No abstract

Networks are recognized as a central component of the entrepreneurial process, in particular with regard to opportunity identification and exploitation. In this study, we more specifically analyze the role of mentors who are in business as opportunity brokers and enablers among university students with entrepreneurial intentions. Our investigation with 1022 students from 13 French-language universities in Canada, France, Belgium and Algeria indicates that mentors in business, contrary to other mentors, support opportunity identification and exploitation among university students. Although student gender, entrepreneurial experience and education have a more pronounced effect, mentoring is the only element that can be controlled through the creation of formal support programs. These results call on public authorities, and universities in particular, to implement formal mentoring programs to support students who are interested in starting their own business, and who would not otherwise have access to business mentors in their environment.

The purpose of this study is to compare the entrepreneurial intentions of university students in North Africa (Algeria) with those of students in Canada and Europe (France and Belgium), and to examine differences with regard to psychological, sociocultural and economic factors influencing these intentions. Analyses on the sample as a whole confirm the relevancy of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) proposed by Ajzen (1991). When we differentiate among cultural groups, results were fairly similar for Canadian and European students. However, no TPB elements were significant for the Algerian students, or more significant than the control variables. We discuss the need to consider cultural factors to explain entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, given the socioeconomic climate in Algeria, we hypothesize that among Algerian university students, entrepreneurship is motivated by necessity rather than opportunity.

No abstract

Developing biopharmaceutical therapies is a scientifically complex endeavor, requiring from ten to fifteen years of effort with successive rounds of increasingly greater investment capital in a risk-intensive landscape. With failure rates at 88%, and an all-attempts-averaged investment of over $2B per approved drug, discussions of what leads to success and/or failure are pervasive. In this milieu, the BIEM (Bioenterprise Innovation Expertise Model) model was developed so that the status of a bioenterprise could quickly be assessed. Assessing the BIEM model, 20 biopharmaceuticals venture capitalists with 30 years average biotechnology industry experience, all having board experience, most having served as board chairs, and 80% having been CEO’s and/or presidents, rated the innovation expertise disciplines of BIEM 2.0 as to their importance in the scientific discovery through market-ready product innovation phase of biopharmaceutical development. Despite a small sample size, statistically significant insights were produced, verifying the BIEM model. The most important innovation expertise disciplines were intellectual property, science, regulatory expertise, and venture capital, in that order. Further, the strongest correlations linked regulatory expertise and science, and equally so, intellectual property and venture capital. Additional insights with respect to the profiles of the biopharmaceutical venture capitalists themselves is also presented.