Literture Review_Nacent Interpreneurship.pptx

Nacent Interpreneurship

1. Nacent Interpreneurship Lab, Gig or Enterprise? How scientist-inventors form nascent startup teams START HARPITO [NIM: 2330932002] Prof. DONARD GAMES [ Dosen Pengampu ] Advanced Topics in Operations Engineering and Management UNIVERSITAS ANDALAS FAKULTAS TEKNIK DEPARTEMEN TEKNIK INDUSTRI PROGRAM DOKTOR [email protected] [email protected]

2. General Review Develop a framework that highlights the important internal role played by the scientist-inventors themselves, alongside the more widely-studied external drivers of ET formation in academic startups. Research Objective - Identified four key "design principles" that captured the variations in what the scientist-inventors were trying to achieve through their entrepreneurial teams: Control - the extent to which the scientist-inventor wanted to maintain control over the venture; Scope - the breadth or narrowness of the venture's scope and activities; Entitativity - the degree of cohesion and integration within the entrepreneurial team; Dynamism - the expected pace of change and turnover within the team - Clustered design principles into three distinct "commercialization models“ : Lab Model - Focused on maintaining control, narrow scope, high entitativity, and low dynamism; Gig Model - Emphasized flexibility, broad scope, low entitativity, and high dynamism; Enterprise Model - Aimed for balance between control, scope, entitativity, and dynamism Main Finding The authors acknowledge that the qualitative, exploratory nature of this study means the findings should be viewed as preliminary, requiring further research to confirm and expand upon the proposed framework of commercialization models. Larger-scale, longitudinal studies that track academic spinouts over time would help address some of these limitations. Future Research How do individual scientist-inventors form their initial entrepreneurial teams (ETs) to launch university-based startups? Past research has focused more on the roles of external actors like technology transfer offices and investors in shaping academic startup teams, while less is known about how the individual scientist-inventors themselves navigate the ET formation process. Research Problem Longitudinal interviews: multiple interviews over a 5-year period with 9 scientist-inventors at major U.S. universities who were leading nascent startup companies. Archival data : analyzed archival data on the backgrounds of the scientist-inventors. Qualitative analysis : an inductive, qualitative approach to analyze the interview data and identify key themes, patterns, and conceptual models Research Methodology Sample size: The study examined only 9 cases in-depth, limiting generalizability; Context specificity: Findings are based on scientists at major US research universities and may not generalize to other contexts like teaching colleges or other countries; The long-term trajectories and outcomes of these ventures were not examined. Research Limitation

3. ET Key Aspects Organizational culture and values Stakeholder management Resource and capability management Organizational structure The Lab model primarily relies on internal academic resources and expertise. The Gig model actively seeks out external expertise and resources on an as-needed basis. The Enterprise model strategically blends internal and external resources. Resource and capability management The Lab model emphasizes a tight-knit, hierarchical structure centered around the scientist-inventor. The Gig model embraces a more flexible, decentralized structure with temporary collaborators. The Enterprise model combines a stable core team with a more distributed, modular structure. Organizational structure The Lab model maintains a closed, insulated approach to external stakeholders. The Gig model is more open to engaging with a broader network of stakeholders. The Enterprise model takes a strategic, balanced approach to stakeholder relationships. Stakeholder management The Lab model prioritizes academic norms and values, with a focus on control and insulation. The Gig model is more entrepreneurial, embracing flexibility and adaptability. The Enterprise model aims to balance academic and commercial priorities. Organizational culture and values

4. The Three Models Of Startup Team Lab Model Gig Model Enterprise Model Lab Model Focus: Maintaining tight control over the venture and its activities ; Scope: Narrow, technology-focused scope; Entitativity: High cohesion and integration within the entrepreneurial team; Dynamism: Low expected turnover and changes to the team; Team formation: Scientist-inventors tend to draw team members from their existing academic networks, prioritizing loyalty and fit over specific skills; Relationship with external stakeholders: More cautious and protective, trying to maintain control. Gig Model Focus: Emphasizing flexibility and adaptability over control; Scope: Broad, encompassing a wider range of activities beyond the core technology ; Entitativity: Low cohesion, with a more fluid, temporary team structure; Dynamism: High expected turnover and changes to the team composition; Team formation: Scientist-inventors cast a wide net, bringing in diverse talents and expertise as needed for specific tasks or projects; Relationship with external stakeholders: More open and collaborative, leveraging external resources and connections. T he Enterprise model appears to be the most balanced and potentially advantageous approach for academic scientist-entrepreneurs to pursue. Compared to the other two models the Lab model may be too narrow and rigid, limiting the venture's growth potential.The Gig model's highly fluid and adaptable structure could lack the stability and cohesion needed to effectively execute on a business plan. [ Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2023)] Enterprise Model Focus: Emphasizing flexibility and adaptability over control; Scope: Broad, encompassing a wider range of activities beyond the core technology ; Entitativity: Low cohesion, with a more fluid, temporary team structure; Dynamism: High expected turnover and changes to the team composition; Team formation: Scientist-inventors cast a wide net, bringing in diverse talents and expertise as needed for specific tasks or projects; Relationship with external stakeholders: More open and collaborative, leveraging external resources and connections.

5. Sample size of 9 cases is small, limiting generalizability. However, this is a common tradeoff for in-depth longitudinal qualitative research. Data comes from self-reported interviews, which could be subject to biases like selective memory or exaggeration. Using additional data sources would provide triangulation. Case selection focused on variation in background factors but not theoretical variables of interest. Could limit insights into factors predicted by theory to influence outcomes. "Lay theories" construct is novel but not fully developed or validated. Potential for alternate explanations of influences on decision-making. Models are proposed but not quantitatively tested. Future research could examine predictive power through quantitative model testing. Study focuses on initial formation but cannot determine long-term impacts of early decisions/theories on venture success over time. Context is limited to major U.S. research universities. Insights may not generalize to other university or industry science contexts. Findings challenge assumptions but do not definitively prove scientists are always more knowledgeable/influential than assumed. Researchers' own theoretical perspectives may have influenced case analysis and interpretation in hard to measure ways. Implications discussed but no concrete empirical tests of whether interventions based on findings would actually improve outcomes. Critical Review of the Article

6. Conclusion Conclusion Identified three distinct commercialization models employed by the scientist-inventors: the Lab model, the Gig model, and the Enterprise model. These models differed in terms of the scientists' priorities and approaches across several key dimensions, including: Scope and focus of the venture Entitativity and dynamism of the entrepreneurial team Strategies for team formation and engagement with external stakeholders Conclusions 01 02 The study provides valuable insights into the internal decision-making and strategic considerations of these scientist-inventors as they navigate the complex process of transitioning their research into new commercial ventures. Understanding this diversity of approaches can inform more effective policies, programs, and support mechanisms to foster academic entrepreneurship.

7. THANK YOU Never Say Goodbye, But Say See You Again