Journal of International Entrepreneurship

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 373–409 | Cite as

Startup time, innovation and organizational emergence: A study of USA-based international technology ventures

  • John Stayton
  • Vincent Mangematin


The acceleration of new technology venture launch and growth is an important and rapidly growing field of practice for university-based accelerators, incubators, and technology transfer offices. Based on four comparative case studies of fast-launching clean tech startups in the USA (two of which were university-affiliated), this paper explains how some technology startups are able to develop innovative products, form organizations, internationalize, and release products into global markets very rapidly, and highlights implications for university-sourced ventures. Findings show that two processes, “product emergence” and “organization emergence,” have to be managed strategically, with time as a critical variable to be considered. This paper suggests that there are dynamic tensions between temporal, financial, and human resources in the technology startup process. To start up quickly, the new international technology venture compresses two parallel timelines: product launch and organization launch, which can also accelerate the internationalization process. This study identifies the organizational formation pivot as a risky but necessary transition from a lean, informal, fast-paced technology development project to a structured, legally compliant organization, in the case of a university-sourced venture fully independent from the university that spawned it, that can be trusted for transactions and investment.


Technology startups Venture creation speed New venture creation International entrepreneurship University business incubators Academic entrepreneurship 


Accélérer le lancement, la croissance et l’internationalisation des start-ups: tel est l’objectif des accélérateurs universitaires, des incubateurs et des services de valorisation de la recherche. A partir de la comparaison de quatre start-ups technologiques aux Etats Unis (dont deux affiliées à l’Université), ce papier étudie les mécanismes qui permettent aux jeunes pousses de mettre rapidement des produits sur le marché, d’organiser l’entreprise et de s’internationaliser. Le temps est une variable critique. Cet article suggère que le processus de démarrage de l’entreprise génère de fortes tensions financières, humaines et temporelles car l’entreprise compresse le temps pour tenir deux échéances en parallèle: lancement de produit et de l’organisation. Les accélérateurs jouent principalement en rattrapage d’une lacune de l’équipe fondatrice que ce soit pour avoir accès aux marchés domestiques, pour un accès à l’international ou pour des compétences managériales ou scientifiques. La compression du temps conduit les entreprises à se développer une organisation simplifiée et légère et à mettre sur le marché des produits à viabilité minimum. Les start-ups universitaires ont un meilleur accès international et nécessitent des compétences managériales pour se développer rapidement.

Mots clés

organisations naissantes jeunes pousses technologiques accélération création d’entreprises entreprenariat international entreprenariat scientifique 

JEL Classification

3 Entrepreneurship and 4 International Business 



The authors would like to thank the Special Issue editors James Cunningham, Natasha Evers, and Thomas Hoholm, as well as the two anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.


  1. Acedo FJ, Jones MV (2007) Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition: insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic firms. J World Bus 42(3):236–252. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adizes I (1988) Corporate lifecycles: how and why corporations grow and die and what to do about it. Prentice Hall, Engelwood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson S, Evers N (2015) International opportunity recognition in international new ventures—a dynamic managerial capabilities perspective. J Int Entrep 13:260–276. doi: 10.1007/s10843-015-0149-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson S, Evers N, Griot C (2013) Local and international networks in small firm internationalization: cases from the Rhone-Alpes medical technology regional cluster. Entrep Reg Dev 25(9–10):867–888. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2013.847975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antolín-López R, Céspedes-Lorente J, García-de-Frutos N, Martínez-del-Río J, Pérez-Valls M (2015) Fostering product innovation: differences between new ventures and established firms. Technovation 41–42:25–37. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2015.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Autio E, Sapienza HJ, Almeida JG (2000) Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Acad Manag J 43(5):909–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhave MP (1994) A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. J Bus Ventur 9:223–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bird, B. J. (1992) The operation of intentions in time : the emergence of the new venture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17:11–21Google Scholar
  9. Bluedorn AC, Denhardt RB (1988) Time and organizations. J Manag 14(2):299–320. doi: 10.1177/014920638801400209 Google Scholar
  10. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1). 10.2307/2393807
  11. Brush CG, Manolova TS, Edelman LF (2008) Properties of emerging organizations: an empirical test. J Bus Ventur 23(5):547–566. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Busenitz LW, West GP, Sheperd D, Nelson T, Chandler GN, Zacharakis A (2003) Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions. J Manag 29(3):285–308. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00013-8 Google Scholar
  13. Capelleras J-L, Greene FJ (2008) The determinants and growth implications of venture creation speed. Entrep Reg Dev 20(4):317–343. doi: 10.1080/08985620701855683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Capelleras J-L, Greene FJ, Kantis H, Rabetino R (2010) Venture creation speed and subsequent growth: evidence from South America. J Small Bus Manag 48(3):302–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter NM, Gartner WB, Reynolds PD (1996) Exploring start-up event sequences. J Bus Ventur 11(3):151–166. doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(95)00129-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Casillas JC, Acedo FJ (2013) Speed in the internationalization process of the firm. Int J Manag Rev 15(1):15–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00331.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Casillas JC, Moreno-Menéndez AM (2013) Speed of the internationalization process: the role of diversity and depth in experiential learning. J Int Bus Stud 45(1):85–101. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2013.29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen J, Reilly RR, Lynn GS (2005) The impacts of speed-to-market on new product success: the moderating effects of uncertainty. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(2):199–212. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2005.844926 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chetty S, Johanson M, Martin OM (2014) Speed of internationalization: conceptualization, measurement and validation. J World Bus 49(4):633–650. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2013.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ciabuschi F, Perna A, Snehota I (2012) Assembling resources when forming a new business. J Bus Res 65:220–229Google Scholar
  21. Clausen T, Korneliussen T (2012) The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and speed to the market: the case of incubator firms in Norway. Technovation 32(9–10):560–567. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2012.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ (1994) Determinants of timeliness in product development. J Prod Innov Manag 11(5):381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cooper AC, Dunkelberg WC, Woo CY, Dennis WJ Jr (1990) New business in America: the firms & their owners. The National Federation of Independent Business Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Coviello NE (2006) The network dynamics of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 37:713–731. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Coviello NE, Munro HJ (1995) Growing the entrepreneurial firm: networking for international market development. Eur J Mark 29(7):49–61. doi: 10.1108/03090569510095008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crawford CM (1992) The hidden costs of accelerated product development. J Prod Innov Manag 9:188–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cunningham, J. A., Mangematin, V., O’Kane, C., & O’Reilly, P. (2015). At the frontiers of scientific advancement: the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–20.Google Scholar
  28. Denicolai S, Hagen B, Pisoni A (2015) Be international or be innovative? Be both? The role of the entrepreneurial profile. J Int Entrep 13:390–417. doi: 10.1007/s10843-015-0143-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dess G, Lumpkin GT (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation as a source of innovative strategy. In: Floyd SW, Roos J, Jacobs CD, Kellermans, FW (eds) Innovating strategy process. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  30. Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage *. Manag Sci 35(12):1504–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eisenhardt KM (1989a) Building theories from case. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550Google Scholar
  32. Eisenhardt KM (1989b) Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad Manag J 32(3):543–576Google Scholar
  33. Eisenhardt KM, Brown SL (1998) Time pacing: competing in markets that won’t stand still. Harv Bus Rev 76(2):59–69Google Scholar
  34. Eisenhardt KM, Tabrizi BN (1995) Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the global computer industry. Adm Sci Q 40(1):84–110. doi: 10.2307/2393701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Etemad H (2004) International entrepreneurship as a dynamic adaptive system: towards a grounded theory. J Int Entrep 2(1):5–59. doi: 10.1023/B:JIEN.0000026905.90552.b5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Evers N (2010) Factors influencing the internationalisation of new ventures in the Irish aquaculture industry: An exploratory study. J Int Entrep 8(4):392–416Google Scholar
  37. Evers N, O’Gorman C (2011) Improvised internationalization in new ventures: the role of prior knowledge and networks. Entrep Reg Dev 23(7–8):549–574. doi: 10.1080/08985621003690299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Evers, N., Cunningham, J. A., & Hoholm, T. (2014) Technology entrepreneurship: bringing innovation to the marketplace. Palgrave MacMillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  39. Galbraith J (1982) The stages of growth. J Bus Strateg 3(1):70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gartner WB (1985) A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Acad Manag Rev 10(4):696. doi: 10.2307/258039 Google Scholar
  41. Gartner WB, Frid CJ, Alexander JC (2012) Financing the emerging firm. Small Bus Econ 39(3):745–761. doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9359-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Goktan AB, Miles G (2011) Innovation speed and radicalness: are they inversely related? Manag Decis 49(4):533–547. doi: 10.1108/00251741111126477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Grandi A, Grimaldi R (2003) Exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams. Small Bus Econ 21:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grimaldi R, Grandi A (2005) Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment of incubating models. Technovation 25(2):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guerrero M, Cunningham JA, Urbano D (2015) Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Res Policy 44(3):748–764. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gupta AK, Wilemon DL (1990) Accelerating the development of technology-based new products. Calif Manag Rev 32(2):24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hallen, B. L., Bingham, C. B., & Cohen, S. L. (2014). Do accelerators accelerate? A study of venture accelerators as a path to success. In Academy of Management Proceedings (p. 12955). Academy of Management. 10.5465/AMBPP.2014.185
  48. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Heirman A, Clarysse B (2007) Which tangible and intangible assets matter for innovation speed in start-ups? J Prod Innov Manag 24:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hisrich RD, Peters MP, Shepherd DA (2010) Entrepreneurship, 8th Edition, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill Irwin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Hoholm T, Araujo L (2011) Studying innovation processes in real-time: the promises and challenges of ethnography. Ind Mark Manag 40(6):933–939. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm-a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 23–32.Google Scholar
  53. Johanson J, Vahlne J (2003) Business relationship learning and commitment in the internationalization process. J Int Entrep 1(1):83–101. doi: 10.1023/A:1023219207042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Katz J, Gartner WB (1988) Properties of emerging organizations. Acad Manag Rev 13(3):429–441Google Scholar
  55. Kessler EH, Bierly PE (2002) Is faster really better? An empirical test of the implications of innovation speed. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 49(1):2–12. doi: 10.1109/17.985742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kessler EH, Chakrabarti AK (1996) Innovation speed: a conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Acad Manag Rev 21(4):1143–1191Google Scholar
  57. Kidder, T. (1981) The soul of a new machine. Little Brown & Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  58. Knight GA, Cavusgil ST (2004) Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. J Int Bus Stud 35(2):124–141. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kundu SK, Katz JA (2003) Born-international SMEs: BI-level impacts of resources and intentions. Small Bus Econ 20(1):25–47. doi: 10.1023/A:1020292320170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lechler T (2001) Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success. Small Bus Econ 16(4):263–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lee SS, Osteryoung JS (2004) A comparison of critical success factors for effective operations of university business incubators in the United States and Korea. J Small Bus Manag 42(4):418–426. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2004.00120.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Liao J, Welsch H (2003) Exploring the venture creation process: evidences from tech and non-tech nascent entrepreneurs. Front Entrep Res 2003:662–675Google Scholar
  63. Lukas B a, Menon A (2004) New product quality: intended and unintended consequences of new product development speed. J Bus Res 57(11):1258–1264. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00448-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Madsen TK (2013) Early and rapidly internationalizing ventures: similarities and differences between classifications based on the original international new venture and born global literatures. J Int Entrep 11(1):65–79. doi: 10.1007/s10843-012-0099-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH, Balkin DB (2005) Innovation speed: transferring university technology to market. Res Policy 34(7):1058–1075. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Maslach C, Jackson SE (1981) The measurement of experienced burnout. J Occup Behav 2:99–113. doi: 10.1002/job.4030020205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP (2001) Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol 52:397–422. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McMullen JS, Dimov D (2013) Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. J Manag Stud 50(8):1481–1512Google Scholar
  69. Menon A, Chowdhury J, Lukas BA (2002) Antecedents and outcomes of new product development speed: an interdisciplinary conceptual framework. Ind Mark Manag 31:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mian SA (1997) Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. J Bus Ventur 12:251–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miller, P., & Bound, K. (2011). The startup factories. The rise of accelerator programmes to Cerca con ….Google Scholar
  72. Misra K, Memili E, Welsh DHB, Sarkar S (2012) The determinants of venture creation time: a cross-country perspective. Int Entrep Manag J 10(2):253–276. doi: 10.1007/s11365-012-0226-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Musteen M, Francis J, Datta DK (2010) The influence of international networks on internationalization speed and performance: a study of Czech SMEs. J World Bus 45(3):197–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2009.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nosella A, Grimaldi R (2009) University-level mechanisms supporting the creation of new companies: an analysis of Italian academic spin-offs. Tech Anal Strat Manag 21(6):679–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Núñez R, Cooperrider K (2013) The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 17(5):220–229. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. O’Neal T (2005) Evolving a successful university-based incubator: lessons learned from the UCF technology incubator. Eng Manag J 17(3):11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (1994) Toward a theory of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 25(1):45–64. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, (April), 537–553.Google Scholar
  79. Patton D, Warren L, Bream D (2009) Elements that underpin high-tech business incubation processes. J Technol Transfer 34(6):621–636. doi: 10.1007/s10961-009-9105-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reynolds PD, White SB (1997) The entrepreneurial process: economic growth, men, women, and minorities. Quorum Books, Westport, CTGoogle Scholar
  81. Ries E (2011) The lean startup: how today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. Rubio S, Díaz E, Martín J, Puente JM (2004) Evaluation of subjective mental workload: a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl Psychol 53(1):61–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00161.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schoonhoven CB, Eisenhardt KM, Lyman K (1990) Speeding products to market: waiting time to first product introduction in new firms. Adm Sci Q 35(1):177–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shah SK, Pahnke EC (2014) Parting the ivory curtain: understanding how universities support a diverse set of startups. J Technol Transfer 39(5):780–792. doi: 10.1007/s10961-014-9336-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stanko M a, Molina-Castillo F-J, Munuera-Aleman J-L (2012) Speed to market for innovative products: blessing or curse? J Prod Innov Manag 29(5):751–765. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00943.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Turcan RV, Juho A (2014) What happens to international new ventures beyond start-up: an exploratory study. J Int Entrep 12:129–145. doi: 10.1007/s10843-014-0124-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A (2004) Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Policy 33(1):147–175. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00107-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Weerawardena J, Mort GS, Liesch PW, Knight G (2007) Conceptualizing accelerated internationalization in the born global firm: a dynamic capabilities perspective. J World Bus 42(3):294–306. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Welch C, Paavilainen-Mäntymäki E (2014) Putting process (back) In: Research on the internationalization process of the firm. Int J Manag Rev 16(1):2–23. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Welter F (2011) Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Enterp Theory Pract 35(1):165–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods (Fourth). Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  92. Yu J, Gilbert BA, Oviatt BM (2011) Effects of alliances, time and network cohesion on the initiation of foreign sales by new ventures. Strateg Manag J 32:424–446. doi: 10.1002/smj CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zahra SA (2005) A theory of international new ventures: a decade of research. J Int Bus Stud 36(1):20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zahra SA, Ireland RD, Hitt MA (2000) International expansion by new venture firms. Int Acad Manag J 43(5):925–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zahra S, Wright M, Abdelgawad SG (2014) Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship research. Int Small Bus J 32(5):479–500. doi: 10.1177/0266242613519807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zhang JJ, Lichtenstein Y, Gander J (2015) Designing scalable digital business models. In: Baden-Fuller C, Mangematin V (eds) Advances in strategic management Volume 33: business models and modelling. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 241–277Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Executive Director, Graduate and Executive Programs School of Business and EconomicsSonoma State UniversityRohnert ParkUSA
  2. 2.Grenoble Ecole de ManagementGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations