2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Resource mobilization in entrepreneurial firms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
104
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
5
104
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A technology partnership could for instance involve close interaction among firm personnel (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996;Schildt et al, 2005), access to physical facilities such as laboratories and R&D facilities or be focused on testing, developing or integrating external technologies (Van de Vrande & Vanhaverbeke, 2013) as subsystems of the ventures' total system. Such close technology partnerships can boost the capabilities and innovativeness of small firms (Nieto & Santamaría, 2010) and have been found to be beneficial for the smaller firm's development (Villanueva, Van de Ven, & Sapienza, 2012), but it also gains the external firm in form of access to new technology, increasing sales or as a reference in a new market.…”
Section: Technology Development and Technology Partnershipsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A technology partnership could for instance involve close interaction among firm personnel (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996;Schildt et al, 2005), access to physical facilities such as laboratories and R&D facilities or be focused on testing, developing or integrating external technologies (Van de Vrande & Vanhaverbeke, 2013) as subsystems of the ventures' total system. Such close technology partnerships can boost the capabilities and innovativeness of small firms (Nieto & Santamaría, 2010) and have been found to be beneficial for the smaller firm's development (Villanueva, Van de Ven, & Sapienza, 2012), but it also gains the external firm in form of access to new technology, increasing sales or as a reference in a new market.…”
Section: Technology Development and Technology Partnershipsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The operationalization of resources is based on the study of Newbert (2008). In his study he suggests to measure the availability of resources in an organization, in a similar way as the suggestion of Hunt and Davis (2008) and the resource mobilization measure by Villanueva et al (2010). Newbert's classification of resources comprises financial resources (capital and cash), human resources (experience and the intelligence of individual employees), intellectual resources (patents and ideas), organizational resources (partners and suppliers), physical resources (materials and physical technologies) and capabilities (skills and expertise).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the strategic management literature various perspectives emerged stressing the importance of taking into account competitors' resource positions when assessing a firm's ability to attain competitive advantage from its resources (Capron & Chatain, 2008;Adegbesan, 2009;Markman, Gianiodis & Buchholtz, 2009). Similarly, the recent SCM literature emphasizes the concept of rivalry in supply markets (Ellram, Tate & Feitzinger, 2013), attaining a preferred customer status (defined by preferential resource allocation of suppliers; Schiele, Calvi & Gibbert, 2012), supplier resource mobilization (Villanueva, Van de Ven & Sapienza, 2010;Ellegaard & Koch, 2012) and obtaining better supplier resources than competitors (Hunt & Davis, 2012). Yet, as Obloj and Capron (2011) observe, most empirical studies examine the absolute resource position of firms without accounting for the role of competitors' resource positions.…”
Section: Supply Base Rivalrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mutual dependency between partners in early collaboration activities is also seen as a driver of trust, commitment reciprocity and mutual understanding between members, aspects that have been identified as key in the development of collaborative relationships between firms (Vestrum & Rasmussen, 2013; Villa- Van de Ven, & Sapienza, 2012;Castro, Bulgacov, & Hoffmann, 2011;Andrésen, Lundberg, & Roxenhall, 2012). Considering these arguments, we elaborated the following proposition:…”
Section: Dependencymentioning
confidence: 99%