How do New firms innovate?--论文代写范文精选

这项研究的一个限制是专注于发明，这篇essay代写范文研究的发现可能仍然是唯一的,尽管研究专利发明有实质性优势,他们作为研究样本，也限制了研究结果的普遍性。

Abstract
In this article, we study a question that has puzzled several prior researchers: when are new firms innovative? While some researchers have argued that the lack of existing resources makes new firms poor innovators, others have reasoned that the very presence of resources constrains innovation, making new firms more innovative than established firms. Our results indicate that neither explanation is complete. Controlling for factors found to be important in prior work—including the greater tendency for new firms to invest in technically radical inventions, as well as their greater effectiveness at commercializing these inventions (Arrow, 1962; Henderson & Clark, 1990)—we showed that the market environment plays an important role in determining when new firms are innovative. Our results show that new firms are more likely to reach first sale and less prone to abandon efforts to innovate in more competitive, smaller, and less manufacturing intensive markets.

Future Research Directions 
One limitation of this study is the focus on inventions from a single research university. Although MIT accounts for 8 percent of all university patents, making it the largest university in terms of patenting (Henderson, Jaffe, & Trajtenberg, 1998), the findings of this study might still be unique to MIT and should be replicated with data from other settings. Second, we examined patented inventions. Despite the substantial advantages of studying patented inventions (Katila, 2002), their use as a research sample also limits the generalizability of our results. Patenting is more common in some industries than in others. Because the environmental conditions that give new firms advantages as innovators of patented inventions may not be the same as environmental conditions that give them advantages as innovators of unpatented inventions, our results will generalize best to industries where patenting is important.

Implications for Theory and Research 
Despite its limitations, this study offers important implications for theory and research. First, we address the debate between organizational researchers who argue that firm newness hinders innovation and researchers who argue that firm newness facilitates innovation. Rather than attempt to argue for the innovativeness of new firms under all conditions, we demonstrate that innovativeness depends on environmental characteristics. Although theorists (e.g., Winter, 1984) have argued that environmental characteristics will influence new firm innovation, to our knowledge, this study is the first to explain in detail why this is so. We differentiate between the resources of new and established firms to explain the process and also provide carefully assembled empirical evidence for such a contingency perspective. 

The results also advance understanding of the resource-based perspective and the value of firm resources. We revisit the question of whether firms or industries matter (e.g., McGahan & Porter, 1997), showing that the answer is contingent upon the quality of their combination. The value of a resource cannot be determined in a vacuum, but depends on the context in which it is used. We also extend the contingent resource-based view to the world of new firms that have not yet developed resources. Our study asks when—that is, under what environmental conditions—lack of resources is useful, and when it is constraining. Our finding that resource constraints can be enabling is intriguing. Although organizational studies have focused on the negative aspects of scarcity of skills, time, and resources, and strategies to overcome these constraints (e.g., Agarwal, Sarkar, & Echambadi, 2002; Rao & Drazin, 2002), the enabling features of scarcity remain mostly unexplored. This study is among the first empirical steps in this emerging area. 

We also make a related contribution to the resource-based perspective. Our results speak to an important but untested assumption in the dynamic capabilities view: the assumption that it is important for firms to reconfigure resources as environments change (Teece et al., 1997). In this study, we tested how different types of environments changed the value of organizational resources. In so doing, we provided evidence that the value of resources depends on their environment and that resource value can change rapidly as an environment evolves. From the perspective of technology strategy, the results have several implications. First, we have identified conditions that help new firms develop products that can be used to compete against established firms. This contribution is valuable because established firms have relatively few tools with which to predict the threat of competition from firms not yet in existence. 

Second, the results help firms predict the best structural arrangements for innovation, to define when it will be effective to innovate in-house, and when it will be effective to license inventions to new firms for commercialization. Third, the results have implications for understanding the recent discussion on exploration and exploitation in the context of innovation. By definition, all innovative activities that new firms undertake involve exploration, rather than exploitation of their existing routines (cf. March, 1991). Therefore, the study identifies conditions under which exploratory strategies are more likely to be successful. 

Our results also contribute to the entrepreneurship literature. Many of the studies in this literature are context-free and contain the argument that new firms that undertake specific strategies, or that possess specific skills, will be more successful. Our results show that such arguments face limits. The performance of new firms depends on their environment. Even if entrepreneurs cannot recognize the constraints and opportunities that environmental conditions impose upon their new firms, these conditions influence their performance. Our results suggest that the environment in which new firms operate needs to be fully incorporated in theories of entrepreneurship. Our empirical methodology strengthens our confidence in the findings. We explored the advantages of being a new firm by identifying all efforts to commercialize MIT inventions between 1980 and 1996. 

As a result, we avoid the problem of sampling on the dependent variable. Moreover, by examining university patents, we compared inventions that are simultaneously at risk of commercialization by new and established firms, thereby mitigating the problem of selection bias. We also created a selec tion correction to account for the fact that some inventions can be more likely than others to lead to the founding of new firms. Finally, our outcome measures were appropriate to the phenomenon we studied. According to Schoonhoven et al., (1990), first sale is a significant entrepreneurial event for a new company. Moreover, the use of this variable is consistent with Rosenkopf and Nerkar’s (2001) and Sørensen and Stuart’s (2000) calls for studies that examine the commercialization of new technologies. Despite these efforts, we did not find support for all of our hypotheses. 

The results that show that new firms are not more innovative in markets with more venture capital are in line with other recent empirical work (e.g., Zucker, Darby, & Brewer, 1998) but contradict theoretical expectations and thus beg further discussion. One explanation could be that venture capitalists are not good at identifying industries that will generate revenues quickly. As a result, sometimes they invest in hot industries like biotechnology, where reaching the first sale turns out to be slow and difficult. Another explanation could be that venture capital funding and product sales are alternative ways to access capital. If venture capital is widely available, new firms do not need to sell products to finance the development of technology. A third explanation is that formal venture capital is less important as a source of capital for the commercialization of new technologies than is popularly believed. Venture capital may lag behind rather than lead innovation. Angel investing, contract research, and government programs, such as Small Business Innovation Research grants, may be more important sources of capital for firms at early stages of technological development. Future research should further investigate this question.（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)