Design/methodology/approach: After a focused literature review showing evidence of Knowledge Management Behaviors (KMBs) as a source of potential ambidexterity for Institutional Venture Capitalists (IVCs) and Corporate Venture Capitalists (CVCs), descriptive, inferential, and discriminant analyses on the 15 most active IVCs and CVCs in the world in 2019 are presented. Correlations between numbers of deals, prevailing entrepreneurial intensity, and potential ambidexterity are investigated. Purpose: IVCs and CVCs deploy analogous activities but adopt different approaches to financing innovation and value creation for venture-backed firms. Thus, the present research investigates their potential ambidexterity as a result of KM strategies and processes. Findings: Specific differences are analyzed from a KM perspective, revealing that the number/percentage of operations per round can result as a misleading criterion of knowledge accumulation. Finally, a theoretical model for ambidexterity for Venture Capitalists (VCs) is developed. Originality/value: The study shows that IVCs act with greater investment capacity due to their organizational structure and purpose and focus on financial goals; moreover, they are ambidextrous, although their exploration may more frequently entail exploitation than ‘real’ exploration. CVCs tend to invest in sectors related to their core business, coherent with their strategic purpose, and more oriented with KM strategies for accumulating Intellectual Capital (IC)
Knowledge Management Behaviors in Venture Capital Crossroads: A Comparison between IVC and CVC Ambidexterity
Rossi, Matteo;
2020-01-01
Abstract
Design/methodology/approach: After a focused literature review showing evidence of Knowledge Management Behaviors (KMBs) as a source of potential ambidexterity for Institutional Venture Capitalists (IVCs) and Corporate Venture Capitalists (CVCs), descriptive, inferential, and discriminant analyses on the 15 most active IVCs and CVCs in the world in 2019 are presented. Correlations between numbers of deals, prevailing entrepreneurial intensity, and potential ambidexterity are investigated. Purpose: IVCs and CVCs deploy analogous activities but adopt different approaches to financing innovation and value creation for venture-backed firms. Thus, the present research investigates their potential ambidexterity as a result of KM strategies and processes. Findings: Specific differences are analyzed from a KM perspective, revealing that the number/percentage of operations per round can result as a misleading criterion of knowledge accumulation. Finally, a theoretical model for ambidexterity for Venture Capitalists (VCs) is developed. Originality/value: The study shows that IVCs act with greater investment capacity due to their organizational structure and purpose and focus on financial goals; moreover, they are ambidextrous, although their exploration may more frequently entail exploitation than ‘real’ exploration. CVCs tend to invest in sectors related to their core business, coherent with their strategic purpose, and more oriented with KM strategies for accumulating Intellectual Capital (IC)I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
