Activity Overinvestment: The Case of R&D

The literature on corporate diversification has often argued for and established the case that companies often overdiversify in a product market sense – i.e. enter into unrelated product markets where they may not fully cover their cost of capital. Yet, even without engaging in unrelated diversification, managers need to make resource allocation decisions to a variety of activities that a company conducts to consummate its business. In this article we focus on Research and Development (R&D) activity and we discuss the effects that the uncertainty, boundary ambiguity, feedback latency, R&D lumpiness and legitimacy that characterize technological contexts can have in making overinvestment in R&D likely. Specifically, in this article we a) draw attention to the construct of activity overinvestment, and specifically R&D overinvestment, b) use the received literature to argue that there exists a prima facie case for examining this construct and its antecedents in order to evaluate the extent and implications of R&D overinvestment, and c) make the more general case that the resource allocation literature needs to study the issue of activity overinvestment systematically

Angel investor's selection criteria: a comparative institutional perspective

Despite the important role of angel investors as critical financial providers for new ventures, little is known regarding how institutions make their investment decisions. While angels make decisions based on selection criteria during the first stage, they are also embedded within and affected by different institutional settings and as a result weight these criteria differently than other investors. We compare angel investors' selection criteria in China and Denmark using the comparative institutional perspective. We use a policy capturing approach and hierarchy linear modeling, revealing that since Chinese angels are embedded within relationship-based institutional settings they tend to reply more on strong ties such as family and friends in management team, as well as weighting risks less compared to Danish angels operating within more rule-based institutional contexts

Barriers to the uptake and use of feedback in the context of summative assessment

Despite calls for feedback to be incorporated in all assessments, a dichotomy exists between formative and summative assessments. When feedback is provided in a summative context, it is not always used effectively by learners. In this study we explored the reasons for this. We conducted individual interviews with 17 students who had recently received web based feedback following a summative assessment. Constant comparative analysis was conducted for recurring themes. The summative assessment culture, with a focus on avoiding failure, was a dominant and negative influence on the use of feedback. Strong emotions were prevalent throughout the period of assessment and feedback, which reinforced the focus on the need to pass, rather than excel. These affective factors were heightened by interactions with others. The influence of prior learning experiences affected expectations about achievement and the need to use feedback. The summative assessment and subsequent feedback appeared disconnected from future clinical workplace learning. Socio-cultural influences and barriers to feedback need to be understood before attempting to provide feedback after all assessments. A move away from the summative assessment culture may be needed in order to maximise the learning potential of assessments