Small Business Innovation Research Programs - Case Study Example

Critique of the article: ‘Technological Entrepreneurship and Small Business Innovation Research Programs’ by Kropp, Fredric and Zolin, Roxanne, Academy of Marketing Science Review, volume 2005, no 7. 1. Introduction The development of research in business is an extremely complex field. The achievement of the targets set by the researchers is often quite difficult not only because there are no sufficient resources for the study of a particular issue but mainly because the analysis made on the material used is often limited not reflecting the actual views of theorists involved. On the other hand, any issue that does not refer to a wide range of business activities it is likely to be extensively examined by researchers and theorists – the material available for the analysis of this issue will be limited. In these cases, alternative approaches can be used in order to examine the various aspects of a business – related issue. Towards this direction, it is noted that ‘a framework based on wisdom rather than knowledge alone provides strategic options for paradigm development in the field of small business and entrepreneurship research’ (Mathys et al., 2005, 657) - a field similar with the one to which the article under examination refers. Current paper focuses on the analysis of the article ‘Technological Entrepreneurship and Small Business Innovation Research Programs’ by Kropp, Fredric and Zolin, Roxanne. The above article was published on 2005 in the academic journal Academy of Marketing Science Review. In accordance with the authors’ statement the above article focuses on ‘the conceptual role that government technology programs can play in facilitating the process of technological entrepreneurship’ (page 1). The case of the ‘Small Business and Innovation Research (SBIR) program - United States’ (page 1) is used as an example of the potential support of the stage to the small businesses. The article shows the various methods available to small businesses that are interested in use governmental programs for the development of their performance - it is also explained how these programs could lead to the increase of profitability of firms in various industrial sectors. The overall effectiveness of these programs is criticized - the authors suggest potential measures that could be used by firms that need to improve their performance – either in the short or the long term – through relevant governmental programs. The value of the article cannot be doubted; however, there are a few points that should be reviewed. Suggestions are made and relevant criticism is developed making sure that any assumption is appropriately justified with reference to the text and to academic material with similar content. 2. Article Overview The authors use a specific theoretical model, the one created by Lumpkin and Dess in 1996 in order to show the effects of government programs on the improvement of performance of firms that operate in the technology sector – special reference is made on the firms of small size. Towards this direction, a relevant governmental program, the Small Business and Innovation Research (SBIR) program developed in the USA is used as an example. In accordance with the authors the specific program ‘funds over $1 billion in technology development programs annually’ (p. 1); however, its effects on the technology entrepreneurship are not always the required ones. At a first level, it is revealed that the support of the government can ‘impact the environment in which the firm operates, thereby enhancing the likelihood that a firm will research and develop a new technology’ (p.3). The various parts of the Lumpkin and Dess model are presented and analyzed in order to help towards the understanding of the firm’s strategic benefits if the support by the state is accepted. Despite the fact that both the SBIR program and the Lumpkin and Dess model (1996) are analytically presented and explained their relationship with current business activities it is not made clear. The lack of reference to a specific business – in terms of identifying and evaluating the actual benefits of the particular firm when participating in the SBIR program and under the influence of the Lumpkin and Dess model, is the main reason for the limitation of effectiveness of the argumentation used throughout the paper. The conclusions and recommendations of the particular study – entitled as future research directions and conclusions – in the end of the paper do not fill the gap developed through the issue’s analysis in the previous sections. Apart from the fact that the conclusions section is rather short – two paragraphs – it does not refer to the links developed between the private and the public sector under the influence of the SBIR program. The value of the SBIR program is analyzed in just three sentences, from ‘programs like ….’ up to ‘…of the model’ – paragraph one in the conclusions section. However, the specific program is the main theoretical framework – along with the Lumpkin and Dess model – on which the specific study has been based; for this reason, the analysis of the particular program – especially regarding its effects on the performance of small businesses – would be extensive – not necessarily at the level that the Lumpkin and Dess model has been analyzed but at least at a satisfactory level – referring to the practical implications of the specific program for small businesses in USA – not only the general characteristics and benefits of the program which are explained in the 6th page of the article under evaluation. 3. Strengths and weaknesses in article’s structure The article under analysis focuses on the examination on the potential value of the governmental support in the development of small firms’ technology. After a short reference to the similar programs of countries around the world – in the introductory section – the article’s main issue is highlighted focusing on the SBIR program developed by the USA government. The article’s structure can be characterized as clear and easy to follow; the various aspects of the SBIR program are presented – in one page though – and the model of Lumpkin and Dess (1996) is then explained – a graphical representation of the model is made followed by the analysis of its parts. However, there is no reference to the practical implications of the above model; these implications could be identified and explained only if a small firm was used as an example. In other words, the authors should refer to a small firm – technological entrepreneur – in USA which has made use of the SBIR program; the benefits – disadvantages of this program would be easier to understand. In this context, the article’s weaknesses cannot be hidden. The article should be not just a presentation of a governmental scheme or the explanation of a theoretical model. It would be rather a point of reference for small firms that seek for governmental support in order to improve their performance. The effects of the governmental programs on the performance of small firms would be taken into consideration by the managers of these firms when similar initiatives are taken; but the assumptions made within the context of this article could be useful only if they are clear and well justified; the presentation of the parts of a governmental program – without analyzing their importance in terms of business activities – or the explanation of theories using personal assumptions cannot help managers in small firms to understand the value of governmental support in the increase of performance of their firms. On the other hand, the authors have tried to explore the issue under examination in a way that the needs of different parties are covered. For this reason it is noted that the research on the study’s main issue has been divided into the following levels: ‘the individual level, which focuses on the individuals who drive techno-logical innovation; the organizational level which focuses on the linkages within the organization; and the systems level which “is about the resources exchange among different players in the ecology of value creation, which includes the governing factors such as government technology and competition policy” (Phan and Foo 2004: 2)’ (page 3). However, the findings of the research presented above have not been appropriately presented to the readers. A general reference to the various parts and aspects of technological entrepreneurship – along with the model of Lumpkin and Dess is made in the article in order to show the main points/ fundamental issues of the study; however, it is not made clear how the findings of the research could be valuable for small firms in USA – or in other countries that similar programs exist. In accordance with the authors’ statement, their study focuses on the ‘exploration of the relationships between a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation and willingness to participate in a program like the SBIR program’ (page 4). Towards this direction, it could be expected that the practical effects – using the example of a specific firm – of the SBIR program would be presented to the public – but there is no such case. But, in this way, the willingness of firms to take such decision is not sufficiently justified – one could note that this decision would be depended only on the managers’ views and personal perceptions. 4. Analyzing and evaluating the article’s content and methodology – comparative analysis with similar studies The SBIR program – governmental program in the USA – is used in the article under examination as an example in order to show the ability of the state to support the performance of the technological entrepreneurship – reference is made to the small businesses for which the above program has been established. The use of the above program as an example of the governmental support towards the entrepreneurial efforts made in USA can be justified if taking into consideration the role of the program and its potential benefits to the entrepreneurs involved – the justification used by authors regarding the importance of this program can be characterized as quite satisfactory. In accordance with the information provided in the article under discussion the specific program was ‘formed in 1982 to assist in the development and commercialization of technology, and to promote small businesses, create new jobs, and develop alternative sources of supply; additionally the program is designed to help promote minority and disadvantaged businesses’ (page 6). In other words, the SBIR program has been developed in order to address the needs of small businesses – in this context it can be characterized as an indication of the government’s willingness to support the technological entrepreneurship even in firms that have limited resources. The SBIR program is available in many industrial sectors – in the article an indicative reference is made to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services and so on. The availability of the above program in many different federal departments – an issue highlighted in the page 6 of the study – makes the value of the program higher – interested parties can be informed on the program’s requirements and its benefits and can apply for it – if the relevant criteria are met. Under the above terms, the use of the specific program as an example of the governmental support to small enterprises can be characterized as justified and quite valuable for the small entrepreneurs across USA. Another issue that should be examined here is the choice of the model of Lumpkin and Dess (1996) for highlighting the effects of governmental programs – using as an example the SBIR program – on the entrepreneurial initiatives of individuals – with a special reference to technological entrepreneurs as the term is analyzed in the specific article. The model of Lumpkin and Dess is presented – through a graph – and analyzed in the study; its parts are explained – in terms of their relationship with the issue under examination. The choice of the model cannot be criticized – a theoretical model would be required for the analysis of the issue under examination, the specific model was probably considered by the authors to be the most appropriate. However, the analysis of the model and its use towards the explanation of the study’s main issue could be characterized as incomplete. More specifically, each part of the above model is explained – in terms of its general context; however, the relationship between the model’s parts and the study’s main issue is not quite clear. At the end of the page 6 of the article under discussion, it is noted that ‘the relationship between the SBIR and the technological entrepreneur is developed in subsequent sections of this paper’ (page 6). The page that follows – the 7th – begins with the analysis of the first part of the Lumpkin and Dess model – the entrepreneurial orientation. A short piece of text should be used at this point – having the role of an introductory section – in order to explain the structure of the article in the sections that will follow; it should be made clear that each one of the components in the Lumpkin and Dess model are analyzed and are evaluated in terms of their potential use in the evaluation of the SBIR program. No such explanation is made. It should be noticed that the analysis of the parts of the above model is not followed by the presentation of the potential relationship with the SBIR program. More specifically, only ‘autonomy’, ‘innovativeness’ and ‘risk taking’– as parts of entrepreneurial orientation are explained by referring also to the SBIR program. As for the rest elements of the entrepreneurial orientation – as developed by Lumpkin and Dess – there is no explanation of their potential role in the evaluation of the SBIR program. The above phenomenon can be identified in the presentation and the analysis of the other parts of the Lumpkin and Dess model – the sections ‘dynamism’ and ‘complexity’ – environmental factors as included in the above model. Overall, the analysis of the parts of the specific model is not satisfactory – not in terms of the presentation of the general context of the relevant sectors but of the explanation of their relationship with the SBIR program. The above issues would be critically examined using similar studies published in the business research field. A first example would be the study of Greckhamer et al. (2008). The above researchers tried to identify the most effective method of strategic management research. In order to achieve this target they used the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA); within the context of this method about 2,841 cases of firms were examined and analyzed specifically regarding the performance of their units. The development of business research in this case was based on an extensive sample of firms operating in the modern market; in this way, all practical implications of the issue under examination are expected to be identified and evaluated. Within the same context, the study of Goody et al. (2007) was also based on the findings of empirical research. The issue under examination in the above study has been the analysis of the aspects of outsourced research – a reference was made to the IT professionals that have to capture and process knowledge for the particular needs of their organization. Again, the analysis of the study’s main issue was based on the empirical research – ‘members of the UK business information community who have experience of establishing relationships with external partners, as well as representatives from three outsourced information service providers’ (Goody et al., 2007, 36) were interviewed – their responses were analyzed and used for the development of the particular study. The limited power of the literature to respond to the needs of a complex study is highlighted in the study of Simmons et al. (2008). In the specific study, it is noted that ‘the extant literature relating to small business website adoption is fragmented and fails to provide an understanding of what determines adoption’ (Simmons et al., 2008, 351); the above study focuses on the criteria used for the website adoption by small businesses. The exclusive use of literature for the development of the relevant study has been proved to be problematic; for this reason, the authors decided to proceed to the conceptualization of the issue using the existing literature. Within the same context, Wilson et al. (2006) tried to examine the exchange of information between businesses; two research projects were used as examples. It is noted in the above study that ‘the two projects, both undertaken on behalf of the respective regional Museum, Library & Archive Councils, involved a review of the literature to provide theoretical context, and quantitative and qualitative research methods using a sample of key regional stakeholders’ (Wilson et al., 2006, 50). In other words, the methodologies available in business research and exchange of information have been examined by Wilson et al. (2006) using both qualitative and quantitative research. For once more, the use of the literature as the unique tool for research has been considered to be inadequate. A similar approach of research has been employed by Jenson et al. (2003) when having to evaluate the criteria used by faculty members in order to assign projects to business students. The ability of the students to make appropriate use of the material delivered in class but also other material – data/ statistics and literature is highlighted in the above study. In the above study, the issue under examination is not directly related with the business research; however, it is related indirectly in terms of the development of business students’ ability to research over all types of material available on a particular issue which is business – related. The importance of quantitative research on the development of business research is also highlighted in the study of Pearce et al. (1993). In the above study – in which the existing models on strategic management are evaluated – it is noted that ‘statistics on business failure rates corroborate the conclusion that neither academics nor practitioners have succeeded in designing a model to guide strategic management action during periods of financial decline’ (Pearce et al., 1993, 613). The effectiveness of theoretical models used in the evaluation of various business activities can be identified and evaluated only if combining the qualitative and quantitative research. Of course, the importance of theoretical models and schemes is high; these models are the basis for the development of any assumption on the performance of strategic business decisions; however, all these assumptions would be remained unverified unless being supported by relevant statistical data. The increase of credibility of business research in which both qualitative and quantitative methods of research have been used is also highlighted in the study of Tucker et al. (1995) where the identification of effective methods of business communication is attempted. It is clear from the above studies, that the article under examination has a severe weakness: there are no empirical data referring to the findings of the literature; as a result the latter remain unverified; their explanation is based on the personal perceptions of the authors. Even if taking into consideration that different views of researchers that have explored the specific field are used, the interpretation of these views is made by the authors using their own views – there is no reference to the criteria used for the development of the relevant assumptions. 5. Conclusion – overall evaluation of the study Despite its weaknesses the article under examination can be characterized as important – in relation with the information provided to the small entrepreneurs in USA but also in other countries worldwide – where similar governmental programs have been developed. In accordance with the details provided in the particular article, a high percentage of the proposals submitted for the specific scheme are rejected. In fact, it is noted that ‘Less than 10% of the Phase I proposals submitted in response to the topic calls are funded; approximately 40% of successfully completed Phase I projects that apply for Phase II funding are funded’ (page 6). It is assumed that specific measures are required by the state so that the percentage of small entrepreneurs that is benefited for the particular project is increased. The potential participation of the large firms in the specific program (see page 6) is considered to be a severe obstacle to the funding of small businesses by the state; small businesses have to face the competition of large firms – even regarding programs that are designed specifically for firms of small size. A lack of appropriate legal framework for the protection of small businesses – referring to the financial support available to these businesses by the state – from large businesses, is revealed. The presentation of the strengths and weaknesses of the specific program is quite important in order for the interested parties – beneficiaries – to understand the terms under which they could state their interest to be funding by the state – under the terms included in the SBIR program. In accordance with the authors ‘the SBIR might play in assisting technological development, specifically in researching new technologies, developing prototypes, and commercializing the sponsored innovations’(page 13). Small entrepreneurs in USA – as also in other countries worldwide – would seek for similar programs; since they are aware that there are programs that are being developed by the state in order to support the entrepreneurial activity, they could seek for the program that would best suit their needs. In the above context, the article under analysis could be characterized as quite important offering valuable information to the small entrepreneurs regarding the existence of governmental support on the activities of small businesses. At a next level, it can be used in order to show to small entrepreneurs the methods to best use the specific program – SBIR – being informed on its strengths and weaknesses. The lack of empirical data to support the assumptions and the suggestions of the author can be considered to be the most important weakness of this study; however, the information provided to the particular article can be used in its current form – as a peer source of knowledge – even if the assumptions of the authors are not taken into consideration. Bibliography Bird, B., Welsch, H., Astrachan, J., Pistrui, D. (2002) Family Business Research: The Evolution of an Academic Field. Family Business Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, 337-350 Goody, M., Hall, H. (2007) Better out than in? - Issues and implications of outsourced research and information services for business information professionals. Business Information Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 36-42 Greckhamer, T., Misangvi, V., Elms, H. (2008) Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Strategic Management Research - An Examination of Combinations of Industry, Corporate, and Business-Unit Effects. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, No. 4, 695-726 Jenson, J., Mackiewicz, J. (2003) Human Subjects Research by Business Students: Beyond the Red Tape. Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2, 9-22 Kropp, F., Zolin, R. (2005) ‘Technological Entrepreneurship and Small Business Innovation Research Programs’. Academy of Marketing Science Review, volume 2005, no 7, available from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/kropp07-2005.pdf Mathys, L., Lowe, S. (2005) Small Business and Entrepreneurship Research - The Way Through Paradigm Incommensurability. International Small Business Journal, Vol. 23, No. 6, 657-677 Pearce, J., Robbins, K. (1993) Toward Improved Theory and Research on Business Turnaround. Journal of Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, 613-636 Russell, D., (2007) Rethinking the Articulation Between Business and Technical Communication and Writing in the Disciplines - Useful Avenues for Teaching and Research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 21, No. 3, 248-277 Simmons, G., Armstrong, G. (2008) A Conceptualization of the Determinants of Small Business Website Adoption - Setting the Research Agenda. International Small Business Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, 351-389 Tucker, M., Powell, K., Meyer, G. (1995) Qualitative Research in Business Communication: A Review and Analysis. Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 32, No. 4, 383-399 Wilson, K., Train, B. (2006) Business information service delivery within a regional context – the role of public libraries - Report of research projects in Yorkshire and the North West. Business Information Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, 50-57 Read More