Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Industrial Classification Standard

    Posted 03-02-2012 10:48
    Dear all,

    We are looking for an alternative to the NACE/ISIC industrial
    classification system. We want to classify entrepreneurial firms in a
    start-up phase, but feel that NACE/ISIC is too descriptive and does not
    allow for inferences on the characteristics of specific markets. We were
    thinking of bipolar segmentation dimensions such as high tech - low tech,
    new market - saturated market, etc. These kind of dimensions could be more
    relevant in studying industry preferences of (nascent) entrepreneurs.

    Is there anybody who worked with a classification system alike, or knows
    where to find it?

    Many thanks in advance, kind regards,

    Jacob Vermeire

    **************************************
    This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management.

    Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.

    You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here:
    http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1

    If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch jbunch@benedictine.edu.

    Ventures HO!


  • 2.  Industrial Classification Standard

    Posted 03-02-2012 18:08
    Jacob.

    I think this (below) would be one reference worth considering in developing a theoretically meaningful classification of sart-ups' varying industrial contexts. I do not know of an operationalization built on L & A but if you use Google Scholar to trace those who site them you might find earlier attempts of doing so (who knows?).

    Movements, bandwagons, and clones: Industry evolution and the entrepreneurial process
    Murray B. Low
    Columbia Business School USA
    Eric Abrahamson
    Columbia Business School USA
    Journal of Business Venturing
    Volume 12, Issue 6, November 1997, Pages 435–


    Best Regards,

    Per

    Per Davidsson| Professor | Director & Talbot Family Foundation Chair in Entrepreneurship, Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research (ACE) | School of Management | QUT Business School | Room Z757 | Phone: +61 7 3138 2051 | Fax: +61 7 3138 5250 | Mobile: you wish... | Email: per.davidsson@qut.edu.au | www.bus.qut.edu.au/research/ace/ |CRICOS No. 00213J | Postal address: Queensland University of Technology |GP Room Z757 |2 George Street, GPO Box 2434 | Brisbane Qld 4001 |Australia
    ________________________________________
    From: Entrepreneurship Division Listserv [ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jacob Vermeire [jacob.vermeire@VLERICK.COM]
    Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 1:47 AM
    To: ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: [ENTREP] Industrial Classification Standard

    Dear all,

    We are looking for an alternative to the NACE/ISIC industrial
    classification system. We want to classify entrepreneurial firms in a
    start-up phase, but feel that NACE/ISIC is too descriptive and does not
    allow for inferences on the characteristics of specific markets. We were
    thinking of bipolar segmentation dimensions such as high tech - low tech,
    new market - saturated market, etc. These kind of dimensions could be more
    relevant in studying industry preferences of (nascent) entrepreneurs.

    Is there anybody who worked with a classification system alike, or knows
    where to find it?

    Many thanks in advance, kind regards,

    Jacob Vermeire

    **************************************
    This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management.

    Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.

    You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here:
    http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1

    If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch jbunch@benedictine.edu.

    Ventures HO!
    **************************************
    This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management.

    Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.

    You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here:
    http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1

    If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch jbunch@benedictine.edu.

    Ventures HO!


  • 3.  Industrial Classification Standard

    Posted 03-03-2012 11:01
    Jacob,

    The reference that Per gives is a good one. However, there is another
    that you may want to look at as well. It is Dr. Scott Kunkel's Heizer
    Award winning 1992 doctoral dissertation - "The Impact of Strategy and
    Industry Structure on New Venture Performance" in which Kunkel analyzed
    the impact of many of the traditional industrial organization industry
    structural variables on new venture economic performance.

    Let me make one more suggestion as well. Expand your search to the
    field of Strategic Management. A lot of research has been done there
    related to different aspects of industry structure and its impact on
    the economic performance of all businesses - not just new ventures.

    In fact, one of the more interesting streams of publications in this
    area involves different books and reporsts based on the PIMS (Profit
    Impact of Market Strategy) project. Since seveal of the founders of this
    effort were economists, the term "Market" would, from our perspective,
    really mean "Business" so the PIMS project should really be called the
    PIBS project. This was a project that was originally started in the
    Genreal Electric Company in the 1960s under the direction of GE's lead
    ecomomist Dr. Sid Schoeffler and later moved outside of GE. The PIMS
    team collected over 15 years of very detailed data all of which was
    carefully checked for consistency by the staffs of the 1,500 plus
    businesses in the database. In this context, you should look up "The
    PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance," by Robert Buzzell
    and Bradley Gale, The Free Press, 1987. There are several others too.

    One of the MAJOR arguements of the PIMS researchers was that there was
    no such thing as "industry structure" so that the use of any industry
    atructre classification system, theoretically sound or not, is simply
    a waste of time. The basic arguement of these researchers was that what
    really matters were a small number of "strategy" and "industry structual"
    variables, such as "Product Quality" and "Capital Intensity." Using a
    small number of variables such as these, the PIMS researchers were able
    to "explain" the economoc performance of the more than 1,500 businesses
    in their database over a period of 10+ years extremely accurately. Their
    R-squares ranged from 0.60 to 0.80 or higher based on their sample of
    well over 15,000 data points. In fact, at one point, the PIMS team added
    industry structure [I do not recall the classification syatem that they
    used] to their equations and found that it [industry structure] added
    no additional explanatory power to their models.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Charles Hofer

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Per Davidsson" <per.davidsson@QUT.EDU.AU>
    To: ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:07:41 PM
    Subject: Re: [ENTREP] Industrial Classification Standard

    Jacob.

    I think this (below) would be one reference worth considering in developing
    a theoretically meaningful classification of sart-ups' varying industrial
    contexts. I do not know of an operationalization built on L & A but if you
    use Google Scholar to trace those who site them you might find earlier
    attempts of doing so (who knows?).

    Movements, bandwagons, and clones: Industry evolution and the
    entrepreneurial process
    Murray B. Low
    Columbia Business School USA
    Eric Abrahamson
    Columbia Business School USA
    Journal of Business Venturing
    Volume 12, Issue 6, November 1997, Pages 435–


    Best Regards,

    Per

    Per Davidsson| Professor | Director & Talbot Family Foundation Chair in Entrepreneurship, Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research (ACE) |
    School of Management | QUT Business School | Room Z757 | Phone:
    +61 7 3138 2051 | Fax: +61 7 3138 5250 | Mobile: you wish... | Email: per.davidsson@qut.edu.au | www.bus.qut.edu.au/research/ace/
    |CRICOS No. 00213J | Postal address: Queensland University of Technology
    |GP Room Z757 |2 George Street, GPO Box 2434 | Brisbane Qld 4001 |Australia
    ________________________________________
    From: Entrepreneurship Division Listserv [ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On
    Behalf Of Jacob Vermeire [jacob.vermeire@VLERICK.COM]
    Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 1:47 AM
    To: ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: [ENTREP] Industrial Classification Standard

    Dear all,

    We are looking for an alternative to the NACE/ISIC industrial
    classification system. We want to classify entrepreneurial firms in a
    start-up phase, but feel that NACE/ISIC is too descriptive and does not
    allow for inferences on the characteristics of specific markets. We were
    thinking of bipolar segmentation dimensions such as high tech - low tech,
    new market - saturated market, etc. These kind of dimensions could be more
    relevant in studying industry preferences of (nascent) entrepreneurs.

    Is there anybody who worked with a classification system alike, or knows
    where to find it?

    Many thanks in advance, kind regards,

    Jacob Vermeire

    **************************************
    This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship
    Division of the Academy of Management.

    Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages
    or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder
    "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.

    You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving
    the list here:
    http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1

    If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch jbunch@benedictine.edu.

    Ventures HO!
    **************************************
    This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship
    Division of the Academy of Management.

    Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or
    spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder
    "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.
    the list here:
    http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1

    If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch jbunch@benedictine.edu.

    Ventures HO!

    **************************************
    This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management.

    Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.

    You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here:
    http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1

    If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch jbunch@benedictine.edu.

    Ventures HO!


  • 4.  Industrial Classification Standard

    Posted 03-03-2012 13:01
    Dear Jacob,
     
    In below reference, we applied four methodologies to rank and classify entrepreneurial firms. The data collected from 59 Dutch start-ups, and the results of the four methodologies were compared with each other.
    I hope it would be helpful!
     
    Jafar Rezaei, Roland Ortt, Victor Scholten, Measuring entrepreneurship: Expert-based vs. data-based methodologies, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 39, Issue 4, March 2012, Pages 4063-4074.
     
    Regards,
    Jafar
     

    Jafar Rezaei,

    Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management

    Delft University of Technology

    PO Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands

     
     
     
    On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Charles Hofer <chofer@kennesaw.edu> wrote:
    > Jacob,
    >
    > The reference that Per gives is a good one. However, there is another
    > that you may want to look at as well.  It is Dr. Scott Kunkel's Heizer
    > Award winning 1992 doctoral dissertation - "The Impact of Strategy and
    > Industry Structure on New Venture Performance" in which Kunkel analyzed
    > the impact of many of the traditional industrial organization industry
    > structural variables on new venture economic performance.
    >
    > Let me make one more suggestion as well. Expand your search to the
    > field of Strategic Management.  A lot of research has been done there
    > related to different aspects of industry structure and its impact on
    > the economic performance of all businesses - not just new ventures.
    >
    > In fact, one of the more interesting streams of publications in this
    > area involves different books and reporsts based on the PIMS (Profit
    > Impact of Market Strategy) project. Since seveal of the founders of this
    > effort were economists, the term "Market" would, from our perspective,
    > really mean "Business" so the PIMS project should really be called the
    > PIBS project.  This was a project that was originally started in the
    > Genreal Electric Company in the 1960s under the direction of GE's lead
    > ecomomist Dr. Sid Schoeffler and later moved outside of GE. The PIMS
    > team collected over 15 years of very detailed data all of which was
    > carefully checked for consistency by the staffs of the 1,500 plus
    > businesses in the database. In this context, you should look up "The
    > PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance," by Robert Buzzell
    > and Bradley Gale, The Free Press, 1987. There are several others too.
    >
    > One of the MAJOR arguements of the PIMS researchers was that there was
    > no such thing as "industry structure" so that the use of any industry
    > atructre classification system, theoretically sound or not, is simply
    > a waste of time.  The basic arguement of these researchers was that what
    > really matters were a small number of "strategy" and "industry structual"
    > variables, such as "Product Quality" and "Capital Intensity."  Using a
    > small number of variables such as these, the PIMS researchers were able
    > to "explain" the economoc performance of the more than 1,500 businesses
    > in their database over a period of 10+ years extremely accurately. Their
    > R-squares ranged from 0.60 to 0.80 or higher based on their sample of
    > well over 15,000 data points. In fact, at one point, the PIMS team added
    > industry structure [I do not recall the classification syatem that they
    > used] to their equations and found that it [industry structure] added
    > no additional explanatory power to their models.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    > Dr. Charles Hofer
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Per Davidsson" <per.davidsson@QUT.EDU.AU>
    > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:07:41 PM
    > Subject: Re: [ENTREP] Industrial Classification Standard
    >
    > Jacob.
    >
    > I think this (below) would be one reference worth considering in developing
    > a theoretically meaningful classification of sart-ups' varying industrial
    > contexts. I do not know of an operationalization built on L & A but if you
    > use Google Scholar to trace those who site them you might find earlier
    > attempts of doing so (who knows?).
    >
    > Movements, bandwagons, and clones: Industry evolution and the
    > entrepreneurial process
    > Murray B. Low
    > Columbia Business School USA
    > Eric Abrahamson
    > Columbia Business School USA
    >  Journal of Business Venturing
    > Volume 12, Issue 6, November 1997, Pages 435–
    >
    >
    > Best Regards,
    >
    > Per
    >
    > Per Davidsson| Professor | Director & Talbot Family Foundation Chair in Entrepreneurship, Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research (ACE) |
    > School of Management | QUT Business School | Room Z757 | Phone:
    > +61 7 3138 2051 | Fax: +61 7 3138 5250 | Mobile: you wish... | Email: per.davidsson@qut.edu.au | www.bus.qut.edu.au/research/ace/
    > |CRICOS No. 00213J | Postal address: Queensland University of Technology
    > |GP Room Z757 |2 George Street, GPO Box 2434 | Brisbane Qld 4001 |Australia
    > ________________________________________
    > From: Entrepreneurship Division Listserv [ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On
    > Behalf Of Jacob Vermeire [jacob.vermeire@VLERICK.COM]
    > Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 1:47 AM
    > Subject: [ENTREP] Industrial Classification Standard
    >
    > Dear all,
    >
    > We are looking for an alternative to the NACE/ISIC industrial
    > classification system. We want to classify entrepreneurial firms in a
    > start-up phase, but feel that NACE/ISIC is too descriptive and does not
    > allow for inferences on the characteristics of specific markets. We were
    > thinking of bipolar segmentation dimensions such as high tech - low tech,
    > new market - saturated market, etc. These kind of dimensions could be more
    > relevant in studying industry preferences of (nascent) entrepreneurs.
    >
    > Is there anybody who worked with a classification system alike, or knows
    > where to find it?
    >
    > Many thanks in advance, kind regards,
    >
    > Jacob Vermeire
    >
    > **************************************
    > This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship
    > Division of the Academy of Management.
    >
    > Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages
    > or spammed messages are not allowed on the list.  The use of auto-responder
    > "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.
    >
    > You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving
    > the list here:
    >
    > If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch  jbunch@benedictine.edu.
    >
    > Ventures HO!
    > **************************************
    > This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship
    > Division of the Academy of Management.
    >
    > Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or
    > spammed messages are not allowed on the list.  The use of auto-responder
    > "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.
    > the list here:
    >
    > If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch  jbunch@benedictine.edu.
    >
    > Ventures HO!
    >
    > **************************************
    > This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management.
    >
    > Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list.  The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.
    >
    > You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here:
    >
    > If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch  jbunch@benedictine.edu.
    >
    > Ventures HO!
     
     
    ************************************** This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management. Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list. You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1 If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch jbunch@benedictine.edu. Ventures HO!