Simultaneous experimentation as a learning strategy: Business model development under uncertainty—Relevance in times of COVID ‐19 and beyond

Ventures operating under uncertainty face challenges defining a sustainable value proposition. Six longitudinal case studies reveal two approaches to business model development: focused commitment and simultaneous experimentation. While focused commitment positively affects initial growth, this commitment and lack of variety jeopardize long-term survival. Simultaneous experimentation implies lower initial growth levels, but facilitates long-term survival by enacting variety in a resource-effective manner. This article enriches organizational learning theory by demonstrating that not only distant search but also simultaneous experimentation results in variety. Moreover, simultaneous experimentation implies effectual behavior and reconciles the apparent juxtaposition between ‘action’ and ‘planning

[1]  B. Pentland.  Building Process Theory with Narrative: from Description to Explanation , 1999 .

[2]  R. Suddaby.  From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not , 2006 .

[3]  M. Raynor.  Solving the strategy paradox: how to reach for the fruit without going out on a limb , 2007 .

[4]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[5]  Mike Wright,et al.  Agency and similarity effects and the VC’s attitude towards academic spin-out investing , 2010 .

[6]  A. Bhide,et al.  Bootstrap finance: the art of start-ups. , 1992, Harvard business review.

[7]  Mike Wright,et al.  Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies , 2004 .

[8]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[9]  Avi Fiegenbaum,et al.  Output flexibility—A competitive advantage for small firms , 1991 .

[10]  Klaasjan Visscher,et al.  Operational effectiveness and strategic flexibility: scales for performance assessment of new product development systems , 2008, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[11]  William D. Bygrave,et al.  A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning , 2001 .

[12]  M. Wright,et al.  Explaining growth paths of young technology‐based firms: structuring resource portfolios in different competitive environments , 2011 .

[13]  Michael H. Morris,et al.  The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified perspective , 2005 .

[14]  G. Hamel.  Leading the Revolution , 2000 .

[15]  Daniel A. Levinthal.  Adaptation on rugged landscapes , 1997 .

[16]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Weathering the storm: the benefit of resources to high‐technology ventures navigating adverse events , 2009 .

[17]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[18]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  How Do New Ventures Evolve? An Inductive Study of Archetype Changes in Science-Based Ventures , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[19]  S. Sarasvathy.  Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency , 2001 .

[20]  Rita Gunther McGrath.  Falling Forward: Real Options Reasoning and Entrepreneurial Failure , 1999 .

[21]  M. Gibbert,et al.  What passes as a rigorous case study , 2008 .

[22]  Xavier Lecocq,et al.  Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency , 2010 .

[23]  Michael Song,et al.  Marketing Under Uncertainty:The Logic of an Effectual Approach , 2009 .

[24]  M. Crossan,et al.  The Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Understanding the Process Using the 4I Organizational Learning Framework , 2005 .

[25]  M. Wright,et al.  Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: are they different? , 1998 .

[26]  Marc Gruber,et al.  Look Before You Leap: Market Opportunity Identification in Emerging Technology Firms , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[27]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[28]  Saras D. Sarasvathy,et al.  Effectuation , 2008 .

[29]  Mike Wright,et al.  The Formation of High-Tech University Spinouts: The Role of Joint Ventures and Venture Capital Investors , 2004 .

[30]  G. Fisher.  Effectuation, Causation, and Bricolage: A Behavioral Comparison of Emerging Theories in Entrepreneurship Research , 2012 .

[31]  Jianwen Liao,et al.  The Effects of Pre-venture Plan Timing and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty on the Persistence of Emerging Firms , 2006 .

[32]  Hans Landström,et al.  FINANCIAL BOOTSTRAPPING IN SMALL BUSINESSES: EXAMINING SMALL BUSINESS MANAGERS' RESOURCE ACQUISITION BEHAVIORS , 2001 .

[33]  J. Barney,et al.  Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action , 2007 .

[34]  R. Amit,et al.  The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research , 2011 .

[35]  D. Dougherty.  Managing Your Core Incompetencies for Corporate Venturing , 1995 .

[36]  Carolyn Y. Woo,et al.  Strategic experimentation: Understanding change and performance in new ventures , 2000 .

[37]  Organizations , 1992, Restoration & Management Notes.

[38]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  Adaptation and Performance in New Businesses: Understanding the Moderating Effects of Independence and Industry , 2007 .

[39]  B. McKelvey.  Organizations: A Quantum View.Danny Miller , Peter H. Friesen , 1986 .

[40]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

[41]  Anand Swaminathan,et al.  Entry timing, exploration, and firm survival in the early U.S. bicycle industry , 2006 .

[42]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[43]  R. Katila,et al.  Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations , 2004 .

[44]  R. Amit,et al.  Value creation in E‐business , 2001 .

[45]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[46]  Allan Afuah.  Business Models: A Strategic Management Approach , 2003 .