Situación de la microempresa en Chile

Against this backdrop, an attempt was made to determine which stakeholders of entrepreneurial organizations engaged in disruptive technology development contributed to the reduction of uncertainties and how this occurred. Therefore, the supercategories of stakeholders outlined above were used:

- Direct stakeholders: employees, customers, partners, suppliers, advisors, investors, shareholders and financial institutions

- Indirect stakeholders: competitors, governmental organizations, regulators, local communities, universities, research institutions, media, NGOs and activists

With regard to uncertainty, the four categories described by the research group around Jeremy Hall (Hall et al. 2011; Hall and Vredenburg 2003; Hall et al. 2014; Hall and Martin 2005) were utilized, because they focus on new and radical technologies. They suggest that an organization must overcome four categories of uncertainty to successfully establish disruptive innovation. These four categories are named and defined as follows:

a) Technological uncertainty concerns overcoming scientific, technical and engineering hurdles

b) Commercial uncertainty is about whether the new technology can compete successfully in the marketplace

c) Social uncertainty concerns the societal impact on or by society, legitimization and acceptance of the technology

d) Organizational uncertainty is about whether an organization is able to capture the benefits of the technology

In order to identify the experience and opinions of thought leaders from organizations active in disruptive technology development regarding the influence of various stakeholders on uncertainty, an exploratory and

54

qualitative approach was adopted for this study. This made it possible to generate in-depth insights on and a deep holistic understanding of the topic (Dana and Dana 2005; Dana and Dumez 2015). Such an approach affords participants the opportunity to share their experience and pass on their knowledge (Boeije 2009). Bryman (2016, p. 470) states that “in qualitative research, there is an emphasis on greater generality in the formulation of initial research ideas and on the interviewees’ own perspectives.” Due to the exploratory character of this study, the interviewer had to cover a lot of ground and had to utilize the flexibility of a qualitative, semi-structured interview approach. “In qualitative interviewing, interviewers can depart significantly from any schedule or guide that is being used. They can ask new questions that follow up interviewees’ replies and can vary the order and even the wording of the questions […] as a result, qualitative interviewing tends to be flexible, responding to the direction in which interviewees take the interview and perhaps adjusting the emphases in the research as a result of significant issues that emerge in the course of the interviews” (Bryman 2016, p. 470). This aspect of qualitative semi-structured interviews, that is, being able to anticipate and change the questions, made this method the perfect fit for this exploratory research.

Hence, semi-structured interviews with CEOs, founders and top-level managers of advanced biotechnology medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups were conducted (see Annex I for the interview guidelines).

Nine interviews were conducted with interviewees located in three different countries. At the time, the interviewees were holding key positions at nine different SMEs or start-ups active in the field of advanced biotechnology. To ensure anonymity, the names of the interviewees and their companies cannot be identified. Therefore, an overview of the interviewees’

characteristics is provided in Table 3 (see Annex II for the declaration of anonymization).

55

Table 3: Overview of Interviewee Details

Headquarters based in 6 x United States, 2x United Kingdom, 1x Switzerland

Types of Businesses Advanced Biotechnology / Synthetic Biology

Sizes of Businesses 3 x Start-Ups, 6 x SMEs

Positions held 4 x CEO/Founder, 1 x President, 4 x SVP/VP

The company database of SynBioBeta was used to identify firms and start-ups active in the field of advanced biotechnology. SynBioBeta is a hub for the synthetic biology industry. The scope was further narrowed down by using the categories of “food applications” and “consumer products, personal care, fragrances” given by the database. Additionally, personal contacts from the SYNENERGENE project were used. This focus was chosen due to the high uncertainty in the areas of food applications and consumer products, personal care and fragrances. Most firms active in these areas explore new fields and thus cannot build upon previous experiences or use other firms as role models. Due to its high level of innovativeness and uncertainty (Schoonmaker et al. 2017), the advanced biotechnology sector, with a focus on the areas mentioned above, was seen as an excellent fit for this study. With respect to the concept of “information power” (Malterud et al. 2015), the interview sample size was sufficient for the scope of this qualitative study. To test the clarity of the questions, the design of the interview guideline and the interview conditions (Häder 2010), a pre-test interview with a senior biotechnology manager was conducted. After the test interview, the test candidate was asked to comment on the questions and the interview process, which led to minor adaptions of the overall interview design.

56

The interviews, which were conducted via Skype to Skype and Skype to phone, were recorded by mutual agreement using Amolto Call Recorder for Skype (Version 3) and afterwards transcribed by a professional transcription service, which applied intelligent verbatim transcription rules. The analysis of the transcripts was undertaken centrally to ensure consistency. The analysis was supported by the use of MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software (Version 12). For the manuscript, the quotations were edited by the author to enhance clarity and readability, and to ensure anonymity, while fully maintaining the meaning and tone of the quotations.