shareholder expectations and the controls used to promote shareholder value were not well aligned with the realities of business development of these emerging technology firms. These face challenging market and technology risks and require funding for business development that is more flexible and longer term than that provided by AiM investors. We suggest that a wider portfolio of investment alternatives is needed

This paper focuses on the Ink Jet Printing (IJP) industry in the vicinity of Cambridge, UK, and explores the emergence and maturation of a knowledge-based cluster of activity. The discussion is organised in terms of the origins and progeny of the firms in the cluster and their business environment. The lineage of firms is examined with reference to their technologies, spin-out activity and reasons for location near Cambridge. Ecological issues are addressed with reference to production chains, competition and new relations of ownership accompanying the globalisation of the mature industry. It is shown that maturation of an industry can be followed by local renewal, which in this case has accompanied recognition of the generic nature of the ink jet technologies as an innovative process for the deposition of valuable substances on substrates. Beyond the original printing and product identification industries, there are wide applications for IJP, which extend to the emergence of intelligent materials.

Advanced material technologies have received considerable attention from the media as potential engines of economic growth in an increasingly knowledge based economy. However, the extensive contributions of novel materials are not yet fully appreciated. Advanced materials have potential to enable other technologies and hence make a substantial and transformative impact on other industries and markets, including green technologies, healthcare, sustainable energy, construction, communications and defense. Like IT and biotech before them, advanced materials face many of the commercialization challenges of radical, generic technologies. Unlike their predecessor technologies, the value creation to which they could give rise is not readily demonstrated to their co-producers, customers or end consumers because of the complexity of their value chains and entrenched competition from incumbent products. This study investigates the market-oriented challenges facing AM University Spin-Outs (USO) and in particular, the evolution of their business models firm in response to other players. The choice of market and business model affects what value needs to be demonstrated to partners and can ultimately determine how much of a material’s potential value to society is realized. We build on the concept of innovation ecosystems to address these upstream innovations. A case study approach is used to elucidate the challenges that these ventures face. The findings highlight the way relationships between organizations can unlock the potential of entrepreneurial AM innovations. Partners are shown to be critical to a venture’s market selection and value chain positioning, determining not only what resources the venture can access but also the resource-base it needs to build to attract such partners. While current wisdom is that innovative ventures with radical technologies centre their activity on market niches, our cases show that potential partners, often large incumbent firms, may not be drawn by niche markets. Where substitute products already exist, ventures must adapt their business models to secure partner cooperation and clearly demonstrate the value they can offer

This paper examines the industrial incentives for commercialising advanced materials and, in particular, nanomaterials with reference to issues raised in the technology strategy and technology entrepreneurship literature. We draw on longitudinal empirical data to show that smaller and newer firms are playing an increasing role in the commercialisation of advanced materials innovations. However, new technology based firms face substantial barriers to commercialisation, including access to the complementary assets of large firms and institutions. To illustrate these challenges, we examine a case study of a start-up firm commercialising carbon nanotubes. Through use of an open systems model, we characterize their alliances and interactions in attempting to commercialise their products in several markets. This analysis illustrates the daunting challenges facing start-up firms as they attempt to commercialise advanced materials innovations. The most difficult challenge appears to be one of prioritisation of development objectives and, subsequently, of alliance building. Proposed policy recommendations focus on supporting the entrepreneurial process of matching technology resources and alliance-building with market opportunities.

Generic, radical technology is of interest because of its potential for value creation across a broad range of industries and applications. Advanced materials ventures are attracted by this opportunity yet face intensified challenges in commercializing technology of this kind as upstream entrants into distinct established value chains. In this paper, we build on Freeman’s concept of technological innovation as a technological and market matching process to develop a new model of the variables influencing value creation by advanced materials ventures. We then demonstrate the model using evidence from a sample of 10 US advanced materials ventures, including an in-depth case study exemplar. From the literature, our model, and our case study observation, we construct four propositions concerning the success of advanced materials ventures in commercializing radical technology.

This paper explores ways in which new ventures not only adapt to but can transform their own business environment. It proposes a new way to combine evolutionary and Penrosian resource-based theories. A parallel is drawn between the proactive response to resource shortfalls and under-use in the Penrosian firm and the way entrepreneurial participants in innovative networks can build complementary capability. Two case studies of biopharm ventures show how participants cumulatively altered prevailing business conditions and selection processes. The approach shows how evolutionary theory can be used to identify overlooked connections and clarify overlooked causal processes that have collective effects. How entrepreneurial activity lays the basis for further innovation is revealed by an analysis with the wider potential to bridge evolutionary and resource based approaches.