Strategic thinking : intelligent opportunism and emergent strategy – the case of Strategic Engineering Services

This case study focuses on strategic thinking and opportunistic approaches to business growth and diversification. It begins by examining the recent purchase of ‘Quickcover’, a remote-controlled sports pitch covering system, by engineering company Strategic Engineering services and the company’s current dilemma – whether to continue to develop this type of product, or sell it and concentrate on its existing engineering services business. In recent years, Strategic Engineering Services has moved away from traditional heavy engineering and diversified into related areas such as engineering services, oil and gas industry recruitment, plant and equipment hire, instrument calibration and project management. The case considers the relationship between strategic thinking and entrepreneurial approaches to opportunity recognition, exploring the concept of intelligent opportunism as an approach that enables entrepreneurs to develop emergent strategies and take advantage of new opportunities. It explores these concepts in the context of the current dilemma of Strategic Engineering Services. Keywords: intelligent opportunism; emergent strategy; strategic thinking;effectuatio

Cultivating communities of practice for innovation: What about SMEs?

Knowledge is a key factor for competitiveness and innovation for many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Handzic, 2006). However, SMEs often lack absorptive capacity because they have no formal strategy for developing, capturing, disseminating, sharing, or applying knowledge (Beijerse, 2000). It has been suggested (Wenger, 1998; Lesser and Prusak, 1999; Allee, 2000) that communities of practice (CoPs) might be an effective way to capture and share tacit knowledge as well as leverage the social capital (Lesser and Prusak, 1999) necessary for innovation (Landry, et al 2002). There is also some indication that knowledge spillovers within CoPs can strengthen their ability to exploit their innovations (Autio, et al 2008). On the other hand, SMEs often struggle to participate in open innovation, because of knowledge transfer problems caused by organisational and cultural differences (Van de Vrande, et al 2009). Given that CoPs are becoming more commonly seen as a knowledge management (KM) tool for supporting innovation (Swan, et al 2002), this paper reviews the literature on CoPs and comments on their appropriateness in the context of SMEs

Communities of practice, knowledge acquisition and innovation: a case study of science-based small firms.

Purpose – Recent research into communities of practice (CoPs) has focused on large organizations, suggesting they can be constructed for the purposes of knowledge acquisition and innovation. The present study found that, for science-based SMEs, CoPs are more likely to emerge unplanned to support incremental innovation in the form of problem-solving activities. This paper aims to discuss these points. Design/methodology/approach – Deploying a social constructionist research methodology, thematic template analysis was used to analyze 25 in-depth interviews conducted with a range of employees in six science-based SMEs. Findings – Both intra and inter-organizational CoPs were leveraged for a variety of purposes, including knowledge acquisition and the enhancement of the organizations' ability to generate innovative solutions. Research limitations/implications – Whilst there is no claim for the representativeness of the sample in relation to the wider population of science-based firms, the paper offers new material and theorizing in a domain which has been dominated to date by a focus upon large organizations and a managerialist orientation. Practical implications – A contextualized framework for the construction of CoPs in science-based SMEs has been developed from the findings of this study. Originality/value – The role of CoPs in science-based SMEs and the factors that influence their success or failure have been neglected to date, and thus have received little attention in the literature. Yet CoPs, as we found, can contribute to knowledge acquisition and innovation. Keywords : Communities of practice, Innovation, Knowledge acquisition, Thematic template analysi

Local Enterprise Agency loan funds and investment readiness in UK small firms

We considered (i) whether loan funds managed by Local Enterprise Agencies (LEAs) in England addressed the finance gap faced by new and small firms that are unable to raise investment capital from other sources, and (ii) whether LEA loan funds offered value-for-money and sustainability. Utilising realistic evaluation and data provided by LEAs, we found that funds had a high conversion rate of applications to loans, presumably because most referrals came from advisers and so propositions unlikely to be supported had already been weeded out, and due to high repayment rates. The level of demand suggested that knowledge of the availability of loans from these sources was still low, but that loans from LEAs were genuinely additional for small firms that would not otherwise have been able to raise the required finance from other sources, indeed in many cases leveraging commercially sourced funds. While LEA loan funds were becoming more efficient, they were not – and were unlikely to become – wholly sustainable. The high conversion rate (and low default rate) suggested that the real need for prospective entrepreneurs is effective advice and support to improve their ‘investment readiness’ and thus assist in unlocking the necessary financial support

Facilitating collaboration in the new product development process of science-based SMEs: a communities of practice perspective

New product development innovation rarely, if ever, occurs through the ideas and actions of isolated individuals. It invariably requires collaboration between people with a range of skills, knowledge, contacts and experience. Initiating and developing collaboration can be challenging for SMEs, not least science-based ones, who are often unreceptive to knowledge sharing because of lack of trust, internal conflicts, motivation issues, limited resources and the absence of sharing mechanisms. We contend that communities of practice are a vehicle for networking and collaboration. Our findings contradict suggestions in the extant literature that lack of trust inhibits knowledge sharing and collaboration in SMEs. Indeed, our findings demonstrate that regular mutual engagement and the sharing of expertise internally with colleagues and externally with customers and suppliers, led to the emergence of a variety of trust-based communities of practice in the science-based SMEs, improving their ability to acquire new knowledge that influenced innovation and new product development

Trust building in science-based SMEs in the North East of England: an ecosystem perspective

Purpose This paper identifies exigent factors that enable and constrain trust building in a science-based innovation ecosystem. Design/methodology/approach Set in the Northeast England, this study adopts a processual sensemaking approach to thematically analyse interviews with a diverse range of participants in six science-based SMEs. Findings The findings provide a unique exposition of trust building in an innovation ecosystem across geographic and platform relationships. In doing so, the findings highlight factors outside of contractual agreements that enable or constrain trust building in an innovation ecosystem. Research limitations/implications Limitations centred on subjectivity in the use of thematic analysis, sample bias and size. Sampling limitations were mitigated through the research design and analysis. Practical implications The findings provide unique insights into understanding the exigent factors that enable or constrain trust building in a science-based innovation ecosystem. Originality/value The study identifies five exigent factors that constrain or enable trust building in science-based SMEs' innovation ecosystem at a micro-level – building network relationships, degree of novelty, protection of innovations, propensity for adding value, propensity for risk