alan carsrud

Observations on Research & Teaching

Copyright © Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199 www.entrepreneurship.fiu.edu

“Observations on trends in entrepreneurship research & teaching.”

Dr. Alan L. CarsrudSantiago, Chile / August, 2008



Agenda • Observations on entrepreneurship research and

teaching• Collaborative & interdisciplinary nature of

entrepreneurship research • Understanding the context Knowledge Intensive

(technology) Entrepreneurs• Overview of studies of entrepreneurial

personalities, intentions, cognitions & passion• Impact of research on informed teaching & firm

formation



Presentation is a reflection on:• Research on entrepreneurial personality, networks,

intentions, and passions. • Creating & operating The Venture Development

and Global Access Programs at UCLA for new technology firms.

• Researching Biotechnology entrepreneurship & innovation systems – internationally.

• Our International Entrepreneurial Intentions and Cognitions Research Group.

• Creating interdisciplinary programs at UCLA & at FIU.



Some ObservationsSome Observations



Field Changing• Teaching more than cases – informed doing• Journals grew from 3 to over 400 in twenty years• 150+ Entrepreneurship Centers in the US and 1200

colleges offer courses in US• Support from foundations & entrepreneurs grows• Over 250 chaired professorships• Ten years ago no doctoral programs in entrepreneurship,

today dozens.• Entrepreneurship no longer just in business or engineering

schools.• Faculty now tenured in entrepreneurship.• Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship

Centers.



Observations on Research• At least eight major research areas in the

field at both the micro and macro level.• Researchers come from fields outside of

traditional business disciplines as well as within them.

• No unifying theory but lots of useful theories across disciplines.

• Highly collaborative.



But the ugly reality:



Theory & Research Teaching

What entrepreneurs need

IncreasinglyIncreasinglyDivergentDivergentGoalsGoals



• We typically teach Schumpeter’s frame breaking firms.

• Dismiss Kirzner’s incremental firms as less important even in technology.

• We teach entrepreneurship for the 10% of the firms & ignore the other 90%.

• We focus on past cases rather than focus on doing now or in the future.

• Research rarely enters curriculum.



We need to bring this back to the real world.



Theory & Research Teaching

What entrepreneurs need



My own research and teaching covers several of the major themes in entrepreneurship.

I hope this will be informative.



Observations on the context for Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurs

(KIE):

Entrepreneurial Biotechnology Ventures



• While we know the importance of technology, risk capital, and technical institutions in the founding processes of high technology firms

• Technology entrepreneurship has yet to be fully explored (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2003)– Context to the creation– Cognitive processes



Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship (KIE)Stress knowledge (not just technology) as a basis for

technological innovation and new firm development

Industries where rapid advances in knowledge are a key to understanding new venture creation, competitive advantage, and market success

Cutting edge knowledge “outdated” with ever shortening time horizons

Small, fast growing, organic, and

network-based firms



• Interested in the impact of increased knowledge intensity on industry structures and entrepreneurship in biotechnology

• Focus on the drivers of collaboration between firms, universities, and individual entrepreneurs within a Finnish biotechnology context– Finland: 3.6% of the GDP devoted to R&D in 2001, one of the highest

percentages in OECD

– Venture capital became available in the 1990’s emergence of the Finnish biotechnology start-ups

– Represents 10% of Europe’s biotech firms.

134 firms in 8 industry segments by end of 2001.

December 2002: 119 active firms



Knowledge networking• Proximity allows for repeated interactions

– shared identities and trust– geographically localized knowledge spill-overs,

shared knowledge, knowledge catalysts (Networks involve universities, technology and science-based firms, larger corporations; collaborating and competing (Boundary crossing)

• Knowledge networks are beneficial for small organizations facing the challenge of commercializing technology



Different Network Approaches

vc

entre

B

uni

A

uni

entre

uni

D

E

vc

A

vc

C

vc

B

cust.

Less successfulvcvc

Angel

techangel

tech

F

G



Network Layers

KnowledgeNetworkGap

AcademicResearchCommunity

TechnologySME’s



• What are key characteristics of KIE in the context of European biotechnology industries?

• What characteristics describe networking and collaborative efforts between firms in a national innovation cluster of pharmaceutical firms?

• What drives collaboration and networking between firms, universities, and new entrepreneurs?

• What limits collaboration and networking between firms, universities, new firms and individual entrepreneurs?



• Longitudinal study using action research approach in the context of the Finnish Pharma Cluster

• Data set:– 31 in-depth interviews among key persons from

business and universities in the Cluster (2000-2001)

– mail survey to population (51% response rate) in 2000

– electronic survey (28 % responded

in 2002)



• Formal Venture capital – Availability of either public (SITRA) or private

financers act as triggers for new firm foundation

• Commercially active major research intensive universities (HUT, HU, etc.)

• Dedicated efforts from public institutions like TEKES and regional development groups

• The role of “network facilitators” (e.g. science parks, innovation cluster groups)



• Drivers of collaboration– Reducing uncertainty– Managing complex knowledge exchanges– Accessing complementary business assets

available (distribution and marketing channels)

• Issues limiting collaboration– Goals and motivations for collaboration vary



• Finnish technology firms show the importance of opportunities provided by environmental context and developing national infrastructure for knowledge intensive entrepreneurship– Facilitating knowledge flows– Access to Risk Capital– Share Technology, – Manage risk, and – Enhanced technical institutions



20 years of research on Entrepreneurial Personality,

Motivations, Intentions, Cognitions, & Passion

What drives people to create new technology firms.



Entrepreneurial success combines• Achievement Oriented Personality• Entrepreneurial Schema & Passion• Belief in Self and Ability• Context• Precipitation Event• Intention to Start a Venture• Opportunity Recognition• Controlling Resources• Timing



Entrepreneurial Personality

Just like those of successful commercial pilots, research

scientists and other professionals



Multidimensional Achievement Motivation

• Cooperative, a Team Player• Strong Desire to Work Hard• Strong Desire to Learn New & Different

Things (Mastery)• Able to Listen to Others (feminine trait)• Not Competitive• No more risk prone than other

professionals



The Intentions Model of Planned Entrepreneurial Behavior



EntrepreneurialIntentions

PerceivedFeasibility

Perceived Desirability

Perceived Self-Efficacy

Perceived SocialNorm

Perceived CollectiveEfficacy

Expected Outcome



Intentions research has become a significant part of the

entrepreneurship literature yet have we really translated that research into

how we teach the field?

How do we impact individuals’ intentions to start a firm?



Entrepreneurial Passions

More complex than expected



CountrySpecific

Gender

Entrepreneurialpassions

SocialNorm

Self-Efficacy Feasibility

Desirability

EntrepreneurialIntention



Conclusions• Entrepreneurial Passion

is a complex construct• Passion in Entrepreneurs

is:– combination of obsessive

passion and harmonious passion

• Where does passion fits in the entrepreneurial process?– Passion may play a

significant role later; – Passion does not turn

intentions into action

• Normative concerns:– Where should an

entrepreneur focus her/his passion?

– Can one focus one’s passion? Isn’t passion partially spontaneous

– Is cognitive style a moderator of passion?

– If so, how?



Cognitive Maps of Technology Entrepreneurs



• Cognitive Maps or schema– Prototypes of what a business concept is –

cognitive templates– Repeat entrepreneurs have more clearly defined

prototypes – and richer prototypes– Repeat entrepreneurs show greater business

acumen as their cognitive maps also include possible business and revenue models

– Experience allows entrepreneurs to organization information differently

from managers



• How is growth perceived:– by technology entrepreneurs?– by technology managers?– by students?

• How are growth strategies conceptualized in terms of critical success factors?– What factors are perceived by entrepreneurs

as critical to achive growth vs managers?



• Growth is a complex cognitive framework based on many factors

• Growth strategies can take several forms• Dynamic – perceived to be closely related to the life

cycle (LC) concept• Growth is resource dependent and the resources

change as the firm transcends different stages in the LC

• Corporate vs. entrepreneurial

growth



Controlled experiment

• A quasi- experimental design– control growth strategy– control the product– control the CSFs– looked at students, technology managers and

technology entrepreneurs



Results• Significant differences in CSFs across phases• Significant difference in CSF depending on growth

strategy• Significant differences between technology

entrepreneurs, managers and students• Significant differences in CSFs depending on

product (technology vs non-tech)• Reinforces assumption that CSFs are

different due to experience



Implications• Students had problems conceptualizing technology product

attributes • CSFs differ with strategy and stage• Manager’s better in envisioning growth strategies• Entrepreneurs better at envisioning start-up strategies• Growth strategies like open-ended possibilities with no

anchor for students (the notion of context-dependency)• Perception of growth seems to be linked to prior experience• Education alone does not make a master• Managerial and entrepreneurial

become meaningful when practiced



Issues for future • How do start-up entrepreneurs perceive growth?

– Understanding difference between revenue-based and profit-based growth

• How is rapid growth envisioned?– How do start-up entrepreneurs envision growth?– How do policy makers envision rapid growth?– Is it understood what drives growth?

• Entrepreneurial education.– students appear to be equipped with theory

that does not connect with practice.



Most Entrepreneurship Centers do not see the synergies in

research, teaching, outreach or endowment funding.



The structure at

Florida International University



Questions?