1 / 10

Re-inventing collectivism? Using innovation collectives to create and grow new technology firms

David Hudson Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Stoyan Tanev Institute of Technology Innovation Integrative Innovation Management Unit University of Southern Denmark Odense, Denmark. Re-inventing collectivism? Using innovation collectives

ossie
Download Presentation

Re-inventing collectivism? Using innovation collectives to create and grow new technology firms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. David HudsonSprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, CanadaStoyan TanevInstitute of Technology Innovation Integrative Innovation Management Unit University of Southern DenmarkOdense, Denmark Re-inventing collectivism? Using innovation collectives to create and grow new technology firms

  2. Introduction • Summary of lessons learned from action research program resulting in a model with 10 hypotheses examining university spin-off efficiency. • Formation of academic spin-off is conceptualized to be embedded in a collective that includes entrepreneurs and those who help them transform their ideas into ventures. • Ten factors organized into two constructs • idea-venture path • collective structure • The two constructs are identified as determinants of academic spin-off efficiency.

  3. Objective • Examining the factors that affect academic spin-off efficiency. • Action research program including the launching and operation of five collectives that support startup formation over a nine-year period: • Lead to Win 2002 (business creation) • Talent First Network 2002-2006 (OS tech commercialization) • Lead to Win 2009+ (business creation) • Coral CEA 2010+ (Communications Enabled Applications) • 1000 KOTS 2011+ (Keystone of the Shelf startups) • All five collectives associated with the Technology Innovation Management program at Carleton U

  4. Action research context • Student entrepreneurs engage into collectives for the purpose of transforming their ideas into ventures along a specific idea-spin off path. • A collective is comprised of • student entrepreneurs, academics, mentors • individuals who participate in user involvement initiatives • personnel who work for economic development organizations • providers of incubation services and risk capital • company managers. • Each student entrepreneur leads a self-organizing team, contributes specific domain knowledge and professional network ties, and interacts with other members of the collective.

  5. Research model Idea spin off path • Product or process • Distinctiveness of offer / operations • Fit with system level opportunity • Proper use of OS technology • Learning and acting costs • Ties with external groups • # of external groups • Strength of ties Spin-off efficiency • Cost • Time Collective structure • Diversity • Knowledge • Payoff horizon • Stakeholder involvement initiatives • Reputation

  6. Path-related factors - I • Distinctiveness Hypothesis 1: The greater the distinctiveness of a venture’s offer or operational process, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency. • Fit with system level opportunity Hypothesis 2: The greater the fit of a venture’s offer to a system level opportunity being carried out by the collective, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency. • Use of open source technology Hypothesis 3: The greater the extent of proper use of open source technology, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency.

  7. Path-related factors - II • Learning and acting costs Hypothesis 4: The lower the cost of learning from other entrepreneurs and venture stakeholders, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency. • Ties with external groups Hypothesis 5: The greater the number of groups that an entrepreneur can access through ties with other members of the collective, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency. • Tie strength Hypothesis 6: The stronger the ties between the entrepreneur and members of the collective, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency.

  8. Collective -related factors - I • Knowledge diversity Hypothesis 7: The greater the knowledge diversity of the collective, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency. • “Time-to-payoff” diversity Hypothesis 8: The greater the time-to-payoff diversity of the collective, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency.

  9. Collective -related factors - II • Stakeholder interaction Hypothesis 9: The greater the number of stakeholder involvement initiatives in which an entrepreneur can participate to shape and harden his opportunity, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency. • Reputation Hypothesis 10: The stronger the reputation of the collective, the higher the probability of academic spin-off efficiency.

  10. Conclusion • Highlighting the importance of the structure of the collective in which the development of an academic spin-off occurs • identifying the collective-related factors expected to increase academic spin-off efficiency • Examining the time and cost efficiency over all the phases of the development of an academic spin-off, not just the later phases • Focusing on the results of action research carried out over a nine-year period • operating five collectives that focused on the creation of successful ventures

More Related