Design of a University-Based Venture Gestation Program (UVGP)

Abstract

Design science methodology was used to develop and test a University-based Venture Gestation Program (UVGP), the model built after identifying key problems and reactions to them in student based gestation ventures. The model relied on a three-year longitudinal comparative case study of a successful and an unsuccessful student venture team. The teams came from the same university and were winners of business plan contests in 2012 and 2013. Although the teams were very similar to begin with, analyses revealed that different responses to three shared problems were key determinants of venture gestation success, and failure. Based on these observations, three design principles, termed tenure, competence compatibility and entrepreneurial bricolage, were adapted to derive a solution model, the Venture Gestation Model (VGM), with the aim of improving chances of venture success. To develop the model, the study drew on dynamic capability theory, and subsequently yielded the UVGP which provided concrete tools (prescriptions) toward gestation venture success. As a means of testing the designed solution, an evaluation of the program was conducted by observing the gestation venture of the 2014 winner of the annual contest. Findings show that gestation success depends more on the effectiveness of the program in increasing awareness of internal problems than on reactions to external changes. However, the prescription on competency development requires revision to overcome inadequacy issues.

Investigating the process of entrepreneurial team member exits: a systematic review and future research directions

“…First, a member might leave due to better prospects elsewhere (Loane et al 2014). Leaving entrepreneurial team members pursue other opportunities, which can include internships, job offers, and studies at university (Bjørnåli and Gulbrandsen 2010;Goi and Kokuryo 2016). Second, lifestyle issues or family reasons can also be triggers to exit (Muske and Fitzgerald 2006;Loane et al 2014;Goi and Kokuryo 2016).…”

“…Leaving entrepreneurial team members pursue other opportunities, which can include internships, job offers, and studies at university (Bjørnåli and Gulbrandsen 2010;Goi and Kokuryo 2016). Second, lifestyle issues or family reasons can also be triggers to exit (Muske and Fitzgerald 2006;Loane et al 2014;Goi and Kokuryo 2016). However, other team-specific characteristics in context of the teams such as the role within the team, and the team member's skills are of paramount importance (Boeker and Karichalol 2002;Hellerstedt et al 2007;Collewaert and Fassin 2013).…”

“…However, other team-specific characteristics in context of the teams such as the role within the team, and the team member's skills are of paramount importance (Boeker and Karichalol 2002;Hellerstedt et al 2007;Collewaert and Fassin 2013). For example, the exit of a team member can happen due to insufficient skills or the need for different skills, which the individual, in her or his own opinion, is unable to contribute to the team (Collewaert and Fassin 2013;Goi and Kokuryo 2016;D'hont et al 2016).…”

“…Such ETMEs are described to have serious personal consequences for the departing individual (Breugst et al 2015) and for the composition of the remaining team (Vanaelst et al 2006;Loane et al 2007;Goi and Kokuryo 2016;Yoon 2018) as well as for the performance of the affected ventures (Chandler et al 2005;Bamford et al 2006;Le et al 2017). Hence, obtaining systematic knowledge about the exit of individual team members of entrepreneurial teams is fundamental for a deeper understanding of how team-based ventures function, change over time, and perform.…”

“…Research on exits of team members in entrepreneurial teams is marked by considerable fragmentation. Knowledge is scattered among numerous articles of the entrepreneurship and management literature that each take different perspectives on the antecedents of ETMEs (Fiet et al 1997;Forbes et al 2006;Hellerstedt et al 2007;Cardon et al 2017) and often only provide implicit information on exit routes (Forbes et al 2006;Goi and Kokuryo 2016). Moreover, empirical studies yield contradictory findings concerning the effects of ETMEs on venture performance (Guenther et al 2015).…”