IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxivy2021i4p797-818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leadership and Effectiveness of Incubation of Start-Ups: Research Scheme for Next Generation Stage Gate

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Holub-Iwan
  • Teresa Kupczyk
  • Grzegorz Debita
  • Piotr Rupa

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the article is to develop and propose a modernised Agile Development tool of the Stage Gate Model, i.e., the NaxGen Stage Gate System model, for use in start-up projects. The aim of the article is also to show how start-up activities should be modified at all stages of the process and what role system gates could play in order to incubate start-ups more effectively, but above all, so that start-ups can achieve benefits of using Stage Gate. Design/Methodology/Approach: A review of the literature on the subject, both local and international, made it possible to identify the causes of failure of start-ups on the market. The research results were analysed using the methods of descriptive statistics. The methodology proposed by the authors was developed on the basis of a 3-year research project monitoring the activities of start-ups located on Start-up Platforms in Poland. Findings: The key reasons for the failure of start-ups concern marketing aspects and leadership, for example, misidentification of consumer needs, poor pricing policy, inappropriate product features, or the fact that the product is unintuitive and difficult to use, poor promotion. These conclusions are very surprising as the knowledge and information on marketing have been accessible for decades. There is currently no work methodology dedicated to start-ups from the idea to commercialisation. Practical Implications: The proposed solution has significant practical implications. The NexGen Stage Gate system is a universal model. Due to the inclusion of Agile methodologies, Scrum, it has become even more useful for working on start-up projects. The authors’ scheme of research methods contributes to eliminating the biggest problems of start-ups, as well as to reducing the risk of investors investing in start-ups. Originality/value: The measure of the originality of the proposed solution is the Model Stage Gate System for start-up incubation. As part of the adopted methodology, lists of studies, analyses and suggestions were developed that should be implemented at individual stages and precisely verified by Gatekeepers.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Holub-Iwan & Teresa Kupczyk & Grzegorz Debita & Piotr Rupa, 2021. "Leadership and Effectiveness of Incubation of Start-Ups: Research Scheme for Next Generation Stage Gate," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 797-818.
  • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:4:p:797-818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ersj.eu/journal/2628/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kamila Urbanska & Agnieszka Parkitna & Joanna Kubicka, 2021. "Success of SMEs in the Era of Pandemics," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 407-423.
    2. Aleksandra Sus & Bartosz Sylwestrzak, 2021. "Evolution of the Labor Market and Competency Requirements in Industry 4.0 versus the Covid-19 Pandemic," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 494-506.
    3. Cooper, Robert G., 1990. "Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 44-54.
    4. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liliana Meza-González & Jaime Marie Sepulveda, 2019. "The impact of competition with China in the US market on innovation in Mexican manufacturing firms," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Alhassan Abdul-Wakeel Karakara & Evans Osabuohien, 2020. "ICT adoption, competition and innovation of informal firms in West Africa: a comparative study of Ghana and Nigeria," Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(3), pages 397-414, June.
    3. Paul Seabright, 2005. "National and European Champions - Burden or Blessing?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 6(02), pages 52-55, August.
    4. Aurelien Portuese, 2020. "Beyond antitrust populism: Towards robust antitrust," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 237-258, June.
    5. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    6. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    7. E. C. Mamatzakis, 2010. "The contribution of the publicly-funded R&D capital to productivity growth and an application to the Greek food and beverages industry," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 483-494.
    8. Aamir Rafique Hashmi & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2016. "The Relationship between Market Structure and Innovation in Industry Equilibrium: A Case Study of the Global Automobile Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(1), pages 192-208, March.
    9. Tavassoli, Sam, 2015. "Innovation determinants over industry life cycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 18-32.
    10. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    11. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Schoen, Anja & Wastyn, Annelies, 2014. "Selection bias in innovation studies: A simple test," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 287-299.
    12. Yu-Shan Chen & Ke-Chiun Chang, 2009. "Using neural network to analyze the influence of the patent performance upon the market value of the US pharmaceutical companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 637-655, September.
    13. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    14. Pierpaolo Parrotta & Dario Pozzoli & Mariola Pytlikova, 2014. "The nexus between labor diversity and firm’s innovation," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 27(2), pages 303-364, April.
    15. Peschl, Markus F. & Bottaro, Gloria & Hartner-Tiefenthaler, Martina & Rötzer, Katharina, 2014. "Learning how to innovate as a socio-epistemological process of co-creation. Towards a constructivist teaching strategy for innovation," MPRA Paper 66539, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Fabio Magnacca & Riccardo Giannetti, 2024. "Management accounting and new product development: a systematic literature review and future research directions," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(2), pages 651-685, June.
    17. Bruno Amable & Jean-Bernard Chatelain & Kirsten Ralf, 2004. ""Deep Pockets": Research and Development Persistence and Economic Growth," Money Macro and Finance (MMF) Research Group Conference 2004 47, Money Macro and Finance Research Group, revised 13 Oct 2004.
    18. Crafts, Nicholas, 2021. "What Can We Learn from the UK’s Post-1945 Economic Reforms?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1370, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    19. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    20. Sai Yayavaram & Wei-Ru Chen, 2015. "Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of technological complexity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 377-396, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stage Gate System; Management of technological innovation; start-ups.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:4:p:797-818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.