Vol. 53 No. 1 (2023)
INVESTMENT, INNOVATION & INDUSTRIAL POLICIES

How We See the Potential of Innovative Development: Problems of Appraising Early Stage Projects

E.A. Obukhova
Novosibirsk State University
A.T. Yusupova
Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, SB RAS; Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk

Published 2022-12-29

Keywords

  • innovative project; innovation ecosystem; scoring methods of assessment; information asymmetry; signaling

How to Cite

1.
Obukhova Е, Yusupova А. How We See the Potential of Innovative Development: Problems of Appraising Early Stage Projects. ECO [Internet]. 2022 Dec. 29 [cited 2024 Jul. 27];53(1):99-117. Available from: https://ecotrends.ru/index.php/eco/article/view/4557

Abstract

The paper considers the problems of supporting high-tech innovation projects in the early stages of the life cycle. The Russian innovation ecosystem does not provide sufficient opportunities for their development and promotion. On the one hand, exaggerated requirements imposed on projects during the selection process lead to significant underfunding of the early stages. On the other hand, venture investors are forced to support low-risk, relatively simple projects. Special tools are needed to analyze and evaluate high-tech startups, which are characterized by a high level of uncertainty, impossibility to clearly calculate financial attractiveness, and demonstration of finished products. As such, the authors have developed a methodology based on the analysis of the experience of entrepreneurs, venture and traditional investors, and innovation infrastructure institutions. The methodology involves a wide range of experts, takes into account motivations, priorities, competencies and capabilities of the actor evaluating and selecting the project. The authors present the experience of its application for the assessment of a specific high-tech startup in the field of warehouse logistics.

References

  1. Баранов А. О., Музыко Е. И., Павлов В. Н. Оценка эффективности инновационных проектов с использованием опционного и нечетко-множественного подходов: монография. Новосибирск: ИЭОПП СО РАН, 2018. 336 с. DOI: 10.15372/EPRF20180101
  2. Маркова В. Д., Кузнецова С. А. Экосистемы как инновационный инструмент роста бизнеса // ЭКО. 2021. № 8. С. 151–168. DOI: 10.30680/ECO0131–7652–2021–8–151–168
  3. Музыко Е. И. Методы оценки инвестиционных проектов при венчурном финансировании // Экономика и предпринимательство. 2020. № 11. С. 772–777. DOI: 10.34925/EIP.2020.124.11.151
  4. Обухова Е. А. Многокритериальный подход к оценке инвестиционной привлекательности инновационных проектов // Мир экономики и управления. 2021. № 4. C.103–123. DOI: 10.25205/2542–0429–2021–21–4–103–123
  5. Обухова Е.А., Родионова Д.А. Методика оценки инвестиционной привлекательности инновационных проектов // Вестник Сибирского института бизнеса и информационных технологий. 2022. Том 11. № 2. C. 74-83. DOI: 10.24412/2225-8264-2022-2-74-83
  6. Унтура Г. А. Региональная кооперация науки, высшего образования и бизнеса: национальный проект «Наука» // Регион: экономика и социология. 2020. № 3. С. 62–96. DOI: 10.15372/REG20200303
  7. Bolat, H. B. (2022). Risk Analysis for the Tech Startup Projects with Fuzzy Logic / H. B. Bolat, F. Yaşlı, G. T. Temur / Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 308. Pp. 671–679.
  8. Capizzi, V., Croce, А., Tenca, F. (2022). Do Business Angels’ Investments Make It Easier to Raise Follow-on Venture Capital Financing? An Analysis of the Relevance of Business Angels’ Investment Practices. British journal of management. No. 33(1). Pp. 306–326.
  9. Cardon, M.S., Mitteness, C., Sudek, R. (2017). Motivational cues and angel investing: Interactions among enthusiasm, preparedness, and commitment. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 41. Pp. 1057–1085.
  10. Ciuchta, M.P., Letwin, C., Stevenson, R., McMahon, S., Huvaj, M.N. (2018). Betting on the coachable entrepreneur: Signaling and social exchange in entrepreneurial pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 42. Pp. 860–885.
  11. Clarke, J.S., Cornelissen, J.P., Healey, M. (2018). Actions speak louder than words: How figurative language and gesturing in entrepreneurial pitches influences investment judgments. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 62. Pp. 335–360.
  12. Colombo, O. (2021). The use of signals in new-venture financing: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management. Vol. 47(1). Pp. 237–259.
  13. Dobrowolski, Z., Drozdowski, G. (2022). Does the net present value as a financial metric fit investment in green energy security? Energies. Vol. 15(1). No. 353.
  14. Granstrand, O., Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition.Technovation. Vol. 90-91. Pp. 1-12.
  15. Islam, M., Fremeth, A., Marcus, A. (2018). Signaling by early stage startups: US government research grants and venture capital funding. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 33. Pp. 35-51.
  16. Lundvall, В.А. (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards the Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learnin. L.: Pinter Publishers. 317 p.
  17. Mitchell, R., Phaal, R. (2014). Scoring methods for prioritizing and selecting innovation projects. PICMET - Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology, Proceedings: Infrastructure and Service Integration. Pp. 907-920.
  18. Moritz, A., Diegel, W., Block, J., Fisch, С. (2022). VC investors’ venture screening: the role of the decision maker’s education and experience. Journal of Business Economics. No. 92(1). Pp. 27-63.
  19. Nesticò, A., Maselli, G. (2020). Declining discount rate estimate in the long-term economic evaluation of environmental projects. Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management. No. 8(1). Pp. 93-110.
  20. Rossi, M., Chouaibi, J., Graziano, D., Festa, G. (2022). Corporate venture capitalists as entrepreneurial knowledge accelerators in global innovation ecosystems. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 142. Pp. 512-523.
  21. Trabelsi, D., Siyahhan, B. (2021). Startup cash flows and venture capital investments: A real options approach. Managerial and Decision Economics. No. 42(3). P. 737-750.
  22. Zhang S.X., Gao, R., Odeh, N., Leatherbee, M. (2021). A microfoundational model of real options reasoning: The roles of individual search propensity and perceived uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. No. 15(1). Pp. 98-120.