ارائه مدلی برای موفقیت شرکتهای دانش بنیان و فناور نوپا در ایران با تمرکز بر تناسب ویژگی‌های ایده و عامل (تیم)

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه آزاد قزوین

2 دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشگاه شاهد

چکیده

کارآفرینی در حوزه دانشی، به واسطه تغییرات سریع و عدم قطعیت محیطی، دارای مشکلات عدیده‌ای است؛ اما این شرکتها به عنوان پیشران‏ بوده و بدون حضور اثربخش آنها نمی توان به موفقیت های چشمگیر در دانش، اقتصاد و اشتغال دست یافت. ایده و تیم این کسب و کارها در زمره مهمترین مولفه ها برای کسب موفقیت این شرکتهاست. این پژوهش با هدف بررسی تاثیر و تناسب مولفه های ایده و تیم در موفقیت شرکتهای دانش بنیان و فناور نوپا انجام شد. یافته های این پژوهش از نوع کاربردی؛ و بر حسب گردآوری اطلاعات، کیفی-داده بنیاد بود که داده‏های آن از مصاحبه های نیمه ساختار یافته و عمیق با 21 کارآفرین این حوزه در استان خراسان رضوی، گردآوری و تحلیل گردید. نتایج پژوهش به ما نشان داد که شرکتهای با ایده دانش بنیان از پیوندهای ضعیف، تحصیلات بالا، تجارب بالا در صنعت و حداقل در کارآفرینی برخوردارند. برای بهبود عملکرد می باید، مکانیزمی برای بهبود ارتباطات بین فردی تعبیه نموده؛ تاب آوری خود را افزوده و خواسته مشتریان را بیشتر مد نظر قرار دهند. اما شرکت های دارای ایده فناور، اعضا با پیوندهای قوی، تحصیلات متوسط، تجارب صنعت محدود و کارآفرینی قابل توجه حضور دارند؛ برای بهبود عملکرد می باید، تغییرات حوزه فنی را دقیق تر پایش و اهدافشان را شفاف تر نموده؛ و مهارتهای فنی شان را افزایش دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Presenting a model for the success of knowledge-based and technology-based start-ups in Iran by focusing on the appropriateness of the idea and team

نویسندگان [English]

  • mohsen shahraki 1
  • Kamal Sakhdari 2
  • Ahmad Sardari 3
  • Mohammad Azizi 2

چکیده [English]

Entrepreneurship in the field of knowledge has numerous problems due to dramatic changes and environmental uncertainty; However, these firms are considered as precursor, and substantial progress in knowledge, economics and employment cannot be achieved unbeknownst to them. The idea and team of such businesses are key elements for the success of these firms. The current study was carried out to investigate the impact and appropriateness of idea and team elements on the success of knowledge-based and technology-based start-ups. Results were proved to be applicable and fundamental based on the data collection, obtaining from semi-structured and in-depth interviews with 21 professional entrepreneurs in Khorasan Razavi province. It was revealed that companies with knowledge-based ideas possess weak ties, high level of education, high experience in industry and low in entrepreneurship. To improve performance, a system on the basis of interpersonal communication improvement, behavioral resources increasing, and paying more attention to customer demand must be organized. However, in technology-based start-ups, members were shown strong ties, intermediate education, limited industry experience, and considerable entrepreneurship. So, they need to monitor the changes in technical area more accurately, make the goals clear, and increase the technical skills in order to improve performance.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • knowledge-based and technology-based start-ups
  • idea
  • team
  • The success model of knowledge-based and technology-based start-ups
  • Razavi Khorasan Province
5. Allen, M.J., Drummond, J.A., Sweetman, D.J., Moffat, K.G (2007). Analysis of two P-element enhancer-trap insertion lines that show expression in the giant fibre neuron of Drosophila melanogaster. Genes Brain Behav. 6(4): 347--358. 6. Alvarez SA, Barney JB (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1(1/2): 11–26. 7. Alvarez SA, Barney JB (2010). Entrepreneurship and epistemology: the philosophical underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Annals 4: 557–583. 8. Alvarez SA, Barney JB, Anderson P. (2012). Forming and exploiting opportunities: the implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science 24: 301–317. 9. Anderson, M., Banker, R., Ravindran, S. (2000) .Executive compensation in the information technology industry.Management Science 46, 530–547. 10. Audretsch, D. B. (1991): New Firm-Survival and the Technological Regime. Review of Economics and Statistics, V. 60, p:441-445. 11. Bailetti, Tony (2012). Technology Entrepreneurship: Overview, Definition, and Distinctive Aspects. The Technology Innovation Management Review. 12. Becker, Gary S. (1975). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, Second Edition. National Bureau of Economic Research. 13. Baker, T. & Miner, A., & Eesley, D. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving, and improvisational competency in the founding process. Research Policy, 32, 255–276. 14. Baum JR, Bird BJ. 2010. The successful intelligence of high-growth entrepreneurs: links to new venture growth. Organization Science 21: 397–412. 15. Baron, R. A., & Shane , S. A. (2008). Entrepreneurship: A process perspective. (2nd edition ed): Thomson, South Western. 16. Becker GS. (1964). Human Capital. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 17. Bird, B. (1989). Entrepreneurial Behavior. Scott, Foresman & Co., Glenview, IL. 18. Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, p: 223-242. 19. Bygrave, W., & Hoffer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), p: 13-22. 20. Chandler, G.N., Honig, B., & Wiklund, J. (2005). Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 705–725. 21. Choi, Y. R., and Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurs' Decisions to Exploit Opportunities. Journal of Management, Vol. 30, pp. 377-395. 22. Cooper, A.C., Daily, C.M. (1997). Entrepreneurial teams. In: Sexton, D.L., Smilor, R.W. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, p: 127–150. 23. Cooper, A. C. and Bruno, A. (1977). Success Among High Technology Firms. Business Horizons 20(2): 16–22. 24. Cooney, Thomas M., (2005). Editorial: What is an Entrepreneurial Team?. International Small Business Journal, V23(3), p: 226–235. 25. Colombo, M.G., Grilli, L. (2005). Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: a competence-based view. Research Policy 34 (6), p: 795–816. 26. Creswell, John W & Garrett, Amanda l. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, Vol 28 No 3. 27. Davidsson, Per & Tonelli, Marcello (2013). Towards a operable entrepreneurship nexus : conceptualizing venture ideas and their characteristics. In Toombs, Leslie (Ed.) 73rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management : Capitalism in Question, 9-13 August 2013, Lake Buena Vista (Orlando), Florida. 28. Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing. 29. Davidsson, Per (2005). The Types and Contextual Fit of Entrepreneurial Processes. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. 30. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), p: 301-331. 31. Dyer, W. Gibb; Dyer, Jeffrey H.; Dyer, William G. (2013). Team Building: Proven Strategies for Improving Team Performance, 5th Edition. Publisher(s): Jossey-Bass, ISBN: 9781118416143 32. Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), p: 385-410. 33. Dess GG, Beard DW. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, v 29; p: 52–73. 34. Druilhe, C & ,.Garnsey, E.(2004). Do Academic Spin-Outs Differ and Does it Matter ? The Journal of Technology Transfer. 35. Edelman L, Yli-Renko H. (2010). The impact of environment and entrepreneurial perceptions on venture-creation efforts: bridging the discovery and creation views of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34; P: 833–856. 36. Eisenhardt, K.M. & Schoonhoven, C.B., (1990). Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, p: 504–529. 37. Goulding, Christina, (2002). Grounded Theory “A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers”. SAGE Publications Ltd. 38. Glaser, B.G & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York, Aldine. 39. Hmieleski KM & Baron RA. (2008). Regulatory focus and new venture performance: a study of entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2(4); p: 285– 299. 40. Hmieleski, J.C. & Carr, R.A. Baron, (2015). Integrating discovery and creation perspectives of entrepreneurial action: the relative roles of founding CEO human capital, social capital, and psychological capital in contexts of risk versus uncertainty. Strateg. Entrep. J., 9, pp: 289-312. 41. http://www.isti.ir/ 42. Jaksic & Jovanovic, Maja; Petkovic, Milica, (2015). Technology Entrepreneurship in the Changing Business Environment – A Triple Helix Performance Model. Amfiteatru Economic. 43. Jensen, Tommy H. Clausen (2017). Origins and emergence of exploration and exploitation capabilities in new technology-based firms. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, p: 1-13. 44. Kamm, J.B., Shuman, J.C., Seeger, J.A., Nurick, A.J. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: a research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14 (4); p: 7–17. 45. Kim, N., Chang, D. R., & Shocker, A. D. (2000). Modelling intercategory and generational dynamics for a growing information technology industry. Management Science, 46; p: 496– 512. 46. Kristinsson, Kari; Candi, Marina; J. Samundsson, Rognvaldur, (2016). The Relationship between Founder Team Diversity and Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of Causation Logic. Long Range Plannin, 49, p: 464-476. 47. Lasch, F., Le Roy, F., & Yami, S. (2007). Critical growth factors of ICT start-ups. Management decision,vol 45 (1); p:62-75. 48. Lechler, T. (2001). Social interaction: a determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success. Small Business Economics v 16 (4); p: 263–278. 49. Leung A. (2003). Different ties for different needs: recruitment practices of entrepreneurial firms at different developmental phases. Human Resource Management 42; p: 303–320. 50. Lin N. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences). Cambridge University Press: New York. 51. Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. (2007a). Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology 60; p: 541–572. 52. Luthans F, Youssef CM, Avolio BJ. (2007b). Psychological Capital: Developing Human Competitive Advantage. Oxford University Press: New York. 53. Martina, Konigova. Urbancova Hana. Fejfar Jiri. (2012). Identification of Managerial Competencies in Knowledge-based Organizations. Journal of Competitiveness. Vol 4 .Iss: 1; p: 129-142. 54. Marvel, M. R., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2007). Technology Entrepreneurs’ Human Capital and Its Effects on Innovation Radicalness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6); p: 807–828. 55. Masten AS. (2001). Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. American Psychologist 56; p:227–238. 56. Matusik SF & Fitza M. (2012). Diversification in the venture capital industry: leveraging knowledge under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal 33(4); p: 407–426. 57. Mosey, Simon & Wright, Mike, (2007). From Human Capital to Social Capital: A Longitudinal Study of Technology-Based Academic Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 58. Mendelson, H. (2000). Organizational architecture and success in the information technology industry. Management Science. (46:4); p: 513-529. 59. Mintzberg H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Free Press: New York. 60. Pilat, D., & Wölfl, A. (2004). ICT production and ICT use: what role in aggregate productivity growth?. The Economic impact of ICT-measurement, evidence, and implications; p: 85-104. 61. Raymond, William, (2005). Building A Successful Team. Journal of Knowledge Management. 62. Read S, Dew N, Sarasvathy SD, Wiltbank R. (2009). Marketing under uncertainty: the logic of an effectual approach. Journal of Marketing 73; p: 1–18. 63. Roberts, E.B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond. Oxford University Press, New York. 64. Sanchez, D., Ganfornina, M.D., Torres-Schumann, S., Speese, S.D., Lora, J.M., Bastiani, M.J. (2000). Characterization of two novel lipocalins expressed in the Drosophila embryonic nervous system. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 44(4); p: 349--359. 65. Sánchez José C.& García Brizeida R. & Sánchez Hernández (2017). Entrepreneurship Education as a Key Antecedent to Boost Nascent Entrepreneurs. Business Science. 66. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001a). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2); p: 243 – 263. 67. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001b). What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial? submission to Harvard Business Review, available at: www. effectuation. org/ftp/effectua. Pdf. 68. Schmitt A, Gielnik MM, Zacher H, Klemann DK. (2013). The motivational benefits of specific versus general optimism. Journal of Positive Psychology 8; p: 425–434. 69. Semasinge, D., Davidsson, P., and Steffens, P. R. (2011). Nascent venture performance: linking novelty of venture ideas and commitment of firm founders as predictors. In: Maritz, A. (Ed.): Proceedings of the 8th AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Vic, pp: 597-607. 70. Semasinge, D., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Venture idea newness, relatedness and performance in nascent ventures. In Gillin, L (Ed.) Proceedings of the 6th International AGSE Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Feb 3-6, 2009, ECTC, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, Swinburne University of Technology, Adelaide, Australia. 71. Semasinghe, D. M. (2011). The role of Idea Novelty and Relatedness on Venture Performance. Doctoral Dissertation. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. 72. Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual–Opportunity Nexus. Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA. 73. Shane, S., & Eckhardt, J. (2003). The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. In J. A. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction; pp:161–191. 74. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1); p: 217-226. 75. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ. Sci. 11 (4); p: 448–469. 76. Shepherd, D.A., DeTienne, D.R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Enterp. Theory Pract. 29 (1); p: 91–112. 77. Shrader, Rod & Siegel, Donald, (2007), Accessing the Relationship Between Human Capital and Firm Performance: Evidence from Technology-Based New Ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 78. Sirmon DG, Hitt MA, Ireland RD. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review 32; p: 273–292. 79. Slavec A. & Prodan I. (2012). The influence of entrepreneur’s characteristics on small manufacturing firm debt financing. Journal for East European Studies 17; p: 104 –130. 80. Smulders, J. & L. Bretschger (2007). Sustainable Use of Resources and Economic Dynamics. ournal of Environmental & Resource Economics, Vol.36; pp:1-13. 81. Snyder CR, Cheavens J, Sympson SC. (1997). Hope: an individual motive for social commerce. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 1; p: 107–118. 82. Stajkovic AD. & Luthans F. (1998). Self-efficacy and workrelated performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, vol 124; p: 240–261. 83. Stam, Wouter & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial Orientation and New Venture Performance: The Moderating Role of Intra- and Extra-Industry Social Capital. The Academy of Management Journal 84. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Research; pp: 275-275. 85. Unger JM, Rauch A, Frese M, Rosenbusch N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Venturing 26; p: 341–358. 86. Wagner Joachim (1992). Firm Size, Firm Growth, and Persistence of Chance: Testing GIBRAT‟s Law with Establishment Data From Lawer Saxony, 1978-1989. Small Business Economics, Volume 4; p: 125 -131. 87. Wiltbank R, Dew N, Read S, Sarasvathy SD. (2006). What to do next? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic Management Journal 27(10); p: 981–998. 88. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13); p: 1307 -1314. 89. Wright M, Hmieleski KM, Siegel D, Ensley MD. (2007). The role of human capital in technological entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31; p: 791–806. 90. Yuanyue, Feng (2013). THE DYNAMISM OF IT ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAM: AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE. a thesis submitted for the degree of doctor of philosophy, department of information systems national university of singapore.