Entrepreneurial design of a digital health business

Software startups are an important source of innovation and wealth creation. Startups must develop and release software quickly to gain early cash flow and legitimacy for firm survival. They must search and identify a suitable market in a tight time frame. A ambiguity in the quality of the novel software designed can further intensify uncertainty for startups. Also, the entrepreneur-investor relationship is a critical conduit for financial and social resources, yet the investors’ influence on software design is understudied. This leads to the following research question: How does the entrepreneurial context in which the startup operates affect software design process and product in the early years? Given the exploratory nature of the research question, I drew on an eighteen-month, participant-observation case study of a three-year-old, digital healthcare startup, HealthCom. HealthCom designed a software to facilitate knowledge transfer between nurses and patients. I leveraged the attention-based view (ABV) as an organizing framework for analysis. By looking at how the environmental context influences the designers’ attention and actions, researchers can begin to understand the rationale behind design decisions. The findings illustrate how the attention of the designers were directed by financial-focused and quality-focused attention drivers. Financial-focused attention drivers originated from players (e.g. clients and investors) that intensified pressures for funding and led to the reframing of software as an enabler of funding. This contradicted quality-focused design alternatives grounded in user requirements and software design rules. It underlined the move from attention to designs that accommodated user requirements towards those that captured emerging business opportunities. Designers had to balance the tensions between financial and quality-focused design decisions that could lead to inhibition of future growth, compromises in quality or over-optimization of quality. Designers simplified and coupled requirements throughout the design process and postponed investments of design resources to meet client-imposed deadlines. The design product became disposable, quick to build, limited in adaptability, spartan, and vulnerable, and it enabled the startup to capture the business opportunities amidst time constraints, financial pressures, and high uncertainty.Information, Risk, and Operations Management (IROM

The Appleization of finance: Charting incumbent finance’s embrace of FinTech

The rise of financial technology (FinTech) engenders novel business models through integrating financial services and information and communication technologies (ICT). Digital currencies and payments, data mining, and other FinTech applications threaten to radically overhaul the financial sector. This article argues that, while we are becoming aware of how technology giants such as Apple Inc. are making inroads into financial services, we need to become more sensitive to how financial incumbents mimick ICT firms while aiming to neutralize the FinTech challenge. Practices from Silicon Valley are spilling over into ‘traditional’ finance through a process we dub Appleization. We illustrate how incumbents aim to remain indispensable amidst rapid digitization. Mimicking tech strategies, financial incumbents resort to transforming legacy ICT systems into integrated platforms, cultivating entrepreneurial ecosystems where startups are ‘free’ to compete whilst effectively being locked into the incumbent's orbit. We illustrate this by comparing Apple’s business features (locking-in developers, customers and state into a hybrid business model based on a synergy between hardware, software and data-driven platform components) with emerging practices in the financial industry. Our analogy suggests that the Appleization of finance might radically transform, yet not undercut the oligopolistic position of financial incumbents

Attacking Innovation

Economists generally agree that innovation is important to economic growth and that government support for innovation is necessary. Historically, the U.S. government has supported innovation in a variety of ways: (1) a strong legal system for patents; (2) direct support through research performed by government agencies, grants, loans, and loan guarantees; and (3) indirect support through various tax incentives for private firms. In recent years, however, we have seen a weakening of the U.S. patent system, a decline in direct funding of research, and a weakening of tax policy tools used to encourage new innovation. These disruptive changes threaten the future of innovation in the United States, potentially driving innovation activities offshore to Europe and China. This Article concludes that the current innovation crisis demands changes to both the patent and tax systems in order to instill confidence in the innovation landscape

Are More Frequent Releases Always Better? Dynamics of Pivoting, Scaling, and the Minimum Viable Product

Using the system dynamics methodology, we model the minimum viable product (MVP) approach to product development and examine the impact of release frequency, planning practices and committed reengineering capacity on software development outcomes. We leverage the organizational learning, Lean Startup, and Agile methodology literature to form the underpinnings of the model and measure outcomes using cumulative market cost of failing to meet market wants and cumulative engineering cost. While shorter release cycles are better in general for achieving market fit, the relationship is moderated by planning delays and committed reengineering capacity. We show that reducing the extent of pivot in each iteration may be better for firms. Firms instead should iterate moderately and not radically during any particular release. Counter intuitively, planning delays are beneficial by reducing overreaction to spurious market signals. Finally, we discuss implications of our findings for future research on learning and planning amongst entrepreneurial firms

Episode 24 : Accelerating Out of the Curve: How Startups are Driving their own Pandemic Recovery

Amidst the flurry of efforts to keep small businesses open and their workers employed, how have Maine startups been navigating the COVID-19 pandemic? To answer this question, we invited two entrepreneurs and a business professor with deep roots in Maine’s startup community to discuss today’s startup landscape and share their perspectives on the last seven months. We talk about changing customer needs, pivots, access to capital, hiring talent, and how people are emerging from the first waves of the pandemic with new ideas and businesses

Electrification in Peer-to-Peer Society – A New Narrative for Sustainable Futures

’Electrification in Peer-to-Peer Society – A New Narrative for Sustainable Futures’ is a time travel journey to a future when renewable energy, electrification, and a peer-to-peer ethos are intertwined. The use of fossil fuel resources is ending. An emission-free vision for 2050 is illustrated through four transformational scenarios: Radical Startups, Value-Driven Techemoths, Green Do-It-Yourself Engineers, and New Consciousness. The scenarios serve as testbeds for what kind of futures we want to live in. Futures have to be explored with a long perspective, but the decisions for preferred futures have to be made today. All major sectors in society have to be transformed to stay within the limits of the Paris climate goals. This book highlights results from the Neo-Carbon Energy project, addressing all those interested in future visions, societal changes and technological advances. It can also be used as teaching material, or as inspiration for concrete steps towards the post-fossil era and a carbonneutral circular economy – for governments, companies, and citizens

Research on technology entrepreneurship and accelerators

The last few years, accelerators are quickly proliferating across the globe. To illustrate, the F6S-platform for founders indicates that the worldwide number of accelerators has grown from 194 in 2012 to 793 in 2015; an increase of 308%. However, there is quite some confusion about what an accelerator is and what its impact is on early-stage technology ventures. To add to the confusion, many programs are continuously evolving their models. Understanding the organizational design of accelerators, its effectiveness, and its role in the startup ecosystem is key if we want to properly advise policy makers, investors, and corporates looking for new ways to spur the development of innovative ventures. Furthermore, focusing on accelerators provides an opportunity to extend the learning and experimentation literature as it offers a natural lab setting. Accordingly, the overarching research question of this dissertation is: what do accelerators do and how do they impact the entrepreneurial trajectory of ventures? This study uses theory elaboration methods to suggest how accelerators are configured and what happens within an accelerator program. The research setting is 40 accelerators across Europe—cohort-based startup support programs that accelerate learning and are seen as problem solvers for various actors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem such as venture capitalists, governments, corporates and even incubators. For instance, setting up an accelerator benefits venture capitalists by facilitating investments in a larger number of early-stage ventures at relatively low cost. It also benefits governments and corporates to streamline technology commercialization efforts. Thus, accelerators are an important phenomenon and this study provides several insights. On the one hand, it opens the ‘black box’ by highlighting the design and practices of the accelerator. By recognizing the heterogeneity among accelerators, it is clear that more robust metrics have to be developed in order to monitor the effectiveness of the different models. Although classifications of accelerator programs based on their relative performance (e.g. the Seed Accelerators Ranking Project) could be of importance to startups, it may also provide a distorted view considering programs can differ in their strategic objectives. On the other hand, it explains to policy makers, accelerators and early-stage technology ventures the boundary conditions of acceleration. First, policy makers need to take a long-term budget view when they consider to support startups through accelerator programs. Second, many ventures may not be investor-ready or commercially viable at the end of an accelerator program. Therefore, a systematic policy approach is needed for startups to thrive. Third, both early-stage technology ventures and individuals interested in setting up an accelerator should take into account the specific program components such as the selection process and the learning approach when respectively considering to apply for a program or configure one. Taken together, these essays demonstrate that accelerators occur in various forms, are constantly evolving and can differently impact the development of early-stage ventures

Comfortable but Not Brilliant: Exploring the Incubation Experience of Founders of Technology-Based Startups

Business incubators have been highlighted as vital contributors and value-creation organizations to entrepreneurs during their venture developments by offering them multiple resources and specialized support. Notwithstanding, several authors call attention to the significant literature gap concerning research focusing on entrepreneurs’ daily lived incubation experiences to understand their perspectives on incubators. This study aims to explore which aspects are perceived as creating value or limiting the venture development of 16 founders of technology-based startups by interviewing them. Ultimately, it contributes valuable insights about incubation factors that enhance or hinder their overall incubation experience. It suggests that entrepreneurs consider intangible resources and social and relational aspects as the most enriching dimensions of their incubation experiences and concludes with the services they consider to be more important. Moreover, it also reveals negative aspects of the incubation experience, mostly related to the nonregular periodicity of mentoring sessions, training events provided by external entities, and issues while using services provided by external incubators’ partners. Several recommendations for enhancing the incubation experience, managerial implications, and opportunities for further research are discussed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Managing New Ventures and Knowing Whether You Need to Pivot Your Business Model: Evidence from the Finnish IT Sector

Research Objectives Corporate agility is considered to be a key competitive advantage of startup companies developing new products when compared to larger corporations. With the now popular Lean Startup -methodology suggesting companies should make swift decisions to change their strategy and business model in uncertain new ventures, companies are supposed to know very quickly whether a business model is going to be successful or not. The purpose of this study is to understand why companies make radical changes to their business model and how they try to ensure at a relatively early stage that a business model is likely to fail, and that the most prudent action to take is to change trajectory and focus on another business model. Subsequently, the study seeks to clarify how agile companies develop their products under high levels of uncertainty. Methodology The empirical data for this study was gathered from eight semi-structured interviews with founders or early investors from growing Finnish IT startup companies. The respondents were selected as they have been involved with their respective companies from conception or from a very early stage and due to their top management position, the interviewees are very knowledgeable about all the reasoning behind the strategic decisions their companies made throughout the lifecycle of their core product offering. The interviews were analyzed using a systematic coding process. Findings The findings of the study indicate that companies either pivot due to a prolonged period of disappointing sales performance, or due to the new opportunities presented by experiments with new business models that lead to an immediate impact in customer satisfaction and revenue growth. The study indicates that disappointing performance is a sound basis for pivot only after multiple iterations on a business model, as it then becomes clearer that progress is too slow to reach desired performance levels and financial trouble is already visible in the horizon. Another finding of the study was the temporal differences between pivots that arose from negative performance and positive surprises from experiments