The role of entrepreneurial decision-making in opportunity creation and recognition

Technovation

Volumn 39-40, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 53-72

  Maine, Elicia ^a   Soh, Pek Hooi ^a   Dos Santos, Nancy ^b  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Causation; Effectuation; Entrepreneurial decision making; Opportunity creation; Opportunity recognition; Scientist entrepreneurs; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; ITERATIVE METHODS;

CAUSATION; EFFECTUATION; OPPORTUNITY CREATION; OPPORTUNITY RECOGNITION; SCIENTIST-ENTREPRENEURS; UNCERTAINTY;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84933544843     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.02.007     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J., 2007. Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 1 (1/2), 11-26.
2. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., Ray, S., 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. J. Bus. Venturing 18 (1), 105-123.
3. Baron, R.A., 2006. Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: how entrepreneurs "connect the dots" to identify new opportunities. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 20 (1), 104-119.
4. Bhide, A., 2000
5. Chandler, G.N., DeTienne, D.R., McKelvie, A., Mumford, T.V., 2011. Causation and effectuation processes: a validation study. J. Bus. Venturing 26 (3), 375-390.
6. Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., Chiesa, V., 2011. Organizational modes for open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: an exploratory analysis. Technovation 31 (1), 22-33.
7. Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plann. 43 (2/3), 354-363.
8. Conceicao, O., Fontes, M., Calapez, T., 2012. The commercialisation decisions of research-based spin-off: targeting the market for technologies. Technovation 32 (1), 43-56.
9. Crespi, G., D'Este, P., Fontana, R., Geuna, A., 2011. The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Res. Policy 40 (1), 55-68.
10. D'Este, P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A., Rentocchini, F., 2012. Inventors and entrepreneurs in academia: what types of skills and experience matter? Technovation 32 (5), 293-303.
11. Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S.D., Wiltbank, R., 2009. Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: differences between experts and novices. J. Bus. Venturing 24 (4), 287-309.
12. DiMasi, J.A., 1995. Success rates for new drugs entering clinical testing in the United States. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 58 (1), 1-14.
13. DiMasi, J.A., Hansen, R.W., Grabowski, H.G., 2003. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22 (2), 151-185.
14. Ding, W., Choi, E., 2011. Divergent path to commercial science: a comparison of scientists' founding and advising activities. Res. Policy 40 (1), 69-80.
15. Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (1), 25-32.
16. Etzkowitz, H., 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Res. Policy 27 (8), 823-833.
17. Fontes, M., 2005. The process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge into economic value conducted by biotechnology spin-offs. Tech-novation 25 (4), 339-347.
18. Gambardella, A., McGahan, A., 2010. Business-model innovation: general purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Plann. 43 (2/3), 262-271.
19. Garnsey, E., 1998. A theory of the early growth of the firm. Ind. Corp. Change 7 (3), 523-556.
20. Garnsey, E., 2003. Developmental conditions of UK biopharmaceutical ventures. Innovation Manag Policy Pract. 5 (2/3), 99-119.
21. Gartner, W.B., 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 10 (4), 696-706.
22. Golec, J., Vernon, J., 2009. Financial risk of the biotech industry versus the pharmaceutical industry. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 7 (3), 155-165.
23. Greenwood, J.C., 2010. Biotechnology: delivering on the promise. Sci. Translational Med. 2 (13) (p13cm1).
24. Gurdon, M.A., Samsom, K.J., 2010. A longitudinal study of success and failure among scientist-started ventures. Technovation 30 (3), 207-214.
25. Hsieh, C., Nickerson, J.A., Zenger, T.R., 2007. Opportunity discovery, problem solving, and the theory of the entrepreneurial firm. J. Manag. Stud. 44 (7), 1255-1277.
26. Hsu, D., 2007. Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Res. Policy 36 (5), 722-741 .
27. Jain, S., George, G., Maltarich, M.A., 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Res. Policy 38 (6), 922-935.
28. Juanola-Feliu, E., Colomer-Farrarons, J., Miribel-Catala, P., Samitier, J., Valls-Pasola, J., 2012. Market challenges facing academic research in commercializing nano- enabled implantable devices for in-vivo biomedical analysis. Technovation 32 (3/4), 193-204.
29. Kirzner, I.M., 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. J. Econ. Lit. 35 (1), 60-85.
30. Lam, A., 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: 'Gold', 'ribbon' or 'puzzle'. Res. Policy 40 (10), 1354-1368.
31. Liebeskind, J.P., Oliver, A.L., Zucker, L., Brewer, M., 1996. Social networks, learning, and flexibility: sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Org. Sci. 7 (4), 428-443.
32. Maine, E., Thomas, V.J., Utterback, J., 2013. Radical innovation from the confluence of technologies: innovation management strategies for the emerging nanobio- technology industry. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jjengtecman.2013.10.007
33. Maine, E., Garnsey, E., 2006. Commercializing generic technology: the case of advanced materials ventures. Res. Policy 35 (3), 375-393.
34. Maine, E., Lubik, S., Garnsey, E., 2012. Process-based vs. product-based innovation: value creation by nanotech ventures. Technovation 32 (3/4), 179-192.
35. McGrath, R., 2010. Business models: a discovery driven approach. Long. Range. Plann. 43 (2/3), 247-261.
36. McMullen, J.S., Shepherd, D.A., 2006. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (1), 132-152.
37. Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P.P, Morse, E.A., Smith, B., 2002. Entrepreneurial cognition theory: rethinking the people side of entrepreneur- ship research. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 27 (2), 93-104.
38. Niosi, J., 2003. Alliances are not enough explaining rapid growth in biotechnology firms. Res. Policy 2 (5), 737-750.
39. Perry, J.T., Chandler, G.N., Markova, G., 2012. Entrepreneurial effectuation: a review and suggestions for future research. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 36 (4), 837-861.
40. Pisano, G., 2006. Can science be a business? Lessons from Biotech. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84 (10), 114-124.
41. Pisano, G., 2010. The evolution of science-based business. Ind. Corp. Change 19 (2), 465-482.
42. Powell, W.W, Koput, K., Smith-Doerr, L., 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 41 (1), 116-145.
43. Read, S., Sarasvathy, S.D., 2005. Knowing what to do and doing what you know: effectuation as a form of entrepreneurial expertise. J. Private Equity 9 (1), 45-62.
44. Sarasvathy, S.D., 2001. Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 (2), 243-263.
45. Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., 2005. New market creation through transformation. J. Evol. Econ. 15 (5), 533-565.
46. Sarasvathy, S.D., Kotha, S., 2001. Managing Knightian uncertainty in the new economy: the RealNetworks case. In: Butler, J. (Ed.), Ecommerce and Entrepre- neurship. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 31 -62
47. Shane, S., 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ. Sci. 11 (4), 448-469.
48. Shane, S., 2003. A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA (The Individual-opportunity Nexus)
49. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25 (1), 217-226.
50. Shepherd, D., 2011. Multilevel entrepreneurship research: opportunities for studying entrepreneurial decision making. J. Manag. 37 (2), 412-420.
51. Soh, P.H., 2003. The role of networking alliances in information acquisition and its implications for new product performance. J. Bus. Venturing 18 (6), 907-917.
52. Soh, P.H., Subramanian, A., When do firms benefit from university-industry R&D collaborations: the implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. J. Bus. Venturing http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus- vent.2013.11.001, in press.
53. Stuart, T.E., Ozdemir, S.Z., Ding, W.W., 2007. Vertical alliance networks: the case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Res. Policy 36 (4), 477-498.
54. Subramanian, A., Lim, K.H., Soh, P.H., 2013. When birds of a feather don't flock together: different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances. Res. Policy 42 (3), 595-612.
55. Willemstein, L., van der Valk, T., Meeus, M., 2007. Dynamics in business models: an empirical analysis of medical biotechnology firms in the Netherlands. Techno-vation 27 (4), 221-232.
56. Wiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S.D., 2006. What to do next? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic Manag. J. 27 (10), 981-998.
57. Yin, R., Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. 2003. Sage; Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
58. Yin, R., Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. 2009. Sage; Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
59. Zhang, J, Soh, PH, Wong, PK., 2010. Entrepreneurial resource acquisition through indirect ties: compensatory effects of prior knowledge. J. Manag. 36 (2), 511-536.
60. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J.S., 2002. Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manage. Sci. 48 (1), 138-153.