International versus domestic entrepreneurship: New venture strategic behavior and industry structure

International entrepreneurship is defined in this study as the development of international new ventures or start-ups that, from their inception, engage in international business, thus viewing their operating domain as international from the initial stages of the firm's operation.One hundred and eighty-eight new venture firms in the computer and communications equipment manufacturing industries are classified according to the percentage of their sales in the international market. Ventures with no sales derived from international activities are considered “domestic” new ventures, and ventures with sales from international activities comprising greater than 5% of total sales are considered “international” new ventures.The strategy and industry structure profiles of international new ventures are significantly different from domestic new ventures. The internationals pursue much broader market-based strategies, seeking a strategy of broad market coverage through developing and controlling numerous distribution channels, serving numerous customers in diverse market segments, and developing high market or product visibility. The internationals also emphasize a more aggressive entry strategy, building on outside financial and production resources to enter numerous geographical markets on a large scale. Securing patent technology is also an important component of their strategy. This suggests that the internationals compete by entering the industry on a large scale, seeking to penetrate multiple markets, with the recognition that external resources are necessary to support such an entry.Whereas both the domestics and the internationals characterize domestic competition as being relatively intense, the international new ventures compete in industries with higher levels of international competition. It is not clear from this research whether the new venture selects an industry with a high degree of international competition and therefore responds with an international orientation or, because the new venture has an international orientation, it perceives or recognizes a higher degree of international competition. Another industry structure difference is the internationals' perceived higher degree of restrictiveness due to government regulation. It is unclear whether this restrictiveness motivates new ventures to seek less-regulated international environments or if it indicates that when competing internationally, the new venture is confronted with increased regulatory requirements.Domestic new ventures are distinguished by their emphasis on a production expansion strategy and customer specialization strategy. The production specialization strategy consists of focusing on limited geographical markets, maintaining excess capacity, and pursuing forward integration. The customer specialization strategy incorporates the production of a specialty product that is purchased infrequently. Thus, for both of the domestic strategies, a consistent “closeness” between the producer and consumer is implied. This may be an important basis underlining the new venture's decision to compete in an exclusive domestic context.This study offers initial support for the notion of international entrepreneurship by its findings that there are significant differences between new venture firms competing domestically and new ventures choosing to also enter international markets.     

Industry environments and new venture formations in U.S. manufacturing: A conceptual and empirical analysis of demand determinants

Through integration of theoretical perspectives from Austrian economics, industrial organization economics, and organizational theory, this study builds and examines empirically a model of the demand determinants of new venture formations in manufacturing industries. Austrian economics and other writings on market disequilibrium imply that the dynamics of industries create market opportunities that are available to economic actors. The greater the changes occurring in an industry, the greater the opportunities created, and the further the market is moved from an equilibrium state. Entrepreneurship is viewed as the process of seizing opportunities through combinations of productive inputs. The more available market opportunities in an industry, the greater is the potential for entrepreneurial activity and, more specifically, new venture formations. Entry barriers constrain the formation of new ventures by prohibiting new ventures from taking advantage of available emerging opportunities. The inertial properties of existing firms constrain their ability to move toward these opportunities and thereby increase the potential for new ventures to exploit these market opportunities.The empirical analysis utilizes the Small Business Administration's U.S. Establishment and Enterprise Microdata file to test the model on a large sample of U.S. manufacturing industries. Results indicate that dynamic industries have greater new venture formations. More specifically, new venture formations are associated with industry growth, the dynamism of industry niches, and technological development. Moreover, entry barriers were found to strongly constrain rates of new venture formations. Industry capital requirements, concentration, and excess capacity were all related negatively to the formation of new ventures. The hypothesized positive relationship between industry-level measures of organizational inertia and new venture formations was also borne out in the empirical analysis. New venture formations were related positively to the extent of vertical integration in an industry as well as to the failure of incumbent firms to invest in new capital.Overall, the independent variables explained more than 50% of the variance in rates of new venture formations in manufacturing industries. The results support an Austrian perspective on entrepreneurship and imply that demand factors and industry structural variables are important determinants of new venture creations.The results imply that dynamic industries should spawn new ventures, and industries with high sales growth, changing consumer preferences, and rapid technological change should exhibit high rates of venture formations. For potential entrepreneurs, the model presented herein might be a useful guide to focus their venture activities. Entrepreneurs who can spot the fundamental sources of market change can exploit their knowledge for economic gain. Yet, there are a number of difficulties in suggesting that the model presented herein could be directly applied by entrepreneurs. First, it is always easier to estimate the dynamics of an industry post hoc than it is ex ante. For example, whereas it is simple to catalogue the technological change that occurred in an industry over time, it is another matter to predict the nature of future technological developments. Second, entrepreneurial opportunity can persist only if other potential economic actors do not know of the presence of the opportunity or cannot act upon it. Any model that gains acceptance as a means of predicting the presence of opportunities would, through its widespread usage, neutralize those opportunities for economic profit. Nonetheless, entrepreneurs who have that unique capability to spot industry dynamics and associated profit opportunities where others do not will gain from that ability.     

New venture internationalization,strategic change,and performance: A follow-up study

Although many scholars, business experts, and government agencies enthusiastically advise all firms, including new and small ventures, to internationalize, such advice does not appear to be based on empirical evidence. Few researchers have empirically examined the link between new venture performance and the internationalization of new ventures. At best, the evidence suggests that there is no significant relationship.We used a sample of 62 U.S. new venture manufacturers in the computer and communications equipment industries during the late 1980s. These industries were purportedly globalizing and may have been leading other industries into increased international operations. We found that higher levels of internationalization (percentage of foreign sales to total venture sales) were associated with higher relative market share two years later. However, there was no significant direct relationship between percentage of international sales and subsequent return on investment (ROI). Perhaps international operations simply cost more than expected. Or perhaps, as MacMillan and Day (1987) found in their study of corporate ventures over a 4-year time period, increases in market share may be a prelude to higher ROI as scale benefits translate into higher profitability. However, the 2-year time period of our study may simply not be long enough for investments in higher market shares to produce improved profits.During the 2-year study period, many of the ventures changed their level of internationalization. Of the 36 ventures who were domestic (no international sales) in the prior study, 10 expanded into international markets over the 2 years. Of the 26 originally international ventures (international sales of at least 5%), half increased their percentage of international sales, nine reduced it, and four stayed the same. Whereas the average change in international sales percentage of the ventures was only 2.9 percentage points, the large standard deviation of 13.0 percentage points, and the leptokurtic distribution (9.2) reflected the dramatic changes made by some of the ventures. Using subgroup analysis we examined these changes in percentage of international sales in conjunction with changes in strategies and performance. Ventures that had increased international sales, relative to those that had not, exhibited more positive associations between the degree of strategic change and performance as measured in terms of both relative market share and ROI. Increased international sales in technology-based new ventures seems to require simultaneous strategic changes in order to positively impact venture performance.This study is a follow-up to McDougall's (1989) finding that technology-based new ventures that had sales in foreign markets had significantly different strategies than similar ventures that sold their products only domestically. The current study enriches the previous findings by adding consideration of (1) changes in degree of internationalization, (2) changes in strategy, and (3) venture performance.Although we found no performance penalty associated with increasing international sales alone, indiscriminant advice for new ventures to sell in foreign markets without other supporting strategic actions is inconsistent with our findings. Internationalization, alone, did not lead to increased profitability.Entrepreneurs of young technology-based firms who are considering internationalization should take heed of our results. Internationalization of sales does not appear to be a simple matter of applying established strategies and procedures developed for a domestic arena. Successful internationalization appears to require changes in the venture's strategy as well.     

Identifying Performance Measures of Small Ventures—The Case of the Tourism Industry

Drawing on the goal theory to effectiveness, the current research study attempts to identify performance measures of small ventures by focusing on the tourism industry and by doing so develops a conceptual model of small-venture performance in a service industry within its unique conditions. After reviewing theory and research on small venture performance measures in general and in service industries in particular, we propose that performance measures of small tourism ventures constitute a combination of short- and long-term measures. Furthermore, both types of measures include both objective and subjective dimensions. The findings, based on a cluster sample of 305 small tourism venture owner–managers that were interviewed face to face, generally supported the research proposition. The study emphasizes the importance of mapping the venture's achievements, allocating resources, and developing managerial skills to improve its performance and ability to survive in the long run.     

Is venture capital worth it? Effects on firm performance and founder returns

This paper extends research on venture capital (VC) finance by studying its effects on a venture's performance and on its founders' returns beyond an initial public offering (IPO). A “founder performance” construct, defined as a founder's financial and nonfinancial returns, is proposed and used to measure and compare returns to founders with returns to investors and firm performance. In general, venture characteristics pre-IPO and venture performance post-IPO were not significantly different when comparing ventures with and without VC backing. Only when VC backing is very high, do pre-IPO resources and funding improve significantly. However, higher levels of resource endowments did not seem to affect post-IPO performance for the venture or its investors. On the other hand, founders resorting to VC funding before taking their company public generated significantly less wealth for themselves and were less likely to remain as CEOs of their ventures after the IPO. Results suggest that founders motivated primarily by wealth creation and those motivated by remaining in control of their ventures should, in both instances, minimize VC backing when taking their ventures public. The finding that founder performance differs from venture and investor performance calls for future research to explore potential conflicts of interest that may arise from the double role of founders as principals and agents.     

Linking prefunding factors and high-technology venture success: An exploratory study

This study reports on the exploratory phase of a research project on prefunding factors influencing the success of high-technology start-up companies. The study was done in collaboration with two major West Coast venture capital firms that allowed the authors full access to the due diligence files, investment proposals, and closing documents associated with eight ventures. Half of the eight ventures studied are currently public companies with sales that range from $65 million to $500 million and with an after-tax profit of about 10% of sales. The other half have either been dissolved or did not reach $3 million in sales within the five years following their funding.Information was obtained on those prefunding factors that were available for investor review prior to funding, such as the founders track records, the characteristics of the founding team, the nature of the target market, the technological strategy of the firm, the proposed composition of the board, and the deal structure.In spite of the small sample size, findings of this research revealed discernible differences between successful and unsuccessful firms. The founders of the successful ventures had more prior experience working together; tended to form larger, more complete teams; and had more extensive experience in the function they performed in the new venture. Successful founders also had experience in rapid growth firms that competed in the same industry as the start-up.The successful ventures targeted product-market segments with high buyer concentration in which, through technological advantage, their products could attain and sustain a competitive edge. Often this advantage was achieved by careful management of the product-development process, which resulted in early market entry and its corollary, reduced competition.On the other hand, some factors that the authors had predicted would allow them to distinguish between success and failure were not found to do so. Both successful and unsuccessful ventures targeted high growth markets, anticipated high gross margins, had founders with over five years of relevant experience, had experienced venture capitalists on their boards, and were characterized by a wide range of founder equity shares.     

A Comparison of International and Domestic New Ventures

Differences between international new ventures (INVs) and domestic new ventures (DNVs) were examined using a sample of 214 IPO new ventures (ventures 6 years old or less). INVs were found to be significantly different on the basis of their entrepreneurial team experience, strategy, and industry structure. Specifically, the entrepreneurial team of INVs exhibited higher levels of previous international and industry experience. The strategies of INVs were more aggressive, and they operated in more channels of distribution than did DNVs. INVs competed on the basis of differentiation, placing greater emphasis on product innovation, quality, service, and marketing as strategic weapons. In addition, INVs were more likely than DNVs to operate in industries characterized by a high degree of global integration.     

Reputation and new venture performance in online markets: The moderating role of market crowding

Reputation represents an important driver of new venture performance. This article shows that the performance benefits of reputation are substantially contingent on ventures' market conditions. My study of 797,087 sales transactions by 5760 new ventures in 119 platform-mediated online markets provides strong evidence that market crowding attenuates the reputation–performance relationship. Ventures benefit 38% to 42% more from a favorable reputation when they compete in an uncrowded (versus crowded) market. By disentangling the underlying mechanisms of reputation, my study allows for more accurate predictions about why, when, and how ventures benefit from reputation.     

Challenges in predicting new firm performance

Research examining predictors of new firm performance is clearly of interest to entrepreneurs and to those who provide advice and funds for their ventures. A growing body of research has examined the influence upon performance of such variables as entrepreneurs' characteristics, processes of founding, venture attributes, and environmental characteristics. However, considered as a whole, this research has shown mixed results and limited findings to date.This paper considers some of the challenges that arise in attempting to predict new firm performance. A key factor is the heavy dependence of new ventures upon environmental developments, many of which may be very difficult to predict. All firms are impacted by the environment, but new ventures have a concentration of risk upon a few products or services, narrow markets, and a few key resources. Thus, well-conceived ventures can fail because of unforeseen environmental shocks and the lack of “deep pockets” to ride out hard times. These same factors can cause new firm performance to swing widely, confounding attempts to identify predictors of good or poor performance.There are also challenges because many entrepreneurs pursue personal goals, some of which are noneconomic in nature. Thus, decisions about whether to found ventures, about how vigorously to grow them, or about whether or not to close down marginal businesses are all influenced by the personal values of entrepreneurs.The diversity of ventures, encompassing firms that differ greatly in scale and potential, complicates the task of determining predictors of performance. It may be that the influence of a particular variable, such as management experience, varies by type of venture. Previous research has also used a variety of performance measures, making comparisons across studies more difficult. Little has been done to determine whether the factors that enhance one measure of performance, such as survival, are the same as those that lead to others, such as growth or profitability.Previous research has been hampered by inadequate theoretical frameworks and, in some cases, by inappropriate methods of analysis. In addition, past research often could have been characterized by a tendency to examine variables that were easy to study, rather than those that were important.Despite limited success to date, we should not forsake research on predictors of new venture performance. The challenges discussed probably put limits on our ability to predict performance of individual ventures. However, the field of study is young and there is much that can be done to add to our understanding. The paper then develops recommendations for future research, noting that each of the challenges considered raises specific research opportunities.     

Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures

New ventures, companies eight years or younger, play a major role in the development of an emerging, high-technology industry. Corporate-sponsored new ventures (those supported by an established corporation) and independent ventures (those founded by independent entrepreneurs) frequently battle for industry leadership and financial success. Whereas both venture types use technology to achieve financial and market success, little is known about the differences in their technology strategies.Technology strategy is the plan that guides a new venture's decisions on the development and use of technological capabilities. This strategy covers six major areas. The first is selecting the pioneering posture, where a venture decides whether or not be among the industry's first companies to introduce new products (technologies) to the market. The second is determining the number of products to be introduced to the market. The third is choosing the extent of a venture's use of internal and external R&D sources. Internal sources usually refer to in-house R&D activities. External sources may include purchasing or licensing of technology from other companies, or joining strategic alliances to acquire that technology. The fourth is deciding the level of R&D spending. The fifth is selecting the combination (portfolio) of applied and basic research projects. Whereas basic R&D advances science, applied R&D leads to new products and technologies. The sixth, and final, dimension is the venture's use of patenting to protect any competitive advantages it might gain from its R&D activities.This article reports the results of a study that explored the differences in the technology strategies and performance of corporate and independent ventures. The biotechnology industry was chosen to test the study's hypotheses, using 112 ventures.Seven of the study's hypotheses focused on the potential variations in technology strategy between corporate and independent ventures. Independent ventures (IVs) were expected to surpass corporate ventures (CVs) in pioneering new products (technologies), using internal R&D, and emphasizing applied R&D. CVs were expected to surpass IVs in introducing new products, using external R&D sources, spending on R&D, and patenting. The study's remaining three hypotheses covered possible variations in new venture performance (NVP) and their sources.The results showed that IVs focused more on pioneering, pursued a more applied R&D portfolio, and emphasized internal R&D more than CVs. CVs utilized external technology sources, spent more heavily on R&D, stressed basic R&D, and used patenting more intensively than IVs. These results were consistent with the hypotheses. However, contrary to expectations, there were no significant differences between CVs and IVs in the frequency of new product introductions, probably because most ventures were at the invention, rather than the commercialization, stage.The results on the NVP of CVs and IVs were counter to expectations. IVs outperformed CVs, probably because of the high motivation of the IV owners who reaped the rewards of growth and profitability. Also, whereas CVs may have greater access to the resources of their sponsors, political conflicts and rigid corporate controls might have reduced their ability to achieve competitive advantages.The results also indicated that CVs and IVs appeared to gain competitive advantages from different technological choices. Pioneering, a focus on applied R&D, and extensive use of the internal R&D sources were also positively associated with the performance of IVs. Heavy R&D spending, the use of both internal and external R&D sources, frequent product introductions, and patenting were positively associated with the performance of CVs. Finding that technology strategies significantly impacted NVP should encourage executives to consider pursuing a formal technology strategy. Likewise, the finding that different dimensions of technology strategy influenced the performance of CVs and IVs in different ways has practical implications. CV managers can learn from their higher performing IV rivals. Also, because established companies frequently acquire IVs, information about their technology strategies can be valuable in assimilating the acquired ventures. Overall, the results show that technology strategy is an important factor in enhancing new venture performance.     

Factors influencing the internationalisation of new ventures in the Irish aquaculture industry: An exploratory study

This paper offers exploratory insights into the factors influencing the emergence of new export ventures operating in a low-technology sector: the aquaculture industry—a largely understudied context in international entrepreneurship. Peculiarities of new industries can make them particularly favourable to the creation of new ventures, and yet research has been limited examining the role of industry and environmental conditions in the emergence of international new ventures. As industry context and stage of firm development influences the appropriateness of theories for explaining firm internationalisation, this study in particular seeks to address two research questions: Firstly, what are the factors influencing the internationalisation of new ventures in a low-technology sector: the Irish aquaculture industry? Second, what role does industry structure play in influencing the internationalisation of new ventures in the Irish aquaculture industry? A qualitative methodology is used to explore these research questions using three case studies of new export ventures operating in the aquaculture sector in Ireland.     

Using R&D cooperative arrangements to leverage managerial experience: A study of technology-intensive new ventures

During the past decade, increasing attention has been given to the widespread use of research and development (R&D) strategic alliances and cooperative interorganizational relationships. This research has addressed a variety of inter-firm relationships ranging from joint ventures to informal networking. However, most of this literature is based on research involving large established firms. More recently, researchers have recognized that small firms or new ventures are also adopting cooperative R&D strategies with increasing frequency. A variety of reasons for the increasing use of R&D cooperative arrangements in new ventures has been offered, including the need to complement a new venture's existing internal resources, the need to quickly gain the technical capabilities to compete in rapidly changing markets, and the desire to minimize the fixed costs associated with acquiring capital assets.This paper reports the results of a study of new high-technology ventures that examined the relationship between performance, the experience of a venture's management team, and its use of R&D cooperative arrangements. The central proposition of this research was that the effectiveness of R&D cooperative activities is associated with the level of combined expertise possessed by the new venture's management team. Specifically, it was anticipated that new ventures with management teams possessing more experience with the industry and/or with similar technologies would be better able to successfully engage in R&D cooperative activities.The primary data analysis technique was moderated regression. The data was collected from Security and Exchange Commission initial public offering registration statements and other archival documents filed by 210 new ventures in three high-technology manufacturing industries.The results of the regression analysis revealed that sales growth was associated with the use of R&D cooperative arrangements. More important, the results also indicated that this relationship was positive when the new venture's management team was relatively more familiar with the industry, markets, and/or with similar technologies. In other words, our results indicate that the relatively more experienced managers were more proficient at using R&D cooperative activities to strategically position their respective firms vis-à-vis their less experienced counterparts. Evidently, these managers were better able to identify the risks and benefits of engaging in such cooperative activities. Additionally, we provide preliminary evidence that the greater knowledge possessed by the management teams may have allowed the new ventures to reduce the costs associated with R&D market transactions.These findings are important because they suggest that prior managerial experience in similar industries and/or with similar technologies is an important prerequisite for the successful use of R&D cooperative arrangements by new high-technology ventures. Management's knowledge of customer needs, product characteristics, and/or the specific idiosyncracies of the industry and/or technology seems to significantly enhance a new technology-intensive venture's ability to effectively engage in R&D cooperative activities.     

Technology commercialization, incubator and venture capital, and new venture performance

This study examines the effects of technology commercialization, incubator and venture capital supports on new venture performance from the resource-based view. This study uses regression analysis to test the hypotheses in a sample of 122 new ventures. The findings highlight the role of technology commercialization as a mediator between organizational resources, innovative capabilities, and new venture performance. Also, the empirical evidence indicates that incubator and venture capital supports moderate the effects of technology commercialization on the performance of new ventures. Finally, this study discusses managerial implications and highlights future research directions.     

Signaling and initial public offerings: The use and impact of the lockup period

To reduce information asymmetries for potential investors considering investment in an IPO venture, owners can signal the firm's longer-term viability and quality in several ways. The lockup period, is one signal that can be offered. We investigated the lockup period of a sample of 640 ventures going through the IPO and find that a longer lockup period acts as a substitute signal to venture capital (VC) and prestigious underwriter backing. Furthermore, we find that ventures which have a going concern issue can reduce the amount of underpricing at the time of the IPO by accepting a longer lockup period.     

Orchestrating boundaries: The effect of R&D boundary permeability on new venture growth

While established firms can efficiently manage their resource portfolio, new ventures must construct resource boundaries by assembling resources. In doing so, new ventures are often pushed to utilize resources that are owned by other actors. These inter-organizational relationship strategies do not expand organizational boundaries, but rather create permeable boundaries. We theorize that boundary permeability confers greater access to resources, but limits control over them. Therefore, new ventures face a risky option: utilize fewer but fully controlled resources or access a broader range of resources under limited control. We examine the effects of R&D boundary permeability across growth dimensions of sales, profitability, and employees using a sample of young knowledge intensive ventures. In doing so, we explore early stage boundary management decisions and reveal opportunities and threats to opening venture boundaries.     

Cash crisis in newly public Internet-based firms: an empirical analysis

This study examines why, even when financial resource constraints are significantly relaxed, some new ventures struggle to survive while others prosper. Using the data of approximately 200 new Internet ventures that went public during the years 1997 through 1999, we propose that the performance of new ventures is a function of pre-initial public offering (IPO) characteristics. We determined that firm-level characteristics, including top management team (TMT), financial position, networks, and location, are related to the performance of struggling new ventures. We found strong evidence of agency relationships, so that a substantial reduction in equity holdings by the entrepreneurial team is a strong signal of impending crisis. Interestingly, similar reductions by venture capital (VC) backers did not serve as a signal of crisis.     

Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneurs' new venture decisions

Though risk plays a central role in most entrepreneurial decision making, little empirical research has explicitly examined how the elements of risk, risk perceptions, and entrepreneurs' propensities to take risks influence choices among potentially risky entrepreneurial ventures. This experimental study asked a sample of entrepreneurs leading America's fastest growing firms to make choices among a series of hypothetical new ventures. The results indicate that such choices are influenced by the risks inherent in the new ventures, as evidenced by the pattern of outcomes anticipated in each venture, the entrepreneurs' differing perceptions of those risks, and differences in their personal propensities to take risks.The subjects in our sample of entrepreneurs tended not to choose ventures having a high degree of variability in their pattern of anticipated outcomes. This avoidance of outcome variability suggests that the sensitivity analyses commonly prescribed for examining new venture attractiveness may inhibit risk taking, and may deter potential investors from investing in their firms. New approaches to assessing and presenting new venture risk, other than the traditional best case/expected case/worst case approach, may be advisable, as well as sufficiently through market research to provide evidence of the degree to which market acceptance is likely for the venture's products or services.We also found an effect of differences in risk propensities among entrepreneurs on their new venture choices. This effect suggests not only that entrepreneurs should be wary of any biases they bring to their new venture decisions, but that prospective investors should consider the degree to which entrepreneurs in whom they choose to invest are well-matched to the investors' own risk-taking propensities.Finally, while our sample of entrepreneurs tended to shun high levels of variability in their new venture choices, they appeared willing to accept a considerable degree of hazard, or possible downside, in their new venture choices, presumably in pursuit of potentially significant gains. Entrepreneurs are advised to seek a clear understanding of the downside entailed in their proposed ventures, and develop strategies to mitigate the likelihood of adverse outcomes. Thus they will not jeopardize chances for near term success and attracting support of investors and others in later stages of the venture or in subsequent ventures.Our research did not attempt to examine how our subjects' choices would have played out in terms of performance, but the apparent biases which entrepreneurs' risk propensities bring to their assessment of proposed new ventures is a potentially important issue that merits further scrutiny. On one hand, such biases may lead to patterns of suboptimal decisions. On the other hand, our results suggest that investors should entrust their new venture investments to entrepreneurs whose risk propensities (and perhaps other personal characteristics) best match the needs of both the opportunity at hand and the investor's objectives. As many venture capitalists attest, the management of a proposed new venture should lie at the heart of their investment decision.     

Venture capitalists' decision criteria in new venture evaluation

What criteria do venture capitalists use to make venture investment decisions? The criteria venture capitalists use to make their venture investment decisions are of interest for several reasons. First, venture capitalists are conspicuously successful in their investment decisions. The success rate of venture capital-backed ventures is significantly higher than the success rate of new ventures generally (Dorsey 1979: Davis and Stetson 1984). A better understanding of the criteria used could lead to a better understanding of the reasons for this success.Second, a better understanding of the criteria for successful new ventures could lead to an improvement in the success rate of new ventures. Although there is no clear agreement on the precise rate, the failure rate among new ventures is generally viewed as significantly higher than the average failure rate (Dun and Bradstreet 1984; Van de Ven 1980; Shapero 1981).Finally, venture capitalists' investment criteria are of enormous import to entrepreneurs seeking venture funding. Such entrepreneurs require a significant infusion of capital in order to grow their businesses, and knowledge of the criteria sought by venture capitalists can aid entrepreneurs in gaining the necessary financing.This study attempts to uncover the criteria used by venture capitalists through semistructured interviews and verbal protocol analysis of venture capitalists' evaluations of actual venture proposals. Sixteen verbal protocols—in which the participants “think aloud” as they review business proposals— were made of venture capitalists' venture evaluation decisions.The findings of this study suggest that venture capitalists screen and assess business proposals very rapidly: the subjects in this study reached a GO/NO-GO decision in an average of less than six minutes on initial screening and less than 21 minutes on proposal assessment. In venture capitalists' initial proposal screening, key criteria identified include fit with the venture firm's lending guidelines and the long-term growth and profitability of the industry in which the proposed business will operate. In the second stage of proposal assessment, the source of the business proposal also played a major role in the venture capitalists' interest in the plan, with proposals previously reviewed by persons known and trusted by the venture capitalist receiving a high level of interest.In addition to the specific criteria identified and how they were used in reaching GO/NO-GO decisions, the findings of this study also were surprising for the lack of importance venture capitalists attached to the entrepreneur/entrepreneurial team and the strategy of the proposed venture during these early stages of the venture evaluation process.     

Hybrid conjoint analysis: An estimation probe in new venture decisions

How venture capitalists select start-ups for financing has been an interesting topic for many researchers and practitioners. The underlying assumption is that people who make money investing in new businesses by assessing the proposals should be experienced enough to distinguish losers from winners. Our research study tested three models (self-explicated, conjoint and a hybrid—comprising the two previous ones—conjoint) in order to find out: 1. if these models could be applied to venture capital decision making and if so 2. to demonstrate the potential of conjoint analysis as a practical research method. 3. To test whether or not the characteristics of the entrepreneur, the product and the market replicate the venture capital decision.This research study confirms what normative literature on decision-making emphasizes: that in the first stage of an evaluation (screening), venture capitalists focus on a small subset of criteria in a non-compensatory process (i.e., an unacceptable value on one criterion cannot be offset by a high value of another one). The important criteria in this phase appear to be the entrepreneur's experience and the existence of a prototype for some decision-makers or unique features of the product for others. The screening step is more judgemental than analytic.In a second stage (the evaluation phase), however, venture capitalists end a detailed examination (due diligence process) by choosing the most preferred ventures through processes approximating compensatory rules; that is, a low but acceptable value on one criterion can be compensated by a high value on another. The most important criteria identified by the research in this second stage are criteria found in the previous stage, product gross profit margin and patent.Our research demonstrates agreement among venture capitalists in terms of one criterion to evaluate research proposals: managerial experience. As to the rest of the attributes tested, there was variation in the weights assigned to them.The findings of this pilot study also confirm the applicability of conjoint analysis as a research method in venture capital decision. The approach helps shed light on the decision rules applied, and permits the testing of previously researched criteria for predictive validity. The method has the advantage of retaining individual preferences and clustering them around venture capitalists' demographic and psychographic backgrounds (i.e., years of experience, type of education, life-style, and the like) or other types of information such as venture fund policies (size of the investment, type of industry, etc.).The major implication of the study for entrepreneurs is the importance of previous experience in the industry where they expect to develop their ventures, and a deep knowledge of the product (advantages over competition, technical, production, and cost feasibility) they are to produce and market. These are the factors that have the greatest influence on venture capitalists' evaluation of such projects.     

Gender differences in firm performance: Evidence from new ventures in the United States

Prior studies examining the performance of female- and male-owned firms have generally reported that female-owned firms underperform male-owned firms. However, it is conceivable that the performance measures used by previous studies and/or their inability to control for key demographic differences may have contributed to this finding. For example, few studies use size adjusted performance measures and yet we know that female-owned firms tend to be smaller than their male counterparts. Similarly, risk is typically not considered even though evidence suggests that women tend to be more risk averse than men. We use a longitudinal (five-year) database of more than 4000 new ventures that began operations in the U.S. in 2004 to determine whether potential differences in the performances of female- and male-owned firms disappear when appropriate performance measures are used and important demographic differences are controlled for in the models. The performance measures we examine include: 4-year closure rates; return on assets (ROA); and a risk-adjusted measure (Sharpe ratio). Univariate test results confirm our expectation (based on both liberal and social feminist theory) that there is no difference in the performance of female- and male-owned new ventures provided performance is appropriately measured. Further, these results are supported by our multivariate analyses, which control for demographic differences such as industry, experience and hours worked. Our findings should be of interest to researchers, financiers, advisors and policy makers. Perhaps more importantly, our findings should also ensure that women who are contemplating starting a new venture are not discouraged from doing so by a false belief that new ventures initiated by women are less likely to succeed than those initiated by men.