Question:

Answer:

Acs, Z. J., & Terjesen, S. 2013. Born local: toward a theory of new venture’s choice of internationalization. Small Business Economics, 41(3): 521-535.

Almor, T., Tarba, S. Y., & Margalit, A. 2014. Maturing, Technology-Based, Born-Global Companies: Surviving Through Mergers and Acquisitions. Management International Review, 54(4): 421-444.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1): 105-123.

Arnold, D. J., & Quelch, J. A. 1998. New strategies in emerging markets. Sloan Management Review, 40(1): 7-20.

Baum, M., Schwens, C., & Kabst, R. 2013. International as opposed to domestic new venturing: The moderating role of perceived barriers to internationalization. International Small Business Journal, 31(5): 536-562.

Bell, J. 1995. The Internationalization of Small Computer Software Firms: A Further Challenge to “Stage” Theories. European Journal of Marketing, 29(8): 60-75.

Bell, J., McNaughton, R., & Young, S. 2001. ‘Born-again global’ firms; An extension to the ‘born global’ phenomenon. Journal of International Management, 7(3): 173-189.

Bloodgood, J. M., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. 1996. The internationalisation of new high-potential US ventures: antecedents and outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4): 61-76.

Coviello, N. E., McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. 2011. The emergence, advance and future of international entrepreneurship research – An introduction to the special forum. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6): 625-631.

Evers, N., & O’Gorman, C. 2011. Improvised internationalization in new ventures: The role of prior knowledge and networks. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(7-8): 549-574.

Freeman, S., Deligonul, S., & Cavusgil, T. 2013. Strategic re-structuring by born-globals using outward and inward-oriented activity. International Marketing Review, 30(2): 156-182.

Freeman, S., Edwards, R., & Schroder, B. 2006. How Smaller Born-Global Firms Use Networks and Alliances to Overcome Constraints to Rapid Internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 14(3): 33-63.

Gartner, J., Maresch, D., & Fink, M. 2015. The Potential of Additive Manufacturing for Technology Entrepreneurship: An Integrative Technology Assessment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(4): 585-600.

Hitt, M. A., Li, H., & Worthington, W. J. 2005. Emerging Markets as Learning Laboratories: Learning Behaviors of Local Firms and Foreign Entrants in Different Institutional Contexts. Management and Organization Review, 1(3): 353-380.

Holstein, W. J., & Kelly, K. 1992. Little companies, big exports, Business Week.

Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in Emerging Economies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249-267.

Jones, M. V. 1999. The internationalization of small high-technology firms. Journal of International Marketing, 7(4): 15-41.

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. 2011. International Entrepreneurship research (1989-2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6): 632-659.

Kim, J. R., David. 2014. 3D Printing – A revolution in the making. University of Auckland Business Review, 17(1).

Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 1996. The Born Global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing, 8: 11-26.

Knight, G. A., & Liesch, P. W. 2016. Internationalization: From incremental to born global. Journal of World Business, 51(1): 93-102.

Madsen, T. K., & Servais, P. 1997. The Internationalization of Born Globals: an Evolutionary Process? International Business Review, 6(6): 561-583.

Mainela, T., Puhakka, V., & Servais, P. 2014. The Concept of International Opportunity in International Entrepreneurship: A Review and a Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1): 105-129.

McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. 2000. International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 902-906.

McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. M. 1994. Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(6): 469-487.

Mellor, S., Hao, L., & Zhang, D. 2014. Additive manufacturing: A framework for implementation. International Journal of Production Economics, 149: 194-201.

Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M., & McDougall-Covin, P. 2012. Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3): 337-368.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 1994. Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1): 45-64.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2005a. Defining International Entrepreneurship and Modeling the Speed of Internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5): 537-554.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2005b. The internationalization of entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1): 2-8.

Rasmussen, E. S., Madsen, T. K., & Evangelista, F. 2001. The Founding of the Born Global Company in Denmark and Australia: Sensemaking and Networking. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 13(3): 75-107.

Rasmussen, E. S., Madsen, T. K., & Servais, P. 2012. On the foundation and early development of domestic and international new ventures. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(4): 543-556.

Rialp, A., Rialp, J., & Knight, G. A. 2005. The phenomenon of early internationalizing firms: what do we know after a decade (1993-2003) of scientific inquiry? International Business Review, 14(2): 147-166.

Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001. Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 243-263.

Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. 2005. Three Views of Entrepreneurial Opportunity. In Z. J. Acs, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, 1 ed.: 141-160: Springer US.

Thompson, N., Kiefer, K., & York, J. G. 2011. Distinctions not dichotomies: exploring social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship, Social and sustainable entrepreneurship: 201-229: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. 2013. The Uppsala model on evolution of the multinational business enterprise–from internalization to coordination of networks. International Marketing Review, 30(3): 189-210.

Zahra, S. A., Newey, L. R., & Li, Y. 2014. On the Frontiers: The Implications of Social Entrepreneurship for International Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1): 137-158.

Zucchella, A., Palamara, G., & Denicolai, S. 2007. The drivers of the early internationalization of the firm. Journal of World Business, 42(3): 268-280.

Answer 1:

Using the literature of the course which factors were the most important in the founding process of the firm? How can models from the course be used to analyse the process?

In the view point of Knight & Cavusgil, (1996), start-up process is likely to begin with innovative ideas that can be used to solve any problem. Technology has a significant role to play as a part of solving the problems. Thus, it can be clearly stated that the innovative idea of the business is definitely the primary paradigm for the founding of the business. From the case study, it has been evident that the Treat System wants to come up with an innovative idea of understanding all the aspects of the anti-microbial therapy that could benefit the patients, clinicians, hospital and the society. The idea can be fulfilled only with the help of better technological effectiveness. The second important criterion for the founding process of a firm is the leadership approach of the main people behind the idea or the concept of the firm. There are certain qualities that a leader possesses that actually help to fulfil the objectives of the proposed idea. In this matter, Jones, Coviello & Tang, (2011) commented that a skilled and an experienced leader can easily turn an innovative idea into a successful one. Supporting the claim, Mainela, Puhakka & Servais, (2014) highlighted the importance of a team in making the idea a successful on. When the leader along with its team work, there remain better chances of the success of the plan as innovative and new ideas can click to the mind of a person at any point of time and the level of success can be better than expected. In the case study as well, it has been found that Treat system has always focused on improving the lives of patients by offering better means to fight against the diseases like infection. As evident the firm had begun its operation much earlier but could not make it a commercial success. However, when worked as a team, they managed to come up with a plan and expanded its business with the cooperation with a Danish company.

Considering the entrepreneurial models, it can be said that the organisational theory suggests that the success of a firm is largely depended on the environmental predictions. As commented by Coviello, McDougall & Oviatt, (2011), there might be many firms operating in the particular market, but considering the right measures in order to lay the foundation of a new firm is important to check the need of the market where the firm will operate. The model also states that not only the demand of the product or the service, but the availability of the employees in that market is also important. A firm has to abide by the political, legal and the environmental regulations of the particular country where it wants to operate. For instance, when, Treat System wanted to expand in the Danish region, it was important to check the environmental condition of the place in order to avoid any concern related to the business idea. In fact, as this particular business idea was related to the life-saving antimicrobial treatment, there should have remained the scope and opportunity that the business idea will be accepted and the business will effectively run in that particular market. Other factors including the pricing and the product differentiation are also important when a new venture in started or a firm wants to expand its business in another market (Baum, Schwens & Kabst, 2013). It can be said that the demand of better and innovative medicine idea could be effective in countries like Africa or Nigeria but when it comes to look at the profitability of the firm as well, considering a better market is indeed important. There always remain some risks in coming up with a new venture but for profitability, the firms have to take the risks.

Answer 2:

From the literature of the course analyse the relations to the most important stakeholders of the firm. How is it possible for a small firm like this to relate to a large number of stakeholders?

According to Thompson, Kiefer & York, (2011), marketing studies have suggested that in order to recognise the firm’s ability, it is important to come up with a broader range of stakeholders and not only limited to the consumers and the competitors of the firm. Stakeholders can be anyone who will be interested towards the operation and the capabilities of the particular firm. It falls under the responsibility of the management of the firm to recognise those people who could be effectively useful for the firm. It is when the marketing capabilities of the firm is understood, there remains better opportunities to make profit out of the business. In this respect, Vahlne & Johanson, (2013) stated that the marketing strategy is developed by the means of four Ps of marketing, these are, the product, place, price and promotion. It is when the entire process is carried on by considering that it would create a positive impact on the consumers, there remains the possibility of the prosperity of the business. Thus, the complete outcome of the business cannot be loaded in favour of the customers only.

The stakeholder theory draws upon four major factors that include social sciences, economics, politics and the ethical approach towards the society. In addition to this, there also remains the corporate planning and the interest to target the right group of people. The relationship of the company with the external environment is not new and the conjunction is made only by considering the behaviour of the people in the environment (McDougall, Shane & Oviatt, 1994). The idea is to interact with the external people and come up with the most effective and potential product to be offered in the market. This could be considered as the most valid reason behind including huge numbers of stakeholders in the business. The Treat System could be a small firm definitely but the idea of the product could be beneficial to a large group of people and this can eventually attract huge numbers of stakeholders. These stakeholders do not only include the consumers or the manufacturers but others as well who could be possibly interested on these products.

The idea of the system of the anti-bacterial treatment has been brought by lots of researches in the presence of many clinical authorities. In addition to this, there is also the demand of these products in the market and this could be the reason that the firm could attract huge numbers of stakeholders that include the governmental bodies, private bodies and other companies responsible for such businesses. According to the stakeholder theory, there always remains a thread of stakeholders internally and externally in a firm; all it takes is to create an interest group who shall be interested in the particular matter and would show their input in the business process (Madsen & Servais, 1997). Moreover, considering the stakeholder classification typologies as well, staying with the traditional group of stakeholders will never benefit an organisation. Therefore, it should be the primary look out of a firm to find out those stakeholders who would find is feasible to deal with the firm and will be concerned towards the firm’s activity. The stakeholders definitely hold the power of negotiation and so is the firm. As commented by Zahra, Newey & Li, (2014), stakeholder salience is a dynamic model and it explains the importance of making relationship with the managers of the firm in order to come up with better advantages for the firm. The chances of survival also increase when the relationship with the stakeholders is strengthened and when the interaction remains for long term. The significance of such relationship is to successfully carry out the business activity and build up better future prospects for the firm. As it has been evident that the firm is coming up with an innovative idea, the need for developing long term relationship with major stakeholders can be easily considered as a successful step towards the future prospects.

Answer 3:

Using the literature of the course discuss the process of finding or creating opportunities during the founding process and later in the development of the firm.

The internationalisation and the globalisation of business have automatically created opportunities for the firms to go global and carry out their businesses. In addition to this, the homogeneity of the international market has also opened up the horizon for the companies to come up with high-potential ventures. All it requires for the process is better communication and transportation facilities. In the recent era of technological advancement, these two have also not remained a matter of concern for the entrepreneurs. As commented by Zucchella, Palamara & Denicolai, (2007), all it requires is the idea of an innovative product and the market opportunity for the success of a particular product of business plan. In fact, there remain higher potential for those business plans that can actually solves the major issues of the society. For instance, the innovative idea of the anti-microbial therapy could be much successful in the market due to its demand. In fact, the firm will get support from many stakeholders and would be able to deliver the product that would support the demand of the society.

According to Oviatt & McDougall, (2005), a firm can also consider its strengths when it comes to appear with innovative products during the founding process. A firm must know what they are best in and what are the possible strengths or opportunities available to them. Utilising the strongest skills and abilities of what the organisation is capable of can lead to better advantages to the firm and can also hide the disadvantages of the firm as well. After this, the next important point to be considered is picking up the right project for doing the business. This criterion surely needs to look into the market opportunity and other internal and external factors of the firm but picking up the right project reduces the risk of the failure of the business by many folds.

At times, the government of a country also looks for better ventures or business ideas in order to overcome any societal or business distress. The federal governmental agencies often come up with better opportunities for small businesses and give them preferences. This requires good records of the firm in terms of its environment or the sustainability (Hoskisson et al. 2006). If the organisation respects the employee rights and also looks at the value for money apprentices, the government is found to make positive decision towards the business approach of the firm. This is the reason that the firm or the organisation should consider the right and sustainable approach towards the society in its organisational activities that they do not have to face any kind of problems or challenges when it comes to carrying out the business in other locations (Knight & Cavusgil, 1996). Therefore, abiding by the terms and norms of the environment and sustainability could be considered as the primary process of finding opportunity.

As started by Rasmussen, Madsen & Servais, (2012), there should be both internal and external strategic planning when it comes to the future development process of the firm. Internal development of a firm can be done by the means of training the employees and directing them where the company wants to reach. Determining the factors that could possibly help the organisation to move forward in future is important and comparing the same with the present situation. When the firm will be able to recognise the future of the market in terms of the socio-economic demand, it would be beneficial for the firm to expand its business. In the case study as well, the firm has seen the opportunity of expanding in the market of Denmark considering all the major factors that could affect the business. This could be a positive and successful step of the business.

Answer 4:

From the literature of the course would you describe the firm as a Born Global or an International New Venture or another type of international entrepreneurial firm?

A born global firm is the one that derives significant competitive advantage from the very inception from the resources and sales of the outputs in several countries. In the view point of Rialp, Rialp & Knight, (2005), there are many companies and firms that go global looking at the opportunities of the market but it cannot be classified as born global. In order to consider a company to be born global, it has to be understood that right from the beginning of the company’s venture, the firm has considered going global. However, as argued by Knight & Cavusgil, (1996), Born Global firms are relatively small firms that have less than 500 employees and the annual sales also do not go above $100 million. These firms have the managerial implications of going global. The aim is to consider borderless marketplace since the time the firm is founded. Internationalisation is the system when an organisation is found to get involved in the international businesses and wants to gradually enter into the foreign lands (Mainela, Puhakka & Servais, 2014). Internationalisation of the business requires great research and market evidences in order to select the appropriate market for expansion.

In the case study, such situation has not been observed and the firm has not always wanted to go global. In fact, at the time of expansion as well, the firm did not have the clear intervention of where they should expand their business. It was only when all the necessary things were matched with the prospects of expansion, the firm considered the Danish region. Therefore, it can be said that the Treat System is more of a ‘Born Global’ firm rather than a firm that gone for Internationalisation. One of the important criterions of the born global is that they largely rely on the main method of the foreign market entry. The born global have to depend on the external factors like the availability of the resources in the market where the firm wants to operate. In addition to this, it is equally important to satisfy the need of the demand of the market (Vahlne & Johanson, 2013). There are both small and large organisations present in a market and it becomes really challenging for a small company to expand in such a wide market. The born global has to come up with special interest that would automatically overcome the issues or the competitions that other existing firms in the market already has to offer to the population. It might happen that these small companies taking the advantage of the market might grow bigger and more successful in the area of its operation, still the competition remain intact.

The success of bothy the born global and the internationalisation organisations depend on the kind of innovative products or services offered by the company in the other hand. The acceptability of the company increases if the company can offer such thing that was highly required in that market. The aggressive mind set of the managers at the higher level of the organisation often lead to the situation when the firm takes the competitive advantage of the market and then come up with the idea of expansion (Hoskisson et al. 2000). This approach has to be accompanied with other factors like better products that are specialised in particular markets and can be entirely unique to offer to the people of that market. From the case study, it has been evident that Treat System has definitely innovative and useful things to offer to the population of the country. With its better approach towards the business, there remains the chance that the firm will expand its operation in other countries as well and the size of the firm will also increase. In such cases, it can be clearly said that the firm can convert from being born global to an internationalisation organisation in future.

References:

Baum, M., Schwens, C., & Kabst, R. 2013. International as opposed to domestic new venturing: The moderating role of perceived barriers to internationalization. International Small Business Journal, 31(5): 536-562.

Coviello, N. E., McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. 2011. The emergence, advance and future of international entrepreneurship research – An introduction to the special forum. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6): 625-631.

Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in Emerging Economies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249-267.

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. 2011. International Entrepreneurship research (1989-2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6): 632-659.

Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 1996. The Born Global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing, 8: 11-26.

Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 1996. The Born Global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing, 8: 11-26.

Madsen, T. K., & Servais, P. 1997. The Internationalization of Born Globals: an Evolutionary Process? International Business Review, 6(6): 561-583.

Mainela, T., Puhakka, V., & Servais, P. 2014. The Concept of International Opportunity in International Entrepreneurship: A Review and a Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1): 105-129.

McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. M. 1994. Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(6): 469-487.

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2005a. Defining International Entrepreneurship and Modeling the Speed of Internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5): 537-554.

Rasmussen, E. S., Madsen, T. K., & Servais, P. 2012. On the foundation and early development of domestic and international new ventures. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(4): 543-556.

Rialp, A., Rialp, J., & Knight, G. A. 2005. The phenomenon of early internationalizing firms: what do we know after a decade (1993-2003) of scientific inquiry? International Business Review, 14(2): 147-166.

Thompson, N., Kiefer, K., & York, J. G. 2011. Distinctions not dichotomies: exploring social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship, Social and sustainable entrepreneurship: 201-229: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. 2013. The Uppsala model on evolution of the multinational business enterprise–from internalization to coordination of networks. International Marketing Review, 30(3): 189-210.

Zahra, S. A., Newey, L. R., & Li, Y. 2014. On the Frontiers: The Implications of Social Entrepreneurship for International Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1): 137-158.

Zucchella, A., Palamara, G., & Denicolai, S. 2007. The drivers of the early internationalization of the firm. Journal of World Business, 42(3): 268-280