Skip to main content

How and Why do Research-Based Start-Ups Differ at Founding? A Resource-Based Configurational Perspective

The Journal of Technology Transfer volume 29, pages 247–268 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper studies the initial resources on which new organizations are based and how these resources interact with the institutional origin and market characteristics. Using a unique hand-collected data set of research-based start-ups (RBSUs), we empirically test how technological, financial and human resources relate to each other to form distinct starting resource configurations. We find four different start- ing configurations: “venture capital-backed start-ups,” “prospectors,” “product start-ups” and “transitional start-ups”. The results show that VC-backed start-ups are a minority while half of the firms start as prospectors. Market complexity and growth prospects influence the probability of starting with venture capital. The unclearness of the product market at founding characterizes prospectors, while product start-ups mostly have an almost market-ready product targeted at an international niche market. Transitional starters initially commercialize technical know-how through consulting and become product oriented later on. This discussion contributes to the debate concerning the interplay of environment and firm resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Acs, Z.J. and D.B. Audretsch, 1990, Innovation and Technological Change. An International Comparison, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. and M. Fiol, 1994, ‘Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation,’ Academy of Management Review 19(4), 645-670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R. and C. Zott, 2001, ‘Value Creation in E-Business,’ Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7), 493-520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W.B., 1988, ‘Competing Technologies: An Overview,’ in G. Dosi et al. Technical Change and Economic Theory, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 509-607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., 1997, ‘New, Technology-Based Firms in Innovation Networks: Symplectic and Generative Impacts,’ Research Policy 26, 263-281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E. and A. Lumme, 1998, ‘Does the Innovator Role Affect the Perceived Potential for Growth? Analysis of Four Types of New, Technology-Based Firms,’ Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10(1), 41-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J.B., 1991, ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,’ Journal of Management 17(1), 99-120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J.A.C. and J.V. Singh, 1994, ‘Organizational Niches and the Dynamics of Organizational Mortality,’ American Journal of Sociology 100(2), 346-380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birley, S. and P. Westhead, 1994, ‘A Taxonomy of Business Start-Up Reasons and their Impact on Firm Growth and Size,’ Journal of Business Venturing 9, 7-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, C.G., P.G. Greene, and M.M. Hart, 2001, ‘From Initial Idea to Unique Advantage: The Entrepreneurial Challenge of Constructing a Resource Base,’ Academy of Management Executive 15(1), 64-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, M.D., J.B. Sorensen, and C.M. Beckman, 2002, ‘Coming from Good Stock: Career Histories and New Venture Formation,’ Social Structure and Organizations Revisited 19, 229-262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. and S. Iammarino, 2001, ‘EU Regions and Multinational Corporations: Change, Stability and Strengthening of Technological Comparative Advantages,’ Industrial and Corporate Change 10(4), 1007-1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N.M., T.M. Stearns, P.D. Reynolds, and B.A. Miller, 1994, ‘New Venture Strategies: Theory Development with an Empirical Base,’ Strategic Management Journal 15, 21-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. and S.H. Hanks, 1994, ‘Market Attractiveness, Resource-Based Capabilities, Venture Strategies and Venture Performance,’ Journal of Business Venturing 9(4), 331-349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. and S.H. Hanks, 1998, ‘An Examination of the Substitutability of Founders Human and Financial Capital in Emerging Business Ventures,’ Journal of Business Venturing 13, 353-369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, T.J., 2003, ‘Network Resources for Internationalization: The Case of Taiwan's Electronics Firms,’ The Journal of Management Studies 40(5), 1107-1130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C.M., 1997, The Innovator's Dilemma, NY: HarperBusiness, p. 286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., A. Heirman, and J.J. Degroof, 2001, ‘Het Fenomeen Spin-Off in België,’ VTO Studies 21, ISBN 806488.

  • Clarysse, B., M. Wright, A. Lockett, E. Van de Velde, and A. Vohora, 2004, ‘Spinning Out New Ventures: A Typology of Strategies from European Research Institutions,’ in Journal of Business Venturing, in press.

  • Cohen, W.M. and D.A. Levinthal, 1990, ‘Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128-152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D., 1991, ‘A Resource-Based Analysis of Global Competition: The Case of the Bearings Industry,’ Strategic Management Journal 12, 49-68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K.R., 1991, ‘A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought within Industrial Organization Economics,’ Journal of Management 17, 121-154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J.G. and D.P. Slevin, 1990, ‘New Venture Strategic Posture, Structure, and Performance: An Industry Life Cycle Analysis,’ Journal of Business Venturing 5(2), 123-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J.G., J.E. Prescott, and D.P. Slevin, 1990, ‘The Effects of Technological Sophistication on Strategic Profiles, Structure and Firm Performance,’ The Journal of Management Studies 27(5), 485-511.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P.A., 1985, ‘Clio and the Economics of QWERTY,’ American Economic Review 75(2), 332-337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., H. Vermeulen, B. Van Looy, and E. Zimmerman, 1998, ‘Financiering van innovatie in Vlaanderen. Het aanbod van risicokapitaal,’ VTO-series 15, 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeds, D.L., D. DeCarolis, and J. Coombs, 1999, ‘Dynamic Capabilities and New Product Development in High Technology Ventures: An Empirical Analysis of New Biotechnology Firms,’ Journal of Business Venturing 15, 211-229.

    Google Scholar 

  • DSTI 1997/2. Hatzichronoglou, T., 1997, Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification. OECD/GD(97)216, Working Document.

  • Eisenhardt, K. and B.N. Trabrizi, 1995, ‘Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 84-110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeser, H.R. and G.E. Willard, 1990, ‘Founding Strategy and Performance: A Comparison of High and Low Growth High Tech Firms,’ Strategic Management Journal 11, 87-98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friesen, P.H. and D. Miller, 1986, ‘A Mathematical Model of the Adaptive behavior of Organizations,’ The Journal of Management Studies 23(1), 1-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, C. and D. Schendel, 1983, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Strategy Types,’ Strategic Management Journal 4, 153-173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galunic, D.C. and S. Rodan, 1998, ‘Resource Combinations in the Firm: Knowledge Structures and the Potential for Schumpeterian Innovation,’ Strategic Management Journal 19(12), 473-496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W.B., 1985, ‘A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation,’ Academy of Management Review 10(4), 696-706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J.F. Jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black, 1992, Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D.C., 1983, ‘An Empirical Typology of Mature Industrial-Product Environments,’ Academy of Management Journal 26(2), 213-220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks, S.H., C.J. Watson, E. Jansen, and G.N. Chandler, 1993, ‘Tightening the Life-Cycle Construct: A Taxonomic Study of Growth Stage Configurations in High-Technology Organizations,’ Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice Winter, 5-29.

  • Hellmann, T. and M. Puri, 2000a, ‘The Interaction Between Product Market and Financing Stratey: The Role of Venture Capital,’ The Review of Financial Studies 13(4), 959-984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellman, T. and M. Puri, 2000b, ‘Venture Capital and the Professionalization of Start-up Firms: Empirical Evidence, Working Paper Stanford University,’ p. 44.

  • Henderson, R., 1993, ‘Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry,’ RAND Journal of Economics 24(2), 248-270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, C.W. and W.R. Sandberg, 1987, ‘Improving New Venture Performance: The Role of Strategy, Industry Structure and the Entrepreneur,’ Journal of Business Venturing (1), 5-28.

  • Kazanjian, R.K. and R. Drazin, 1990, ‘A Stage-Contingent Model of Design and Growth for Technology-Based New Ventures,’ Journal of Business Venturing 5, 137-150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen, D. and C.L. Shook, 1996, ‘The Application of Cluster Analysis in Strategic Management Research: An Analysis and Critique,’ Strategic Management Journal 17, 441-458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen, D.J., J.G. Combs, C.J. Russell, et al., 1997, ‘Organizational Configurations and Performance: A Meta-Analysis,’ Academy of Management Journal 40(1), 223-240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., K. Lee, and J.M. Pennings, 2001, ‘Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and Performance: A Study of Technology-Based Ventures,’ Strategic Management Journal 22, 615-640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, E.E. and D.C. Bello, 1997, ‘Marketing Innovative Technology to Institutional Buyers in Eductational Settings,’ The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 12(1), 7-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A.Y. and H.W. Volberda, 1999, ‘Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms,’ Organization Science 10(5), 519-534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, B.M.B. and C.G. Brush, 2001, ‘How Do “Resource Bundles” Develop and Change in New Ventures? A Dynamic Model and Longitudinal Exploration,’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Spring, 37-58.

  • Lloyd, S. and G. Royston, 1995, ‘Venture Capitalist Relationships in the Deal Structuring and Post-Investment Stages of New Firm Creation,’ The Journal of Management Studies 32(3), 337-358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., M. Wright, and S. Franklin, 2003, ‘Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies,’ Small Business Economics 20(2), 185-206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G.T. and G.G. Dess, 1996, ‘Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance,’ Academy of Management Review 21(1), 135-172.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I.C., R. Siegel, and P.N.S. Narasimha, 1985, ‘Criteria Used by Venture Capitalists to Evaluate New Venture Proposals,’ Journal of Business Venturing 1, 119-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manigart, S., K. Bayens, and W. Van Hyfte, 2002, ‘The Survival of Venture Capital Backed Companies,’ Venture Capital 4(2), 103-124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manigart, S. and W. Hyfte, 1999, ‘Financiering van innovatie in Vlaanderen. De venture capital sector in internationaal perspectief,’ VTO-series 24, p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manigart, S. and C. Struyf, 1996, ‘Financing High Technology Start-Ups In Belgium: An Explorative Study,’ Small Business Economics 9, 125-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, P.W. and G.A. Athaide, 1991, ‘Strategic Mutual Learning Between Producing and Buying Firms During Product Innovation,’ Journal of Product Innovation Management 8, 155-169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M.H., P. Tertzakian, and J.M. Utterback, 1997, ‘Metrics for Managing Research and Development in the Context of the Product Family,’ Management Science 43(1), 88-111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R.E. and C.C. Snow, 1978, Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, New-York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R.E., C.C. Snow, A.D. Meyer, and H.J. Coleman, 1978, ‘Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process,’ Academy of Management Review July, 546-562.

  • Miller, D. and P. Friesen, 1980, ‘Archetypes of Organizational Transition,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 268-299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. and H. Mintzberg, 1984, ‘The Case for Configuration,’ in D. Miller and P.H. Friesen (eds.), Organizations: A Quantum View, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 125-170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosakowski, E. 1993, ‘A Resource-Based Perspective on the Dynamic Strategy Performance Relationship: An Empirical Examination,’ Journal of Management 19(4), 819-839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.R. 1991, ‘Why do Firms Differ, and How Does It Matter?’ Strategic Management Journal 12, 61-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, B.M. and P.P. McDougall, 1994 ‘Toward a Theory of International New Ventures,’ Journal of International Business Studies First Quarter, 45-64.

  • Penrose, E.T. 1959, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R.L. and J.E. Butler, 2001, ‘Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research?’ Academy of Management Review 26(1), 22-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R.E. and K. Cameron, 1983, ‘Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence,’ Management Science 29(1), 33-51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E.B., 1991, Entrepreneurs in High Technology. Lessons from MIT and Beyond, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. 1987, ‘Theory, Strategy, and Entrepreneurship,’ in D. Teece, (ed.), The Competitive Challenge for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 137-158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A., 1994, Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, p. 226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven, C.B., K.M. Eisenhardt, and K. Lyman, 1990, ‘Speeding Products to Market: Waiting Time to First Product Introduction in New Firms,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 177-207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J., 1934, The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., 2001, ‘Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation,’ Management Science 47(2), 205-220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. and T. Stuart, 2002, ‘Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-Ups,’ Management Science 48(1), 154-170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A.L., 1965, ‘Social Structure and Organizations,’ in J.G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago: Rand-McNally&Co, pp. 142-194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D.J. and B.S. Tether, 1998, ‘Public Policy Measures to Support New Technology-Based Firms in the European Union,’ Research Policy 26, 1037-1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T.E., H. Hoang, and R.C. Hybels, 1999, ‘Interorganizational Endorsements and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures,’ Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 315-349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D.J., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen, 1997, ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,’ Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 509-533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiler, C., S. Metcalfe, and D. Connell, 1993, ‘Business Expansion Through Entrepreneurship: The Influence of Internal and External Barriers to Growth,’ in M. Dodgson and R. Rothwell, (eds.), International Journal of Technology Management, Special Publication on Small Firms and Innovation, pp. 119-132.

  • Utterback, J.M., M. Meyer, E. Roberts, and G. Reitberger, 1988, ‘Technology and Industrial Innovation in Sweden: A Study of Technology-Based Firms Formed Between 1965 and 1980,’ Research Policy 17, 15-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J.M. and F.F. Suárez, 1993, ‘Innovation, Competition and Industry Structure,’ Research Policy 22, 1-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A.H., R. Hudson, and D.M. Schroder, 1984, ‘Designing New Business Start-Up's Entrepreneurial, Organizational, and Ecological Considerations,’ Journal of Management 10, 87-107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B., 1984, ‘A Resource-Based View of the Firm,’ Strategic Management Journal 5, 171-180.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, G.P. III, and J. DeCastro, 2001, ‘The Achilles Heel of Firm Strategy: Resource Weaknesses and Distinctive Inadequacies,’ The Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 417-438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J. and D. Shepherd, 2003, ‘Knowledge-Based Resources, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and the Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses,’ Strategic Management Journal 24, 1307-1314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, C.Y., U. Daellenbach, and C. Nicholls-Nixon, 1994, ‘Theory Building in the Presence of “Randomness”: The Case of Venture Creation and Performance,’ The Journal of Management Studies, 31(4), 507-524.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gent Management School, Ghent University/Vlerick Leuven, Reep 1, 9000, Gent, Belgium

    Ans Heirman & Bart Clarysse

Authors
  1. Ans Heirman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bart Clarysse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heirman, A., Clarysse, B. How and Why do Research-Based Start-Ups Differ at Founding? A Resource-Based Configurational Perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 247–268 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000034122.88495.0d

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000034122.88495.0d

Keywords

  • Human Resource
  • Venture Capital
  • Industrial Organization
  • Product Market
  • Technology Management