Developing and accelerating early stage, growth-oriented technology ventures is difficult. Most ventures merely survive or fail, only a handful of them thrive. Corporate venturers are familiar with this picture. But what defines successful new entrepreneurial firms? In this article, we review various research work addressing this question, analyse the relevance and impact of management control systems (MCSs) on the growth of early-stage technology ventures, explore successful growth strategies and summarise the key-points.
Between 2006 and 2013, between 5,000 and 6,000 companies in the global innovation hot beds – the US, Canada, Europe, Israel, China and India – secured a total of between $40bn and $50bn a year of formal venture capital (VC) and corporate venturing investments, across all stages of development. During the same period, the initial– the first formal round – investment in these geographies reached between $8bn and $13bn – the US leads consistently with 50%-60% in any given year, followed by Europe with 15%-20%. The number of initial deals in these regions range between 1,900 and 2,500 – the US leads with 50%-60% in any given year, followed by Europe with 25%-30%.
As analysed by us in the March 2013 issue of Global Corporate Venturing, the bulk of initial deals in the US, Canada, Europe and Israel can be found in companies during their pre-revenue phase – start-up and product development – while initial investment rounds in China and India primarily target revenue-generating – pre-profit– companies.
The adoption of MCSs plays an important role in the development of early-stage technology companies. MCS scan be seen as growth accelerators. In our previous two articles, we noted that the Semas (Stanford Entrepreneurial Management Systems) project identified 46 management systems, which can be systematically clustered around eight distinct categories – financial planning, financial evaluation, human resources planning, human resources evaluation, strategic planning, product development, sales and marketing, and partnerships. They are implemented over time as the new venture scales up.
However, the speed and the sequence of system adoption vary greatly by industry and depend significantly on the leadership of a given company. The rate and speed of MCS adoption across the eight categories over the first five years in Silicon Valley has been researched over a decade and is well documented (see first graph).
Many companies founded with enthusiasm and hope for high growth fail to meet the expectation of their founders and investors. A number of reasons for failure have been highlighted in our two previous articles. One explanation for this underperformance is the entrepreneur’s resistance to switching to a more structured management approach and adopting management systems and processes in a timely way. So what are they key issues and outcomes of the varying behaviour of top managers?
The often-seen entrepreneurial crisis occurs when the company reaches a certain scale and moves to a higher growth stage and the entrepreneur needs to become a manager. In other words, a start-up can be run on a personal basis in its early days. The founder and chief executive (CEO) typically wears multiple hats and controls all aspects of the workplace. The founder-CEO can observe everything that goes on in the organisation and take all the important decisions. Given the small size, the corporate mission and chosen strategy can be conveyed effectively and reinforced through direct communication with each employee. As the company grows, however, this management style invariably falls short. As observed in a study published in California Management Review (see references), the combination of growth and personal management style can be deadly and approaches differ as follows:
A personal management style is one where the CEO relies on personal contact for communicating and directing the organisation.
A professional management style is one where respect for analysing and investing in management systems architecture is part of the CEO leadership.
The impact on CEOs that implement an MCS rigorously– the highest adoption intensity – when compared with counterparts who are reluctant to change– the lowest adoption intensity – is striking.
CEOs able to transition from a personal to a more professional management style, with a rigorous implementation of an MCS (group 1) remain longer at the helm of the venture, than their counterparts at the other end of the spectrum (group 3) – those with the lowest adoption intensity (see second graph).
Timing and priorities
While research shows there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the sequencing of adoption varies with the distinctive needs of the venture, five patterns tend to emerge as documented by the Stanford research team.
Venture capital-backed companies give higher priority to financial planning and evaluation categories.
The adoption of human resource planning and evaluation systems is not linked as much to events or circumstances of the company as to the management model of the founding and management team.
Firms with longer research and development cycles, such as biotech and hardware firms, adopt new product development systems sooner while delaying marketing and sales systems.
The go-to-market stage has a significant effect on marketing and sales systems.
There is a high positive correlation between time-to adoption of a new system and the number of systems already in place.
Organisational learning processes are an essential part of the growth of a new venture and the entrepreneurial growth process. In this regard, the impact of CEO experience and CEO replacement on the growth of the firm can be interpreted as a limit to the ways in which external interference or talented individuals can substitute for organic development of the new venture.
Outcomes when adopting MCSs
Corporate venturing and venture capital are often considered as pure capital, especially in emerging markets. From this study it can be concluded that it should be regarded more as venture creation, where education and coaching for organisational learning within the new venture are as worthwhile in leading to economic growth as providing the necessary financial resources. This is where corporate venturers and VCs should focus their time and efforts –hence the above-outlined tool and example, as well as the summary of the reasons for MCS adoption and its outcomes (see table below).
As concluded by the Stanford research team: “The research confirms the argument that the adoption of management systems is associated with growth. While this may be counter intuitive –why would a fast-moving company need tools that appear to constrain creativity and slow down growth?– it can be seen through the following metaphor. Think about a car: the faster it goes, the more sophisticated the technology required to keep it under control.
At the very elite auto-racing level, Formula 1 teams have a highly complex and extensive systems infrastructure both on and off the track. The same logic applies to growth with startups. The faster they need to go, the more management systems infrastructure they need.”
References
Davila A, Foster G, Ning J (2010) Building sustainable high-growth startup companies: management systems as an accelerator. California Management Review 52(3): 79-105.
Strehle F, Katzy B, Davila T (2010) Learning capabilities and the growth of technology-based new ventures. International Journal of Technology Management 52(1/2): 26-45.
Boris Battistini is a senior research fellow at ETHZurich and a project leader of the Corporate Venturing Research Initiative with Bain & Co (e-mail: bbattistini@ethz.ch)
Martin Haemmig is an adjunct professor at Cetimat Uni BW Munich and Leiden University (email: martinhaemmig@cetim.org)