Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 1,336 items :

  • Organisational Innovation x
  • Innovation and Technology x
  • Chapters/Articles x
Clear All Modify Search
This content is available to you

Edited by François Thérin, Francesco P. Appio and Hyungseok Yoon

This content is available to you

Edited by François Thérin, Francesco P. Appio and Hyungseok Yoon

Techno-entrepreneurship is defined as the entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial activities of both incumbent and nascent companies operating in a technology- or knowledge-intensive environment that encourages and fosters the development and introduction of technology-based and knowledge-intensive novel products, services, production methods, or business models (Therin, 2009; 2014). It serves as an important conduit to firm growth, job and new industry creation, and economic development (Acs et al., 2016; Audretsch, 2007; Baumol, 2010; Carree and Thurik, 2003; Yoon et al., 2018). Despite its significant socio-economic and spillover effects across other constituents of the global economy, technoentrepreneurship entails high risk and uncertainty that are mainly derived from the fast and dynamically changing nature of technology. Drawing on dynamic and broad views on the phenomenon, this handbook aims to deepen our understanding of techno-entrepreneurship by proposing novel theoretical frameworks, introducing emerging categories of techno-entrepreneurship, and exploring new patterns in entrepreneurial ecosystems and across different countries by using a variety of unique data sources. First, current research is showing that new theoretical frameworks are needed in order to cope with the growing relevance of techno-entrepreneurship initiatives in different countries (Shan et al., 2018; Chaudhry et al., 2018; Judge et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2009; Venkataram, 2004; Phan and Der Foo, 2004; Baark, 1994). At the same time, we have relatively little understanding about emerging categories of entrepreneurship. Accordingly, we include a chapter dedicated to proposing new roles of technological embeddedness in techno-entrepreneurship, and explore relatively new categories of entrepreneurship that are closely related to reverse and frugal innovation, the drone industry, and gender-specific entrepreneurship.

You do not have access to this content

Elin M. Oftedal and Lene Foss

This chapter discusses how responsible start-ups are met in the health sector. Through following three companies, Voco, Cora and Medicus, we acquire insight into the world of challenges the entrepreneurs have when they introduce their technology/service to the healthcare sector. Using institutional theory, we look at the regulative, normative and cognitive dimension of the institutional framework. We use the term ‘institutional wall’ to denote a dense network of formal laws and regulation, informal norms and knowledge and beliefs that act as barriers for the entrepreneurs to access the market. We find that while there is a positive development in the regulative dimension: both the regulative and the normative dimension are set up to favour larger companies. The founders’ responses to the cognitive dimension indicate a lack of belief in Norwegian technology and thus tough access to finance.

This content is available to you

David B. Audretsch, Erik E. Lehmann and Albert N. Link

Within the span of a generation, innovation and entrepreneurship have emerged as two of the most vital forces in the economy and, even more broadly, in society (Link, 2017). It was not always that way. During the second industrial paradigm, or the era of mass production, particularly following World War II, innovation was barely on the radar screen of economics, management, and other social sciences. Rather, what mattered for economic performance was articulated concisely by the management scholar, Alfred Chandler (1990), in the title of his seminal analysis of firm competitiveness and productivity – Scale and Scope. Economic success lies in largescale production, which enabled companies to attain the highest levels of efficiency and productivity while reducing average cost to a minimum. The primacy of physical capital as the driving force underlying economic performance was mirrored at the macroeconomic level through the Solow (1956) model. Economic policy reflected the capital-driven economy with its focus on instruments to stimulate investment in physical capital. Innovation played at best a marginal role, which was considerably more than could be said for entrepreneurship. In an economy where scale and scope dictated competitiveness and efficiency, new and small firms were typically viewed as a burden on the economy, and they were characterized as constituting “sub optimal capacity,” meaning that they lacked sufficient scale to be efficient.

You do not have access to this content

Albert N. Link

This paper presents descriptive findings from 12 case studies of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) award recipients in southeastern states. The focus of the case studies was to determine, to the extent possible, if the Fast Track Initiative encourages more rapid commercialization of research results through the acquisition of private investment capital, and if Fast Track projects progress more rapidly than standard SBIR awards.

You do not have access to this content

John T. Scott

This paper provides case studies for 14 research and development projects funded in 13 New England companies by the Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The performance of the six Fast Track projects, each conducted by a different company, is compared with the performance of eight non-Fast Track projects.

You do not have access to this content

John T. Scott

The purpose of this article is to propose a mechanism – the hurdle-lowering auction – for leveraging the public funds invested in public/private partnerships to promote technology. The article addresses financial engineering – the optimal amount and design of public funding of privately performed investments in technology and innovation carried out by public/private partnerships. Public/private partnerships are joint research ventures combining public and private resources to invest in the research and development of technology and innovations. Thus, financial engineering concerns the design of mechanisms for public funding of public/private partnerships that generate the maximum leverage of the public funds on the private investment and performance. By maximum leverage of public funding, is meant maximum effectiveness of the funds in ensuring the use of the least amount of public funds to get the desired results and ensuring the necessary incentives to get those results given the appropriate amount of public funding.

This content is available to you

Albert N. Link and John T. Scott

This content is available to you

Albert N. Link and John T. Scott

This chapter summarizes the theory and practice of public- sector R & D economic analysis with specific reference to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) efforts to document the impact that their in- house R & D has had on society. Motivating this research is the general expectation and challenge for public institutions to be accountable for their use of public resources. Economic impact analysis is one way that public institutions can quantify the social contribution of their activity. Impact analysis can also provide important lessons to management about the effectiveness of previous resource allocation decisions, and it can provide guidelines for future strategic planning

This content is available to you

Edited by Diane Nijs