New venture start‐ups and technological innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare investment in innovation (e.g. R&D) between new venture start‐ups before commercialization and operating businesses after commercialization. Design/methodology/approach Real options methods were used to model a new venture start‐up as a perpetual call option on an operating business that grows with R&D. The operating business uses R&D to improve actual earnings while the start‐up uses R&D to improve prospective earnings. When the start‐up entrepreneur commercializes his/her new product, device, or service with conventional investment (e.g. plant, property, and equipment to begin production), prospective earnings convert into actual earnings. Findings The ability of the start‐up entrepreneur to avoid commercialization costs upon failed R&D makes R&D more valuable to the start‐up entrepreneur than to the manager of the already operating business (for whom commercialization costs are sunk) and despite R&D costs that the start‐up incurs without the revenues that only commercialization generates. The value of R&D to the start‐up can be so great that the entrepreneur invests in R&D before the manager of an otherwise similar operating business in similar business conditions. Originality/value Without favoring eithera priori, the authors show that under broad circumstances, a new venture start‐up undertakes R&D before an already operating business. The authors also discuss the empirical implications of the results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".