Success Factors for High-Technology SMEs: A Case Study from Australia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The act of establishing a successful small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) is a daunting one in any sector of industry or commerce. For those seeking to establish a small technology-based company, the challenges are even more numerous and complex (Litvak 1992). Litvak argues that the technology-based industry and marketplace are characterized by long lead times from basic research to industrial application, short lead times in commercialization, and accelerated obsolescence under global competitive pressures from new product and process innovations. Market opportunities are often short-lived, and technological break-throughs can quickly wipe out prior success. Clearly, for the managers of such companies, finding a means to compete and succeed in such a turbulent environment is a huge concern. Also, from a governmental policy standpoint, it is important that these firms succeed, given the contribution they can make to a technically advanced and innovative economy. The purpose of this article is to review the literature on success factors for high-technology SMEs and to report a case study of a successful, young, high-technology SME located in Perth, Australia. This study was carried out as part of an ongoing larger survey concerning success factors for high-technology SMEs in Australia and the UK. Literature Review A large amount of research was carried out in UK universities in the early 1990s in an attempt to identify success factors for SMEs (see Storey 1992 for an overview). Other contributors include Macrae (1992), who describes the characteristics of high and low growth SMEs in Scotland. Theng and Boon (1996) explore factors contributing to the failure of SMEs in Singapore. Beamish, Craig, and McLellan (1993) compare the characteristics of SME exporters in Canada and in the UK. The work of Rothwell and Zegfeld (1982) on product innovation has also been influential, with this strand of research being continued by Romano (1990), who identifies factors that impact product innovation to influence small business success. Other research concerns the characteristics and strategies of high-tech SMEs. Shearman and Burrell (1988) discuss the nature of new technology-based firms and their capacity for generating employment. Covin, Prescott, and Slevin (1990) describe the effects of technological sophistication on strategic profiles, structures, and the performance of organizations. Forrest (1990) addresses the business environment with a study on the importance of strategic alliances to small technology-based firms. Weinstein (1994) carried out a comparative study of market definition in small versus larger technology-based companies. There has also been useful research devoted to identifying success factors for high-technology SMEs. Some of this research is based on case studies. Examples include: Bouwen and Steyaert (1990) on the organizing processes in young, entrepreneurial firms; Martin et al. (1991), who present a case study of a small business developing artificial intelligence applications; Latona and LaVan (1993), who record the implementation of an employee involvement program in a small, emerging high-technology firm; Price and Chen (1993) who discuss how a Total Quality Management system can be tailored for a small, high-technology company; and finally, Pearson, Bracker, and White (1990) who discuss links between operations management activities and the high growth of small electronics firms. While this sort of research is insightful, its case study methodology limits its generalizability. The research efforts which are most relevant to determining success factors for high-technology SMEs are those of Ackroyd (1995), Litvak (1 992), and Covin, Prescott, and Slevin (1990); each involves survey research. Ackroyd (1995) identified the characteristics of small, successful information technology firms in northwest England. Ackroyd's survey classified almost one hundred such firms into three categories. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».