Towards understanding startup product development as effectual entrepreneurial behaviors

Software startups face with multiple technical and business challenges, which could make the startup journey longer, or even become a failure. Little is known about entrepreneurial decision making as a direct force to startup development outcome. In this study, we attempted to apply a behaviour theory of entrepreneurial firms to understand the root-cause of some software startup s challenges. Six common challenges related to prototyping and product development in twenty software startups were identified. We found the behaviour theory as a useful theoretical lens to explain the technical challenges. Software startups search for local optimal solutions, emphasise on short-run feedback rather than long-run strategies, which results in vague prototype planning, paradox of demonstration and evolving throw-away prototypes. The finding implies that effectual entrepreneurial processes might require a more suitable product development approach than the current state-of-practice.Comment: This is the author's version of the work. Copyright owner's version can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69191-6_15, 8th ICSOB 2017, Essen, German

Business growth, the internet and risk management in the computer games industry

According to Wasserman (2011) the growth of the Internet has transformed the software industry in a wide variety of ways. These include the creation of new business opportunities as well as significant impacts across software business processes such as software development, distribution and product support. This chapter examines one significant sub-sector of the software industry, the computer (or video) games industry, and focuses on the impact on games development companies of the opportunities created by developments in Internet and mobile technologies

The impact of cluster connectedness on firm innovation: R&D effort and outcomes in the textile industry

This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in "The impact of cluster connectedness on firm innovation: R&D effort and outcomes in the textile industry" version of the article as published in the Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2012 september,[copyright Taylor & Francis], available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/08985626.2012.710260"[EN] Recent research into the clustering effect on firms has moved away from a simplistic view to a more complex approach. More realistic and complex causal relationships are now considered when analysing these territorial networks. Specifically, this paper attempts to analyse how cluster connect- edness moderates the relationship of a firm's innovation effort and the results obtained from this effort. We want to question the commonly accepted direct and positive impact of R&D effort, and moreover, we suggest the existence of a saturation effect and that the level of cluster's inter-connectedness in the cluster moderates this effect. We have developed our empirical study focusing on the Spanish textile industrial cluster. This is a complex manufacturing industry that uses relatively low-technology manufacturing and R&D. Our findings suggest that the degree to which a firm is involved with, or connected to, other firms in the cluster can moderate the effect of the R&D effort on its innovation results. More generally, we aim to contribute to the discussion on the degree to which firms should be involved in the cluster network in order to operate efficiently and gain the maximum competitive advantages. Our findings have implications both in recent cluster and network literature as well for institutional policy.Molina Morales, FX.; Expósito Langa, M. (2012). The impact of cluster connectedness on firm innovation: R&D effort and outcomes in the textile industry. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. 24(7-8):685-704. doi:10.1080/08985626.2012.710260S685704247-8Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2007). The process of creative construction: knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3-4), 263-286. doi:10.1002/sej.36Aharonson, B. S., Baum, J. A. C., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Desperately seeking spillovers? Increasing returns, industrial organization and the location of new entrants in geographic and technological space. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(1), 89-130. doi:10.1093/icc/dtl034Albino, V., Carbonara, N., & Giannoccaro, I. (2006). Innovation in industrial districts: An agent-based simulation model. International Journal of Production Economics, 104(1), 30-45. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.12.023Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191-1202. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.012Bell, G. G. (2005). Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 287-295. doi:10.1002/smj.448Bell, M., & Albu, M. (1999). Knowledge Systems and Technological Dynamism in Industrial Clusters in Developing Countries. World Development, 27(9), 1715-1734. doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00073-xBelussi, F., & Arcangeli, F. (1998). A typology of networks: flexible and evolutionary firms. Research Policy, 27(4), 415-428. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(98)00074-2Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2005). Recent Location of Foreign-owned Research and Development Activities by Large Multinational Corporations in the European Regions: The Role of Spillovers and Externalities. Regional Studies, 39(1), 1-16. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320824Boschma, R. A., & ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge Networks and Innovative Performance in an Industrial District: The Case of a Footwear District in the South of Italy. Industry & Innovation, 14(2), 177-199. doi:10.1080/13662710701253441Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in an Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518. doi:10.2307/2392937Breschi, S. (2001). Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975-1005. doi:10.1093/icc/10.4.975CALANTONE, R. (1997). New product activities and performance: The moderating role of environmental hostility. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 179-189. doi:10.1016/s0737-6782(97)00004-0Chell, E., & Baines, S. (2000). Networking, entrepreneurship and microbusiness behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(3), 195-215. doi:10.1080/089856200413464Chung, S. (Andy), Singh, H., & Lee, K. (2000). Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 1-22. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200001)21:13.0.co;2-pCockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. (2003). Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157-182. doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00067Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R & D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569. doi:10.2307/2233763Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. doi:10.2307/2393553Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. doi:10.1086/228943Coombs, J. E., Deeds, D. L., & Duane Ireland, R. (2009). Placing the choice between exploration and exploitation in context: a study of geography and new product development. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 261-279. doi:10.1002/sej.74Crestanello, P., & Tattara, G. (2011). Industrial Clusters and the Governance of the Global Value Chain: The Romania–Veneto Network in Footwear and Clothing. Regional Studies, 45(2), 187-203. doi:10.1080/00343401003596299Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660. doi:10.2307/259056Eraydin, A., & Armatli-Köroğlu, B. (2005). Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(4), 237-266. doi:10.1080/08985620500202632Evenson, R. E., & Kislev, Y. (1973). Research and Productivity in Wheat and Maize. Journal of Political Economy, 81(6), 1309-1329. doi:10.1086/260129Expósito-Langa, M., Molina-Morales, F. X., & Capó-Vicedo, J. (2011). New Product Development and Absorptive Capacity in Industrial Districts: A Multidimensional Approach. Regional Studies, 45(3), 319-331. doi:10.1080/00343400903241535Foss, N. J. (1996). Higher-order industrial Capabilities and competitive advantage. Journal of Industry Studies, 3(1), 1-20. doi:10.1080/13662719600000001George, G., Robley Wood, D., & Khan, R. (2001). Networking strategy of boards: implications for small and medium-sized enterprises. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13(3), 269-285. doi:10.1080/08985620110058115Giuliani, E. 2005. The structure of cluster knowledge networks: Uneven and selective, not pervasive and collective. DRUID Working Paper no. 05-11Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47-68. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.10.008Glasmeier, A. (1991). Technological discontinuities and flexible production networks: The case of Switzerland and the world watch industry. Research Policy, 20(5), 469-485. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90070-7Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.4.375Guerrieri, P., & Pietrobelli, C. (2004). Industrial districts’ evolution and technological regimes: Italy and Taiwan. Technovation, 24(11), 899-914. doi:10.1016/s0166-4972(03)00048-8Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2010). Knowledge flow and inter-firm networks: The influence of network resources, spatial proximity and firm size. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(5), 457-484. doi:10.1080/08985620903171350Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422. doi:10.2307/2393451Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199805)19:53.0.co;2-lLechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task Contingencies in the Curvilinear Relationships Between Intergroup Networks and Initiative Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865-889. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.52814620Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1030.0136Madill, J. J., Haines, G. H., & Riding, A. L. (2004). Networks and linkages among firms and organizations in the Ottawa-region technology cluster. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(5), 351-368. doi:10.1080/0898562042000188414Maskell, P. (1998). Low-Tech Competitive Advantages and the Role Of Proximity. European Urban and Regional Studies, 5(2), 99-118. doi:10.1177/096977649800500201Maskell, P. (2001). Towards a Knowledge-based Theory of the Geographical Cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 921-943. doi:10.1093/icc/10.4.921McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11), 1033-1055. doi:10.1002/smj.484McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1133-1156. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199912)20:123.0.co;2-7Xavier Molina-Morales, F., & Teresa Martínez-Fernández, M. (2006). Industrial districts: something more than a neighbourhood. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(6), 503-524. doi:10.1080/08985620600884750Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2009). Too much love in the neighborhood can hurt: how an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative effects on firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), 1013-1023. doi:10.1002/smj.766Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of Knowledgewithin Industrial Districts: Who They Are, How They Interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817-835. doi:10.1080/00343400701654178Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2009). Knowledge and Information Networks in an Italian Wine Cluster. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 983-1006. doi:10.1080/09654310902949265Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77-91. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171108Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242. doi:10.2307/259373O’Connor, G. C. (1998). Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 151-166. doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1520151Oba, B., & Semerciöz, F. (2005). Antecedents of trust in industrial districts: an empirical analysis of inter-firm relations in a Turkish industrial district. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(3), 163-182. doi:10.1080/08985620500102964Parrilli, M. D. (2009). Collective efficiency, policy inducement and social embeddedness: Drivers for the development of industrial districts. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(1), 1-24. doi:10.1080/08985620801886513Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and Mobility in the Workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673. doi:10.2307/2657354Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-11336-1Pouder, R., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Hot Spots and Blind Spots: Geographical Clusters of Firms and Innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1192-1225. doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9704071867Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and Localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47-59. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320842Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751-766. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.6.751.16026Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2003). Geography, Industrial Organization, and Agglomeration. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 377-393. doi:10.1162/003465303765299882Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 369-386. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:33.0.co;2-mRusso, M. (1985). Technical change and the industrial district: The role of interfirm relations in the growth and transformation of ceramic tile production in Italy. Research Policy, 14(6), 329-343. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(85)90003-4Sammarra, A., & Belussi, F. (2006). Evolution and relocation in fashion-led Italian districts: evidence from two case-studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(6), 543-562. doi:10.1080/08985620600884685Simmie, J. (2004). Innovation and Clustering in the Globalised International Economy. Urban Studies, 41(5-6), 1095-1112. doi:10.1080/00420980410001675823Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316-325. doi:10.2307/3069458STABER, U. (2007). Contextualizing Research on Social Capital in Regional Clusters. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(3), 505-521. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00742.xStock, G. N., Greis, N. P., & Fischer, W. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity and new product development. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12(1), 77-91. doi:10.1016/s1047-8310(00)00040-7Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, Clusters, and Competitive Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258. doi:10.2307/20159032Thompson, P., & Fox-Kean, M. (2005). Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment. American Economic Review, 95(1), 450-460. doi:10.1257/0002828053828509Tsai, W. (2001). KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN INTRAORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS: EFFECTS OF NETWORK POSITION AND ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY ON BUSINESS UNIT INNOVATION AND PERFORMANCE. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004. doi:10.2307/3069443Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). SOCIAL CAPITAL AND VALUE CREATION: THE ROLE OF INTRAFIRM NETWORKS. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. doi:10.2307/257085Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for Innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74-92. doi:10.2307/41165203Uzzi, B. (1997). Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35. doi:10.2307/2393808Varaldo, R., & Ferrucci, L. (1996). The evolutionary nature of the firm within industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 4(1), 27-34. doi:10.1080/09654319608720327Waxell, A., & Malmberg, A. (2007). What is global and what is local in knowledge-generating interaction? The case of the biotech cluster in Uppsala, Sweden. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(2), 137-159. doi:10.1080/08985620601061184Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 587-613. doi:10.1002/smj.183ZUCKER, L. G., DARBY, M. R., & ARMSTRONG, J. (1998). GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCALIZED KNOWLEDGE: SPILLOVERS OR MARKETS? Economic Inquiry, 36(1), 65-86. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1998.tb01696.

Champions, converts, doubters, and defectors: the impact of shifting perceptions on momentum for change

Maintaining momentum is a key influence on the ultimate success of large-scale change. In this paper, we develop theory to explain how stable vs. shifting change-supportive perceptions over time differentially influence the perceived momentum associated with goal-directed change (i.e., change-based momentum). We use cross-level polynomial regression and data obtained early and one year later within an organization implementing a lean manufacturing transformation to model changes in individual perceptions. Results suggest that momentum perceptions are higher for “Champions” (stable and high perceptions over time) as compared to “Converts” (increasing perceptions over time), but momentum perceptions are lower for “Defectors” (decreasing perceptions over time) as compared to “Doubters” (stable and low perceptions over time). We find that even if participants converge upon change-supportive perceptions later in the change process, early divergent perceptions influence subsequent momentum for the change. These findings highlight the important role of temporal shifts in perceptions for organizational change processes

A bibliometric study of the literature on technological innovation: an analysis of 60 international academic journals

This paper aims to contribute to the debate on technological innovation, organization and work. Although technological innovation remained a debated topic in the academic literature during the past years, its implications for organizational processes seem still not sufficiently theorized and empirically investigated. By using two complementary journals’ rankings a search in the ISI Web of Science platform from 1985 through 2013 was performed. To analyze the 998 scientific retrieved contributions a bibliometric analysis has been conducted, adopting also Social Network Analysis tools. Our results reveal a significant growth of the technological innovation literature over the investigated period, the multidisciplinarity of the field and, particularly, the relevance of management and business & economics contributions. Overall, this study offers a broad overview of the literature on technological innovation and emphasizes the opportunity to investigate the role of technological innovation within the organizational life.This paper aims to contribute to the debate on technological innovation, organization and work. Although technological innovation remained a debated topic in the academic literature during the past years, its implications for organizational processes seem still not sufficiently theorized and empirically investigated. By using two complementary journals’ rankings a search in the ISI Web of Science platform from 1985 through 2013 was performed. To analyze the 998 scientific retrieved contributions a bibliometric analysis has been conducted, adopting also Social Network Analysis tools. Our results reveal a significant growth of the technological innovation literature over the investigated period, the multidisciplinarity of the field and, particularly, the relevance of management and business & economics contributions. Overall, this study offers a broad overview of the literature on technological innovation and emphasizes the opportunity to investigate the role of technological innovation within the organizational life.Monograph's chapter

Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model

Over the past decades, universities have increasingly become ambidextrous organizations reconciling scientific and commercial missions. In order to manage this ambidexterity, technology transfer offices (TTOs) were established in most universities. This paper studies a specific, often implemented, but rather understudied type of TTO, namely a hybrid TTO model uniting centralized and decentralized levels. Employing a qualitative research design, we examine how and why the two TTO levels engage in diverse boundary spanning activities to help nascent spin-off companies move through the pre-spin-off process. Our research identifies differences in the types of boundary spanning activities that centralized and decentralized TTOs perform and in the parties they engage with. We find geographical, technological and organizational proximity to be important antecedents of the TTOs’ engagement in external and internal boundary spanning activities. These results have important implications for both academics and practitioners interested in university technology transfer through spin-off creation

A Project Portfolio Management Approach to Tacklingthe Exploration/Exploitation Trade-off

Organizational ambidexterity (OA) is an essen-tial capability for surviving in dynamic business environ-ments that advocates the simultaneous engagement inexploration and exploitation. Over the last decades,knowledge on OA has substantially matured, coveringinsights into antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of OA.However, there is little prescriptive knowledge that offersguidance on how to put OA into practice and to tackle thetrade-off between exploration and exploitation. To addressthis gap, the authors adopt the design science researchparadigm and propose an economic decision model asartifact. The decision model assists organizations inselecting and scheduling exploration and exploitation pro-jects to become ambidextrous in an economically reason-able manner. As for justificatory knowledge, the decisionmodel draws from prescriptive knowledge on projectportfolio management and value-based management, andfrom descriptive knowledge related to OA to structure thefield of action. To evaluate the decision model, its designspecification is discussed against theory-backed designobjectives and with industry experts. The paper alsoinstantiates the decision model as a software prototype andapplies the prototype to a case based on real-world data