IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/96156.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Characteristics of technological base, pace of technological development, and growth of young technology-based firms

Author

Listed:
  • Tischler, Joachim

Abstract

Young technology ventures are strongly affected by technological environmental conditions. In the light of opportunity theory, this study focuses on the interaction of a young firm’s technological base and the pace of technological development in its field. It distinguishes three technological characteristics: radicalness, scope, and the degree of collaborative development. Empirical results support the hypothesis that young technology-based firms commercializing radical technologies grow faster in rapidly developing technology fields. By contrast, young firms commercializing technologies that are developed through research collaborations with established firms outperform others when the pace of technological progress is relatively slow. This study provides empirical evidence of a beneficial interplay between technological characteristics and technological environment and offers a modified patent-citation-based criterion for measuring the pace of technological development in different technology fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Tischler, Joachim, 2014. "Characteristics of technological base, pace of technological development, and growth of young technology-based firms," EconStor Preprints 96156, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:96156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/96156/1/Characteristics%20of%20technological%20base%2C%20pace%20of%20technological%20development%2C%20and%20growth%20of%20young%20technology-based%20firms.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vohora, Ajay & Wright, Mike & Lockett, Andy, 2004. "Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 147-175, January.
    2. Kimberly A. Eddleston & Franz Willi Kellermanns & Ravi Sarathy, 2008. "Resource Configuration in Family Firms: Linking Resources, Strategic Planning and Technological Opportunities to Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 26-50, January.
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Ardichvili, Alexander & Cardozo, Richard & Ray, Sourav, 2003. "A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 105-123, January.
    5. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    6. Nerkar, Atul & Shane, Scott, 2003. "When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1391-1410, November.
    7. Murphy, Gregory B. & Trailer, Jeff W. & Hill, Robert C., 1996. "Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 15-23, May.
    8. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technology Regimes and New Firm Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(9), pages 1173-1190, September.
    9. Vaghely, Ivan P. & Julien, Pierre-André, 2010. "Are opportunities recognized or constructed?: An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 73-86, January.
    10. Eleftherios Sapsalis & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007. "The Institutional Sources Of Knowledge And The Value Of Academic Patents," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 139-157.
    11. Guido Buenstorf, 2007. "Creation and Pursuit of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: An Evolutionary Economics Perspective," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 323-337, April.
    12. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    13. Brush, Candida G. & Vanderwerf, Pieter A., 1992. "A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 157-170, March.
    14. Clark, Kim B., 1985. "The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 235-251, October.
    15. Walter, Achim & Auer, Michael & Ritter, Thomas, 2006. "The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 541-567, July.
    16. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    17. Lawrence Plummer & J. Haynie & Joy Godesiabois, 2007. "An Essay on the Origins of Entrepreneurial Opportunity," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 363-379, April.
    18. Song, Michael & Wang, Tang & Parry, Mark E., 2010. "Do market information processes improve new venture performance?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 556-568, November.
    19. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    20. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    21. Khoury, Theodore A. & Pleggenkuhle-Miles, Erin G., 2011. "Shared inventions and the evolution of capabilities: Examining the biotechnology industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 943-956, September.
    22. Choi, Young Rok & Lévesque, Moren & Shepherd, Dean A., 2008. "When should entrepreneurs expedite or delay opportunity exploitation?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 333-355, May.
    23. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    24. Marc Gruber & Ian C. MacMillan & James D. Thompson, 2008. "Look Before You Leap: Market Opportunity Identification in Emerging Technology Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1652-1665, September.
    25. Eckhardt, Jonathan T. & Shane, Scott A., 2011. "Industry changes in technology and complementary assets and the creation of high-growth firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 412-430, July.
    26. Chandler, Gaylen N. & McKelvie, Alexander & Davidsson, Per, 2009. "Asset specificity and behavioral uncertainty as moderators of the sales growth -- Employment growth relationship in emerging ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 373-387, July.
    27. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    28. Clayton M. Christensen & Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1998. "Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-2), pages 207-220, December.
    29. Gruber, Marc, 2007. "Uncovering the value of planning in new venture creation: A process and contingency perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 782-807, November.
    30. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 205-220, February.
    31. Yosem Companys & Jeffery McMullen, 2007. "Strategic Entrepreneurs at Work: The Nature, Discovery, and Exploitation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 301-322, April.
    32. Scott Shane, 2000. "Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 448-469, August.
    33. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    34. Davidsson, Per, 1991. "Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 405-429, November.
    35. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    36. Rajshree Agarwal & Barry L. Bayus, 2002. "The Market Evolution and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1024-1041, August.
    37. Hjorth, Daniel, 2007. "Lessons from Iago: Narrating the event of Entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 712-732, September.
    38. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fischer, Bruno Brandão & Moraes, Gustavo Hermínio Salati Marcondes de & Schaeffer, Paola Rücker, 2019. "Universities' institutional settings and academic entrepreneurship: Notes from a developing country," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 243-252.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Sascha G. & Walter, Achim, 2010. "Contingency Factors and the Technology-Performance-Relationship in Start-ups," EconStor Preprints 37082, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Nerine Mary George & Vinit Parida & Tom Lahti & Joakim Wincent, 2016. "A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: insights on influencing factors," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 309-350, June.
    3. Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Daniele Rotolo & Vito Albino, 2014. "Determinants of Patent Citations in Biotechnology: An Analysis of Patent Influence Across the Industrial and Organizational Boundaries," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-05, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Agarwal, Rajshree & Shah, Sonali K., 2014. "Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1109-1133.
    5. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    6. Walter, Sascha G. & Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Achim, 2010. "The Patenting Behavior of Academic Founders," EconStor Preprints 37083, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    7. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    8. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    9. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    10. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    11. Rahul Kapoor & Nathan R. Furr, 2015. "Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants' technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 416-436, March.
    12. Honggui Li & Zhongwei Chen & Guoxin Ma, 2016. "Corporate Reputation and Performance: A Legitimacy Perspective," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 4(3), pages 181-193.
    13. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    14. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    15. Scott Shane & Sharon Dolmans & Joseph Jankowski & Isabelle Reymen & A. Romme, 2015. "Academic entrepreneurship: Which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spinoffs?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 273-292, April.
    16. Grimaldi, Michele & Cricelli, Livio & Di Giovanni, Martina & Rogo, Francesco, 2015. "The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 286-302.
    17. Hohberger, Jan, 2016. "Diffusion of science-based inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 66-77.
    18. Jolita Greblikaite & Włodzimierz Sroka & Neringa Gerulaitiene, 2016. "Involving Young People in Polish and Lithuanian Social Enterprises by Fostering Entrepreneurial Skills and Abilities as Entrepreneurial Opportunity at University," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 4(3), pages 131-152.
    19. Chris P. Eveleens & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Eva M. M. I. Niesten, 2017. "How network-based incubation helps start-up performance: a systematic review against the background of management theories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 676-713, June.
    20. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    academic spin-off; technology venture; pace of technological progress; patent data; technological base;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L25 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Performance
    • L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship
    • M13 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - New Firms; Startups
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:96156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.