نقش شتاب‌دهنده‌های شرکتی برای افزایش تولید در شرکت‌های دانش بنیان و نوپا

نوع مقاله : ترویجی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار مدیریت فناوری، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوریهای نوین، سازمان پژوهشهای علمی و صنعتی ایران، تهران، ایران

2 پژوهشگر، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری های نوین، سازمان پژوهشهای علمی و صنعتی ایران، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری، مدیریت سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوریهای نوین، سازمان پژوهشهای علمی و صنعتی ایران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

چکیده
برنامه‌های شتاب‌دهنده برنامه‌هایی با مدت زمان سه تا شش ماه هستند که به گروه‌های نوپا در روند سرمایه‌گذاری جدید یاری می‌رسانند. هدف از این مقاله شناسائی ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های چارچوب برنامه شتاب‌دهی کسب وکارهای شرکتی است. با توجه به عمرکوتاه نهادهای شتاب‌دهنده شرکتی CA))، پژوهش‌های اجرا شده بر این موضوع چه در ایران و چه در خارج بسیار کم و جامعیت لازم را ندارند. شتاب‌دهندة شرکتی به عنوان پل ارتباطی بین استارتاپ‌ها و شرکت‌ها عمل می‌کند و موجب ارتقای موفقیت هر دو طرف و همچنین انعقاد قراردادهای تجاری بین آنها می‌گردد. فرایند CA نحوه اجرای یک برنامه CA را توصیف می‌کند. شتاب‌دهنده‌ها فرایند سه مرحله‌ای را طی می‌کنند، که عبارتند از الف) مرحله قبل از شتاب، اولین گام در روند درخواست، برنامهCA اعلام و از طریق تارنمای شرکت در دسترس قرار می‌گیرد. ب) مرحله شتاب، در چارچوب مرحله شتاب، برنامه پشتیبانی واقعی از کارآفرینان شرکت کننده انجام می‌شود. در مورد شرکت‌های در نظر گرفته شده، برنامه‌ها برای مدت زمان محدودی انجام می‌شود. پ) مرحله پس از شتاب، جنبه اساسی مرحله پس از شتاب ارزیابی موفقیت برنامه است. این جنبه شامل اندازه‌گیری مدت زمان برنامه دوره و توسعه استارتاپ‌ها مطابق با اهداف شرکت‌های مستقر است. شتاب‌دهنده‌های شرکتی توانایی ارزش افزوده قوی برای تقویت نوآوری در سرمایه‌گذاری‌های کارآفرینی را دارند.
برنامه شتاب دهنده ذهنیت، نگرش یادگیری و تمایل به تغییر کارمندان خود را مورد توجه قرار می‌دهد. از آنجایی که یکی از ابعاد تأثیرگذار بر یادگیری سازمانی از طریق شتاب‌دهنده‌های شرکتی، عوامل انسانی است کارکنان شتاب‌دهنده بایستی با دقت انتخاب شوند و مهارت‌های آنان برای تکمیل مهارت‌های کارکنان مفید باشد. از یافته‌های پژوهش شناسایی ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های چارچوب برنامه شتاب‌دهی کسب و کارهای شرکتی و هم چنین نگرش و فرایند یادگیری برای بهبود مستمر مشخص و نیز چگونگی افزایش شانس موفقیت مدیران و بنیانگذاران شتاب‌دهنده‌‌های نوپا تبیین می‌شود.
روش‌شناسی پژوهش، از نظر هدف کاربردی- توسعه‌ای و از نظر نوع، توصیفی- تحلیلی است. ارائه چارچوبی همراه با ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های CA برای ارزیابی زمینه برنامه شتاب‌دهی، از جمله اکوسیستم و نهاد میزبان و سپس درک منطقی و اهداف برنامه از دیدگاه نهاد مجری از نتایج مقاله است.‌ در ضمن پارامترهای طراحی توصیف و نکات ویژه‌ای توصیه می‌شود تا در هنگام طراحی برنامه در نظر گرفته شوند. در نهایت چارچوب اهمیت فرایند یادگیری و بهبود مستمر برجسته می‌‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Role of Corporate Accelerators (CA) to increase productions in Knowledge- Based & Startup Companies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ghasem Ramezanpour Nargesi 1
  • Homa Ghaed-Sharafi 2
  • Mehdi Firouz 3
1 Associate Professor, Department of Technology Development Studies (DTDS), Iranian Research Organization for Science &Technology (IROST), Tehran, Iran
2 Researcher, Department of Technology Development Studies (DTDS), Iranian Research Organization for Science &Technology (IROST), Tehran, Iran
3 hD Candidate, Science & Technology Policy Management, Department of Technology Development Studies (DTDS), Iranian Research Organization for Science &Technology (IROST), Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Recent studies on corporate entrepreneurship demonstrate as a firm-level business phenomenon, and plays an important role in incentive innovation, revitalizing the organization, increasing productivity, and ultimately creating superior market advantage. Today, startups are driving major innovations that are replacing the existing business models. By adapting open innovation, the paradigm assumes firms should use external and internal ideas and paths to the potential corporate accelerators. Open innovation is one of the factors that has played a significant role in the development and promotion of technology.
Accelerator programs are defined as three to six months that support cohorts of startups in the new venture process while completing an incubator program within one to five years. This research aims to identify the dimensions and indicators of a framework for a corporate business acceleration program. The promise of corporate accelerators lies in bridging the gap between corporations and startups and may lead to an increase in the success of both for collaborative contracting. The process of corporate accelerator describes the CA program. Accelerators go through a three-step phase of pre-acceleration, acceleration, and post-acceleration. Pre-acceleration programs are the first phase in cohort-based and contribute to the CA program by focusing on innovation and entrepreneurship and describing how pre-accelerators support aspiring entrepreneurs.
Pre-accelerators are similar to accelerators that offer a cohort-based fixed duration program which usually ends in a demo or pitch day, intending to speed up the entrepreneurial development process. However, pre-accelerators are much shorter in duration and are offered at the pre-venture stage, where a problem-solution fit is still being developed. Once a venture concept is developed enough and teams are formed, accelerators and incubators become more relevant. Below we describe in more detail these key elements for pre-accelerators. In this phase, the applicants for the CA program would be declared through the related website. Corporate accelerators build bridges between corporations and startups. In the acceleration framework, the real support of entrepreneurs through the time-limited would be done, whereby the time between programs is different (3-6 months). It is necessary to support corporators by providing financial resources.
post-acceleration phase is an essential cornerstone that greatly impacts the assessment and success of corporate accelerator programs. It plays a major role in the development and execution of new ideas.
This study contributes to practice by introducing more clarity between the list of support systems and content for entrepreneurs and support organizations, but also for policymakers who need to understand the roles of different actors in the ecosystem. Moreover, it contributes to research by focusing on the early stages of entrepreneurship and describing how pre-accelerators support eager entrepreneurs.
Three organizational learning processes are identified: (a) knowledge creation, (b) knowledge transfer, and (c) knowledge retention. It appears that corporate accelerators influence all three processes, with a particular focus on knowledge transfer from the corporate accelerator to the parent organization. This, undoubtedly, represents the most suitable stage for strengthening organizational learning and is facilitated through entrepreneurial investments via corporate accelerator programs.
 Knowledge transfer is the primary aspect of the organizational learning process in this context, while knowledge retention plays a secondary role for corporate accelerators (CAs). The three broad dimensions that influence organizational learning through corporate accelerators encompass environmental factors, human factors, and organizational methodologies. Environmental factors include the organizational structure, culture, and industry environment. Selecting accelerator personnel should be done meticulously, with their attributes being a combination of desired trainee characteristics while possessing skills that are valuable for complementing employees. Given the importance of human factors in an accelerator program, organizations should pay attention to the mindset, learning orientation, and willingness to change of their employees.
The research methodology used in this study is practical-developmental in terms of its purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of its type. It provides a framework for assessing the context of accelerator program implementation, including the ecosystem and hosting institution. It then delves into a rational understanding of the program's objectives from the perspective of the executing institution as part of the research outcomes. The framework begins with an assessment of the program's context, encompassing the ecosystem and hosting institution, and subsequently focuses on a logical comprehension of the program's objectives from the perspective of the executing institution and could be used in the ICT area in Iran. Following this, it describes design parameters and recommends specific considerations to be considered during program design.
Furthermore, describing design parameters and highlighting specific considerations during program design is recommended. Ultimately, the framework emphasizes the importance of the learning process and continuous improvement. Given that contextual considerations are constantly evolving, both internally and externally, the design process is one of the stages that should be continuously iterated upon. As the program progresses, it should be reevaluated based on feedback from the beneficiary startups and other stakeholders to ensure its ongoing relevance and effectiveness.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "Corporate accelerator"
  • "startups"
  • "acceleration program framework"
  • "entrepreneurial ecosystem"
  • "lean startup"
Albliwi, S., Antony, J., Lim, S. & van der Wiele, T. (2014). Critical failure factors of Lean Six Sigma: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 31 (9), 1012-1030. DOI: 10.1108/IJQRM-09-2013-0147
Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning, 42 (4), 439-446. DOI:10.1177/1350507611408217
Bauer, S., Obwegeser, N., & Avdagic, Z. (2016 September 4-6). Corporate accelerators: Transferring technology innovation to incumbent companies [Paper presentation]. In MCIS 2016 Proceedings- AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). Cyprus, Europe.
Bhasin, S. (2012). Prominent Obstacles to Lean. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61 (4), 403-425. DOI: 10.1108/17410401211212661
Blank, S. (2013). Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review.
Byrne, J. R., O’Sullivan, K., & Sullivan, K. (2016). An IoT and wearable technology hackathon for promoting careers in computer science. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60 (1), 50-58. DOI: 10.1109/TE.2016.2626252
Chesbrough, H. (2017). The future of open innovation: The future of open innovation is more extensive, more collaborative, and more engaged with a wider variety of participants. Research-Technology Management, 60 (1), 35-38. DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2017.1255054
Cohen, S. (2013). What do accelerators do? Insights from incubators and angels. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 8 (3), 19-25. DOI:10.1162/INOV_a_00184
Cohen, S., & Hochberg, Y. V. (2014). Accelerating startups: The seed accelerator phenomenon. Management Faculty Publications, 1-16. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2418000
Cooper, R. Sommer, A. (2016). From experience: The Agile–Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: A promising new approach and a new research opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33 (5), 513-526. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12314
Fehder, Daniel C. & Hochberg, Yeal. (2014 September 19). Accelerators and the Regional Supply of Venture Capital Investment. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2518668
Gavrilenko, Z. & Wang, Sh. (May, 2021). Corporate accelerators: How can companies utilize corporate accelerators to strengthen strategic market advantage? (Master Thesis). University of Oslo, Norway.
Goswami, K., Mitchell, J. R. & Bhagavatula, S. (2018). Accelerator expertise: Understanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12 (1), 117-150. DOI: 10.1002/sej.1281
Hackett, S. & Dilts, D.M. (2004), A systematic review of business incubation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29 (1), 55-82. DOI:10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011181.11952.0f
Haines, Tory. (2016). Developing a startup and innovation ecosystem in regional Australia. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6 (6), 24-32.
Heinemann, F. (2016). Full archive of corporate accelerators. Retrieved from: https://www.corporate-accelerators.net/database/archive.html  
Heshmati, S., & Shafiee, M. (2021). Pathology of acceleration programs in corporate accelerators of Iran. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 18 (4), 405-416. (Persian) DOI: 10.1108/WJSTSD-03-2021-0033
Ismail, A. (2020). A framework for designing business-acceleration programs: A case study from Egypt. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 10 (2), 1-16. DOI: 10.1515/erj-2018-0196
Kordheydari, R., Mansouri Moayyed, F., & Khodadad Hoseini, H. (2019). Metasynthesis of factors affecting to develop startups in new technology-based firms in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 12 (1), 141-160. (Persian)
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., Hayton, J. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45 (2), 245-253. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-015-9630-8.
Mobini Dehkordi, A., Yadollahi Farsi, J., Sakhdari, K., & Khaleghi, A. (2018). Identification of opportunity evaluation criteria in accelerators. Journal of Technology Development Management, 6 (2), 79-108. (Persian) DOI: 10.22104/JTDM.2018.2917.1982 
Nesner, T., Eismann, T., & Voigt, K. I. (2020). It's a match!- Building relationships between corporates and startups throughout Corporate Accelerators. Journal of Technology & Innovation Management, 4 (1), 1-33.
Pazhouhesh Jahromi, A. (2018). Effect on inbound open innovation on the business model of knowledge- based companies. Rahyaft, 69 (1), 29 -41. (Persian)
Pedersen, E., Huniche, M. (2011). Determinants of lean success and failure in the Danish public sector: A negotiated order perspective. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24 (5), 403-420. DOI:10.1108/09513551111147141
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. London: The Penguin Group. 
Saremi, M. S., Fartash, K., Adabi Firouzjae, M., & Sadabadai, A. A. (2019). Review of municipalities and local governments' roles in developing regional and urban innovation ecosystems (A comparative study with focus on the city of Tehran). Rahyaft, 29 (3), 27-41. (Persian) DOI: 10.22034/RAHYAFT.2019.13788.
Scott, E. L., Shu, P., & Lubynsky, R. M. (2015). Are 'better' ideas more likely to succeed? An empirical analysis of startup evaluation (No. 16-013). Boston: Harvard Business School.
Uhrdin, N. A. (2020). Learn how to experiment: The development of a corporate accelerator (Doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds, Leeds.