Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptation and Performance in New Businesses: Understanding the Moderating Effects of Independence and Industry

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New ventures as well as new business units experience significant difficulties in finding a viable business model. They often need to adapt their initial business model due to the presence of uncertainty and ambiguity. Technology-based companies are confronted with particularly high degrees of uncertainty and ambiguity. We hypothesize that adaptation is crucial for the performance (measured as survival) of these businesses, but that this effect is moderated by the (in)dependence of the new technology-based business and by the industry in which it is active. We test the adaptation-performance hypothesis through a survival analysis of a sample of 117 independent new ventures and business units. Our findings suggest that adaptation is beneficial in less mature, capital-intensive and high-velocity industries but not so in more mature, stable industries. Also, adaptation reduces failure rates in dependent business units as compared to independent ventures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abernathy W. J. and Utterback J. M. (1975). A Dynamic Model of Product and Process Innovation. Omega 3(6): 639–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison P. D. (1995). Survival Analysis Using SAS: A Practical Guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison P. D. (2003). ‘Convergence problems in logistic regression,’. In: Altman, M., Gill, J. and McDonald, M. (eds) Numerical Issues in Statstical Computing for the Social Scientist, pp. John Wiley and Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Almus M. and Nerlinger E. A. (1999). Growth of New Technology-based Firms: Which Factors Matter?. Small Business Economics 13(2): 141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andries, P., K. Debackere and B. Van Looy, 2004, Understanding New Venture Market Application Search Processes: A Propositional Model, K.U. Leuven Department of Applied Economics Research Report 0R0440

  • Audretsch D. B. (1991). New-Firm Survival and the Technological Regime. Review of Economics and Statistics 73(3): 441–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron D. N., West E. and Hannan M. T. (1994). A Time to Grow and a Time to Die: Growth and Mortality of Credit Unions in New York City, 1914–1990. American Journal of Sociology 100(2): 381–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry M. M. J. and Taggart J. H. (1998). Combining Technology and Corporate Strategy in Small High Tech Firms. Research Policy 26: 883–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhidé A. (1996). The Questions Every Entrepreneur Must Answer. Harvard Business Review 74(6): 121–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhidé A. (2000). The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses. Oxford University Press, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhaus R. (1982). The Psychology of the Entrepreneur. In: Kent, C. A., Sexton, D. L. and Vespers, K. H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, pp. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Brokaw L. (1991). The Truth About Start-ups. Inc Apr 1991: 52–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush C. G. and VanderWerf P. A. (1992). A Comparison of Methods and Sources for Obtaining Estimates of New Venture Performance. Journal of Business Venturing 7: 157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarthy B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A Promising Metaphor for Strategic Management. Academy of Management Review 7(1): 35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H. and Rosenbloom R. S. (2002). The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s Technology Spin-off Companies. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(3): 529–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., 1993, ‘The Rigid Disk Drive Industry: A History of Commercial and Technological Turbulence’, Business History Review, 67(4) Winter 1993, 531–588

  • Clarysse B. and Moray N. (2004). A Process Study of Entrepreneurial Team Formation: The Case of a Research-based Spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing 19: 55–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen W. M. and Levin R. C. (1989). Empirical Studies of Market Structure and Innovation. In: Schmalensee, R. and Willig, R. D. (eds) Handbook of Industrial Organization, pp. Elsevier Science Publishers, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Druilhe, C. and E. Garnsey, 2002, ‘Tracking the Emergence and Progress of University Spin-out Cases’, Conference Proceedings of IEEE-International Engineering Management Conference Cambridge, 19–20 August 2002, 1: 322–327

  • Druilhe C. and Garnsey E. (2004). Do Academic Spin-outs Differ and Does it Matter?. Journal of Technology Transfer 29: 269–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K. M. and Schoonhoven C. (1990). Organisational Growth: Linking Founding Team, Strategy, Environment and Growth Among U. S. Semiconductor Ventures, 1987–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(3): 504–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falbe C. M. and Larwood L. (1995). The Context of Entrepreneurial Vision, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesley, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner W. B., Starr J. A. and Bhat S. (1998). Predicting New Venture Survival: An Analysis of “Anatomy of a Start-up.” Cases from Inc. Magazine. Journal of Business Venturing 14: 215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks S. H., Watson C. J., Jansen E. and Chandler G. N. (1993). Tightening the Life-cycle Construct: A Taxonomic Study of Growth Stage in High-technology Organizations. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 18(2): 5–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan M. T. and Freeman J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82: 929–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan M. T. and Freeman J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 49: 149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, M., P. Verdin and P. Williamson, 1993, ‘Choose your Battlefield: Giving New Ventures a Better Chance’, INSEAD-WP 93/64/SM

  • Henderson R. A. and Clark K. B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Systems and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 9–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hite J. M. and Hesterly W. S. (2001). The Evolution of Firm Networks: From Emergence to Early Growth of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal 22: 275–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrebiniak L. G. and Joyce W. F. (1985). Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 336–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper S. (2001). Employee Startups in High-tech Industries. Industrial and Corporate Change 10(3): 639–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. K., 2004, ‘The Significance of Network Resources in the Race to Enter Emerging Product Markets: The Convergence of Telephony Communications and Computer Networking, 1989–2001’, Working Paper Presented at the 2004 Wharton Technology Mini-Conference

  • Legnick-Hall C. A. (1992). Innovation and Competitive Advantage: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. Journal of Management 18(2): 399–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu J. W. and Beamish P. W. (2001). The Internationalization and Performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal 22(6–7): 565–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markoczy L. (1994). Modes of Organizational Learning: Institutional Change and Hungarian Joint Ventures. International Studies of Management and Organization 24(4): 5–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Cartan-Quinn D. and Carson D. (2003). Issues Which Impact Upon Marketing in the Small Firm. Small Business Economics 21(2): 201–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee D. O., Varadarajan P. R. and Pride W. M. (1989). Strategic Adaptability and Firm Performance: A Market Contingent Perspective. Journal of Marketing 53(July): 21–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M., J. Altman and L. Pitt, 1999, ‘The Need for Adaptation in Successful Business Concepts: Strategies for Entrepreneurs’, In Conference Proceedings 1999 USASBE/SBIDA Annual National Conference, San Diego, California, 14–17 January 1999

  • National Venture Capital Association Yearbook, 2004, Thomson Venture Economics & National Venture Capital Association

  • Nelson R. R. and Winter S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt L. F. and Kannemeyer R. (2000). The Role of Adaptation in Microenterprise Development: A Marketing Perspective. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 5(2): 137–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranam, P. and K. Srikanth, 2003, ‘Leveraging Knowledge or Leveraging Capabilities? How Firms Use Technology from Acquisitions’, London Business School working paper

  • Roberts E. B. and Meyer M. H. (1991). Product Strategy and Corporate Success. IEEE Engineering Management Review 19(1): 4–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli E. and Tushman M. L. (1994). Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test. Academy of Management Journal 37(5): 1141–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saemundsson R. and Lindholm Dahlstrand A. (2005). How Business Opportunities Constrain Young Technology-based Firms from Growing into Medium-sized Firms. Small Business Economics 24(2): 113–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapienza H. J., Smith K. J. and Gannon M. J. (1988). Using Subjective Evaluations of Organizational Performance in Small Business Research. American Journal of Small Business 12(3): 45–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader R. C. (2001). Collaboration and Performance in Foreign Markets: The Case of Young High-technology Manufacturing Firms. Academy of Management Journal 44(1): 45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeman M. and Evans J. W. (1962). Alienation and Learning in a Hospital Setting. American Sociological Review 27: 67–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane S. and Stuart T. (2002). Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups. Management Science 48(1): 154–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd D. A., Douglas E. J. and Shanley M. (2000). New Venture Survival: Ignorance, External Shocks, and Risk Reduction Strategies. Journal of Business Venturing 15: 393–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh J. V. and Lumsden C. J. (1990). Theory and Research in Organizational Ecology. Annual Review of Sociology 16: 161–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steensma H. K., Marino L., Weaver K. M. and Dickson P. H. (2000). The Influence of National Culture on the Formation of Technology Alliances by Entrepreneurial Firms. Academy of Management Journal 43(5): 951–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe A. L. (1965). Organizations and Social Structure. In: March, J. (eds) Handbook of Organizations, pp 153–193. Rand McNally, Chicago, III

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoica M. and Schindehutte M. (1999). Understanding Adaptation in Small Firms: Links to Culture and Performance. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 4(1): 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnik B. G. and Fidel L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubal M., Yinnon T. and Zuscovitch E. (1991). Networks and Market Creation. Research Policy 20(5): 381–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmons J. A., Smollen L. E. and Dingee A. L. M. (1990). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship in the 90’s (3rd edn.). Irwin, Homewood, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuominen M., Rajala A. and Möller K. (2004). How Does Adaptability Drive Firm Innovativeness?. Journal of Business Research 57(5): 495–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman M. L. and Anderson P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback J. M. (1987). Innovation and Industrial Evolution in Manufacturing Industries. In: Guile, B. and Brooks, H. (eds) Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy, pp. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback J. M. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Vean de Ven A. H. and Poole M. S. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 510–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • (2003). Business Survival and Success of Young Small Business Owners. Small Business Economics 21(1): 1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman S. (1997). The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 3: 119–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B. (1984). ‘A resource-based view of the firm’. Strategic Management Journal 5(2): 171–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter S. G. (2003). Understanding Dynamic Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24: 991–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra S. A., Ireland R. D. and Hitt M. A. (2000). International Expansion by New Venture Firms: International Diversity, Mode of Market Entry, Technological Learning and Performance. Academy of Management Journal 43(5): 925–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Steunpunt 0&0 Statistieken, University of Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Petra Andries & Koenraad Debackere

Authors
  1. Petra Andries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koenraad Debackere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra Andries.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andries, P., Debackere, K. Adaptation and Performance in New Businesses: Understanding the Moderating Effects of Independence and Industry. Small Bus Econ 29, 81–99 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-5640-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-5640-2

Key words

Jel Classification

Search

Navigation