Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Satyanarayana2021 Article AnAssessmentOfCompetitivenessO
Satyanarayana2021 Article AnAssessmentOfCompetitivenessO
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-021-00023-x
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Abstract
This paper examines the role played by the entrepreneurial, firm-specific and external environment-related parameters in
impacting the competitiveness of Indian high-tech start-ups, considering start-up survival as a milestone and using survival
analysis techniques for the analysis. The study uses primary data collected from 175 Indian high-tech start-ups that are
headquartered across the country, using a semi-structured questionnaire and in-depth interviews with the top-level man-
agement of the sample firms for analysis. Among the firm-related factors, sales and R&D capabilities of the start-ups have
shown to be of paramount importance in influencing the competitiveness of high-tech start-ups. Further, among the external
environment-specific attributes, the SDP growth in the region is shown to have significant influence on the competitiveness
of high-tech start-ups (borderline significant). This paper makes a key contribution to the existing literature by empirically
identifying the key entrepreneur-specific, firm-specific and external environment-specific factors of a firm that influence the
competitiveness of high-tech start-ups that are in pre-growth stage in a developing economy. The findings of the study will
help start-up owners and policy-makers to make adjustments in their policy-making and strategy to enhance the competitive-
ness of the technology-based startups operating in India.
1 Vol.:(0123456789)
3
K. Satyanarayana et al.
as of 2019 and the sector has created about 60,000 direct (Ajitabh and Momaya, 2004; Acquaah and Yasai-Ardekani,
jobs and about 150,000 indirect jobs (NASSCOM Start-up 2008; Singh and Gaur, 2018. Competitiveness has been stud-
Report, 2019). ied at three different levels—national, regional or industry
At a macro-level, the above developments of technology- and firm level. There is established literature dealing with
based entrepreneurship appear to be very promising. How- national competitiveness and annual global competitiveness
ever, it is to be noted that failure rate among the technology- studies and reports, such as the Global Competitiveness
based start-ups is very high, and most technology-based Index (GCI) from World Economic Forum (WEF), Yearbook
start-ups do not see the light of the day beyond the first cou- from International Institute for Management Development
ple of years of operations (Certo, 2003; Stinchcombe, 1965). (IMD), National Competitiveness Report (NCR), from Insti-
Ajitabh and Momaya (2004) noted that survival and success tute of Professional Studies (IPS) are published once every
of businesses in the twenty-first century increasingly depend 1 or 2 years to assess the same (Schwab, 2019; IMD, 2020;
on their competitiveness. Prior research has observed that Momaya, 2019). Meyer-Stamer (2008) defined regional
tech-start-ups need to deal with a lot of uncertainty across competitiveness as ‘the ability of a locality or region to gen-
many different dimensions in their early days. Therefore, it erate high and rising incomes and improve livelihoods of the
is appropriate to assume that all the contributions that are people living there’. Momaya (2001) described the key ten-
attributed to the technology-based start-up sector emanate ets of industrial competitiveness using the Assets, Processes
from those few start-ups who are able to navigate through and Performance model and in the process explained how
the multiple challenges in their initial years of operation, certain industries contributed significantly to the competi-
survive and emerge successful (Bala Subrahmanya, 2017; tiveness of their respective countries.
Krishna, 2019). In the context of technology-based start-ups, the firm-
The above observation brings to fore the importance of level competitiveness has been explained as being influenced
competitiveness in influencing the survival and success of by the three dimensions namely, entrepreneurial or founder-
technology-based start-ups. The competitiveness of a firm specific, firm-specific and external entrepreneurial environ-
refers to its capacity to viably compete in a given market, ment (ecosystem) related factors (Wiklund et al., 2009;
leading to an increase of the firm’s market share, and sub- Cader and Leatherman, 2011). It is therefore pertinent to
sequently make an entry into operations at international examine the micro factors related to the above dimensions
markets by way of exports, resulting in the achievement of and comprehend the factors that influence technology-based
sustainable and long-term growth and profitability (Cetin- start-ups’ competitiveness. Entrepreneurship research in its
damar and Kilitcioglu, 2013). Wu et al. (2008) described early years focused heavily on using the behavioral aspects
firm-level competitiveness as the ability of the firm to opti- and characteristics of the entrepreneur for studying any kind
mally deploy and mobilize its assets and capabilities to of output measures of firms, such as performance, competi-
derive competitive advantage in the market. The onset of tiveness among others (Brockhaus, 1982; McClelland, 1961;
COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath resulting in nations Ronstadt, 1988; Storey, 1982). Later on, Brüderl et al. (1992)
increasingly looking to reduce external country reliance in observed that the education background and credentials of
strategic areas (Koleson, 2020; Viola, 2020) also increase the lead entrepreneur, the general and industry-specific work
the onus on how technology-based startups can help increase experience of the founders of technology-based start-ups
India’s competitiveness. greatly enhanced the survival of the start-ups. However,
A review of extant literature indicates very little empirical over the recent years, factors, such as prior start-up expe-
research has been done to examine this phenomenon. This rience (Politis, 2008) and entrepreneurial orientation of
study aims to address this gap. By considering start-up sur- entrepreneur (Caliendo and Kritikos, 2010; Wiklund et al,
vival as a milestone of achievement of a minimum threshold 2019), have garnered much attention. The entrepreneur’s age
level of competitiveness, this study is conducted to iden- (Furdas and Kohn, 2011) has been discussed as another key
tify the key factors (entrepreneur or founder-specific, firm- factor influencing the competitiveness of technology-based
specific and external entrepreneurial environment-related) start-ups.
that inhibit or accelerate the competitiveness of technology- As regards the firm-related factors influencing competi-
based start-ups operating in India. tiveness of technology-based startups, Kim et al. (2006)
and Criaco et al. (2014) described the benefits of human
resources as being the enabler for the start-ups to address
Literature Review and mitigate the challenges related to funding (because
highly educated entrepreneurs can relatively easily raise
Competitiveness is reviewed in prior literature as a multi- funds for their new venture), marketing (skilled founders
dimensional construct, and is generally explored as an out- can recognize the market needs better than their counter-
put measure in the context of technology-based start-ups parts and therefore can create a market niche), formation of
13
An Assessment of Competitiveness of Technology‑Based Startups in India
a close-knit network (on account of their higher social stand- start-ups—and therefore the lack of empirical investigation
ing accrued due to their educational pedigree). There is una- in this region deprives cross-country comparisons and hin-
nimity in the prior literature regarding R&D investments and ders development of new knowledge which could benefit
R&D capabilities influencing the technology-based start-up similar economies as India. It is for the above reason the
lifecycle and competitiveness (Adler et al., 2019; Cefis and present study assumes importance.
Marsili, 2006). Two models of firm-level competitiveness have influ-
Lloyd-Ellis and Bernhardt (2000) noted that many a enced the development of the conceptual framework
times founders would complain about lack of availability required for the present study. Cetindamar and Kilitcioglu
and access to funding or finance mostly to cover up for their (2013) proposed a model of three pillars based on resource-
inadequacies in the technical and managerial functions of based theory to assess firm-level competitiveness. The first
their firms. Estrin et al. (2006) and Giraudo et al., (2019) pillar contained four outcome-based indicators—growth of
observed that financial constraints are not to be viewed as the firm, export performance, value added and profit, and
a barrier for achieving competitiveness, particularly from customer centricity and societal value generated. The sec-
start-ups at their inception and survival stage. They noted ond pillar contained input metrics (in Resource Based View
that financial support was more critical to technology-based (RBV) terminology) that represents the firm-specific fac-
start-ups at the time of scaling up of their businesses as tors, namely human resources, technology, innovation and
against in the start-up creation or survival of newly estab- design capabilities and financial resources. The third pillar
lished firms. accounted for the managerial processes and capabilities—
From a perspective of external environment factors influ- largely a proxy for entrepreneurship and leadership charac-
encing competitiveness of technology-based startups, Mil- ters exhibited by the senior leadership team and founders or
lan et al. (2012) noted the role of government actions in co-founders.
ensuring the equilibrium of choice of occupation among Chikan (2008) proposed a generalized model to interlink
the workforce. Cader and Leatherman (2011) deduced that and connect the national and firm competitiveness. At the
sector-specific policies and conditions are more favourable national level, the output goal of the model was to increase
to encourage survival of the technology-based firm, whereas the welfare of the citizens, while at the firm level, the output
agglomeration economies hinder the survival chances of goal was to increase the productivity of firms involved in the
these firms. Audretsch and Lehmann (2004) established ecosystem. Macro-level entities and factors, such as public
that funding and availability of venture capital as another institutions, government, macroeconomic policy and social
relevant aspect in impacting the technology-based start-up norms, were depicted to work closely with firm-specific
competitiveness in the pre-growth stages. aspects, such as firm strategy, factor inputs, firm capabili-
In summary, the above facets of literature review bring to ties among others, to achieve the firm-level goal of achieving
fore the contribution of entrepreneur-specific, internal firm- customer satisfaction with profits. The conceptual frame-
related factors that influence the competitiveness of tech- work for the study was derived building on both of these
nology-based start-ups. Furthermore, the review indicates models from the literature review.
that certain external environment factors influence the firm-
level competitiveness. Each of the above studies reviewed
in the study examine the influence of individual factors on
the competitiveness. It is well established that competitive- Conceptual Framework
ness is a multi-dimensional construct and individual factors
alone cannot completely explain in entirety the phenomenon The conceptual framework used for the analysis of the data
of firm-level competitiveness. Therefore, this study tries to for the study is depicted in Fig. 1.
address this gap by leveraging an integrative conceptual The conceptual framework captures the entrepreneur-
framework to examine firm-level competitiveness in the specific capabilities (individual factors), the firm-based
context of technology-based start-ups, considering start-up resources and the external environment-related factors
survival as a milestone for analysis of competitiveness. impact the technology-based start-ups competitiveness.
There is growing evidence on the importance of technol- For the entrepreneur-specific capabilities, aspects, such
ogy-based start-ups in driving the productivity and com- as entrepreneur’s age, founders’ education, entrepreneur’s
petitiveness around the world (WEF Global Competitiveness prior start-up and work experience, are considered for the
Report, 2019). While there are some studies in examining analysis of this study. The financial capital or resources of
the competitiveness of technology-based start-ups in other the firm, the R&D and sales capabilities or resources of the
emerging countries (Mesquita et al., 2007; Acquaah et al., firm are leveraged to characterize the firm-specific factors in
2008), there is a scarcity of studies in the Indian context. this study. The State Domestic Product (SDP) of the region,
India now ranks third across the globe in the number of the number of Venture Capital (VC) deals and the presence
13
K. Satyanarayana et al.
Fig. 1 Conceptual Framework
depicting Competitiveness of
Technology-based Start-ups
during their pre-growth stages
of VCs and angel investors in the region are considered as audience, a questionnaire was used as the research instru-
representatives of the external environment-related factors ment for this study. The collected data were homogenized
for the purposes of analysis of this study. to enable assessment across the data points. Secondary data
collection was used to collect external environment-specific
factors for each of the start-up in our sample.
Research Design As there is no solitary repository or database of tech-
nology-based startups in the areas chosen for the study, an
This study is based out of India from the perspective of aggregation of different credible data sources related to
geography and regional context. Data from technology- technology-based startups was made to create a master list
based start-ups that are operating in the software products of start-ups operating in this sector. Sources such as Indian
or services in the information technology sector are con- Software Product Industry Round Table (iSPIRT) and
sidered for the study. This implies that technology-based National Association for Software and Services Companies
start-up firms including software engineering start-ups that (NASSCOM), which are the two most credible industry
deal with DevOps and business operations facilitation start- associations were contacted for identification of the total
ups that have an established office including headquarters start-up population. Further, many government-funded incu-
in India, and that have R&D investments in India (including bators and corporate accelerators operating in the country
start-up firms that have global offices) are also considered. were also contacted with a request to share the list of start-up
Further, we restrict our study to cover start-ups that started firms in the country. After the aggregation and removal of
operations after the year 2005. This restriction allows us to redundant entries, a sanitized accurate list of start-ups was
get a good spread of start-ups that initiated operations for a created. The authors personally administered the question-
reasonable period of time. naire in person or collected data over telephone to all the
consenting founders.
Description of Variables and Measures To validate that the data collected from founders were
representative of the population, the demographic distribu-
The dependent variable, independent variables and control tion of start-ups data from the Government of India pro-
variables used for the statistical analysis are tabulated in moted Start-up India web portal (www.startupindia.gov.in),
Table 1. which is considered as a formal source of information on
Indian start-ups. The comparisons were made across multi-
Data Description and Methods of Data Collection ple dimensions, such as age of the technology-based start-
and Analysis up, distribution of start-ups with respect to their location of
operations, background of the founders, in terms of their
The study uses data collected from 175 Indian technology- education, their start-up and industry experience among oth-
based start-ups that are headquartered within the country for ers. The results of the comparison of the start-up data from
the analysis. Survival analysis (Aalen et al., 2008) of the data the government web portal with our data revealed that our
is performed using Cox proportional hazards model (Cox, sample was representative of the population.
1972) to deduce the factors that impact the survival of the Most of the data used in our study are collected using our
start-up and the degree to which they influence the com- research instrument—the questionnaire. The secondary data
petitiveness of the start-up. To collect data from the target are collected primarily to obtain the entrepreneur profile.
13
An Assessment of Competitiveness of Technology‑Based Startups in India
Table 1 Variables and measures used in the study along with their description
Variables and measures Description Label (for coding)
Dependent variable
Time to survival (in months) A combination of the time (measured in months) of opera- Stime
tions of the technology-based start-up since the formal
registration or incorporation and data about the technology-
based start-up meeting the survival milestone, considered
together constitute the complete dependent variable. For
the purposes of this study, the technology-based start-up
which has met the product-market fit milestone (repeatable
sales of the product or service to the intended customer
segment without needing any modifications to the offer-
ing) when data collection was conducted is marked as
‘survived’. From the perspective of competitiveness of the
start-up, the firm that has ‘survived’ is understood to have
reached a minimum threshold level of competitiveness
Independent variables
Industry experience A discrete (binary) variable that takes the value of ‘1’ if the Fiexp
entrepreneur has worked in the industry prior to starting the
new venture
(Prior) start-up experience A discrete (binary) variable that takes the value of ‘1’ if the Fsexp
entrepreneur has worked in a start-up firm prior to starting
the current venture
Age of the entrepreneur This variable is used to capture the age (in years) of the Fage
founder, at the juncture of formal incorporation of the cur-
rent technology-based start-up firm
Education of the entrepreneur A categorical variable comprising of two dummy variables Fedn
is used, where the reference variable indicates graduation
other than an engineering degree (degree in Science, Arts
and others), the first dummy represents graduate education
with an engineering degree; the second dummy represents
formal education comprising of a (technical) master’s
degree or above (Ph.D. and others)
Sales and marketing capabilities of the technology-based Measured as a categorical value with 3 levels: no sales Csales
start-up capabilities; sales capabilities, but no revenue; revenue
generation through sales
R&D capabilities of the technology-based start-up The R&D capabilities of the technology-based start-up at Cdev
the time of initiating operations is measured as a categori-
cal variable with 3 levels: no R&D capabilities; R&D
capabilities, but no viable product prototype; working and
demonstrable initial product or service offering developed
using R&D capabilities
Financial capabilities of the technology-based start-up This aspect is evaluated by a discrete (binary) variable that Fin
denotes whether funding external to the entrepreneurs and
their family’s funds has been obtained or not
State domestic product growth This variable is used as a substitute for the prevailing macro- Sdp
level economic environment prevalent in the State in which
the start-up is located. This variable provides the percent-
age of change in the State Domestic Product (SDP) in
comparison to its previous year (at constant prices)
Number of funded deals This variable is used to indicate the number of early-stage Deals
Venture Capital deals that happened for a given year and a
given geography. This measure is a proxy to measure the
maturity of the start-up ecosystem for the given year and
geography
Number of VC funds This variable indicates the presence of the active Venture Vc
Capital funds for a given year and a given geography. This
variable is a proxy to measure and understand the avail-
ability of external funding options for a particular region
and year
13
K. Satyanarayana et al.
Table 1 (continued)
Variables and measures Description Label (for coding)
Control variables
Target market segment This variable is a dummy variable, with two levels. A value Market_Segment
of ‘0’ indicates B2B sector, whereas a value of ‘1’ indicates
B2C sector
Location of operations This variable is a dummy variable with two levels: North Zone
Zone; South Zone
Entrepreneurial background This variable is a dummy variable with two levels: ‘local’ Te
entrepreneur; ‘transnational’ entrepreneur (which indicates
that the entrepreneur has exposure to working or studying
in more than one country, other than the country of his
origin, for a period of at least one year)
This information is obtained from public and professional prototype using their R&D personnel. In our sample, about
websites, such as LinkedIn, Angel List, Facebook and simi- 63% of the start-ups were not externally funded.
lar websites. We resorted to secondary data collection for the
entrepreneur profile, so that we could optimize the time dur-
ing our interview to focus on the core objectives of the study. Results and Discussion
Characteristics of the Data The statistical analysis of the data was initiated with a visual
inspection of estimators of survival probability using non-
A preliminary analysis on the data collected reveals that parametric KM plots. To begin with, the survival probabil-
the start-ups in the sample have been operating between 6 ity and cumulative probability of survival of entire sample
and 69 months of time since inception. About 49% of the against time is plotted (Fig. 2) to understand the distribution
technology-based start-ups reported that they had achieved of survival time of the start-ups. From the Fig. 2, we can
the milestone of survival (found their product market fit), infer that after incorporation of a start-up, as time elapses,
while the remaining 51% start-ups reported that they were the probability of survival begins to decrease. For example,
yet to achieve this milestone. About 90% of entrepreneurs from the data in our sample a start-up has about 99% prob-
conveyed that they had at least 1 year’s paid or industry ability of survival if it is formally incorporated only in the
experience prior to starting their new ventures. Further, past six months. However, if a start-up has been incorporated
about 63% founders indicated that they had stints in other since four years (48 months) the probability of survival of
start-ups either as founders or as employees prior to starting such start-up reduces to about 50%.
on their own. The range of the entrepreneurs’ age at the time As a next step, to arrive at the right model to analyze the
of inception of the start-up firm in the sample varied from objectives of our study, we tried the tests of proportional-
17 to 54 years. As regards entrepreneurs’ education, about ity on the Cox proportional hazards model. The diagnostic
35% of them possessed a non-engineering degree, 53% of results of the application of the Cox model are summarized
sample had obtained an engineering bachelors’ degree and in Table 2. The results from Table 2 indicate that the propor-
the remaining 12% had masters’ degree or higher academic tionality assumption for all the independent variables does
or educational qualification at the time of starting up their hold. The high p values for all the independent variables
venture. used in the model indicate that they are suited for usage
From a firm-specific perspective, 37% of start-ups
reported as not hiring any external personnel for their sales
related activities, 31.5% of start-ups reported the presence
of sales personnel, but with no revenues as on date of data
collection, and the remainder of 31.5% indicated as generat-
ing revenue through these sales personnel. In terms of R&D
capabilities of start-ups, about 18% of them reported as not
hiring any external personnel for their R&D, about 66% of
start-ups indicated that they had hired external personnel
to pursue R&D activities, and the remaining 16% of start-
ups reported as having developed a customer demonstrable
Fig. 2 Survival probability plots of start-ups
13
An Assessment of Competitiveness of Technology‑Based Startups in India
Table 2 Results from the cox proportional test diagnostics literature. The external environment factors namely the SDP
Variable Rho Chisq p value
growth (borderline significant, from the results indicated in
Table 3) indicate the need for a healthy macro-economic and
fiexp1 0.1254 1.6934 0.19316 technology-based start-up friendly ecosystem in the region,
fsexp1 − 0.0204 0.0477 0.82716 which in turn would result in enabling a higher survival rate
Fage − 0.0539 0.3034 0.58176 and therefore enhanced level of competitiveness of start-ups
fedn2 0.0348 0.1085 0.74182 in the region.
fedn3 − 0.1341 1.9563 0.16191 From these results, we also need to understand and inter-
sales2 0.0265 0.0631 0.80162 pret the factors which usually are attributed to influence sur-
sales3 0.0837 0.6861 0.40748 vival and firm competitiveness—but have not come out as
dev2 − 0.0669 0.6663 0.41436 significant in ensuring the same. Notable among them are
dev3 − 0.0499 0.3488 0.55477 the entrepreneur-specific factors considered in this study.
fin1 − 0.0665 0.4804 0.48824 As regards education not appearing significant in any of
Sdp − 0.0672 0.5117 0.47442 the models, this result can be explained on account of the
Deals − 0.1113 1.6048 0.20522 information that all the founders considered in the analysis
Vc 0.0987 0.889 0.34575 had a minimum or basic level education of a degree (gradu-
mkt1 0.1904 4.4269 0.03538 ation). Therefore, the results show that with basic minimum
te1 0.0432 0.1948 0.65892 education, these founders are likely to exploit entrepreneur-
zone1 0.2392 7.2135 0.00724 ial opportunities. Similar results were noted by Yin et al.
GLOBAL NA 18.3811 0.30206 (2019) as well as by Ahn and Kim (2019) based on their
assessment of performance of technology-based start-ups
in Korea.
or analysis using the Cox model. The visual evaluation of The prior start-up experience or prior industry experi-
proportionality was also carried out to ensure that the Cox ence of the entrepreneur has not come out as an important
proportional hazards model was best suited for our analysis. influence on the survival of technology-based start-ups.
The test results of our analysis using the overall optimized Prior research noted that for tasks that are well defined,
model is presented in Table 3. The test results indicate that repeated often, and feedback is provided in a timely and
this model fits better than the null model which indicate that correct manner, entrepreneurial judgment can be improved
the results from this model could be used for the analysis. (Hayward et al., 2006; Wright, 2001). In these conditions
The results from the overall model indicate that among of pure uncertainty, where the range of activities and the
the entrepreneur-related factors, none of the factors has an uncertainty in pursuing every new entrepreneurial activity
influence on increasing the likelihood of competitiveness of does not lend itself to repeatability, the aspects of prior firm
technology-based start-ups in the pre-growth stages. Among start-up experience or prior industry work experience may
the firm-specific factors, sales and R&D capabilities of the be of little help.
start-ups have shown to be of paramount importance in influ- From a firm-specific resources’ perspective, the aspect of
encing the probability of survival of technology-based start- funding or capitalization of the start-up does not come out as
ups. Further, among the external entrepreneurial environ- a significant factor that influences start-up competitiveness
ment attributes, ‘SDP growth’ in the region is shown to have at the pre-growth stages. This result also might be viewed
a major impact on the competitiveness of technology-based as contrary to existing findings, if taken at face value. This
start-ups. Following the precedent of Chandrashekar and result can be explained as follows. Viewed in isolation, fund-
Bala Subrahmanya (2017), the impact of the ‘SDP growth’ ing or capital infusion to a firm at any time of its lifecycle is
attribute which is borderline significant has been discussed considered a necessary factor input. In the case of technol-
in the next section, although in normal circumstances this ogy-based start-ups, particularly in the IT sector, the nature
specific treatment would be avoided. The results of the anal- of the industry structure is such that costs of entry for a new
ysis have important implications in the context of the life- venture is very minimal, since there is no need to invest in
cycle studies of technology-based start-ups and their com- any physical assets that invite capital expenditure. The only
petitiveness. From a firm-specific resources perspective, the investment comes by way of intellectual and technical capi-
results indicate that it is of paramount importance to have tal—which all of the founders of this sample possess—by
a demonstrable product offering very early in the lifecycle way of educational pedigree.
using which feedback could be obtained on aspects that need
to be addressed before getting to product market fit. Further,
the aspect of lack of revenue early on for the start-up affect-
ing its chances of survival reinforce the findings from past
13
13
Prior industry experi- − 0.320 0.526 0.371 1 0.543 0.726
ence of the entrepre-
neur (fiexp = 1)
Prior start-up experi- − 0.282 0.291 0.942 1 0.332 0.754
ence of the entrepre-
neur (fsexp = 1)
Age of the entrepre- 0.020 0.018 1.210 1 0.271 1.020
neur (fage)
Education of the 0.121 2 0.941
entrepreneur—base
reference variable
(fedn)
Education of the − 0.106 0.481 0.049 1 0.825 0.899
entrepreneur—first
dummy (fedn1)
Education of the − 0.005 0.401 0.000 1 0.990 0.995
entrepreneur—sec-
ond dummy (fedn2)
Sales Capabili- 14.271 2 0.001**
ties—base reference
variable (csales)
Sales Capabili- − 1.985 0.571 12.067 1 0.001** 0.137
ties—first dummy
(csales1)
Sales Capabilities— 0.089 0.279 0.102 1 0.749 1.093
second dummy
(csales2)
R&D Capabili- 10.631 2 0.005**
ties—base reference
variable (cdev)
R&D Capabilities— − 0.192 0.440 0.190 1 0.663 0.825
first dummy (cdev1)
R&D Capabilities— 0.951 0.364 6.845 1 0.009** 2.589
second dummy
(cdev2)
Funding Status of the 0.010 0.258 0.001 1 0.970 1.010
start-up (fin = 1)
SDP growth (sdp) 4.227 2.577 2.689 1 0.101* 68.484
Number of deals 0.005 0.009 0.363 1 0.547 1.006
(deals)
Number of VCs (vc) 0.001 0.008 0.006 1 0.940 1.001
K. Satyanarayana et al.
An Assessment of Competitiveness of Technology‑Based Startups in India
Implications
0.722
holistic manner. This end-to-end perspective of evaluation
using a conceptual framework derived from the RBV and
Assets-Processes-Performance (APP) models has enabled
the verification on how, certain factors, in the presence of
other influencing factors will contribute or hinder com-
petitiveness of technology-based start-ups. Second, this
0.228
0.642
0.340
0.909
0.342
0.257
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.15
Table 3 (continued)
Operations in South
Target Market Seg-
India (Zone = 1)
13
K. Satyanarayana et al.
has been explored in the study. An evaluation of technol- Ahn, S., & Kim, J. (2019). The effect of managerial characteristics on
ogy-based start-ups in growth or post-growth stages would the performance of technology-based start-ups in Korea. Inter-
national Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 14(1),
enable a much more complete assessment of competitiveness 11–23
using the entire APP framework. These suggested extensions Ajitabh, A., & Momaya, K. (2004). Competitiveness of firms: Review
of scope will lead to creation of new knowledge and insights of theory, frameworks and models. Singapore Management
related to competitiveness of technology-based start-ups. Review, 26(1), 45–61
Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2004). Financing high-tech
growth: The role of banks and venture capitalists. Schmalenbach
Business Review, 56(4), 340–357
Key Questions Reflecting Applicability Bailetti, T. (2012). Technology entrepreneurship: overview, defini-
in Real Life tion, and distinctive aspects. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 2(2), 5–12
BalaSubrahmanya, M. H. (2017). Comparing the entrepreneurial eco-
What are the entrepreneur-specific factors that influence systems for technology start-ups in Bangalore and Hyderabad,
the firm-level competitiveness of early-stage start-ups? India. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(7), 47–62
What firm-specific factors impact the competitiveness 10th Anniversary Issue.
Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organi-
of start-ups? zational science in a global context. Academy of Management
What are the external environment-related factors that Review, 16, 262–290
influence the competitiveness of early-stage start-ups? Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C.
What frameworks and models can be used to assess A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Entrepreneurship. (pp. 39–56). Prentice-Hall.
competitiveness of start-ups that are in the pre-growth Brüderl, J., Preisendörfer, P., & Ziegler, R. (1992). Survival chances
stages? of newly founded business organizations. American Sociological
Review, 57, 227–242
Cader, A. H., & Leatherman, C. J. (2011). Small business survival and
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- sample selection bias. Small Business Economics, 37, 155–165
tary material available at https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 007/s 42943-0 21-0 0023-x. Caliendo, M., & Kritikos, A. S. (2010). Start-ups by the unemployed:
characteristics, survival and direct employment effects. Small
Business Economics, 35, 71–92
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge and thank Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2006). Survivor: The role of innovation in
all the anonymous reviewers and the editors, and the Editor-in-Chief firms’ survival. Research Policy, 35(5), 626–641
Kirankumar S. Momaya in particular for their valuable and detailed Certo, S. T. (2003). Influencing initial public offering investors with
feedback which has enabled the authors to significantly improve the prestige: Signaling with board structures. Academy of Manage-
quality of the paper. ment Review, 28(3), 432–446
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the IIMB-SJSU Cetindamar, D., & Kilitcioglu, H. (2013). Measuring the competitive-
International Conference on Transnational Entrepreneurs and Interna- ness of a firm for an award system. Competitiveness Review: An
tional SMEs in Emerging Economies: Drivers and Strategies, organ- International Business Journal, 23(1), 7–22
ized by Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB), India, in Chandrashekar, D., & BalaSubrahmanya, M. H. (2017). Absorptive
collaboration with San José State University (SJSU), California, USA, capacity as a determinant of innovation in SMEs: A study of
held at Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India from May Bengaluru high-tech manufacturing cluster. Small Enterprise
20–22, 2015. Research, 24(3), 290–315
Chikán, A. (2008). National and firm competitiveness: a general
Declaration research model. Competitiveness Review: An International Busi-
ness Journal, 18(1–2), 20–28
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of
states that there is no conflict of interest. the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 34(2),
187–202
Criaco, G., Minola, T., Migliorini, P., & Serarols-Tarrés, C. (2014). To
have and have not: Founders’ human capital and university start-
up survival. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(4), 567–593
References Estrin, S., Meyer, K. E., & Bytchkova, M. (2006). Entrepreneurship
in transition economies. In M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu, & N.
Aalen, O. O., Borgan, Ø., & Gjessing, H. K. (2008). Survival and event Wadeson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of entrepreneurship.Oxford
history analysis: A process point of view. Springer-Verlag. University Press.
Acquaah, M., & Yasai-Ardekani, M. (2008). Does the implementation Furdas, M., Kohn, K. (2011). Why is startup survival lower among
of a combination competitive strategy yield incremental perfor- necessity entrepreneurs? A decomposition approach. Preliminary
mance benefits? A new perspective from a transition economy Version, April 2011.
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Business Research, 61(4), Giraudo, E., Giudici, G., & Grilli, L. (2019). Entrepreneurship policy
346–354 and the financing of young innovative companies: Evidence from
Adler, P., Florida, R., King, K., & Mellander, C. (2019). The city and the Italian Startup Act. Research Policy, 48(9), 103801
high-tech startups: The spatial organization of Schumpeterian Hayward, M. L. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. (2006). A hubris
entrepreneurship. Cities, 87, 121–130 theory of entrepreneurship. Management Science, 52(2), 160–172
Kim, P. H., Aldrich, H. E., & Keister, L. A. (2006). Access (Not)
denied: The impact of financial, human and cultural capital on
13
An Assessment of Competitiveness of Technology‑Based Startups in India
entrepreneurial entry in the United States. Small Business Eco- Krishna Satyanarayana is cur-
nomics, 27, 5–22 rently working at IIM Bangalore
Kirchhoff, B. A., & Spencer, A. (2008). New High Tech Firm Contribu- as a Research Associate in the
tions to Economic Growth. Proceedings of international council Strategy area. His research inter-
for small business world conference, 2008. Halifax. ests are entrepreneurial ecosys-
Koleson, J. (2020). TikTok is on the clock, will democracy stop? tems, with particular focus on
Krishna, H. S. (2019). High-tech internet start-ups in India. Cambridge high-tech start-ups, transnational
University Press. entrepreneurship and entrepre-
Lloyd-Ellis, H., & Bernhardt, D. (2000). Enterprise, inequality and neurial learning. Dr. Krishna
economic development. Review of Economic Studies, 67, 147–168 previously worked at the Depart-
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand. ment of Management Studies,
Mesquita, L., Lazzarini, S. G., & Cronin, P. (2007). Determinants of IISc, Bengaluru on research pro-
firm competitiveness in Latin American emerging economies: jects and has conducted national
Evidence from Brazil’s auto-parts industry. International Jour- and international seminars in the
nal of Operations and Production Management, 27(5), 501–523 areas of entrepreneurial ecosys-
Meyer-Stamer, J. (2008). Systematic competitiveness and local eco- tems. Dr. Krishna is the author of
nomic development discussion paper. Mesopartner. a book titled ‘High-tech Internet Startups in India’ published by Cam-
Millán, J. M., Congregado, E., & Román, C. (2012). Determinants of bridge University Press, and the co-author of another book titled ’Tech-
self-employment survival in Europe. Small Business Economics, nology Business Incubators in India’ published by Degruyter, Berlin,
38(2), 231–258 Germany.
Momaya, K. (2001). International competitiveness: Evaluation and
enhancement. Hindustan Publishing Corporation. Deepak Chandrashekar is cur-
Momaya, K. S. (2019). The past and the future of competitive- rently working as an Assistant
ness research: A review in an emerging context of innova- Professor in the Strategy Area at
tion and EMNEs. International Journal of Global Business the Indian Institute of Manage-
and Competitiveness, 14(1), 1–10. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 007/ ment Bangalore. He holds a PhD
s42943-019-00002-3. in Industrial Economics from the
NASSCOM Start-up Report. (2019). Indian Tech Start-up Ecosys- Indian Institute of Science, Ban-
tem—Leading Tech in the 20s. galore, and a PGDM from SDM
Politis, D. (2008). Does prior start-up experience matter for entrepre- Institute for Management Devel-
neurs’ learning? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Devel- opment, Mysore, and a BE from
opment, 15, 472–489 Sri Jayachamarajendra College
Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principle. Journal of Small Business of Engineering, Mysore. His
Venturing, 3(1), 31–40 research interests are in the areas
Schwab, K. (2019). The global competitiveness report 2019. World such as Innovation and Entrepre-
Economic Forum. neurship, Strategy and Competi-
Singh, S. K., & Gaur, S. S. (2018). Entrepreneurship and innovation tiveness and Intellectual Prop-
management in emerging economies. Management Decision., erty Rights. He has several research papers to his credit published in
56(1), 2–5 reputed refereed international journals. He also serves on the editorial
Start-up Genome. (2012). Start-up Ecosystem Report 2012, USA. review board of several journals.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J.
G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organization. (pp. 142–193). Rand M. H. Bala Subrahmanya is a Pro-
McNally. fessor of Economics at the
Storey, D. J. (1982). Entrepreneurship and the new firm. Beckenham. Department of Management
Viola, L. A. (2020). US strategies of institutional adaptation in the face Studies, Indian Institute of Sci-
of hegemonic decline. Global Policy, 11, 28–39 ence (IISc), Bangalore. He has
Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B., Shir, N., Foo, M. D., & Bradley, S. (2019). more than 30 years of profes-
Entrepreneurship and well-being: Past, present, and future. Jour- sional experience, including
nal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 579–588 about 25 years in IISc. During
Wiklund, J., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Building an integra- his professional career he
tive model of small business growth. Small Business Economics, received Commonwealth Fellow-
32, 351–374 ship (1999–2000); Japan Foun-
Wright, W. F. (2001). Task experience as a predictor of superior loan dation Fellowship (2004/2005);
loss judgments. Auditing, 20(1), 147–156 and Fulbright-Nehru Senior
Wu, L. Y., Wang, C. J., Chen, C. P., & Pan, L. Y. (2008). Internal Research Fellowship
resources, external network, and competitiveness during the (2009/2010). He has worked as a
growth stage: A study of Taiwanese high–tech ventures. Entre- Visiting Research Fellow at Uni-
preneurship Theory and practice, 32(3), 529–549 versity of Durham, UK (February–July 2000); National Graduate Insti-
Yin, W., Moon, H. C., & Lee, Y. W. (2019). The success factors of tute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) Tokyo, Japan (March 2005–February
Korean global start-ups in the digital sectors through inter- 2006); and at University of California, Davis, USA (September 2009–
nationalization. International Journal of Global Business April 2010). His field of specialization is Industrial Economics.
and Competitiveness, 14(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42943-019-00003-2
13