Jennifer L. Woolley

Innovation Policy and Nanotechnology Entrepreneurship

In this article, we explore the relationship between innovation policy and new venture creation in the United States. Specifically, we examine two components of innovation policy in nanotechnology—science and technology (S&T) initiatives and economic initiatives—and their relationship with the founding of nanotechnology firms. We find strong support relating new firm formation to S&T and economic initiatives. States with both S&T and economic initiatives had six times as many firms founded than those states without such initiatives. We also find evidence of a first–mover advantage as states with the earliest innovation policies had higher rates of related firm foundings over time. These findings suggest that states that are most attractive to entrepreneurs not only pursue technological innovation and provide resources, but also encourage and legitimize commercial development. Implications for public policy makers and scholars are provided.

The Creation and Configuration of Infrastructure for Entrepreneurship in Emerging Domains of Activity

Entrepreneurship is a perilous endeavor. Contextual changes, such as nascent technology emergence or new industry creation, can spawn entrepreneurial opportunities; however, these changes do not instantaneously create the resources and structures that new firms need to survive. This study examines the creation and configuration of the contextual infrastructure necessary for nascent technology entrepreneurship in new industries. Using the case of nanotechnology, I show how the elements of infrastructure emerge and configure through systemic coevolution. The data highlight how boundary crossing and obfuscation induces the configuration of separate elements into a cohesive infrastructure through heightened interaction and interdependence of organizations and institutions, both private and public.

Creating the World’s Deadliest Catch: The Process of Enrolling Stakeholders in an Uncertain Endeavor

There is growing interest in the processes by which entrepreneurial opportunities are cocreated between entrepreneurs and their stakeholders. The longitudinal case study of de novo firm Wakefield Seafoods seeks to understand the underlying dynamics of phenomena that play out over time as stakeholders emerge and their contributions become essential to the opportunity formation process. The king crab data show that under conditions of uncertainty, characterized by incomplete or missing knowledge, entrepreneurial processes of experimentation, failure, and learning were effective in forming and exploiting an opportunity. Moreover, contrary to existing literature that either emphasizes heroic entrepreneurs or downplays their value, this article shows that both the vision of the entrepreneur and the stakeholder contributions are critical. This detailed examination of process data shows that the cumulative actions made by entrepreneurs in concert with their stakeholders formed an opportunity that coalesced into a new market.

Opportunities for Social Value Creation Across Supply Chain Interactions

Social value creation is important to not only social ventures, but also traditional and hybrid organizations seeking to increase their corporate social responsibility. Thus far, work on social value creation has focused on the customers or end users as the main beneficiaries of social value creation. Little work has addressed other beneficiaries or opportunities to generate social value and social wealth outside of that for direct recipients of products or services. This chapter extends work on value creation in strategic entrepreneurship to consider social value. Specifically, social value creation opportunities are identified across supply chain interactions both up and downstream from the organization. Implications for entrepreneurial and traditional ventures are discussed as well as possible research trajectories.

Innovation policy in emerging domains of activity: First-mover advantage or curse?

Do first-mover advantages exist for public policy? The theory of the first-mover advantage has been well studied in organization theory and marketing science. It is generally accepted that first-mover firms have multiple benefits such as technological leadership, asset preemption, and heightened buyer switching costs [1,2]. First-mover firms also have the disadvantages of free-ridership, technology uncertainty resolution, enabling new entrants, and incumbent inertia [1,2]. Previous work has focused on the application of the first-mover theory to firms. However, much can be learned by applying first-mover advantage theory to other areas. Specifically, this study applies the arguments of first-movers to the development of innovation policy in nanotechnology. In addition to the insights provided by this application, additional conditions must be considered when examining the order of entry in innovation policy. The article concludes with a discussion of what follower policies can learn from first-movers. The maximization of later-stage advantages is also discussed.