اشتیاق ارائه دهنده و طراحی ارائه درباره ارزیابی بازبین و موفقیت بعدی: یک مطالعه تجربی از طرح پیشنهادی فن آوری پیشرفته و ارائه طرح کسب و کار
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|20291||2013||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8738 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 24, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 53–63
We investigate two fundamental research questions related to the funding of early-stage technology enterprises. First, does presentation design, and the presenting entrepreneur's passion and preparedness, influence experts' assessment of the merit and commercialization potential of an emerging firm's technology? Second, are the entrepreneur's passion and preparedness during a formal presentation associated with future technology success? We analyze twenty-two video-taped presentations to a U.S. Department of Defense technology transfer and granting consortium, and track subsequent technology success. From the data it appears that both entrepreneurial passion and presentation design does influence expert assessment of a technology, and future commercialization success can be predicted to some extent by the level of entrepreneurial passion exhibited during the presentation.
Early-stage technology firms simply need a lot of capital, oftentimes very quickly. Capital requirements for early stage firms are astoundingly varied and demanding. R&D expenses, patent filings, equipment purchases, laboratory space rentals, staffing costs, prototyping and beta-testing, commercialization support, clinical trials, and government regulatory approvals all deepen an emerging firm's financial “burn rate.” And, of course, there are the inevitable expenses of attorneys at almost every step in the process. Entrepreneurs in high technology consistently cite initial financing and subsequent capital support as a major area of focus and anxiety (Bruno and Tybee, 1985, Gundry and Welsch, 2001, Roberts, 1991 and Sapienza and de Clercq, 2000). Not surprisingly, over the past three decades the funding sources for early-stage technology-based firms have become both more institutionalized and more segmented. Most obvious are the various private equity sources including individual angel investors, formal angel investor groups, venture capital funds, and corporate sponsored venture partnerships. For early-stage technology-based enterprises, a number of “non-dilutive” funding sources also exist. Within the U.S., the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is the largest Federal program targeted toward assisting the entrepreneur in commercializing technology and stimulating overall technology innovation within the country. Since its inception, awards of over $30 billion dollars have been distributed through the Federal agencies associated with the SBIR program, with about $2 billion awarded each year under the SBIR Phase I and Phase II programs.3 Other “non-dilutive” sources for entrepreneurs include health grants from the National Institute of Health (NIH), scientific research grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and various specialized grant programs run by the Department of Defense (DoD) and other U.S. government agencies. For example, the Center for Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CCAT), a DoD funded technology transfer and grant consortium headquartered in San Diego has provided over $25 million dollars of technology development grants to regional early-stage enterprises since 2001. In addition, governmental funding also supports valuable assistance programs to small technology-oriented enterprises in addition to direct grants. Montana State University's “TechLink” program, for example, facilitates the private sector commercialization of technologies developed in Federal R&D laboratories through licensing, technology evaluation, contract assistance, and even small technology development grants to entrepreneurs. Although difficult to estimate accurately, the combined annual Federal grant and assistance funding of early-stage technology-based enterprises may be similar to the amount provided by the combined formal angel investment groups within the U.S.4 Private and regional granting agencies can also be important sources of “non-dilutive” funding. Similar technology oriented granting frameworks, such as Germany's Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology's ZIM program for SMEs, exist in almost all developed economies throughout the world. Some large developing nations, such as India, have also recently implemented similar initiatives. Regardless of the funding source, the ability of the entrepreneur to effectively communicate the status of the technology's development, its advantages against competitive technological solutions, and what the best path is to the marketplace becomes central to ultimately obtaining the necessary capital. There are always two sides to the funding table, entrepreneurs seeking capital on one side and decision makers with capital on the other. Selecting which commercial proposal to support is one of the most fundamental challenges confronting those involved in making funding and other resource support decisions. This is particularly vexing since only a small percentage of technology proposals and emerging enterprises actually ever get funded, and among those that do obtain funding only a select few are truly successful. All funding institutions, whether private or public, are acutely interested in identifying and supporting future “success stories.” In the private equity arena, a poor track record inevitably affects the ability of an angel network or VC fund to attract new members or raise additional capital. Similarly, with increased reporting and accountability requirements in the public sector, granting agencies are particularly focused on tracking successful technology commercialization efforts that are directly tied to their funding mandates and agency mission. With the current tight economic conditions, under-performing agencies may receive less funding during the next legislative budget cycle.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
There has been increased recent interest in understanding the role that the presentation format and style has upon both investor decision making and the ability to predict future success. Many grant proposals go through essentially the same phased process as a private equity screening process where a select number of proposals are invited to present their technology to a panel of experts—it is during this presentation screening process that decisions will ultimately be made regarding final funding for the proposal. Using a real life decision making process, a total of twenty-two video-taped proposal presentations to a Department of Defense/SPAWAR technology transfer consortium were analyzed. We examined the dynamics from both sides of the funding table. First, we found evidence that both the “passion” of the entrepreneur and style of the presentation influence an expert panel's assessment of the merits of a technology based enterprise during a formal presentation process for grant funding. With this in mind, entrepreneurs making presentations, regardless of the merits of their technology and business plan, can either help or hurt their case. Second, we also found that the “passion” of the entrepreneur as experienced and perceived during the formal presentation was associated with the future success of the enterprise. This is an important finding from the perspective of funding agents—it appears that there may be, indeed, measurable elements related to the presentation process other than “content” that can be possibly used to predict future “success.” On one hand this study must be considered exploratory. Only twenty-two presentations were analyzed, and there were clearly sample size limitations with our study. In terms of sample size, however, our study is consistent with other recent experiments such as the well cited Chen et al. (2009)7 study. In addition, our sample is much larger than many published studies of technology commercialization that only use a few case examples. More importantly, however, is that our study is based upon video tapes of real presentations, with real panels of expert decision makers and presenters, within real outcomes of financial gain or loss— analysis of real presentations made under such circumstances is rare in the literature. In addition, unlike prior research that is almost always ex-post in nature, we correlated presentation characteristics with future success within an ex-ante research design. For future research, a qualitative study might uncover the cognitive processes that evaluators use in reaching their judgments. Within the current study, we were unable to gain access to reviewers for the purpose of teasing out these nuances. Additional studies might be designed to capture reviewers' perceptions of passion as influenced by various behaviors exhibited by the entrepreneur. Given that entrepreneurs' passion may have a significant influence on subsequent funding decisions, this is a fruitful area for further research.