IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01705623.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating risk in the innovation projects of small firms

Author

Listed:
  • Serghei Floricel

    (UQAM - Université du Québec à Montréal = University of Québec in Montréal)

  • Josée St-Pierre

    (INRPME - Institut de recherche sur les PME - UQTR - Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières)

Abstract

A model developed for a risk assessment instrument to be used by entrepreneurs, their advisors and financial backers is presented. By modelling the entire lifecycle of an innovation project, and a variety of intrinsic and managerial risks of the project, we created an 'expert system' that serves both to evaluate and mitigate risk. Many innovations are proposed and carried out by individual entrepreneurs and small firms. Many regions, including Montreal, Quebec and Ottawa owe them their economic rebirth. The success of entrepreneurial firms spurred an entire body of literature dealing with the inability of large firms to innovate (see Dougherty and Heller 1994; Christensen 1997; Leifer et al. 2001). Yet, entrepreneurs complain about the lack of adequate financing for innovation. On the one hand, banks rely heavily on personal guarantees, require physical assets as collateral, and have difficulty valuing intangible assets such as ideas, knowledge, competencies and even patents (Julien, St-Pierre & Beaudoin 1996). On the other hand, venture capitalists are accused of herding behavior, leading to waves of over-financing in certain areas leaving other areas hungry for funds (Robbins-Roth 2001), and of making trust in the entrepreneur and the management team the main criterion for the financing decision (Knight, 1994; Zopounidis 1994). Most complaints center on the inability of financial institutions to assess the likelihood that an innovation project will be a successful. Banks and traditional financial institutions, used to deal with more mature or larger businesses, place entrepreneurial innovation projects outside the risk range with which they are comfortable (Levratto, 1994) and rely on collateral to prevent adverse selection by the entrepreneurs who seek funding. Venture capitalists and capital providers with higher risk tolerances have more technical competencies required to evaluate the innovation and reduce the information asymmetry. However, many dysfunctions have been revealed about the way they assess projects (Julien et al. 1996), including the paradoxical tendencies to make poorer predictions when they had more information (Zacharakis and Meyer 2000) and to give insufficient weigh to technical issues as a source of project failure (Fries and Guild 2002). Hence, a reliable tool for assessing the prospects of entrepreneurial innovation projects would be of significant value, particularly in the context of the Knowledge Economy. A team of researchers was commissioned by Canada Economic Development to produce a computerized tool for the assessment of risk in such projects. This paper details the model of risk that underlies the web-based tool, the measurement approach and the structure of the tool. The paper begins with a theoretical background on the evaluation of risk in entrepreneurial innovation projects. Then, we outline the methods used to develop and test the questionnaire. The following section introduces the model of risk and discusses how it was implemented in the tool. Next, we discuss the sections and subsections of the questionnaire. A conclusion section closes our argument.

Suggested Citation

  • Serghei Floricel & Josée St-Pierre, 2003. "Evaluating risk in the innovation projects of small firms," Post-Print hal-01705623, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01705623
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01705623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01705623/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Astebro, 2002. "Assessing the Commercial Viability of Seed- and Early-Stage Ventures," Post-Print hal-00480054, HAL.
    2. Karlsson, Charlie & Olsson, Ola, 1998. "Product Innovation in Small and Large Enterprises," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 31-46, February.
    3. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    4. Alan MacCormack & Roberto Verganti & Marco Iansiti, 2001. "Developing Products on "Internet Time": The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 133-150, January.
    5. Zacharakis, Andrew L. & Meyer, G. Dale, 2000. "The potential of actuarial decision models: Can they improve the venture capital investment decision?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 323-346, July.
    6. Nadine Levratto, 1994. "Le financement de l'innovation dans les PMI," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 67(1), pages 191-210.
    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. Winter, Peter, 2007. "Managerial Risk Accounting and Control – A German perspective," MPRA Paper 8185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Li, Xu & Vermeulen, Freek, 2021. "High risk, low return (and vice versa): the effect of product innovation on firm performance in a transition economy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Ferdinand Thies & Sören Wallbach & Michael Wessel & Markus Besler & Alexander Benlian, 2022. "Initial coin offerings and the cryptocurrency hype - the moderating role of exogenous and endogenous signals," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1691-1705, September.
    4. Narduzzo, Alessandro & Warglien, Massimo, 1996. "Learning from the Experience of Others: An Experiment on Information Contagion," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(1), pages 113-126.
    5. van Riel, A.C.R. & Lievens, A., 2003. "New service development in high tech sectors: a decision making perspective," Research Memorandum 013, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    6. Nabiha Nefzi, 2018. "Fear Of Failure And Entrepreneurial Risk Perception," International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, Center for International Scientific Research of VSO and VSPP, vol. 6(2), pages 45-58, December.
    7. Holger Patzelt & Dean A. Shepherd, 2009. "Strategic Entrepreneurship at Universities: Academic Entrepreneurs’ Assessment of Policy Programs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 319-340, January.
    8. Schweizer, Lars & Patzelt, Holger, 2012. "Employee commitment in the post-acquisition integration process: The effect of integration speed and leadership," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 298-310.
    9. Patzelt, Holger & zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, Dodo & Fischer, Heiko T., 2009. "Upper echelons and portfolio strategies of venture capital firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 558-572, November.
    10. T. K. Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 1998. "Time and Entrepreneurial Risk Behavior," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 22(2), pages 69-88, January.
    11. Anthony Goerzen & Stephen Sapp & Andrew Delios, 2010. "Investor Response to Environmental Risk in Foreign Direct Investment," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 683-708, December.
    12. G. Rejikumar & Aswathy Asokan-Ajitha & Sofi Dinesh & Ajay Jose, 2022. "The role of cognitive complexity and risk aversion in online herd behavior," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 585-621, June.
    13. Delis, Manthos D. & Hasan, Iftekhar & Tsionas, Efthymios G., 2015. "Firms' risk endogenous to strategic management choices," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 16/2015, Bank of Finland.
    14. Udo Milkau, 2017. "Risk Culture during the Last 2000 Years—From an Aleatory Society to the Illusion of Risk Control," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-20, December.
    15. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    16. Alserda, Gosse A.G. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Swinkels, Laurens & van der Lecq, Fieke S.G., 2019. "Individual pension risk preference elicitation and collective asset allocation with heterogeneity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 206-225.
    17. Zhang, Qingyu & Vonderembse, Mark A. & Cao, Mei, 2009. "Product concept and prototype flexibility in manufacturing: Implications for customer satisfaction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 143-154, April.
    18. Malmendier, Ulrike & Tate, Geoffrey, 2008. "Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 20-43, July.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Ignoring scenarios in risk assessments: Understanding the issue and improving current practice," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 215-220.
    20. Henrik Bresman, 2010. "External Learning Activities and Team Performance: A Multimethod Field Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 81-96, February.

    More about this item

    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:hal:journl:hal-01705623. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.