Article

Key Factors in Building a Corporate Accelerator Capability: Developing an effective corporate accelerator requires close attention to the relationships between startups and the sponsoring company.

Authors:
Article

Key Factors in Building a Corporate Accelerator Capability: Developing an effective corporate accelerator requires close attention to the relationships between startups and the sponsoring company.

If you want to read the PDF, try requesting it from the authors.

Abstract

Overview: Since the creation of the first innovation accelerator, Y Combinator, in 2005, corporate accelerators are increasingly being adopted as a way for established firms to source innovation from startups. However, few studies have addressed the drivers of successful accelerators. This case study examines the experience of an established, global firm that launched 12 corporate accelerators between 2013 and 2016. The findings highlight two critical factors in building an effective corporate acceleration capacity: 1) designing a differentiated value proposition for startups based on the capitalization of corporate assets, and 2) developing a specific process to manage the relationships between the corporation and the startups involved in the accelerator. One strong mechanism increasing the potential for success is the assignment of dedicated business developers who can act as boundary spanners and oversee relationships to ensure that the interests of both parties converge.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... accelerators may capture valuable resources, other than innovation, and the dynamics that make these resources available to corporations. Moreover, a very few studies, to date, have examined the diversity of resources that can be accessed via corporate accelerators (Kohler, 2016;Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018;Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015). There is thus a clear gap, in both theory and practice, in our understanding of the mechanisms at work in corporate accelerators and how corporations can benefit from them. ...
... A second stream of literature focuses more on technological innovation, claiming that startups can be a source of incremental and disruptive innovation (Kanbach & Stubner, 2016). Other than these 'bringing outside-in innovation' typologies, there is little information as to why corporate accelerators are set up (Hausberg & Korreck, 2020;Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018). A few studies have argued that there are additional positive effects for firms in being so close to startups, including an impact on the corporate culture (Kohler, 2016) and the potential to enhance their reputation in a way that can help attract talent (Richter et al., 2018). ...
... A few studies have argued that there are additional positive effects for firms in being so close to startups, including an impact on the corporate culture (Kohler, 2016) and the potential to enhance their reputation in a way that can help attract talent (Richter et al., 2018). The existing research study leaves an opportunity to further evaluate the reason why accelerators are set up (Hausberg & Korreck, 2020;Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018). Furthermore, there is a need to better understand the evolution of corporate accelerators, as well as the mechanisms and dynamics that play a role in the outcomes and resources that can be found thanks to them (Shankar & Shepherd, 2019). ...
Article
Corporate accelerators are often viewed as a way to capture innovation from startups. In this paper we present a fresh understanding of the specific role of corporate accelerators as a means to access a number of strategic resources held by startups other than innovation. Our research explores the ways in which corporations use corporate accelerators to acquire resources held within the strategic factor markets in which startups compete. Through six in-depth case studies of corporate accelerators and 43 interviews with accelerators, corporations and startups, we investigate the type of strategic resources that can be accessed by firms via corporate accelerators. We also explain the dynamics through which corporations gain access to some of these strategic resources.
... These misconceptions help explain, to some degree, the paucity found in existing research to imply the performance of strategic CAs and their outcomes. Hence, there is a lack of research suggesting appropriate concepts for success measures in the context of CAs [20,22,24,25]. ...
... Instead, he recommends to purposefully manage knowledge flows by designing specific mechanisms to direct these inflows of knowledge [26]. Moreover, it is deemed critical for CAs to develop a specific process to manage the relationships between the business lines and the startups to allow for a successful transfer of knowledge from the CA to the parent organization [25]. This crucial role can be fulfilled by business developers who ensure the strategic fit between the firm and the startup, managing the interactions between the different stakeholders [25]. ...
... Moreover, it is deemed critical for CAs to develop a specific process to manage the relationships between the business lines and the startups to allow for a successful transfer of knowledge from the CA to the parent organization [25]. This crucial role can be fulfilled by business developers who ensure the strategic fit between the firm and the startup, managing the interactions between the different stakeholders [25]. ...
... To avoid implementation pitfalls, the scholars base their studies on single and multiple case studies yet still call for a systematic understanding of key performance indicators and success metrics (Mahmoud-Jouini, Duvert, & Esquirol, 2018). This paper has been driven by the question of whether a fundamental approach to examine the program success or failure can be based on the "Absorptive Capacity" of the incumbent translating into a process-based view of an acceleration mechanism rather than the categorization of different program specifications. ...
... These objectives may be based on internal business unit challenges or market growth, leading to further choices for prioritizing those objectives for resource allocation (Moschner et al., 2019). Leveraging resources strengthens the value proposition to startups and the level of attraction and retention for adequate absorption of new knowledge, concluding that a critical consideration for the corporate is matching startups' solutions with the right business units (Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018). Establishing goals frames the scope and the style of the relationship between the incumbent and the startup (Kohler, 2016). ...
... It is critical to identify those startups with necessary effort based on a viable screening and evaluation process (Gutmann et al., 2019). Targeting startups with a track record of the developed product, past funding success, existing revenue stream, media coverage, and previous successful experience at another incubator or accelerator program are other failure filters observed in the studies (Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018;Moschner et al., 2019). ...
Book
This edited book presents research results that are relevant for scientists, practitioners and policymakers who engage in knowledge and technology transfer from different perspectives. Empirical and conceptual chapters present original approaches regarding the current practice and policies behind technology transfer. By providing analyses at the macro, meso and micro-level, the respective chapters demonstrate how technology is moving from various organizational contexts into new institutions and becoming a critical aspect for competitiveness.
... They argue that corporate accelerators are involved in "corporate nurturing", a form of corporate entrepreneurship that involves business assistance to new ventures (Miles & Covin, 2002;Shankhar & Shepherd, 2018), and have so far looked at the design of corporate accelerator programs (Kohler, 2016;Kanbach & Stubner, 2016;Richter et al., 2018) and how these programs differ from other startup-engagement activities such as corporate incubation and corporate venturing (Kohler, 2016). Furthermore, corporate innovation and entrepreneurship studies have explored the different models of corporate accelerators (Kanbach & Stubner, 2016;Shankhar & Shepherd, 2018;Prexl, Hubert, Beck, Heiden, & Prügl, 2018) and their success factors and inhibitors for tapping into the startup world (Jackson & Richter, 2017;Mahmoud-Jouini, Duvert, & Esquirol, 2018). Overall, this research orientation has focused on the benefits of corporate accelerators for its corporate sponsor(s), building on the literatures on corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983), open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), and business or innovation ecosystems (Moore, 1996;Adner & Kapoor, 2010). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
While the widespread phenomenon of the business or seed accelerator has enjoyed increasing attention amongst scholars, the lack of a coherent and theoretically grounded understanding of this new organizational form constrains the cumulativeness and transferability of findings. By drawing on a systematic literature review, we identify four distinct research orientations on the accelerator: organizational learning and adaptation, entrepreneurial finance, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and corporate innovation and entrepreneurship. We compare and contrast these orientations along the organizational features that they attribute to the accelerator and synthesize them into an integrative typology. We further distinguish the accelerator from other established entrepreneurial support organizations and develop a research agenda that contributes to integration of the literature by building bridges between the different research orientations and linking the concept to established theories.
... Some studies limit to consider the need for a talented champion or even a dedicated team to run a startup program (e.g. Kohler, 2016, Mahmoud-Jouini, Duvert andEsquirol, 2018). Notwithstanding, special efforts are necessary to forge these relationships and make them work, which makes the development of a startup partnering capability a relevant and complex challenge (Hogenhuis, van den Hende and Hultink, 2016, Minshall et al., 2010, Prashantham andKumar, 2019). ...
Presentation
Full-text available
General remarks on the developmental paper "Too much for a champion: how large companies organize for corporate engagement with startups" discussed at JPIM Research Forum 2019, Orlando, Flórida - US.
... In addition, the startups participating in this program, in addition to increasing their capabilities to create new venture, will also have the opportunity to participate in the demo-day event and the chance to attract capital from investors (Drori and Wright, 2018). According to the various definitions provided by the researchers, it can be stated that accelerators directly affect the creation of entrepreneurial tendencies (Del Sarto et al., 2020;Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018;Stayton and Mangematin, 2019), create and grow startups (ventures) (Brown et al., 2019;Malek et al., 2014;Pandey et al., 2017;Pauwels et al., 2016), create jobs (Breznitz and Zhang, 2019), Companies' growth (Brown and Mawson, 2016;Gabrielsson et al., 2018;Shankar and Shepherd, 2019), innovation development (Coste and Gatzke, 2017) and increasing the level of entrepreneurial knowledge (Cuvero et al., 2019;Del Sarto et al., 2020). By accelerating these events, accelerators provide economic development for countries (Brown and Mawson, 2016;Radojevich-Kelley and Hoffman, 2012). ...
... In addition, the startups participating in this program, in addition to increasing their capabilities to create new venture, will also have the opportunity to participate in the demo-day event and the chance to attract capital from investors (Drori and Wright, 2018). According to the various definitions provided by the researchers, it can be stated that accelerators directly affect the creation of entrepreneurial tendencies (Del Sarto et al., 2020;Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018;Stayton and Mangematin, 2019), create and grow startups (ventures) (Brown et al., 2019;Malek et al., 2014;Pandey et al., 2017;Pauwels et al., 2016), create jobs (Breznitz and Zhang, 2019), Companies' growth (Brown and Mawson, 2016;Gabrielsson et al., 2018;Shankar and Shepherd, 2019), innovation development (Coste and Gatzke, 2017) and increasing the level of entrepreneurial knowledge (Cuvero et al., 2019;Del Sarto et al., 2020). By accelerating these events, accelerators provide economic development for countries (Brown and Mawson, 2016;Radojevich-Kelley and Hoffman, 2012). ...
... Relying on the results, it is supposed that the success of a program depends on designing a divergent proposal of benefits for start-ups based on shared corporate resources and specified process for managing the relationships between a corporation and start-ups. In order to implement those assump-tions, it should be Michał Bańka,Mariusz Salwin,Dariusz Masłowski,Szymon Rychlik,Maria Kukurba 495 helpful to assign dedicated business developers, the so-called boundary spanners, which provide for convergence of interests and exchange of information in collaboration with external companies (Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018). The authors of another study from that period discuss key features of corporate acceleration programs by means of abductive reasoning. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: The paper presents a review of the literature concerning start-up accelerators and a classification of related research untill August 2021. Approach/Methodology/Design: While elaborating the classification, the authors coded works according to the type of accelerator and implemented acceleration program. Furthermore, the paper identifies the countries, research bodies and authors who focus on research on the functioning of accelerators. The authors present how various accelerator forms operate and how they perform. Findings: The paper systematizes knowledge related to start-up accelerators available in the Scopus base and suggests directions for future research. Practical Implications: Recently a clear phenomenon is shown that is the development of a start-up ecosystem, in particular creation and professionalization of the new form of organisation that is a start-up accelerator. This entity acts as a bridge between start-ups and corporations and big enterprises, promoting success of both sides-conclusion of business contracts. More start-ups and corporations decide to collaborate with accelerators that, with their acceleration programs involving big companies, support them both. By monitoring the corporate-start-up collaboration, accelerators actively promote both parties, also in terms of generating necessary innovations to support, for instance, production, sales or service processes in big companies. An evergrowing number of accelerators and accelerator programs worldwide translates into more interest in research in this field. Originality/Value: Despite the increasing research trend related to start-up accelerators, no precise research classification has been available to date.
... They argue that corporate accelerators are involved in "corporate nurturing", a form of corporate entrepreneurship that involves business assistance to new ventures (Miles & Covin, 2002;Shankhar & Shepherd, 2018), and have so far looked at the design of corporate accelerator programs (Kohler, 2016;Kanbach & Stubner, 2016;Richter et al., 2018) and how these programs differ from other startup-engagement activities such as corporate incubation and corporate venturing (Kohler, 2016). Furthermore, corporate innovation and entrepreneurship studies have explored the different models of corporate accelerators (Kanbach & Stubner, 2016;Shankhar & Shepherd, 2018;Prexl, Hubert, Beck, Heiden, & Prügl, 2018) and their success factors and inhibitors for tapping into the startup world (Jackson & Richter, 2017;Mahmoud-Jouini, Duvert, & Esquirol, 2018). Overall, this research orientation has focused on the benefits of corporate accelerators for its corporate sponsor(s), building on the literatures on corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983), open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), and business or innovation ecosystems (Moore, 1996;Adner & Kapoor, 2010). ...
... Based on our review, 39 papers (12% of the total sample) offer detailed consideration of "ESO Sponsors" and focus on one of two types: corporations or universities. Like the ESO literature, overall, many of the studies in this subset offer (single) case descriptions (Ford et al., 2010;Gutmann et al., 2019;Kupp et al., 2017;Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018;Virtanen & Laukkanen, 2002) or generate typologies, based on resource configurations and sponsor priorities (Kanbach & Stubner, 2016;Prexl et al., 2019;Richter et al., 2018;Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs), such as incubators and accelerators, are now ubiquitous. Despite this proliferation, their impact on entrepreneurs, ventures, and communities remains unclear, while academic research remains disjointed and largely descriptive, limiting understanding of the entrepreneurial support process and the influence of ESOs on it. Conducting a systematic review of 337 peer-reviewed articles involving five ESO forms—incubators, science parks, accelerators, maker spaces, and co-working spaces—we find that the literature’s conception of support is under-socialized such that there is a need for longitudinal, processual, and experimental examination of changes in the rich relationships between entrepreneurs and their ventures, entrepreneurs and other entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs and ESOs, and ESOs and external stakeholders. Conceiving of support as help to become self-sufficient, we offer an alternative, relational approach to research on entrepreneurial support and those organizations seeking to provide it.
... It was determined that the design of a differentiated benefit proposition for startups based on the capitalization of corporate assets and a defined process for managing the relationship between the corporation and startups were responsible for the success of the program. Dedicated business developers [Ruseva and Ruskov, 2015] are expected to play a helpful role in achieving this, ensuring alignment of interests and information sharing in collaboration with external companies [Mahmoud-Jouini et al., 2018]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Accelerators have been becoming increasingly popular among young entrepreneurs interested in developing products, attracting investors, or establishing relations with industry represented by large companies. The focus of the studies is to conduct literature review due to the small number of scientific articles are available on this topic. The article aims to show the current state of knowledge about startup accelerators and the support they provide. It outlines what added value accelerators offer in their programs for young innovative companies. To achieve the stated aim, the authors combine a systematic literature review with a bibliometric analysis. The results of this research will be helpful in better matching the developed project with existing accelerator programs on the market. It can contribute to a better understanding of the principles governing the programs, program expectations of the accelerator and its partners with respect to the proposed solutions (corporations, business angels, and venture capital funds).
... For example, welfare stimulator accelerators, such as the Startup Chile Ecosystem (Gonzalez-Uribe and Leatherbee 2017), has similar interventions and outcomes as individually operated accelerators (e.g. Y Combinator), and ecosystem builder accelerators (Mahmoud-Jouini et al. 2018). More confusedly, research has also found that accelerators which run similar typical interventions generate in similar contexts different outcomes for different participants. ...
Article
Full-text available
Online access here: https://rdcu.be/b8tZI Over the past 15 years, accelerators emerged as a popular and distinct new form of intermediary organization, playing a key role in supporting entrepreneurial and innovation activities. To date, despite significant growth in accelerators research, there is still little understanding of how different forms of accelerators operate, and what outcomes they produce across different contexts. This paper reviews the existing scholarly research on accelerators using the Context–Intervention–Mechanism–Outcome framework and is based on the analysis of 98 research papers on accelerators published in the last 15 years. The analysis identifies four mechanisms which explain how accelerators operate and the role they play in supporting entrepreneurship and innovation: the validation of ideas and products; the provision of product development and models learning; the provision of support to increase startups’ market access and growth; and the provision of support for innovation. The paper identifies the methodological and theoretical gaps in current research and provides avenues to support future research and industry practice.
... Some studies limit to consider the need for a talented champion or even a dedicated team to run a startup program (e.g. Kohler, 2016, Mahmoud-Jouini, Duvert andEsquirol, 2018). Notwithstanding, special efforts are necessary to forge these relationships and make them work, which makes the development of a startup partnering capability a relevant and complex challenge (Hogenhuis, van den Hende and Hultink, 2016, Minshall et al., 2010, Prashantham and Kumar, 2019. ...
Research Proposal
Full-text available
Corporate Engagement with Startups (CEwS) is an open innovation (OI) initiative in which large companies partner with startups to improve innovation performance. Complementarities between large companies (resource availability, rigidness to innovate) and startups (resource scarcity, flexibility, and cutting-edge technology) are at the basis of such engagements. However, large companies and startups have striking differences in a way that working together brings many challenges. For a large company, these challenges are associated with not just the design of engagement initiatives themselves, but to the numerous concerns that emerge in a well-established structure to truly interact with a new venture. The current debate on CEwS is largely dedicated to topics like the strategies behind programs, the process of engagement and recommendations about partnering. In what regards the organizational aspects to make these engagements happen, many studies limit to mention the need for a champion to span the organizational boundaries, neglecting, in great part, the complexity of the organizational aspects subjacent to these initiatives. Therefore, this study's central question is: how should companies organize to engage with Startups? By exploring this question and implications, we expect to bring understanding on how CEwS can contribute to make large companies more innovative and in what extension and dimensions companies must set up the internal organization to best run such a kind of OI. To achieve the expected outcomes, we intend to apply multiple, inductive case studies in large established companies engaging with startups. This study intends to contribute to the OI field by adding insights from a systematic innovation approach and, also to applications of CEwS by fostering improved practices in large companies.
Article
Full-text available
Corporate accelerator programs—accelerators managed by or directly sponsored by one or multiple established firms—are becoming an integral part of startup ecosystems and an important startup engagement vehicle for established firms. Previous research focused either on independent accelerators or on corporate accelerator programs that one established firm operates internally. However, new accelerator models emerged recently, making the corporate accelerator phenomenon more diverse. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the different types of corporate accelerators, along with their objectives and characteristics in order for managers to better understand which type best fits their organization. Our insights on corporate accelerators emerged from secondary data and interviewees from companies and accelerator programs. We used these insights to categorize the programs into four corporate accelerator models that vary according to number of participants and the accelerator’s management structure and explain how companies can select the right model for their objectives.
Article
Full-text available
Corporate accelerators are on the rise and established companies from a diverse set of industries and regions have set up such startup support programs to predominantly pursue strategic goals. The purpose of this study is to shed light on the benefits of corporate accelerators from a corporate perspective and that of the participating startups. In order to do so, this in-depth single-site case study investigates the SAP Industry 4.0 Startup Program building upon an inductive research design with explorative nature. The authors qualitatively examine a newly established corporate accelerator program of one of the world’s largest enterprise software companies and provide valuable insights for both practitioners and scholars engaged in corporate accelerators. The benefits for startups participating in corporate accelerator programs can be linked to operational go-to-market acceleration in regards to product development, sales acceleration, as well as skill and knowledge development. Moreover, the startups receive benefits linked to strategic business development acceleration in the areas of strategy and business model improvements, pitching, financing, and strategic partner development. At the same time, corporate accelerators overall aim to increase the competitiveness of established companies running such programs by developing a product ecosystem and the brand, infusing startup culture into the organization and developing customer relationships.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Engajamento Corporativo com Startups (ECcS) se trata de uma iniciativa de inovação aberta em que grandes empresas interagem com startups visando melhoria de desempenho em inovação. Complementaridades entre empresas de grande porte (e.g. disponibilidade de recursos, inércia para inovar...) e startups (escassez de recursos, flexibilidade, tecnologias de ponta...) estão na base destes engajamentos. Contudo, grandes empresas e startups possuem diferenças marcantes, de forma que o trabalho conjunto entre elas traz muitos desafios e, especialmente para a grande empresa, muitas questões internas à organização emergem ao se buscar interagir com um negócio nascente (e.g. processos, aspectos culturais, compartilhamento de recursos e informação protegida, etc.). O debate corrente na temática de ECcS negligencia, em grande extensão, a complexidade subjacente aos elementos internos à grande organização para propiciar engajamentos efetivos com startups. Estudos que tangenciam a questão se limitam frequentemente a mencionar um Champion que atue expandindo limites organizacionais, dando suporte ao trabalho com startups. Dessa forma, o presente estudo sintetiza as abordagens da atual literatura sobre ECcS, identificando seus antecedentes e vertentes principais. Na sequência, o texto aborda a lacuna entre o debate corrente e as questões organizacionais no campo da gestão da inovação, levantando implicações e direções para estudos em ECcS.
Article
Full-text available
Startups often lead the technological transformation of logistics and supply chain practices. To shed light on the engagement between established (logistics) firms and external startups, this study takes up the emerging collaboration vehicle of supply chain management (SCM) accelerators. In contrast to few previous studies investigating generic, cross-sector accelerators, this work examines the design of sector-specialized accelerators, which narrow their scope, curriculum, and participants to SC operations and logistics services. We adopt a multiple-case study approach and draw on a unique dataset of nine SCM accelerators. Our findings display the participants’ and operators’ objectives and describe the programs’ SCM-specific design features. We identify substantial differences across SCM accelerators, and between SCM accelerators and generic, cross-sector accelerators. Based on these observations, we derive six propositions that condense our findings and may motivate future research.
Article
The study addresses an important literature gap concerning open innovation and startups. The purpose of this article is to deliver tools and guidelines for innovation managers to support their decision-making when aspiring to openly innovate with startups. The study proposes five spectra that show the variance across different collaboration on the following parameters for analysis: 1) investment required; 2) risk level; 3) corporate control; 4) Startup support; 5) ecosystem leverage. The article arrives at a simple weighted decision matrix to be used as a decision-guiding tool in determining the best choice of a startup-collaboration option from a corporate perspective. The research builds on a framework of references to previous literature and follows an explorative approach based on field research and design science research.
Chapter
The emergence of exponential technologies, along with the affirmation of a collective intelligence paradigm, is creating new competitive pressures and entrepreneurial opportunities for organizations aiming to generate a spectrum of diverse outputs ranging from product innovation to large-scale corporate renewal. The entrepreneurial process designed and realized within the organization has traditionally been referred to as corporate entrepreneurship. Today, the affirmation of open innovation and the increasing role of employee creativity and initiative as drivers of innovation and entrepreneurship activities in companies are giving rise to a new concept of “crowdventuring.” In particular, exponential organizations, which are able to leverage disruptive technologies to create socioeconomic value, are well positioned in the emerging competitive scenario. Based on a number of internal and external drivers, these organizations can excel within their markets operating as Excelerators, i.e., organizations where people can think and act differently, embrace radical change, and create more sustainable outcomes. This chapter describes the evolution towards crowdventuring and presents the attributes of exponential organizations that act as entrepreneurial accelerators.
Chapter
Full-text available
Resumo • Grandes empresas estabelecidas têm buscado interações com startups como forma de melhorar seu desempenho em inovação. Chamamos genericamente a estas iniciativas de Engajamentos Corporativos com Startups – ECcS. • Complementaridades entre empresas de grande porte (disponibilidade de recursos, inércia para inovar...) e startups (escassez de recursos, flexibilidade, tecnologias de ponta...) estão na base destes engajamentos. • Por outro lado, grandes empresas e startups têm diferenças marcantes (processos, cultura, norteamento, etc.) de forma que o trabalho conjunto entre elas traz muitos desafios. • O crescimento recente dos ECcS é em grande extensão motivado pelo acelerado avanço, difusão e disponibilidade de tecnologias digitais. • Algumas linhas de estudo são consideradas como debates antecedentes ao contexto atual de ECcS: (i) corporate venturing e inovação aberta, (ii) empreendedorismo corporativo e ambidestria, e (iii) parcerias assimétricas. • Investimentos em equity em empresas nascentes de alto potencial tem sido combinados com expertise gerencial das empresas investidoras, o que reduz riscos do venture e agrega transbordamentos positivos para a empresa. • O dilema exploration-exploitation é presente nos debates de empreendedorismo corporativo (perspectiva da estratégia) e ambidestria (perspectiva de estudos organizacionais). • Parcerias assimétricas são aquelas em que os parceiros diferem muito entre si (porte, recursos, experiência...), o que é típico de relações startups-empresa. O foco da discussão é basicamente a expropriação de recursos do lado fraco. • Grandes empresas e startups interagem de várias formas: capital de risco, incubadoras internas, alianças estratégicas, joint ventures, aceleração corporativa, hackatons e bootcamps, dentre outros mecanismos. • O campo de ECcS é recente e há várias tipologias para caracterizar as diferentes modalidades. No entanto, como a grande empresa se organiza internamente para melhores engajamentos ainda é pouco debatido. • Estudos defendem a existência de um responsável nas grandes empresas pela articulação destas com startups (champion). No entanto, negligencia-se muito da complexidade e abrangência de habilidades que envolve este papel. • Importante dilema está na localização física e integração de uma iniciativa de ECcS com a empresa-mãe: estar perto o suficiente para contar com recursos da empresa, mas longe o suficiente para não ser restringida pela sua rigidez. • ECcS são incipientes tanto no campo das práticas quanto no das teorias. Grandes empresas podem manter protagonismo em inovação, mas ainda há muito a se avançar na configuração de relações intra e interorganizacionais.
Article
Accelerators are the crucial foundations that influence development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and new venture creations. Although about 10 years have passed since the establishment of the first accelerator in the United States, there are still many dark spots about the accelerator’s operations and services as well as their position and value in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. In this study, an attempt has been made to systematically review the articles published in the field of start-up accelerators to shed light on the dark spots. To this end, 51 articles and review articles published in the Q1 and Q2 journals of the Scopus citation database, were systematically and deeply studied. Parts of the main results of this research include the process of acceleration, the accelerator’s services, the investing framework of accelerators, the success and risk factors of accelerators, and eventually antecedents as well as consequences of an accelerator. Finally, inspired by the Porter's value chain model, the accelerator value chain is presented as the final model of this study.
Conference Paper
Practical and theoretical interest in startups grown significantly in recent years, and this phenomenon brings accelerators as a suitable option for the development of these firms. Our study aims to analyze the research field's development on accelerators and present perspectives and opportunities for future research. We use a bibliometric analysis, a systematic literature review, and a content analysis to present the principal studies and references in the area and highlight that entrepreneurship and open innovation are frequently associated with accelerators. Accelerators can be viewed as organizations or as acceleration processes, meaning that acceleration can be used by firm to open innovate and accelerators will need to develop unique characteristics. Finally, we developed four research streams for future studies that have the potential of a better comprehension of the field.
Chapter
The chapter aims at investigating the different implementation modes of open innovation (OI) adopted by companies when engaging with startups. In the last years, a significant body of literature has been published on OI-related issues. Research on OI is multidisciplinary and scattered among different fields of research. Based on this, the authors perform a comprehensive and systemized literature review to identify and describe the most critical issues to be considered when companies engage with startups. Specifically, they aim to identify the main barriers to corporate-startup collaboration and, in doing so, to provide a comprehensive framework able to shed new light on the proposed issue and to provide guidance to future research directions.
Chapter
Corporate accelerators are the specific programs designed by incumbent companies to scan, select, and accelerate the growth of promising technology startups for definite mutually beneficial objectives such as gaining access to disruptive innovation of the startup or outreaching to incumbents’ customers for fast time to market. Based on the theoretical background, this study contributes to literature by adopting systematic literature review of “corporate accelerators” as the methodology to deliver cumulative insights and a final absorptive capacity process model was built based on examining prior single or multiple case studies which applied to their context as a limitation. Absorptive capacity theory enhances the understanding of technology transfer’s modus operandi at corporate acceleration settings. As a result of the systematic literature review, the author offers a conceptual model to inform future research and practice.
Article
Full-text available
In their attempt to define radically new product–market pairs, according to the literature, new technology ventures (NTV) are confronted with an apparent dilemma. On the one hand, they should delay key commitments to remain flexible in the face of high uncertainty. On the other hand, commitments are necessary to enable learning and progress. Based on the longitudinal study of four NTVs, we find that the entrepreneurs resolve this dilemma by (i) defining their product and market progressively through iteration and learning, and by (ii) basing this progressive definition on stakeholders’ commitments. We analyse this approach and label it “commit and learn”. Following an inductive methodology, we suggest a conceptual framework to enhance the understanding of commitment as a multi-dimensional concept for new ventures.
Article
Full-text available
An increasing number of established companies have recently started to launch corporate accelerator programs to engage with entrepreneurial startups, making this a worldwide, cross-industrial phenomenon. Nevertheless, there is a lack of understanding of the various objectives and approaches adopted by companies. This article examines 13 in-depth case studies of corporate accelerator programs and is the first to empirically derive and discuss a typology for corporate accelerators, assessing objectives and design configurations. Thereby, the article contributes to the emerging discussion about corporate accelerators in corporate entrepreneurship literature. Moreover, the findings provide corporate managers with an understanding of corporate accelerators and guidance for how to make design choices for startup engagement programs.
Article
Full-text available
Some scholars have argued that globalization will reduce the importance of local contexts. We argue instead that despite the increased frequency and intensity of interactions across local contexts, they continue to retain their distinctive differences. MNEs face growing challenges in managing the complexity of these interactions, because they must manage multiple embeddedness across heterogeneous contexts at two levels. First, at the MNE level, they must organize their networks to exploit effectively both the differences and similarities of their multiple host locations. Second, at the subsidiary level, they must balance internal embeddedness within the MNE network, with their external embeddedness in the host milieu. Balancing the subsidiary's strategic role within the MNE with its local identity and its domestic linkages can sometimes represent a trade-off. Multiple embeddedness thus creates both business opportunities and operational challenges, which are explored in this special issue.
Book
This handbook provides the latest thinking, methodologies and cases in the rapidly growing area of collaborative management research. What makes collaborative management research different is its emphasis on creating a close partnership between scholars and practitioners in the search for knowledge concerning organizations and complex systems. In the ideal situation, scholars and their managerial partners would work together to define the research focus, develop the methods to be used for data collection, participate equally in the analysis of data, and work together in the application and dissemination of knowledge. The handbook contains insightful reflections on the state of the art as well as detailed descriptions of the collaborative efforts of an international group of leading edge academics and their practitioner counterparts. The applications of collaborative research methods included in this volume include those aimed at individual development, organizational development, regional development efforts and economic policy. The insights from the cases suggest that collaborative management research has been a highly effective means of getting at issues that other research methods and intervention techniques have failed to address. The rationale for conducting this highly engaging type of research is explored in the first section of the handbook, followed by sections that offer new methodologies, descriptive cases, views from those directly involved, and issues and enablers about the use of this approach in advancing knowledge and practice. The handbook does appeal to scholarly practitioners as well as practical scholars.
Article
Today's startups are a major source of innovation, as they employ emerging technologies to invent products and reinvent business models. Corporations that embrace an open innovation strategy increasingly look to startups as a source of external innovation. Corporate accelerators offer a potent approach to nurturing innovations from entrepreneurial ventures. However, the vast differences between corporations and startups make collaboration a challenge. Corporate accelerators need to be designed effectively to add value for startups and create innovation benefits for the company. Based on information obtained during interviews with managers and participants of corporate accelerators (n=40), managers receive a framework and strategies for designing corporate accelerators. To leverage startups’ innovation and to make corporate accelerators an effective part of a firm's overall innovation strategy, managers need to systematically and thoughtfully consider the design dimensions of proposition, process, people, and place.
Article
Research summary: We study the processes through which multinational corporations (MNCs) identify and make use of external sources of knowledge. Based on a seven-year longitudinal study of one MNC's overseas scouting unit, we show how a simple one-directional “channelling” process gradually gave way to three higher value-added processes, labelled “translating,” “matchmaking,” and “transforming.” Building on these insights, we develop an integrative framework, defining the conditions under which each of the four processes is likely to transpire, and showing how the stock of social capital held by the scouting unit allows it to perform increasingly high value-added activities over time. Implications for the MNC, external knowledge sourcing, and boundary-spanning literatures are discussed. Managerial summary: Over the years, many multinational corporations (MNCs) have created overseas “scouting” units to tap into new ideas and opportunities in leading-edge markets, but with mixed outcomes. In this study, we describe the development of a European telecom firm's scouting unit in Silicon Valley during the 2000s, focusing on the specific approaches used by the scouting managers to build effective connections between Silicon Valley start-ups and the firm's business units back in Europe. We identify four distinct approaches for different types of opportunities, and we observe a clear sequencing of effort over time as the scouting managers built the necessary capabilities and credibility. Copyright
Article
![Figure][1] ILLUSTRATION: DAVIDE BONAZZI A new institutional form has emerged in the entrepreneurial ecosystem in recent years: the seed accelerator. These fixed-term cohort-based “boot camps” for startups offer education and mentorship for startup founders and culminate in a “demo
Article
When it comes to agility, startups have an edge over large corporations – whereas large corporations sit on resources which startups can only dream of. The combination of entrepreneurial activity with corporate ability seems like a perfect match, but can be elusive to achieve. This article examines how large corporations from the tech industry have begun to tap into entrepreneurial innovation from startups. Prominent examples are used to inductively derive a set of four models commonly used to engage with startups and to describe their characteristics, challenges, and rationales. While corporate equity is the key mechanism behind more established models, newer approaches replace equity with shared technology to connect both worlds with fewer organizational costs and greater speed and agility. We construct a typology of corporate mechanisms to engage with startups that balance speed and agility against control and strategic direction, to map the ways companies can bridge the gap between themselves and the startup world.
Article
PLEASE CITE THE UPDATED, PUBLISHED VERSION: Cohen S, Fehder DC, Hochberg YV, Murray F. 2019. The design of startup accelerators. Research Policy : S0048733319300939. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733319300939 We examine and discuss the seed accelerator phenomenon which has recently received much attention both in the US and across the globe. While accelerators appear to be proliferating quickly, little is known regarding the value of these programs; how to define accelerator programs; the differences between accelerators, incubators, angel investors and co-working environments; and the importance of the various aspects of these programs to the ultimate success of their graduates, the local entrepreneurship ecosystems and the broader U.S. economy.
Article
Companies have traditionally managed innovation as an internal process, relying upon their own skills and capabilities. However, this closed approach to innovation is no longer viable in a period of rapid diffusion of commercially valuable knowledge. If leading firms are to retain their capacity for innovation, they must begin to manage intellectual property via the logic of open innovation. Such an approach is much more fluid, emphasizing both the use of R&D produced outside the firm and the development of internal systems to reward commercially viable innovation within the firm.
Article
This paper reviews research on open innovation that considers how and why firms commercialize external sources of innovations. It examines both the “outside-in” and “coupled” modes of open innovation. From an analysis of prior research on how firms leverage external sources of innovation, it suggests a four-phase model in which a linear process—(1) obtaining, (2) integrating, and (3) commercializing external innovations—is combined with (4) interaction between the firm and its collaborators. This model is used to classify papers taken from the top 25 innovation journals, complemented by highly cited work beyond those journals. A review of 291 open innovation-related publications from these sources shows that the majority of these articles indeed address elements of this inbound open innovation process model. Specifically, it finds that researchers have front-loaded their examination of the leveraging process, with an emphasis on obtaining innovations from external sources. However, there is a relative dearth of research related to integrating and commercializing these innovations.
Article
This paper proposes that the mechanisms of external knowledge capture and internal knowledge transfer can best be understood at the micro-organizational level of Communities of Practice (CoPs) rather than at that of the subsidiaries’ network. The paper then offers a model of the dynamics of organizational learning in network organizations, such as MNEs, which builds on this unit of analysis. This model i) clarifies the link between CoPs and Networks of Practice (NoPs), by offering a novel conceptual model of how knowledge, particularly tacit, embedded knowledge, is absorbed, and ii) proposes a new link - that between CoPs and Internal Networks of Practice (INoPs), as another essential ingredient to knowledge accumulation and transfer within firms. We also propose that the firm-level architectural knowledge that is developed through INoPs is valuable and rare, and in combination with the component knowledge developed through NoPs, can create novel knowledge that may be a source of competitive advantage.
Article
Problems with the extant literature on science parks and incubators are examined in terms of four levels of analysis: the science parks and incubators themselves, the enterprises located upon science parks and incubators, the entrepreneurs and teams of entrepreneurs involved in these enterprises and at the systemic level. We suggest there is no systematic framework to understand science parks and incubators, that there is a failure to understand their dynamic nature as well as that of the companies located on them, that there is a lack of clarity regarding the performance of science parks and incubators which is associated with problems in identifying the nature of performance. We review briefly the papers contained in this special issue and demonstrate how each sheds light on an unexplored dimension of this emerging literature. In the concluding section, we synthesize the findings of the papers and outline a broader research agenda.
Book
Analyzes how successful firms fail when confronted with technological and market changes, prescribing a list of rules for firms to follow as a solution. Precisely because of their adherence to good management principles, innovative, well-managed firms fail at the emergence of disruptive technologies - that is, innovations that disrupt the existing dominant technologies in the market. Unfortunately, it usually does not make sense to invest in disruptive technologies until after they have taken over the market. Thus, instead of exercising what are typically good managerial decisions, at the introduction of technical or market change it is very often the case that managers must make counterintuitive decisions not to listen to customers, to invest in lower-performance products that produce lower margins, and to pursue small markets. From analysis of the disk drive industry, a set of rules is devised - the principles of disruptive innovation - for managers to measure when traditional good management principles should be followed or rejected. According to the principles of disruptive innovation, a manager should plan to fail early, often, and inexpensively, developing disruptive technologies in small organizations operating within a niche market and with a relevant customer base. A case study in the electric-powered vehicles market illustrates how a manager can overcome the challenges of disruptive technologies using these principles of disruptive innovation. The mechanical excavator industry in the mid-twentieth century is also described, as an example in which most companies failed because they were unwilling to forego cable excavator technology for hydraulics machines. While there is no "right answer" or formula to use when reacting to unpredictable technological change, managers will be able to adapt as long as they realize that "good" managerial practices are only situationally appropriate. Though disruptive technologies are inherently high-risk, the more a firm invests in them, the more it learns about the emerging market and the changing needs of consumers, so that incremental advances may lead to industry-changing leaps. (CJC)
Article
Critics simultaneously question the relevance of academic knowledge about manage- ment, the scientific unity of the field and the performance of business schools. They signal the lack of an adequate epistemology for management research. This paper explores the possible nature of such an epistemology. Classic epistemology looked for universal truth but ended up accepting a model of action: the experimental method. Contemporary critiques of classic epistemology offer relativist views about truth but focus on metaphysics of action, that is, false universals of collective action. Truth being dependant of models of action, a useful epistemology can be defined as the research-based revision of these models. It is quite different from pragmatism and relativism: applied to the 'knowing observer' it led to important discoveries in physics and mathematics. Management research should similarly recognize that each knowing method gives access to different truths and corresponds to a different conception of responsiveness and actionability. The identity and value of management research is also clarified as opposing metaphysics of action and developing a research process for the identification and revision of new models of action. Four examples of management research leading to such revision are discussed: the theory of management instruments vs the metaphysics of social control; the theory of prescribers vs the metaphysics of markets and hierarchies; the theory of collective knowledge production vs the metaphysics of expertise; the theory of innovative design vs the metaphysics of R&D projects. Within an epistemology of collective action, manage- ment research can be defined as a basic discipline and not as an applied one.
Corporate accelerators are an oxymoron
  • D Crichton
Corporate Accelerator DB
  • F Heinemann