منابع شرکت، راه اندازی فن آوری پیشرفته روسی، و رشد شرکت
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|19960||2002||24 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 17, Issue 6, 1 October 2002, Pages 553–576
Russia possessed many world-class technologies prior to the break up of the Soviet Union. Entrepreneurial endeavors resulted from this technological ability as market forces encouraged individuals to leave the large state enterprises that produced those technologies. Founding characteristics of the firm impact the resources that are available to the startup firm. This study investigates the extent to which founding factors in Russia help high-technology firms to prosper. It was found that the team establishing the business mitigated the liability of newness. However, in contrast to the US, the culture of Russia does not produce negative results if the founding team grows very large. Additionally, it was shown that firms that pursued more technological products and enter the market later performed best.
Firms can be viewed as composites of various resources. In stable economies, it has been argued that young firms do not do as well as more mature firms. The underlying reason for such a liability of newness is the limited resources available to young firms. This emphasis on resources is supported in the entrepreneurship literature, which records that a principal cause of high-technology firm failure is a lack of financial resources. However, Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990) argued that liability of newness of young high-technology firms could be mitigated by the nature of the firm's founding characteristics. Particularly, the characteristics of the founding team, the innovativeness of the firm's product(s), and the firm's position as a first mover can mitigate the liability of newness since these characteristics impact the accessibility of resources. Prior to its economic transition, Russia produced many world-class technological products. Many of those individuals who left the technology-based state companies and research laboratories have gone on to found their own high-technology-based new ventures. But, in general, Russia's transition to a market economy has been tumultuous. For example, the monetary system of the country reflected an exchange rate for the ruble of 35 per US dollar in April 1991 and this expanded to upwards of 26,000 per US dollar during November 1999 (in nonredenominated terms). Additionally, the industrial output of the country has been continuously falling since economic liberalization began. If Russia is to be a constructive member of the world economy, it is critical that its high-technology entrepreneurs succeed. This research found that the size of the team establishing the business can mitigate the liability of newness in Russia. The larger the team, the greater the financial resources that can be generated and the easier it is to accomplish the myriad administrative tasks associated with starting a high-technology venture since there are more individuals available to do the work. Additionally, it was found that the greater the technological innovativeness, the better the performance of the startup. However, due to the limited resources available to high-technology startups in a transitional economy such as Russia, later entrants perform better than do earlier entrants. In a transitional economy, many resources that first movers can obtain, such as dominance of distribution channels, can be illusionary and disappear over time. Thus, before moving into a market in such settings, it is important that firms ensure that the role and strength of various resources have been established before entrepreneurial firms seek to control them. The implications for Russian high-technology policymakers and entrepreneurs from these findings are significant. Entrepreneurship in Russia offers a significant means for the economy to reverse its decline. The mean increase in employment among the 45 firms examined was 239%. Thus, the evidence presented here is that entrepreneurial startups have the potential to provide significant employment opportunities for the nation. Additionally, for entrepreneurs, it clearly signals that they can increase their chances of success by ensuring certain characteristics are present as they establish their firm. High-technology entrepreneurs in Russia would be well served by focusing their resources on building large founding teams, seeking to ensure they have an innovative product, and building their competitive resources.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This research, for the first time, examined resource theory in transitional economies and high-technology firms. The research provided general support for the use of the theory. Hypothesis 1 was supported: larger teams were likely produce greater resources and in turn lead to greater firm success. Hypothesis 3 was not supported but, as noted in the development of the theoretical rationale for Hypothesis 3, there has been a disagreement about what resource theory would predict about first mover advantage in a transitional economy. The authors’ rationale was consistent with the dominant Western logic but the evidence presented here is that an alternative view of first mover advantage and resource theory in transitional economic settings is more appropriate. The risk in identifying inappropriate resources to focus plus the risk that resources such as distribution channels may even disappear is too high for financially constrained firms. Three specific founding firm variables were examined in this research. The exploratory nature of this research in a single city where Russia’s microelectronic industry dominates results in the use of a nonrandom sample. Future research should further our understanding by examining a broader sample of firms with more numerous variables and richer multiple scales. The variables examined here can provide a basis for the investigation of hightechnology firms in transitional economies. There will always likely be significant restraints on the questions that can be asked of entrepreneurs in Russia. For example, due to excessive taxation and a very active Mafia presence, financial data are almost never released nor considered reliable when it is released. Thus, issues such as funding sources and levels of startup capitalization cannot typically be investigated. However, future research in startups should expand the variables examined to include topics such as the relationship between planning and performance, the nature of the firm’s asset makeup, and the firm’s international posture. The research, also for the first time, identifies the means by which Russians can encourage high-technology entrepreneurial ventures in their own environment. Russia continues to face tremendous difficulties in its transition to a market economy. However, entrepreneurship offers the potential for the nation to solve many of its economic problems (Hisrich and Gratchev, 1993, 1995). The evidence presented here is that there are similarities between high-technology firms in stable economies like the US and those in transitional economies such as Russia. However, as detailed throughout this manuscript, there are also unique differences, which cannot be overlooked. Future research should continue to expand the investigation of this critical area not only by examining the similarities but also by seeking differences. The findings not only will have a significant impact on the economic success of Russia but will also ensure that future efforts between Russia and the world focus on economic cooperation and not military competition.