LA INCORPORACIÓN DE LAS TICS EN LA EDUCACIÓN

In contrast to small business in general, high venture growth firms may start small but are intended to grow rapidly, often requiring a team of partners or managers to handle the growth (Katz & Green 2014). High-growth ventures have been described as those that ‘aim to achieve growth rates of 25 per cent or more a year, with sales of more than $1 million’ (Katz & Green 2014, p. 9). High-growth firms amongst other characteristics seek external sources of funding and pursue high levels of professionalism (Katz & Green 2014). A summary of small business and high-growth characteristics is identified below in table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Differences between small business and high-growth ventures (Katz & Green 2014).

Differences between small business and high-growth ventures

Small Business High-growth firms Preferred funding source Owner’s own money Other people’s money When the firm is in trouble Cut costs Sell more

What’s more important Sales Marketing

Personal control preference Retain autonomy Involve key others

Focus Efficiency Effectiveness

Metastrategy Imitation Novelty

External control preference Control firm Control market

Grow When necessary When possible

Human Resources Personalise Professionalise

Acceptance Personal validation External legitimacy

What limits growth Loss of control Market response Delegation orientation Delegation is difficult Delegation is necessary

Several authors have commented that firms that experience high growth rates during a certain period within their life-cycle could be considered entrepreneurial (Davidsson, Delmar & Wiklund 2006; Stevenson & Gumpert 1985). These high-growth firms persistently deploy new combinations of both resources and economic knowledge (Laglois 2007; Drucker 1985), and grow the firm utilising resources that can be acquired or accessed within the marketplace (Hart, Stevenson & Dial 1995). Davidsson and Delmar (2001) suggested that high-growth firms, regardless of environmental conditions, will find a way to reach their growth goals. This, they asserted, was in distinct contrast to other firms whose fortunes fluctuate with the rise and fall of the economy.

Research has shown conflicting opinions regarding the identification and qualification of high-growth firms. Differing views regarding measures used to gauge firm growth from sales, employees, the length of time to consider, and the degree of growth that qualifies a firm, have been just as varied amongst scholars (Delmar, Davidsson & Gartner 2003; Moreno & Casillas 2007; Weinzimmer 2000).

The Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation and Science define

high-growth businesses as those with ‘average annualised growth in sales or

employment (i.e. number of employees) per annum greater than 20 per cent over a

three-year period (Australian Innovation System Report (2016, p.26). This definition

is consistent with the Eurostat – OECD Manual on Business Demography Statistics

(2007) and is widely recognised within the literature as the basis for defining high-

growth enterprises. The report also suggests that both employment (number of

employees) and turnover should be used to study the phenomenon of enterprises

(Eurostat 2007).

A significant amount of research highlights that high-growth firms extensively use resources owned by external organisations to grow beyond limits set by internally-controlled resources (Stevenson & Jarillo 1990). These external resources include financial capital, managerial capabilities, and market knowledge through long-lasting or newly-established inter- organisational relationships (Freel 2000). The various ways in which firms benefit from other firms / new investors and stakeholders involve equity and non-equity modes. These are discussed in Sections 2.8 to 2.10.

Entrepreneurial traits seen in high-growth firms have been defined as the ability to search, identify and exploit new business opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman 2000; Stevenson & Jarillo 1990; Venkataraman 1997). Several authors (Ardichvili, Cardozo & Ray 2003; Casson 1990; Covin & Slevin 2002; Shane & Veankataraman 2000) have argued that the number one priority of any entrepreneur is to build and grow the business, thus entrepreneurs are more willing to take calculated risks, are proactive in identifying opportunities and creating new products and are more inclined to innovate with new processes and procedures. Researchers (Covin & Slevin 1998; Daily et al. 2002; Miller 1983) suggest that this combination of qualities and characteristics could be called 'entrepreneurial orientation'.

Baron and Ward (2004) argued that a central aspect of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial cognition is opportunity recognition. Cognitive structures are the frameworks used to organise information. Such structures ‘rely on comparative thinking to make connections, find patterns and relationships and generate rules and abstract generalisations which apply to more than the immediate situation’ (Wright & Stigliani 2012, p. 6).

Recent research surrounding entrepreneurial cognition focuses on the processes underpinning opportunity recognition, opportunity evaluation and decision-making (Wright & Stigliani 2012). Further, research has attempted to understand if these cognitive structures are used

differently between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (Fiske & Taylor 1991). Baron and Ward (2004) claimed research surrounding entrepreneur cognitive structures is based on the hypothesis that entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs differ greatly in the structures they use and the way in which they are used.

The level of entrepreneurship that may exist within a firm can be assessed according to its entrepreneurial orientation (Rigtering et al. 2014). Among the conceptualisations of entrepreneurial orientation is one showing three separate influencing dimensions: innovativeness, risk-taking propensity and proactiveness (Lumpkin & Dess 1996).

Proactiveness refers to a firm’s propensity to anticipate the market, take initiative and implement new opportunities in order to compete aggressively against competitors (Entrialgo, Fernandez & Vazquez 2000). Thus, by anticipating future market changes and having a greater forward-looking perspective, firms that are proactive often create a competitive advantage (Hughes & Morgan, 2007). A firm’s innovativeness refers to its willingness to explore and engage in new idea generation, development of creative processes and thinking that may result in the launch or introduction of new products, systems or services (Lumpkin & Dess 1996). Risk-taking involves a firm’s propensity to commit a large amount of resources to an uncertain project that may pose a significant level of risk. Morris, Kuratko and Covin (2008), however, described successful entrepreneurs who engage in risk-taking initiatives as guided by calculated actions as opposed to uncontrolled risk-laden endeavours.