Stakeholders´ Perception to Characterize the Start-ups Success

Startups are innovative companies that live in uncertain environments. This research aims to characterize the conditions and variables that influence the development of startups in the context of the Brazilian economy, so that understanding is reached about the characteristics of their businesses and how the environment acts on them. An evaluation instrument is developed that assists in the validation of critical factors, as well as the KPIs necessary for the practice of the instrument. The study presents, through bibliographic research, a theoretical proposal of critical success factors that receive the assessment of stakeholders who are in daily contact with the reality of startups. The results demonstrate the impact of critical success factors on the development of startups, according to the perception of stakeholders

Analysis of Entrepreneurial Behaviour in Incubated Technology-Based Companies

Background: The analysis of entrepreneurial behaviour in incubated technology-based companies can help managers to understand their characteristics and how these aspects can be maximized to increase the performance of the companies. Objectives: This study proposes to measure the entrepreneurial behaviour of managers of technology-based companies in incubators in southern Brazil facing different stages of the business life cycle. Methods/Approach: The Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to measure the entrepreneurial behaviour index of technology-based companies’ managers throughout the stage of the business life cycle. Results: In the early stages, entrepreneurs have ample self-confidence and are willing to make quick decisions. In the intermediate stages, the entrepreneur shows greater persistence and effort in the tasks. In the later stages, the entrepreneur acquires a greater sense of group activity and punctuality in completing tasks. Conclusions: This study analyses how managers demonstrate their entrepreneurial behaviour as the stages the company experiences. The results can help managers better understand their performance and actions reflected through their behaviours

Does Cash Flow Cause Investment and R&D: An Exploration Using Panel Data for French, Japanese, and United States Scientific Firms

investment, R&D, panel data, international comparisons, cash flow, firm-level, Business, Economics, International Business, Technology and Innovation

A Service of zbw R&D-Persistency, Metropolitan Externalities and Productivity The authors have benefited from comments

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Firms display persistent differences as regards both internal and external characteristics, and these differences correspond to asymmetries in the performance of firms with regard to productivity level and growth as well as innovativeness. This paper focuses on one internal characteristic and one external factor by distinguishing between firms with persistent R&D efforts and other firms and firms located in a metropolitan region versus firms with other locations. Applying Swedish data on individual firms and their location, the paper shows that firms that follow a strategy with persistent R&D efforts have a distinctly higher level of productivity across all types of location. In addition, the productivity level of firms with persistent R&D is augmented in a significant way when such firms have a metropolitan location and, in particular, a location in a metropolitan city. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may INTRODUTION There is a large literature on firm heterogeneity, both in terms of the resource base and the performance level of firms. As discussed by There is a second literature on how the local and regional environment may affect both a firm's propensity to make innovation efforts and its output performance. This literature refers to environment features such as local clusters The Firm's Innovation Strategy In the subsequent analysis a firm's innovation strategy is characterised in two dimensions, where the first distinguishes between (i) persistent, (ii) occasional, and (iii) no R&D efforts. In the second dimension we observe the size of the firm's knowledge resource base, measured by the size of the labour force with at least three years of university education. This latter dimension reflects the absorptive capacity (and development capacity) of the firm as suggested by Information about firms in the study comes from two different sources. The first is the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) on Swedish manufacturing and service firms observed [2002][2003][2004]. The second source is firm level information from Statistics Sweden. Combining these two sources, each individual firm is followed over the period 1997-2006 with information about economic performance and the firm's internal resource base. Using these panel data across individual firms, the paper intends to demonstrate that firm performance depends both on the firm's specific capabilities as recognised by 3 the size of its input of knowledge-intensive labour (Cohen, 1995), and on the persistency of its R&D efforts. With reference to Cefis and Cicarelli Given the outlined setting, the focus is on the contribution to a firm's productivity level from (i) the nature of each firm's innovation strategy and (ii) the category of local environment in which it is located, where the major distinctions are either metropolitan and non-metropolitan region or metropolitan city and non-metropolitan locations. Metropolitan Regions versus other Regions In contemporary affluent economies, economic activities take place primarily in urban space, reflecting the importance of agglomeration. This idea can be traced back both to Adam Smith in his emphasis on the size of a local economy and Alfred Marshall in his discussions of external economies of scale. The current understanding of agglomeration is in a clear way based on a contribution by In order to examine the impact of metropolitan economies for innovating firms, the present study considers the following three types of locations: metropolitan region labelled "metro-region", metropolitan city labelled "metro-city", and other (non-metropolitan) locations labelled "non-metro 4 regions". Sweden's three metropolitan regions (Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö) are all integrated labour market regions, and their respective metro-city is the largest city in each region. All three regions are mutually separated by long distances. The examination of how location affects firm performance has the ambition to match information about the innovation strategy of individual firms with their location. This approach can provide answers to a set of questions. First, given that we can show that a strategy with persistent R&D efforts has higher productivity effects than other innovation strategies, then we can find out if this observation is valid for all types of locations. In other words, does R&D persistency augment productivity both in metro regions and other regions of medium size and small regions. Second, does the combination of R&D persistency and location in a metro-region correspond to higher productivity performance than R&D persistency in non-metro locations? Third, is the productivity performance of an R&D-persistent firm higher when the firm is located in a metro-city compared to a typical location in the entire metroregion. Forth, we investigate if there are indications which imply that the largest metro-region and metro-city (Stockholm) is hosting R&D persistent firms with higher productivity than any other location, observing that in the delineation of regions in our study Stockholm is the largest, Gothenburg the second largest and Malmö the smallest metro region 4 . Finally, we can pose the following question: do firms which lack R&D persistency have any observable productivity advantage when they are located in a metro region or are metropolitan economies specifically affecting knowledge-oriented firms with R&D persistency? In order to provide answers to the above questions, the empirical analyses decomposes the Swedish geography into the following sets: (i) all non-metropolitan regions referred to as NM-regions, (ii) the St ockholm metropolitan region referred to as M1, (iii) the Stockholm city referred to as M2, (iv) the three metropolitan regions as a group referred to as M3, and (v) the three metropolitan cities referred to as M4. Given this decomposition the analyses match in turn M1, M2, M3 and M4 against NM. Outline of the Paper Se ction 2 presents a theory framework for understanding the innovating firm, where the framework separates internal factors and the knowledge environment of a firm. Section 3 provides information about data sources and outlines descriptive statistics. Methodology and empirical strategy of the paper are discussed in Section 4, while Section 5 reports on the econometric results. Section 6 concludes. 4 This study makes use of a decomposition of Sweden into 81 labour-market regions, labeled LA-regions. 5 TH EO RY OF THE INNOVATING FIRM The orthodox neoclassical view of the firm is expressed in models that emphasise that the individual firm is forced to imitate and adopt the best practice among its competitors, such that the outcome is a convergence towards states in which firms in each industry or product segment are alike each other. According to this view a firm may by means of innovations temporarily gain a monopoly like position, but the response from competitors brings about a process of equilibrium adjustment that inevitably reduces the differences between an innovating firm and its competitors (e.g. Cefis and Cicarelli, 2005; Roberts, 2001). According to a contrasting view, firms are heterogeneous, also within narrow segments of a market. Based on empirical observations, advocators of this view claim that the asymmetries among firms are enduring and persistent, implying that differences between firms in the same industry display a greater variation than the average difference between different industries. Lasting differences are observed with regard to size, innovation, productivity, profitability and growth. This view relates to an evolutionary theory of firms and markets (e.g. The strategic choice and resource base of a firm can be classified as internal factors that affect the performance. External factors that may influence a firm's productivity performance and innovation activities can be related to the firm's local and regional environment, and the opportunities for global knowledge access that a particular location may bring about. As emphasised by the theory of agglomeration economies, a metropolitan region offers a firm both accessibility to local and regional knowledge sources and greater opportunities to access global knowledge sources than what other regions do. The corresponding benefits from metropolitan diversity of novelties and flows of ideas are often classified as Jacobs externalities or urbanisation economies In view of the above, the choice of location is also a choice of knowledge support, and through such a choice the individual firm can add to its internal knowledge by dwelling in an environment with high accessibility to knowledge sources. Based on this conclusion, it has been suggested that innovative firms tend to concentrate in a minority of key metropolitan regions in which firms can benefit from both local and global knowledge flows (Acs and Armington, 2004; Strategy and Resource Base of the Innovating Firm Consider now that a firm can select a strategy that prioritises persistent R&D efforts which continue over a sequence of years. Then we may conjecture that firms with such a strategy are able to persistently perform better than firms with other strategies that either avoid to make R&D efforts or initiate such efforts occasionally in situations when strong R&D stimuli appear, due phenomena such as reduced sales of certain products, intensified price competition in certain markets and other negative performance signals, but also unexpected opportunities that make innovation efforts more promising. Is it possible to formulate theoretical frameworks, according to which firms with persistent innovation efforts are rewarded higher profits than other firms? Consider Schumpeter's (1934) model of the innovating firm. In the picture painted by Schumpeter the innovating entrepreneur's expectation to obtain temporary monopoly profits is a necessary driving force. However, the prediction is that gradual equilibrium adjustments in the economy will make these profits transitory as other firms adjust their products and routines and skills in response to the novelties introduced by the innovating firm. In this sense the Schumpeter model is a special case of the general equilibrium framework, where innovations play the role of moving the economy through a sequence of equilibrium adjustments. Moreover, the Schumpeter model is compatible with the idea that firms with invariantly sustained innovation activities may retain a superior performance over a long sequence of years. But why do certain firms select and develop such a strategy, whereas others do not? For models which are based on a general equilibrium framework, an innovating firm may be rewarded by higher profits than other firms. However, such a position is a transitory state which disappear as other firms adjust their products and routines in response to the novelties introduced by the innovating firm. One may argue that such imitation-like adjustments occur at a slow pace, which could help to explain why a firm may keep a front position by continuing to make innovation efforts along a sequence of years. However, as this paper shows there are empirical observations which suggest that firms can be grouped into three categories, where the first category consists of firms committed to endurable R&D efforts, the second of firms that make R&D efforts only occasionally, and the third of firms that rarely make any R&D efforts. Moreover, as will be illustrated in this paper by means of Swedish data, the transition of firms between the three categories takes place at a very low frequency. How can this be explained? Persistent R&D efforts bring about two consequences for the firm. It increases the stock of knowledge assets of the firm in the form of technical solutions as well as other business routines, and novel and/or customised product varieties (Griliches, 1995: Geroski, van Reenen and In addition, with persistent R&D efforts a firm builds up skills, procedures and routines for how to carry out innovation activities. Thus, the pertinent advantage can be assumed to resist occasional R&D attempts by competitors, and it can therefore provide the R&D-persistent firm with a sustainable performance advantage. The above conclusion can be compared to Geroski's (1998) so-called stylized facts, where we stress the observation that heterogeneities in economic performance between firms is a long-run phenomenon that remains intact regardless of how performance is measured. At the same time Geroski claims that technological performance, measured by counts of major innovations, lack the same invariance over time. This latter conclusion is partly valid also when technological performance is measured by the number of patents Th e Location Environment of the Innovating Firm A firm applying an innovation strategy with persistent R&D efforts can benefit more than other firms from a steady an rich flow of innovation ideas, combined with knowledge support that can facilitate the technical solutions and commercialisation of the ideas. One mechanism for collecting and absorbing ideas and solutions is the network links that the firm can establish with other actors in the local as well as global environment. In a large urban region the options for establishing such intraregional links are richer because the alternatives are much greater in those regions A firm can influence its knowledge-flow environment by forming links (interaction channels) to other actors such as its input suppliers, its customers, universities and other knowledge providers. Such network development is less costly to carry out inside a region, and the advantage of a metropolitan region lies in the fact that the number of potential contacts is much larger and more diversified than elsewhere Thus, this observation adds to the special features of metropolitan regions. Large urban regions have large labour markets with a rich variety of specialist competence structures. As a rule they also host universities with a considerable output of persons with educations tha

Analysis of Entrepreneurial Behaviour in Incubated Technology-Based Companies

The analysis of entrepreneurial behaviour in incubated technology-based companies can help managers to understand their characteristics and how these aspects can be maximized to increase the performance of the companies

Worldwide Innovation and Technology Environments: Research and Future Trends Involving Open Innovation

Innovation environments are places where open innovation and technology are boosted. The purpose of this paper is to present the evolution of innovation and technology environments through the most covered topics in the scientific literature. In this sense, technology transfer has been the subject of research since 1975; however, in the period from 2006–2021, the focus shifted to innovation. It was possible to observe an exponential growth of the term, “innovation”, but it is no longer the central theme and is linked to different terms related to different ways of innovating, characterizing open innovation variables. In this article, 4650 academic studies involving innovation environments were reviewed. The analysis identified the nomenclatures that characterized innovation environments and the particularities of these environments. The contributions, such as which countries developed more research in this area, and the analysis of which environments were more common in these countries were also presented. Additionally, some methodological and theoretical gaps in the current research were identified, providing pathways to support future research and practices seeking a better understanding and development of innovation environments. This article can also serve as a basis for a consultation for members of the quadruple helix, who wish to install or create environments for innovation and attract companies or investments to develop any open innovation activity