5.4
Limitations and future researchThe limitations of the present dissertation as well as the future research avenues it sug-gests can be addressed from the perspectives of the EE, EA, and the methodology herein employed. From the EE viewpoint, one of the main limitations was the exclusion of framework elements (i.e. formal and informal institutions, infrastructure and market de-mand). Every country context is somewhat different based on its framework conditions.
Hence, it is relevant to further our knowledge by investigating the dynamic relationship between the framework and the systemic elements. It is important to note that although framework elements do not directly affect EA, they still influence them indirectly through systemic conditions. Thus, it becomes important to take these into account by preparing a more comprehensive empirical investigation. Likewise, it could be insightful to take this two-layer list of elements or only systemic conditions, similar to this dissertation, and apply them to different and similar contexts to further validate my findings and bench-mark EE performance within other unique localities. The context need not be exclusively countries but might also include large cities, rural or urban areas or even regions and federal states of large countries. In addition, there is a temporal dimension to be employed because EEs can be differentiated in terms of their own stage of development. Hence, a study focusing on and comparing these structural aspects based on their phase of maturity across contexts could prove an interesting investigation.
Furthermore, I introduced the transnational dimension to the framework to open the field to new research avenues. To date, this is the first study to propose doing so as it was deemed essential to show that transnationality can apply to the EE context. The main objection might be that transnationality is suitable in a small economic context where the ecosystem is more often defined on the country level. However, if we expand the focus to a large economy with federal states similar to small countries, the local EE arguably would not extend beyond national borders. However, there could still be convergence effects even if it does not extend beyond the country’s borders.
Moreover, in reflecting on this research agenda, it is relevant to acknowledge that I might have missed including some applicable systemic elements in the theoretical framework, although I added newer concepts (e.g. crowdfunding, engagement events). It is also pos-sible that I could have added more divisions for sub-elements (e.g. support). I decided not to be too detailed by separating all these elements into sub-units because I received critical feedback from the focus group to this effect. Including too many sub-elements would have been too overwhelming and demotivational for respondents and could have pro-voked confusion on the practical differences. Also, some sub-elements would not have been significantly different as sources of theoretical or practical contributions (e.g. net-working services). Hence, it was deemed most important to assess systemic elements and their configurational effects in new venture creation. For example, the leadership element was not divided because leadership in this context is treated as a motivational role mech-anism, no matter if its effects come from the community or venture level. Tacit and ex-plicit knowledge are intertwined, and there could not be one without the other. Social and inter-organisational networks are considered the same in practice because all networks
are established using the founder’s own social networks. Even so, there might be new upcoming additions as the field is still under development, and these would be interesting facets to consider in the future.
Similarly, there should be more information on the dynamics of and interrelations be-tween the systemic elements and their combinational effects (e.g. new ventures with BA backing could be better at attracting VC investments). Likewise, even if some elements were deemed to be less critical for new venture development (e.g. crowdfunding, credit institutions), they might have relevance through complementary effects when joined with other elements or found relevant in different settings. These results could prove illumi-nating. Another interesting point would be to further explain the configurational aspects of the systemic elements and how they influence the founder’s opportunity recognition process, business model (re)configuration in different life-cycle stages and industries, the development of internal activities and dynamics across the new venture value chain and survival and default rates. The latter would involve a series of longitudinal empirical stud-ies.
From the EA viewpoint, it was relevant to prepare a stratified sample by introducing some limitations to the empirical investigation. At the point of departure, it was imperative to exclude BG start-ups currently in their discovery (stand-up) stage because the novice en-trepreneurs and founders running these new ventures would lack experience and know-how earned in the validation stage (start-up). I did not control for their background per se as serial entrepreneurs definitely would have some experience, but the information gath-ered would then not be directly connected to the specific new venture I was addressing.
Likewise, BG start-ups which had passed through the discovery and validation stages and were in their efficiency and scale (scale-up) stages would not have been good sources to mirror EE facets due to the inappropriateness of their experience. The information would not have been up to date, the impressions would have been based on new experiences which would bias previous perceptions, and it would have been complicated to contact the original founders directly, even if they were still active. Additionally, I excluded BG start-ups from the sample which were older than seven years to align with BG theories.
BGs have been demonstrated to achieve an international presence three years after their inception; however, it takes six to seven years after inception to reach higher levels of efficiency (Braunerhjelm and Halldin, 2019) and, thus, enter the third stage. These vet-eran companies are already well established in their international markets and have gone through many changes in their resource allocation to acquire relevant data.
Subsequently, it becomes important to extend this framework to all stages of the life cycle to map those elements which are most important in later stages. As asserted above, the first stages have the strongest impact on BG development and internationalisation; how-ever, other potential elements could be uncovered in later stages. These elements might influence changes in strategies employed, business model innovation, productivity, lia-bilities endured, survival and default rates and entrepreneurial recycling activities. Hence,
5.4 Limitations and future research 89
a fruitful direction from which to examine BG development in the future could be a sur-vival study to determine which start-ups ended up successfully taking a BG path, which could be considered in light of the EE configuration and its developmental status.
In addition, the state of the art analysis is based on the bibliometric technique for review-ing the previous literature, and this turned out to be an important steppreview-ing stone to a deeper dive and utilising a systematic literature review on the topic to draw attention to the underlying themes in a more precise scope. At this point, the EE is not ready for meta-analyses; however, in a couple of years, it might be if more studies on measuring the EE construct become available. The empirical investigation presented in this dissertation is exploratory in nature and remains relatively descriptive by focusing on best-in-class-type firms like BGs. Hence, other studies are called for that introduce and compare perceptions of other types of firms which are rapidly internationalising but have not reached BG status or just tend to stay local. It would be important to juxtapose these with BGs to explore more thoroughly the contextual and configurational differences that distinguish all of these various ventures.
Also in line with this perspective, the two-country context somewhat naturally limits the generalisability of the results, as does the cross-sectional survey nature of the research methodology employed. These limits could be surmounted and my findings further vali-dated by extending similar studies to other parts of the world, using more sophisticated quantitative approaches to assess dynamic interrelations and digging deeper by preparing case studies to obtain richer data with the aim of comprehending founders’ experiences regarding why some elements are more critical than the others, how intra-group differ-ences have played out in real-life scenarios and how this has impacted their efficiency and survivability. Hence, more research should be conducted using ‘bottom-up’ ap-proaches; otherwise, we will be unable to consider each EE’s uniqueness and develop effective policies accordingly. Additional experimental methods would also yield new insights and provide a further point of reference for better appreciating how founders utilise their surroundings to deal with the occurrence of certain liabilities and issues when creating new value frontiers.
In conclusion, the theoretical foundations and conceptual formulation of the EE and ho-listic views of the ecosystem structure and its elements are converging. However, the scantiness of research on the interrelationships and dynamics between the EE and EA in new venture creation became a significant point driving the present dissertation. It is nec-essary to appreciate the ecosystem construct in detail and the dynamics that lie between the elements. To delimit the study, I focused on a two-country context and its systemic elements which control human interactions, defined as the central driving forces of the EA, which are the key to determining the success of an EE. The concept of the EE is critical in facilitating the international growth of new ventures and for enabling rapid and intensive foreign expansion, which is captured by the BG phenomenon. Nevertheless, to date, no other research field has integrated these two streams. The present dissertation represents one of the first exploratory steps in linking the two by outlining and extending the EE construct, its strengths and weaknesses, and the performance of its elements in
catering to the needs of ventures, which it carries out in a two-country context by com-paring and merging the two in order to recognise their united potential for rapidly inter-nationalising BG start-ups. This research presents valuable insights for all interested par-ties by outlining its results in a reflective format which start-up entrepreneurs could con-sider and utilise as a founder’s roadmap.
91
References
Aarikka-Stenroos, L. and Ritala, P. (2017). ‘Network management in the era of ecosys-tems: Systematic review and management framework’, Industrial Marketing Manage-ment, 67, pp. 23–36. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.010.
Acs, Z.J. et al. (2009). ‘The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship’, Small Busi-ness Economics, 32(1), pp. 15–30. doi: 10.1007/s11187-008-9157-3.
Acs, Z.J. et al. (2016). ‘National systems of entrepreneurship’, Small Business Econom-ics, 46(4), pp. 527–535. doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9705-1.
Acs, Z.J. et al. (2017). ‘The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach’, Small Business Economics, 49(1), pp. 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8.
Acs, Z.J. et al. (2018). ‘Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth:
An ecosystem perspective’, Small Business Economics, 51(2), pp. 501–514. doi:
10.1007/s11187-018-0013-9.
Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. and Lehmann, E.E. (2013). ‘The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship’, Small Business Economics, 41(4), pp. 757–774. doi:
10.1007/s11187-013-9505-9.
Acs, Z.J., Autio, E. and Szerb, L. (2014). ‘National systems of entrepreneurship: Meas-urement issues and policy implications’, Research Policy, 43(3), pp. 476–494. doi:
10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016.
Adner, R. (2006) ‘Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem’, Har-vard Business Review, 84(4), pp. 98–107.
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010). ‘Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations’, Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), pp. 306–333. doi: 10.1002/smj.821.
Ahuja, G., Soda, G. and Zaheer, A. (2012). ‘The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks’, Organization Science, 23(2), pp. 434–448. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0695.
Alvedalen, J. and Boschma, R. (2017). ‘A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future research agenda’, European Planning Studies, 25(6), pp. 887–
903. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694.
Andersson, S., Evers, N. and Griot, C. (2013). ‘Local and international networks in small firm internationalization: Cases from the Rhône-Alpes medical technology regional clus-ter’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9–10), pp. 867–888. doi:
10.1080/08985626.2013.847975.
Arregle, J.-L. et al. (2007). ‘The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms’, Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), pp. 73–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00665.x.
Aspelund, A. and Moen, Ø. (2005). ‘Small international firms: Typology, performance and implications’, Management International Review, 45(3), pp. 37–57.
Audretsch, D.B. et al. (2012). ‘Local entrepreneurship in context’, Regional Studies, 46(3), pp. 379–389. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2010.490209.
Audretsch, D.B. et al. (2018). ‘The dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems’, Entrepre-neurship and Regional Development, 30(3–4), pp. 471–474. doi:
10.1080/08985626.2018.1436035.
Audretsch, D.B. et al. (2019). ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Economic, technological, and societal impacts’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), pp. 313–325. doi:
10.1007/s10961-018-9690-4.
Audretsch, D.B. (2019). ‘Have we oversold the Silicon Valley model of entrepreneur-ship?’, Small Business Economics, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00272-4.
Audretsch, D.B. and Belitski, M. (2017). ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establish-ing the framework conditions’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), pp. 1030–
1051. doi: 10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8.
Audretsch, D.B. and Keilbach, M. (2004). ‘Does entrepreneurship capital matter?’, En-trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(5), pp. 419–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00055.x.
Audretsch, D.B. and Link, A.N. (2019). ‘Embracing an entrepreneurial ecosystem: an analysis of the governance of research joint ventures’, Small Business Economics, 52(2), pp. 429–436. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9953-8.
Auerswald, P.E. and Dani, L. (2017). ‘The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosys-tems: The biotechnology cluster’, Small Business Economics, 49(1), pp. 97–117. doi:
10.1007/s11187-017-9869-3.
Auschra, C. et al. (2019). ‘Patterns of project-based organizing in new venture creation’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(1), pp. 48–70. doi:
10.1108/IJMPB-01-2018-0007.
Auschra, C., Schmidt, T. and Sydow, J. (2019). ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems as fields:
Integrating meso-level institutional theory’, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 63(2–
4), pp. 64–78. doi: 10.1515/zfw-2018-0016.
Autio, E. et al. (2014). ‘Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context’, Research Policy, 43(7), pp. 1097–1108. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015.
Autio, E. et al. (2018). ‘Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entre-preneurial ecosystems’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), pp. 72–95. doi:
10.1002/sej.1266.
Autio, E. and Levie, J. (2017). ‘Management of entrepreneurial ecosystems’, in Ah-metoglu, G. et al., eds, The Wiley handbook of entrepreneurship. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781118970812.
Autio, E. and Thomas, L.D.W. (2014). ‘Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innova-tion management.’, in Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., and Phillips, N., eds, The Oxford hand-book of innovation management, pp. 204–228. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
References 93
Bahrami, H. and Evans, S. (1995). ‘Flexible re-cycling and high-technology entrepre-neurship’, California Management Review, 37(3), pp. 62–89. doi: 10.2307/41165799.
Baier-Fuentes, H. et al. (2019). ‘International entrepreneurship: A critical review of the research field’, European Journal of International Management, 13(3), p. 381. doi:
10.1504/EJIM.2019.099427.
Barba-Sánchez, V., Arias-Antúnez, E. and Orozco-Barbosa, L. (2019). ‘Smart cities as a source for entrepreneurial opportunities: Evidence for Spain’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119713.
Barbero, J.L. et al. (2014). ‘Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations?’, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), pp. 151–168. doi:
10.1007/s10961-013-9308-9.
Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B. (2019). Business research methods. 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Belleflamme, P., Omrani, N. and Peitz, M. (2015). ‘The economics of crowdfunding plat-forms’, Information Economics and Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2015.08.003.
Bhawe, N. and Zahra, S.A. (2019). ‘Inducing heterogeneity in local entrepreneurial eco-systems: The role of MNEs’, Small Business Economics, 52(2), pp. 437–454. doi:
10.1007/s11187-017-9954-7.
Bischoff, K. (2019). ‘A study on the perceived strength of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems on the dimensions of stakeholder theory and culture’, Small Business Eco-nomics. doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00257-3.
Bliemel, M. et al. (2019). ‘Accelerators as start-up infrastructure for entrepreneurial clus-ters’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(1–2), pp. 133–149. doi:
10.1080/08985626.2018.1537152.
Bøllingtoft, A. and Ulhøi, J.P. (2005). ‘The networked business incubator—Leveraging entrepreneurial agency?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), pp. 265–290. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.005.
van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M. and Romme, A.G.L. (2012). ‘Value creation by knowledge-based ecosystems: Evidence from a field study’, R and D Management. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00673.x.
Bosma, N. and Stam, E. (2012). ‘Local policies for high-employment growth enterprises’, in OECD report on high-growth firms: Local policies and local determinants.
Boutillier, S., Carré, D. and Levratto, N. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9781119285175.
Boyack, K.W. and Klavans, R. (2010). ‘Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), pp.
2389–2404. doi: 10.1002/asi.21419.
Bramwell, A., Hepburn, N. and Wolfe, D.A. (2019). ‘Growing entrepreneurial ecosys-tems’, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(2), pp. 272–292. doi:
10.1108/JEPP-04-2019-0034.
Braunerhjelm, P. and Halldin, T. (2019). ‘Born globals—Presence, performance and pro-spects’, International Business Review, 28(1), pp. 60–73. doi:
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.07.004.
Brooks, C., Vorley, T. and Gherhes, C. (2019). ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems in Poland:
Panacea, paper tiger or Pandora’s box?’, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(3), pp. 319–338. doi: 10.1108/JEPP-04-2019-0036.
Brown, R. et al. (2019). ‘Start-up factories, transnational entrepreneurs and entrepreneur-ial ecosystems: Unpacking the lure of start-up accelerator programmes’, European Plan-ning Studies, 27(5), pp. 885–904. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1588858.
Brown, R. and Mason, C. (2017). ‘Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems’, Small Business Economics, 49(1), pp.
11–30. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7.
Brown, R. and Mawson, S. (2019). ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems and public policy in ac-tion: A critique of the latest industrial policy blockbuster’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(3), pp. 347–368. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsz011.
Bruns, K. et al. (2017). ‘Searching for the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A regional cross-section growth regression approach’, Small Business Economics, 49(1), pp. 31–54. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9866-6.
Brush, C. et al. (2019). ‘A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems’, Small Business Economics, 53(2), pp. 393–408. doi: 10.1007/s11187-018-9992-9.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. and Stone, M.M. (2006). ‘The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature’, Public Administration Re-view, 66(s1), pp. 44–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x.
Burgelman, R.A. and Hitt, M.A. (2007). ‘Entrepreneurial actions, innovation, and appro-priability’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), pp. 349–352. doi: 10.1002/sej.28.
Byon, K.K. and Zhang, J.J. (2019). ‘Critical statistical and methodological issues in sport management research’, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. doi:
10.1080/1091367X.2019.1684297.
Cairó Battistutti, O. and Bork, D. (2017). ‘Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion’, Cog-nitive Processing. doi: 10.1007/s10339-017-0825-6.
Callon, M. et al. (1983). ‘From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis’, Social Science Information. doi: 10.1177/053901883022002003.
Carayannis, E.G. et al. (2018). ‘The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building
References 95
study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models’, R&D Management, 48(1), pp. 148–162. doi: 10.1111/radm.12300.
Carayannis, E.G., Provance, M. and Grigoroudis, E. (2016). ‘Entrepreneurship ecosys-tems: An agent-based simulation approach’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), pp.
631–653. doi: 10.1007/s10961-016-9466-7.
Carayannis, E.G. and von Zedtwitz, M. (2005). ‘Architecting gloCal (global–local), real-virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies: Lessons learned and best practices from cur-rent development and business incubation’, Technovation, 25(2), pp. 95–110. doi:
10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00072-5.
Casper, S. (2007). ‘How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable?’, Re-search Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.018.
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A. and Balocco, R. (2019). ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystem research:
Present debates and future directions’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), pp. 1291–1321. doi: 10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3.
Cavusgil, T. and Knight, G.A. (2015). ‘The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and ca-pabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization’, Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), pp. 3–16. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2014.62.
Ceccagnoli, M. et al. (2012). ‘Co-creation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software’, MIS Quarterly, 36(1), p. 263. doi: 10.2307/41410417.
Chandler, A.D. (2003). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C., U.S.: Beard Books.
Chemmanur, T.J. and Fulghieri, P. (2014). ‘Entrepreneurial finance and innovation: An introduction and agenda for future research’, Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), pp. 1–
19. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hht063.
Choquette, E. et al. (2017). ‘Born globals—Is there fire behind the smoke?’, International Business Review. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.10.005.
Chua, J.H. et al. (2011). ‘Family involvement and new venture debt financing’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), pp. 472–488. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.11.002.
Cicchiello, A.F. (2019). ‘Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem based on crowdfunding in Europe: The role of public policy’, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(3), pp. 297–318. doi: 10.1108/JEPP-05-2019-0037.
Civera, A., Meoli, M. and Vismara, S. (2019). ‘Do academic spinoffs internationalize?’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2, SI), pp. 381–403. doi: 10.1007/s10961-018-9683-3.
Clarysse, B. et al. (2014). ‘Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between
Clarysse, B. et al. (2014). ‘Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between