Small Business Economics

, Volume 29, Issue 1–2, pp 81–99 | Cite as

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

  • Petra Andries
  • Koenraad Debackere


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.

Key words

business model adaptation performance new technology-based businesses 

Jel Classification

D83 M13 O32 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abernathy W. J. and Utterback J. M. (1975). A Dynamic Model of Product and Process Innovation. Omega 3(6): 639–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison P. D. (1995). Survival Analysis Using SAS: A Practical Guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Almus M. and Nerlinger E. A. (1999). Growth of New Technology-based Firms: Which Factors Matter?. Small Business Economics 13(2): 141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 0R0440Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch D. B. (1991). New-Firm Survival and the Technological Regime. Review of Economics and Statistics 73(3): 441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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): 381–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry M. M. J. and Taggart J. H. (1998). Combining Technology and Corporate Strategy in Small High Tech Firms. Research Policy 26: 883–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhidé A. (1996). The Questions Every Entrepreneur Must Answer. Harvard Business Review 74(6): 121–130Google Scholar
  10. Bhidé A. (2000). The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses. Oxford University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Brokaw L. (1991). The Truth About Start-ups. Inc Apr 1991: 52–67Google Scholar
  13. 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: 157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chakravarthy B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A Promising Metaphor for Strategic Management. Academy of Management Review 7(1): 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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): 529–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christensen, C. M., 1993, ‘The Rigid Disk Drive Industry: A History of Commercial and Technological Turbulence’, Business History Review, 67(4) Winter 1993, 531–588Google Scholar
  17. 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: 55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, HollandGoogle Scholar
  19. Drucker P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 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: 322–327Google Scholar
  21. Druilhe C. and Garnsey E. (2004). Do Academic Spin-outs Differ and Does it Matter?. Journal of Technology Transfer 29: 269–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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): 504–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Falbe C. M. and Larwood L. (1995). The Context of Entrepreneurial Vision, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesley, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. 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: 215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamel G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. 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): 5–29Google Scholar
  27. Hannan M. T. and Freeman J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82: 929–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hannan M. T. and Freeman J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 49: 149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hay, M., P. Verdin and P. Williamson, 1993, ‘Choose your Battlefield: Giving New Ventures a Better Chance’, INSEAD-WP 93/64/SMGoogle Scholar
  30. 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: 9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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: 275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hrebiniak L. G. and Joyce W. F. (1985). Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 336–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klepper S. (2001). Employee Startups in High-tech Industries. Industrial and Corporate Change 10(3): 639–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 Google Scholar
  35. Legnick-Hall C. A. (1992). Innovation and Competitive Advantage: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. Journal of Management 18(2): 399–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lu J. W. and Beamish P. W. (2001). The Internationalization and Performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal 22(6–7): 565–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Markoczy L. (1994). Modes of Organizational Learning: Institutional Change and Hungarian Joint Ventures. International Studies of Management and Organization 24(4): 5–30Google Scholar
  38. Mc Cartan-Quinn D. and Carson D. (2003). Issues Which Impact Upon Marketing in the Small Firm. Small Business Economics 21(2): 201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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): 21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 Google Scholar
  41. National Venture Capital Association Yearbook, 2004, Thomson Venture Economics & National Venture Capital AssociationGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson R. R. and Winter S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  43. Pitt L. F. and Kannemeyer R. (2000). The Role of Adaptation in Microenterprise Development: A Marketing Perspective. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 5(2): 137–155Google Scholar
  44. Puranam, P. and K. Srikanth, 2003, ‘Leveraging Knowledge or Leveraging Capabilities? How Firms Use Technology from Acquisitions’, London Business School working paperGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts E. B. and Meyer M. H. (1991). Product Strategy and Corporate Success. IEEE Engineering Management Review 19(1): 4–18Google Scholar
  46. Romanelli E. and Tushman M. L. (1994). Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test. Academy of Management Journal 37(5): 1141–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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): 113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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): 45–54Google Scholar
  49. Schrader R. C. (2001). Collaboration and Performance in Foreign Markets: The Case of Young High-technology Manufacturing Firms. Academy of Management Journal 44(1): 45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seeman M. and Evans J. W. (1962). Alienation and Learning in a Hospital Setting. American Sociological Review 27: 67–79Google Scholar
  51. Shane S. and Stuart T. (2002). Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups. Management Science 48(1): 154–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sharma S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  53. 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: 393–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Singh J. V. and Lumsden C. J. (1990). Theory and Research in Organizational Ecology. Annual Review of Sociology 16: 161–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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): 951–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stinchcombe A. L. (1965). Organizations and Social Structure. In: March, J. (eds) Handbook of Organizations, pp 153–193. Rand McNally, Chicago, IIIGoogle Scholar
  57. Stoica M. and Schindehutte M. (1999). Understanding Adaptation in Small Firms: Links to Culture and Performance. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 4(1): 1–18Google Scholar
  58. Tabachnik B. G. and Fidel L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Teubal M., Yinnon T. and Zuscovitch E. (1991). Networks and Market Creation. Research Policy 20(5): 381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Timmons J. A., Smollen L. E. and Dingee A. L. M. (1990). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship in the 90’s (3rd edn.). Irwin, Homewood, ILGoogle Scholar
  61. Tuominen M., Rajala A. and Möller K. (2004). How Does Adaptability Drive Firm Innovativeness?. Journal of Business Research 57(5): 495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tushman M. L. and Anderson P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. 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, MAGoogle Scholar
  65. Vean de Ven A. H. and Poole M. S. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 510–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. (2003). Business Survival and Success of Young Small Business Owners. Small Business Economics 21(1): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Venkataraman S. (1997). The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 3: 119–138Google Scholar
  68. Wernerfelt B. (1984). ‘A resource-based view of the firm’. Strategic Management Journal 5(2): 171–180Google Scholar
  69. Winter S. G. (2003). Understanding Dynamic Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24: 991–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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): 925–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Steunpunt 0&0 StatistiekenUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations