Essay on Venture Capital †Motivations For Corporate Venturing

1. IntroductionTraditionally, the interest of companies in creating take a chance blood lines was influenced by the take a chance with child(p) climate. Increased rates of corporeal venturing activity record in the 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s were in cor opposeence with the flourishing ship pileus investitures (Narayanan et al., 2009). Despite the deterioration in private equity investiture property owe to the fall of the dot-com sector in early 21st century, unified venturing is still considered to be an important patronage activity in prominent moving in organisations (Gailly et al., 2014). However, cunning venturing is marred with complexity including the disconcerting array of actual corporal venturing forms (Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013). As Garg (2013) argues, for many years, hulking chore organisations have been gingerly close the idea of bodily venturing. Some have witnessed a mishap of their proceed initiatives while opposites have given up so subs tantially. Generally, the biography of inembodiedd venturing initiative is around one year (Basu & Wadhwa, 2013). Even backing organisations with a strong capital base have struggled to utilise cognition that is gained from start-up initiatives (Basu et al., 2011). Certainly, it is non easy to run a corporate suppose capital successfully. However, as the rate of discontents in seek and emergence increase, corporate venturing is gaining honour and appreciation in the business public (Masulis & Nahata, 2009). To clearly position the reasons that go organisations to consider corporate venturing, it is imperative to analyse the concept of growth and development as a resoluteness of the effectiveness of look for and development initiatives at the organisational take.2. Venturing and Firm InnovativenessIdeas that atomic number 18 groundbreaking can be produced via natural R&D or access externally through activities such as corporate jeopardise capital initiative. Compani es must not limit themselves to in-house R&D as a line of descent of innovativeness. In spite of the extravagantly prevalence of internal R&D as a blood of innovativeness in many business organisations from a historical perspective, a finish to limit an organisation to sourcing its innovativeness from internal R&D has its limitations (Srivastava & Agrawal, 2010 Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013). As research on economic-based industries suggests, monopolies lack efficiency which results in the costs associated with inefficiency being passed shovel in to the final consumer (Narayanan et al., 2009 Napp&Minshall, 2011). This idea is excessively recognised in corporate entrepreneurship research. Specifically, gamma amino justyric acid and Bhattacharya (2012) argued that elevated R&D expenditure at the organisational level is an indicator of internal inefficiencies and elevated agency costs rather than successful innovative initiatives or antagonistic risk-taking orgasmes.Therefore, it is necessary for corporations to eliminate the monopoly enjoyed by their R&D unit of measurements. Economics positions the existence of competing players as a source of efficiency when compared to a monopoly state (Basu et al., 2011). At organisational level, structuring of corporate innovative initiatives can be take in through the development of several R&D centre or supporting various technological initiatives through approaches such as corporate imagine capital. Furthermore, research has raised concerns over the possibility of collusion pitfalls in casefuls where the number of players is limited (Napp & Minshall, 2011 Basu & Wadhwa, 2013). This can be addressed by pass a momentous geographical dispersion of R&D centres. Indeed, agree to Gaba and Bhattacharya (2012), having legion(predicate) research sites that are geographically distributed enhances corporate innovativeness by providing assistance in disabling organisational inertia, offering variety, and eventually speedinging up the development of naked as a jaybird capabilities and technological advancement.The option of multiple technological activities that is frameed on corporate gamble capital initiatives is besides harsh among various star companies on a global scale in the recent past. A decision to embark the concept of competition in processes that generate organisational innovativeness has been found to eliminate inefficiencies in organisational innovativeness activities (Maula et al., 2009). Agency theory emphasises on inefficiencies that emanate from spying associations between a levels engaging another house to to a lower placetake indisputable activity on its behalf, which entails a decision to delegate a substantial decision-making authority to an agent (Srivastava & Agrawal, 2010). The consideration, in this case, is that both players in the contract are rational, self-interested, risk-averse, and opportunistic. Consequently, the opportunistic demeanor of the age nt may not be in agreement with the best interests of the hint (Garg, 2013 Bruneel et al., 2013). The agents opportunistic behaviour is manifested via inauspicious infusion, moral hazards, and hold-up (Cumming & Johan, 2010). In addition, any form of misalignment that exists between the headings and the agents interests implies enduring loss by the principal (Maula et al., 2009 Souitaris & Zerbinati, 2014).A typical situation where an agency problem is applicable is the case of a relationship between business managers and owners (Cumming & Johan, 2010). However, this situation can easily be use to the relationship between a firms R&D unit and its elucidate management. In this case, the internal R&D unit is positioned as an agent of the firms top management that is knotty in technical advancement. Therefore, selection process that is adverse may be a significant issue if the R&D unit initiates a project that extends beyond its expertise. The issue of moral hazards is common in c ases where actions taken by an agent cannot be verified which is a common occurrence in complex research and development projects, where apparent results rather than behaviours that cannot be verified is the solution (Narayanan et al., 2009). Hold-up challenges may emerge when internal projects that are not successful are not suspended from corporate funding even when the outcomes are useless in spite of significant corporate expenditure.Therefore, a decision to create a corporate venture capital initiative is a solution to some of the problems associated with agency challenges. Specifically, corporate venture capital plans provide internal R&D units with a significant challenge over their monopoly on generating organisational innovation. According to a research done by Basu et al. (2011), challenging the monopoly by internal R&D unit on innovation production has assisted several business firms to directly sound into successful business initiatives that would have been assumed und er normal internal R&D situation. As much as corporate venturing is considered to be dangerous due to the threat of opportunism (Garg, 2013), a decision to limit innovative activities to internal R&D unit is more problematic (Cumming et al., 2009). The challenges associated with monopolies are just part of the challenges. Without sufficient level of diversity, strategicalal refreshal, which is considered a major entrepreneurship, can never be realised. phylogenesis of corporate venture initiatives is, therefore, significant in minimising moral hazards and adverse selection (Maula et al., 2009). Allocating an organisations funds to a corporate venture is a significant threat to the availability of funds that can be applied in internal R&D projects, which spurs competition based on the economic perspective analysed above.3. Motives that Drive collective VenturingResearch has established that a corporate venture capital fund is more flexible, can move faster, and is generally chea per when compared the conventional research and development in assisting an organisation in the process of responding to changes in business models and technologies (Maula et al., 2009 Napp&Minshall, 2011). According to Garg (2013), such a fund can be used in the process of stimulating subscribe for a firms products. Furthermore, corporate venture capital is an coronation that may earn a company a return that is attractive. It is, therefore, a tool that is used by a firm in capturing ideas that ultimately influence the future of an organisation. There are various benefits that come with venture capital including faster response, fall apart synopsis of business threats, easier disengagement, enhanced investment impacts, increased demand, and higher returns.3.1. Venturing and Business ResponseThrough offering an inside perspective of new technological areas as well as an approach that can check to possible ownership and use of novel ideas, corporate venturing allows businesses t o swiftly respond to changes in the trade. In a study done by (Narayanan et al., 2009) about venturing initiatives, it was established that companies that were able to make successful financial investments experienced better success levels. Consequently, such development capabilities that are experienced under venture capital initiative take a longer period of cartridge holder to be realised if done by a firm on its own and is generally more expensive (Souitaris & Zerbinati, 2014). Given the resources and time need to modernise research facilities and recruit researchers with the right skills and expertise, expanding a firms internal research and development can be generally conscientious (Phan et al., 2009).3.2. Venture jacket crown in Threat ManagementVenture fund can be used by an organisation as an approach to gathering intelligence, which assists the firm in protecting itself from emerging threats to its combativeness in the market. For instance, Analog Devices, the sili con- hightail it medical specialist formulated a venture program in the 1980s concentrate at investing in a variety of competing technologies (Basu et al., 2011). The goal, in this case, was to collect strategic information at a lower cost. The process resulted in a discovery that it was difficult and expensive to make chips using non-silicon materials. This resulted in a hike in Analogs market valuation. In this case, the decision to utilise corporate venturing program offered the company a source of insurance. In this case, if the alternatives that the company had opted to explore had been viable, it was covered from the risk of being approach out of the market by its competitors. Conventional approaches to research and development does not offer data that can be used in predicting sources of competitive forces. Specifically, some corporate research and development units counsel on projects that are narrow which can result in neglect of areas that can attempt a significant d isruption from external competitors. Accordingly Phan et al. (2009) argue that most business managers in firms with versatile internal R&D functions deliver challenges when it comes to determining whether their companies are blindsided with regard to new innovative developments that may jeopardize their conflict3.3. Venturing and Easier DetachmentAnother positive aspect of venturing that is related to the ability of a firm to speed up its response to threats and change is that it offers organisational management a faster approach to detach from investments that appear to be doomed to fail. In particular, many firms happen it challenging to abandon innovations that are not very good but are unquestionable internally (Rohrbeck et al., 2009). Such projects can re important in a firms product development for many years resisting termination. This can well be illustrated by Nokias continued focus on developing its mobile phones based on the Symbian operating schema even when most of its competitors had opted to go into free fall, which negatively affected the battle of Nokia in the market. The relationship that exists between firms and their venture funds which is arms-length is profitable in this respect. In particular, as much as a firm may be reluctant to terminate an initiative that is unpromising, the presence of co-investors provides a programme for forcing the decision.3.4. Venture Capital and Increased Impacts of InvestmentVenture Capital provides business firms opportunities for have their capital with other venture capitals, which results in the magnification of the personal effects of an investment to a firm. These benefits are particularly apparent in cases where technological hesitation is significantly higher. The iFund, which was supported by apple Company and introduced in the market by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venerable VC firm, provides an illustration of this case. This investment enabled Apple to score applications for i ts new mobile phone products at the lowest cost possible. This was in contrast to the case of Nokia, which was a major market rival to Apple Company whose operating system, Symbian was unsuccessful and very costly. As a result of the success of the iFund, similar such initiatives have been positioned by many other companies including famous venture capital developments such as Facebook and Research in Motion.3.5. Venturing and Market DemandVenture firm provides a firm with several sources of leveraging. This can be illustrated by the iFund case. In particular, a decision by venture capitalists to move on the development of technologies that were reliant on the parent firm business platforms results in increased demand for the firms products. This approach was considered by Intel Capital in the late 1990s when it founded a capital that speeded the adoption of Intels next generation chips in the market (Rohrbeck et al., 2009). This fund was invested in numerous hardware and software makers who were mostly Intel competitors and their products capitalised on the power presented by the new chip developed by Intel. These investments resulted in the accelerated adoption of Intel chip within a short period of time. Intel capital was also involved in seeding firms that were developing wireless internet products founded on a platform that had been championed by Intel. This resulted in rapid adoption of wireless products from Intel in the followers years, which illustrated the success of the company in applying corporate venturing in creating a entanglement of wireless actors.3.6. Venturing and ReturnsResearch has also established a financial benefit that is associated with venturing. Specifically, the main objective of any venture capital initiative is to generate receipts for the partners. With regard to corporate venture capital, the main goal is gaining a strategic advantage in the market, which ultimately culminates in increased profitability as much as the in itial income generated as a result of the venture itself is insignificant with regard to the bottom line of corporate firms (Masulis & Nahata, 2009). Business organisations introduce value in start-ups that they find, which is commonly in the form of resources, skills, and reputation (Phan et al., 2009). This also changes the perception of the new entitys prospects in the face of external investors. humanity and private equity investors generally believe that start-ups that are founded on venture capital will be absorbed by the investors at an attractive valuation. Accordingly, Basu et al. (2011) established that business start-ups that are funded by corporations are more apt(predicate) to attract more attention among high-quality players in the market when compared to ordinary start-ups. It also emerged that such start-ups that are backed by corporate venture funds have a better performance with regard to stock value when compared to those that are backed by traditional investme nt groups.4. ConclusionThe analysis of the corporate venture capital and its significance in the business world demonstrated a clear picture of its implication in growth, development, and competitiveness of business organisations in the wake of a globalised business environment. Specifically, it was apparent that corporate venture capital initiative could be applied by business organisations in increasing their innovativeness and the general firm efficiency and ultimately their competitiveness. Consequently, corporate venture capital initiatives demonstrate entrepreneurial aspects that are associated with significant effects on business corporations. Consequently, based on the deeper analysis of the strategic aspects of corporate venture capital investments, this paper has affirmed that it plays a strategic design in competitiveness and sustainability of corporate entities in the contemporary business settings therefrom an attractive initiative in most corporations.5. ReferencesBa su, S., & Wadhwa, A. (2013). External venturing and discontinuous strategic renewal An options perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), pp. 956-975.Basu, S., Phelps, C., Kotha, S. (2011). Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why, Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2), pp. 153-171.Bruneel, J., Van de Velde, E., & Clarysse, B. (2013). Impact of the Type of corporate Spin?Off on Growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), pp. 943-959.Cumming, D., & Johan, S. (2010). Venture capital investment duration. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(2), pp. 228-257.Cumming, D., Fleming, G., &Schwienbacher, A. (2009). Corporate relocation in venture capital finance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), pp. 1121-1155.Gaba, V., & Bhattacharya, S. (2012). Aspirations, innovation, and corporate venture capital A behavioural perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), pp. 178-199.Gailly, B., Da Gbadji, A. G., & Sc hwienbacher, A. (2014). International analysis of venture capital programs of large corporations and financial institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Forthcoming.Garg, S. (2013). Venture boards Distinctive monitoring and implications for firm performance. honorary society of Management Review, 38(1), pp. 90-108.Guerrero, M., & Pena-Legazkue, I. (2013). The effect of intrapreneurial experience on corporate venturing reason from developed economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), pp. 397-416.Guerrero, M., & Pena-Legazkue, I. (2013). The effect of intrapreneurial experience on corporate venturing register from developed economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), pp. 397-416.Masulis, R. W., &Nahata, R. (2009). Financial contracting with strategic investors Evidence from corporate venture capital backed IPOs. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 18(4), pp. 599-631.Maula, M. V., Autio, E., & Murray, G. C. (2009). Corp orate venture capital and the balance of risks and rewards for portfolio companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), pp. 274-286.Napp, J. J., &Minshall, T. (2011). Corporate venture capital investments for enhancing innovation challenges and solutions. Research-Technology Management, 54(2), 27-36.Narayanan, V. K., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation A retrospect and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38(1), pp. 58-76.Phan, P. H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D., & Tan, W. L. (2009). Corporate entrepreneurship Current research and future directions. Journal of business Venturing, 24(3), pp. 197-205.Rohrbeck, R., Dohler, M., & Arnold, H. (2009). Creating growth with externalization of R&D resultsthe spin?along approach. world(a) Business and Organizational Excellence, 28(4), pp. 44-51.Souitaris, V., & Zerbinati, S. (2014). How do corporate venture capitalists do dealsAn geographic expedition of corporate investment practices. Strategic Entreprene urship Journal, 8(4), pp. 321-348.Srivastava, N., & Agrawal, A. (2010). Factors supporting corporate entrepreneurship an exploratory study. reverie The Journal of Business Perspective, 14(3), pp.163-171.