Fuentes de Reclutamiento

Outside the focus of organisational processes from the firm creation, some contributions in the entrepreneurship literature have also discussed the early firm development by starting their stages before firm creation. An early contribution (Carter et al. 1996) identified four stages of creation; first the intention to create the organisation, then the assemblage of resources, then developing an organisational boundary (creation) and then exchanges of resources across the boundaries (sales). These stages are similar to the ones identified by Garsney (1998). A later contribution by Shane (2003) in his search for a framework development for a theory of entrepreneurship introduced a central component, which is the concept of opportunity. Shane also put forward his stage event framework, which is much further developed than earlier stage model since the argument is made throughout his book on entrepreneurship. He constructed his theory around the main stages with the identification and decision to exploit an opportunity and then the response of firm creation with a resource acquisition, and next an organising process before performance. This model is shown below (Figure 1.5).

25 _{By early stages we mean the creative stage to the leadership and early autonomy phase described by}

Greiner, or the existence stage to early survival for the Churchill and Lewis model or the stage of access and mobilisation of resources up to the beginning of the generation of resources in the model of Garnsey.

66

Figure 1.5: Model on the entrepreneurial process

Source: (Shane 2003)

In his theory, Shane insists on the concept of opportunity discovery and exploitation and makes them fully part of the entrepreneurial process. The stage view shown above includes the existence of a project and refers to the resource based view through the stage of resource acquisition. These stages entail the stages before firm creation, which were missing in the previously cited literature. The above process is divided into two parts, the part dealing with the opportunity exploitation and the organisational part that leads to firm performance during the two last stages. In this case, this process therefore implies that the firm organisation process and performance depend solely on the opportunity exploitation. This model does not consider the influence of the opportunity exploitation and project development on the process of firm organisation. Firm evolution has its own constraints such as tangible and intangible resource acquisition or management team change, as shown previously in Garnsey (1998) and Greiner (1997). This is one of the main questions raised in this work. We seek to study the opportunity exploitation and firm organisation as distinct but linked processes.

In the same line, the literature on entrepreneurial processes also includes specific stage views on high-tech and innovative firms. Firstly, there has been some development of stage views regarding the process of academic spin-off formation by Shane (2004). This contribution helps to understand the steps by which universities, with their aim of transitioning from doing research to having an interest in transferring knowledge or technology that they discovered/created. Shane (2004) explained the process by which universities go from research to a technology, including firm creation. Figure 1.6 shows the process adapted by Shane to understand the process of university technology creation to the point where the project becomes mature enough for transferring to the industry. This process is highly similar to the one developed earlier.

67 The first steps are here determined by research, which is necessary in order to be able to lead to useable technologies for the industry. This research can sometimes lead to knowledge or technology that can be used in the industry. The university will then seek IP (Intellectual Property), which is the next step in the development. Thus after marketing the technology, the university can push for the technology exploitation and try to licence to an existing company or create a firm (spin- off). The development cannot go further than invention since that would go beyond the university goal. The literature here informs of the transition process, including the operational steps a scientist goes through, in order to transfer his discovery to industry (through spin-off creation or licensing to an existing firm). Other contributions are concerned with the transfer of technology through spin- offs and have described similar stage processes as the one above.

For instance Clarysse et al. (2005) identifies a process with three main stages in order to characterise the transition from a research project to firm creation: the invention, transitions and innovation phases. In the details of the process (which is broken down further) one can observe many similarities with the spin-off model presented by Shane, with an opportunity and IP protection search, followed by a strategic choice and the decision over the business model. The model here integrates the strategic choice from the technology transfer side, but does not address the interrelation between the change of strategy and the project. In the same way Ndonzuau et al. (2002) also describe a spin-off process that is formalised through the following stages: results from research, business ideas, new venture projects, spin-off firms and creation of value. The authors focused on the practicality of each stage, such scientific culture, protection of the ideas, resources acquisition and the creation of value. Again this stage model is of a similar nature to the two previous ones. Every process put forward here focuses on the technology transfer through firm creation, where the creation process is the ultimate stage in the stage view.

Other views on firm early creation also pointed out the differences occurring between sectors in high technologies. Oakey (1995) explains that strategy of firm creation can differ between firms, which also depends on the sector of activity. The firm formation can take time for R&D before or after firm creation, depending on the strategy chosen. In some cases there needs to be a firm creation in order to raise funding for further R&D cost before the marketing phase. Thus the models described above can be close to other known models, such as models of innovation. Those models do not relate directly to a firm structure, but are still relevant for discussion around innovative firm formation.

68

One can derive the impression from this literature that when a firm is created the process of technology transfer is successful. However, as innovation models shows, the process of innovation is not linear and there are many feedback loops that can intervene in the innovation development.

The idea that university has a role to play in the industry and local development emerged during the second world war (Rothwell & Dodgson 1992). The idea is usually attributed to Bush and his report (1945) which states that the scientific community, much of which was located in universities, had a prominent role in the technology developed during war time, and thus innovation literature attributes to him the concept of the science push linear model of innovation. Since then the industrialist and innovation literature used this work to introduce a variety of innovation models (Godin 2006). The science push linear model of innovation gives some sequential steps to answer this question, which is represented by Figure 1.7. It emphasises an innovation process divided into sequences that emerges from science (Basic followed by applied research). The innovation model helps to understand the process by which research leads to innovation regardless of institutions and the people at the origin of this process. Thus this model gives a generic overview of how innovation is conducted, but does not go deeper into processes of technology transfer as the previous models do.

Figure 1.7: Model of innovation based on Godin 2006

In earlier times, the innovation model was believed to be linear. It developed from research institutions to the industry, which is similar to basic research being transformed into applied research (Kline 1995). Even though the linear model was never explicitly formalised in early work by Bush, many later contributions attributed the above process to his report, mainly in order to point out flaws in the model. A later contribution that was widely accepted was the model of Kline and Rosenberg (1986) (Figure 1.8) that emphasised the role of research at every step in the model, but also feedback loops between steps. This model also acknowledges the role of market and knowledge interaction at every part of the process. This model is more advanced than others because it does not only contribute to show the main stages with their sets of problems, but links different resources and knowledge at each stage of the process. It also casts doubt on the ordering (sequential) of the models using feedback loops.

69

Figure 1.8: Chain linked Model

Source: (Kline & Rosenberg 1986)

The model of innovation remains generic but can help to understand the process by which technology transfer occurs between incubating organisations and industry through firm formation. Technology transfer processes that lead to innovation occur via two types of institution; research institutions, such as universities, and companies. The model focuses on the evolution of the innovation project from early research to its development, production and distribution. It features many feedback links especially in terms of research and knowledge, but also in terms of market. This type of models can help us to shed light of the innovative project side, but for the purpose of our study must be combined with earlier organisational processes that may have an impact on the opportunity for such a project to benefits from all these feedback loops.