Search results

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.

Start-ups are companies that are not yet embedded in a pre-existing network of relationships. Studies that researched how start-ups act in their relationships focused on just one type of action and assumed that start-ups are autonomous in how they choose to act. However, organisational action in relationships is both interactive and dynamic. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how a start-up interacts with its partners over time.

The research aim is addressed through a longitudinal case study of a start-up in the medical device business. It was analysed how this start-up and its six key partners acted and reacted during 18 interactions episodes, what triggered these actions and what the outcomes of their actions were. In addition, the researchers explored if and how the subsequent episodes were related.

First, the case shows that the past and the future affect current episodes. Second, it shows that action was triggered by both internal and external events which could expand or constrain opportunities for future interactions. Third, the findings show that there was a pattern in the interaction modes used during the relationship. Fourth, the findings show that the initial mode of interaction was often imitated by the counterparty. Finally, it is shown that there are clear links between the trigger, interaction process and outcome in an interaction episode.

The results indicate that besides the focal firm, partners should always be actively and directly involved in any research into organisational action. Moreover, action in relationships should be characterised as a dynamic process that is in a state of continual change.

Managers of start-ups: can influence the outcomes of their relationships through their actions; have to react to both opportunities and conflicts in their relationships; can rely on their network to solve conflicts; and should closely consider their own actions and their counterparty’s actions.

The research is valuable because it studies the interactive and dynamic nature of start-ups’ action in relationships.

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’.