Search results

Technology is defined by Krajewski and Ritzman (2000, p. 17) as ‘the know-how, physical things, and procedures used to produce products and services’. Over the past two decades, the development of high-technology-based firms has been actively encouraged by governments and development agencies (Westhead & Storey, 1994) as a source of competitive advantage. In many cases, small high-technology-based firms have effectively exploited market opportunities. This has been helped by the emergence of generic technologies, most notably information technology that is knowledge intensive rather than capital and labour intensive (Rothwell, 1994, p. 12). Such technologies have been effectively used to open up new market niches for small- and medium-sized firms (SMEs). Accordingly, high-technology firms have become well established as sources of both competitiveness and employment creation (Oakey, 1991).

The results of a survey on personnel practices and the way different members of an organisation perceive the personnel function are reported. The article focuses on the manufacturing sector, comparing personnel practices in high‐ and medium‐technology companies. The relative importance which personnel superiors, line managers and personnel managers attached to the various personnel activities is also explored. The survey was conducted in Singapore in 1988 and included 58 medium‐technology and 22 high‐technology firms. The sample of 80 firms included 60 MNCs of non‐Singaporean origin.

High technology entrepreneurs have received increased attention over the past decade as it is now recognized that these entrepreneurs are able to build companies that generate high wage employment and high levels of wealth. While much anecdotal evidence has been offered as to who these entrepreneurs are, little is known about their early efforts to launch a high technology company. Based on the most recent data that specifically profiles nascent entrepreneurs throughout the United States, we extrapolate and discuss implications of our findings. Specifically, we identify who, where, when, and why these entrepreneurs are engaged in this important form of business launch. We conclude by suggesting how decision-makers and institutions can better facilitate and nurture the launch of high technology firms.

This paper reports some results of an investigation of the product innovation strategies of Australian high technology firms. While theoretical and empirical research undertaken outside of Australia reveals the importance of firms' adopting appropriate new product strategies to enhance their profits and prospects for growth (Booz, Allen & Hamilton 1982, Maidique & Zirger 1984, Cooper 1985), very little is known about the strategic behaviour and performance of Australian manufacturing firms whether high, medium or low technology.

Charts an increase in the total stock of high technology firms over the 1987 to 1991 period in the UK, as well as the employment contribution of firms over the same period. Finds that total employment in high technology firms declined over this period. However, the employment contribution of small high technology firms, particularly those engaged in technology‐based services activities increased. The employment contribution of this group was unable to offset the major employment losses made by large high technology firms (those with 100 or more employees) and firms engaged in more “conventional” activities in the wider economy, Claims that policy makers should continue to encourage the formation, survival and development of a growing and diverse stock of new and small high technology firms in the UK.

Product innovation is central to the success of most companies. The rewards of a successful innovation programme are highly visible in terms of sales, profits and growth. But not so apparent are the strategies that underlie these product innovation efforts. This monograph is about the ingredients of a winning new product strategy — about strategic decisions on markets, technologies, products — that result in a successful innovation programme.

Risk management consists of a process that involves the assessment and evaluation of risks. Identifying risks that can be reduced and risks that can be transferred (through insurance) is part of that process. The environment for insurance affects the ability of the high technology‐based entrepreneur to engage in this process. For example, the availability of product liability cover can affect the ability to develop new products. In a combined study of Scottish and West Midlands high technology‐based small firms (HTSFs), follow‐up interviews, cases and research in the insurance industry, we found that this environment is less than perfect. There are issues in the insurance industry that can lead to problems for high technology‐based entrepreneurs. These issues are associated with the availability and search costs associated with specialized insurance. Failure rates of high technology‐based entrepreneurs, although below those of other small firms, are still high. The high cost and limited availability of specialized insurance, which is sought by the high technology entrepreneur, contributes to the difficulty of the environment and adds to the costs and/or risks faced by such entrepreneurs.

Describes an empirical study which aimed to compare the marketing practices used by high‐tech and low‐tech companies in the UK, and to attempt to explain any significant differences. Concludes that there is increasing awareness of the salience of marketing by UK high technology companies, though they are still not as market oriented as low‐tech ones. Suggests that broadly speaking results replicate earlier findings in US high technology firms, with the critical difference that the British companies rate both the possession of the latest technology and price competition less seriously than the American organizations.

The complicated environment surrounding high-technology firms, involving a high degree of market uncertainty, a high degree of technological uncertainty, a high degree of competitive volatility, high R&D expenditures and the rapid obsolescence of products, creates a great need for sophisticated marketing (Mohr & Shooshtari, 2003). Yet these firms continue to have underdeveloped competencies in marketing (Mohr & Sarin, 2009).

Networks connecting two important supporting institutions – law firms and venture capital partnerships – explain regions’ disparate abilities to sustain diverse high-technology ventures. In order to explain the diversity of entrepreneurial activity in a region, we distinguish between institutional capacity (the number of law firms and venture capitalists in a locale), strong interinstitutional connections that span legal and financial domains, and cohesive structural communities of directly and indirectly connected supporting organizations. We argue that strong connections and cohesive communities are essential, but little examined contributors to the development of diverse research-based economies. We find support for the argument in an empirical analysis of initial public offerings (IPOs) by U.S. high-technology companies in five industries between 1993 and 2005. Linking regional outcomes to strong ties that span local legal and financial institutions and to cohesive structures that weld them into communities offers new insights for research on the institutional and network underpinnings of entrepreneurship and regional economic development.