New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium: Volume 6

A broad range of policy evaluations below is begun in Chapter 2 by Kate Johnston, Colette Henry and Simon Gillespie in their evaluation entitled ‘Encouraging Research and Development in Ireland's Biotechnology Enterprises’. This investigation critically evaluates Irish government policy towards biotechnology development over a preceding 10-year period. In Chapter 3, Anthony Ward, Sarah Cooper, Frank Cave and William Lucas examine ‘The Effect of Industrial Experience on Entrepreneurial Intent and Self-Efficacy in UK Engineering Undergraduates’ in a large-scale study that generally produces satisfactory results in terms of raising the profile of entrepreneurship among undergraduates. Deirdre Hunt, in Chapter 4, again focuses on the evolution of strategy in Ireland, this time towards the more general topic of new firm formation with a personal contribution entitled ‘Now You See Them — Now You Don’t: Paradoxes in Enterprise Development Strategy: The Case of the Disappearing Academic Start-Ups’.

Biotechnology is now considered a key emerging sector in Ireland's economic landscape. Defined as the ‘application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents’ (Forfás Report, 2005), biotechnology is now the main high-technology driver affecting industries as diverse as food, agriculture human health and environmental protection. In 2002 it was estimated that over 400,000 people worldwide were employed in biotech (InterTradeIreland, 2002), with the market for biotechnology products worth an estimated 100 billion (European Commission, 2002). However, according to the Technology Foresight Ireland Report (1999), these figures are predicted to increase significantly, with the expectation that, by the end of 2006, the biotechnology sector will be worth an estimated 250 billion and will employ more than three million workers.

The last three decades have witnessed a fundamental shift in the structure of many western economies, which have seen a decline in the number of large enterprises and a marked increase in the number of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Cooper, 1998). In1999 there were 3.7 million enterprises in the UK, of which 24,000 were medium sized (50–249 employees) and there were only 7,000 large firms (250 or more); SMEs accounted for 38% of national turnover (Hawkins, 2001). There is growing recognition that the future of work for many will lie in SMEs, as small firms play an increasingly important role in economic development and growth, and opportunities for life-long careers in large firms decline (Cooper, 1997). The rate of technological and economic change will also lead to individuals as well as employers having a greater variety of careers; thus, the concept of the portfolio career is likely to become much more common (Henderson & Robertson, 2000). Such trends imply that the world of work, which today's graduates are entering, is very different from that which their counterparts stepped into a decade ago. Today's resource-constrained small firm represents a fast changing, dynamic environment in need of adaptable, flexible and multitasking employees, who are able to contribute and add value to the organisation from a very early stage. The challenge for education is to develop future employees who not only have the right skills but also the ability to learn from experience and adapt to a dynamic and rapidly changing environment.

A series of research experiences provoked this paper. In the spring of 2003, I was asked to act as an assessor, for the Island of Ireland Seed Corn competition¹. There I came across academic start-ups (ASUs), directly linked to Irish public sector science and technology (S&T) funding. Several of the competition teams consisted of young scientists, who presented business plans. Probing demonstrated that the teams appeared to possess little understanding of the business concepts these contained. Another consistent finding was that any market reference made was focused on multinational corporation (MNC) subsidiaries already located in the country. Intrigued by this, together with a colleague, we then began looking at ASUs, university-based funded S&T research centres and the activities of the newly created Science Foundation of Ireland (SFI).²

There is growing worldwide interest in entrepreneurship and new business development. This has become particularly widespread in Sweden during the last 10 years. We see more and more professorships in entrepreneurship at our universities, new credit-bearing courses on entrepreneurship are emerging and different training programmes for those who want to start new firms are being developed. Among established firms, we are also seeing much activity, for example Swedish firms such as Ericsson, Telia and Saab have in recent years instituted activities to stimulate fresh ideas through intrapreneurship and take advantage of the energy and ideas of individuals involved in the day-to-day operation of their businesses. The trend is clear — the number of initiatives aimed at stimulating the entrepreneurial behaviour of individuals is growing.

Despite a recent increase in government funded intervention schemes a number of attitudinal and operational barriers continue to constrain university technology transfer in the UK (Wright, Birley, & Mosey, 2004). A recent report commissioned by the UK government (Lambert, 2003) asserts that the inability of some universities to develop links with industry is a key barrier to the commercialisation of research. Moreover it is argued that academics focus exclusively upon their research due to the explicit link to career progression (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). As a result academics, in the main, remain reluctant to explore the potential for commercialising their research. This paper considers a novel fellowship scheme aiming to overcome these barriers by retraining academics and encouraging them to interact with their peers and with industry practitioners to help commercialise research within their schools.

Within academic literature, there has been a burgeoning of literature in the field of economic geography which has centred on the nature of local concentrations of economic activity, with particular interest on those which are most dynamic, variously styled as clusters (Porter, 1990; Swann, Prevezer, & Stout, 1998), innovative milieux (Camagni, 1991), industrial districts (Piore & Sable, 1984), new industrial spaces (Scott, 1988) and nodes (Amin & Thrift, 1992). Such intense interest among geographers stands in contrast to the relatively more muted impact within the management, and more specifically, the strategy field (Audretsch, 2000). What makes this particularly odd are firstly, the intense interest of policy makers that has been stimulated by the seminal work of Porter (1990), and secondly the manifest claim and implication of much of the extant literature that the existence of dynamic clusters is at once both a result of corporate strategies and also a vital consideration which should inform strategic thinking. This chapter assesses the extent to which one of the UK's most successful clusters behaves in ways which are consistent with Porter's positive statements about the nature of clusters. In doing so, the chapter will consider insights which the wider literature offers on how and when concentrations of economic activity will give rise to superior performance, at least among some of the firms located there, which do not feature prominently in Porter's thinking. In particular, it will explore Martin and Sunley's (2003) critique of Porter's clusters concept and its utility as a basis for regional development policy. It will also consider recent contributions which claim that the resource-based theory (RBT) of the firm offers a superior framework for thinking about the strategic implications of clusters for corporate strategy, rather than the more industrial organization-based lens through which Porter views this issue. This chapter concludes that a synthesis is warranted rather than an attempt to claim that one view is correct and the other wrong.

Over many years people have tried to understand the entrepreneurial process (e.g., Hayek, 1945; Kirzner, 1973; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Schumpeter, 1934). Van der Veen and Wakkee (2004) reviewed the literature and introduced the role of the entrepreneur and the environment in this process. An environment can have two roles: as a stimulus for opportunity (Burt, 1992; Gaglio, 1997; Shane, 2000; Vesper, 1989), and as a resource for pursuing that opportunity (Brush, Greene, & Hart, 2001). The view emerging from the research by Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Van der Veen and Wakkee (2004), is that the entrepreneurial process is not merely a series of decisions, but more a sequence of events the entrepreneur goes through as a result of the environment and previous actions taken.

It is widely recognised that universities and other research institutions (hereinafter, PRIs) are sources of knowledge in their regional and national economies. They have a broad impact on economic growth through several activities, including educational partnerships, industry-sponsored research, job placement, technical assistance to industry and the creation of start-up firms. This is essentially an issue of knowledge transfer from PRIs to industry, which may take several forms and be either direct or indirect in nature.¹

The “New Economy” was the economic buzzword of the 1990s. Digitization and networking, accompanied disproportionally by an increasing efficiency of information and communication technology exchanges, served as the foundation for sustainable economic changes in the way business is conducted (Gersch & Goeke, 2004). The new Internet architecture and the economic transactions that are based on it became of increasing importance worldwide.

Despite their increasing importance in innovation, employment creation and economic growth, there is a dearth of theory-driven research on the financing and capital structure of new technology-based firms (NTBFs).¹ Hogan and Hutson (2005a) advance the High-Technology Pecking Order Hypothesis (HTPOH) to explain the role of equity in the financing of NTBFs in the software product sector. The HTPOH posits that NTBFs exhibit a hierarchical pattern of financing that gives precedence to internal sources, but if external financing is required, equity is preferred to debt. This study investigates the extent to which the genesis of the NTBF affects its financing patterns?

In 2003, there was a concern among policymakers that spin-outs were being given undue prominence in consideration of the research commercialisation performance of UK Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) (Lambert, 2003). The aim of this research was to investigate what issues lay behind the data reported on spin-out activity by UK HEIs in the period 1998–2002.

In the UK there is now recognition that university research can be a valuable source of intellectual property (IP) on which new wealth-creating industries can be based. This recognition has led to a debate about, how best the IP can be developed, captured and transferred to the commercial world. The Lambert Report, published in December 2003 made many useful observations about the relative merits of licensing or spin-out models of technology commercialisation and the roles of university-based Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) in stimulating or supporting these processes (Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, 2003).

Previous studies have shown that small- and medium-sized manufacturing firms make a substantial contribution to national economies in terms of job and wealth creation (Daly & McCann, 1992; Schreyer, 1996). However, many smaller firms face unprecedented change arising from the increasingly competitive and changing environment in which they operate (Coopers and Lybrand, 1997; D’Aveni, 1994). Much of this competition often emanates from larger firms with greater resource capabilities. Firms of all sizes are increasingly turning to strategy as a means of achieving competitive advantage. Strategy research is mainly directed towards examining why firms differ in performance (Barnett & Burgelman, 1996; Schendel, 1996). Strategy has ‘undergone, in the 1990s, a major shift in focus regarding the sources of sustainable competitive advantage: from industry to firm specific effects’ (Spanos & Lioukas, 2001). This involves more than strategy formulation — it is about making choices based on competing alternatives and implementing the chosen direction using the organisational processes and systems (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2002; Stopford, 2001). Other writers, such as Pettigrew and Fenton (2000), acknowledge that ‘soft’ aspects are an integral part of the evolutionary nature of strategy, and include cultural influences (Chakravarthy & Doz, 1992) and leadership (McNulty & Pettigrew, 1999).

Beyond the widely acknowledged importance of new business, the role of young exporting high-tech business in Israel and many other small economies is seen as vital for economic growth. Israel is small and geographically isolated from the main markets, suffers from security difficulties, but fosters a culture, which promotes knowledge rich new technologies. Thus, new ventures with leading edge technologies and prospects of high growth and profitability offer a means to achieve the national goal of economical independence. Internationally however, the high-technology sector has recently suffered badly from the bursting of the dot.com bubble and the crash of the Nasdaq.