• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.13 no.5
• /
• pp.131-154
• /
• 2018

While strong investments on startup and venture ecosystem prosper worldwide, growing interest on nurturing startup ecosystem in Korea is also on its way. However, korean entrepreneurial ecosystem currently results few successful business models with those continuous development of itself compared to the one in China, which is breeding more than 50% of unicorns internationally. Accordingly, this study examined how people in the venture ecosystem, especially in IT industry feel about themselves and startup itself and compared startup ecosystem in Seoul, Korea to the one in Chengdu, China considering each of economic, social and administrational environment. The study tried to provide an implication about the future orientation of Korea's starup and venture ecosystem to policy makers and the ones inside the environment to make a better one. Therefore, the study choose Seoul, Korea and Chengdu, China as geological specimens of startup ecosystem and conduct qualitative study by interviewing selected ones who work in startup incubator, accelerator specified to IT industry and started their own business in IT industry funded by startup reward program. The study categorize the result in social, economic, and administrative parts and screens whether the interviewees from both Korea and China have similar opinions toward each of questions and can be translated to have tendency or not in each part of study. According to the study, the national recognition of startup should be moved from means of maintenance such as restaurants, franchise business to IT startup especially based on software business for the sustainable flourish in Korean venture ecosystem. Investors including accelerator, Angel investors and VCs should be less risk-aversion and therefore prefer stake purchase to solely giving subsidies. The role of governors should be limited to be a middleman of the network, connecting each people in need inside the ecosystem and their reward program should focus on nurturing the growing ones, not just multiplying the numbers of startups to expand the size of entrepreneurial ecosystem. Since this study indicated that entire revision of startup ecosystem should be applied to make a better one, it could be used to design future entrepreneurial infrastructure and the ways of activating startup ecosystem elsewhere in Korea.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2018

In an entrepreneurial ecosystem, the failure rate of startups is extremely high at 90%, and every startup that fails becomes an orphan. This phenomenon leads to higher costs of failure for the entrepreneurs in the ecosystem. Failed startups have many lessons to offer to the ecosystem and offer guidance to the potential entrepreneur, and this area is not fully explored compared to the literature on successful startups. We use a case based method distinguishing a failed startup and a successful startup, studying the entrepreneurial characteristics and firm level factors which cause the failures, in the technology startup ecosystem of Bangalore. We study one of the modes of exit adopted by failed startup entrepreneurs and draw key lessons on causes that culminate in failures. We have identified that factors such as the time to minimum viable product cycle, time for revenue realization, founders' complementary skillsets, age of founders with their domain expertise, personality type of founders, attitude towards financial independence and willingness to avail mentorship at critical stages, will decisively differentiate failed startups from the successful ones. Accordingly, implications have been derived for potential entrepreneurs for reducing the cost of failures in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.101-114
• /
• 2022

Recently, various studies on the entrepreneurial ecosystem have been conducted. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is composed of various elements such as entrepreneurs, governments, and infrastructure, and these factors interact to contribute to economic development. The purpose of this study was to analyze differences in importance and performance of the entrepreneurial ecosystem for startups using the importance-performance analysis (IPA) method. Based on this, the importance and current level of the components of the entrepreneurial ecosystem were identified and policy implications were presented. The results of the study are as follows. The importance ranking was in the order of startup support program(4.43), startup funding (4.39), market accessibility(4.30). The ranking of performance was startup support program(3.81), ease of starting a business(3.76), support for startup support institutions(3.66), and startup funding(3.66). All elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem showed higher importance than performance. This means that the components of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Korea are recognized as important, but do not play a significant role in terms of performance for startups. In addition, the factors with the highest improvement in the importance-performance matrix were 「safety nets for startup failure」, 「culture of acceptance of failure」, 「ease of market entry」, 「ease of startup survival」, and 「ease of exit」. This study suggested improvement measures such as establishing a social safety net, improving awareness of startup failure culture, matching successful startups, strengthening scale-up support by growth stage, easing regulations in new business fields, and diversifying investment recovery strategies.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.16 no.6
• /
• pp.31-42
• /
• 2021

The importance of startups and ventures in the Korean economy is growing. This study measured whether the start-up and venture ecosystem is growing, including the growth of startups and ventures. The startup and venture ecosystem consists of startups and ventures, investors, and government, which are the main actors of the 'ecosystem', and their movements were measured with 25 quantitative indicators. Based on the original data of the time series from 2010 to 2020, the startup and venture ecosystem index was calculated by applying weights through the comprehensive stock index method and AHP. In 2020, the startup and venture ecosystem grew 2.9 times compared to 2010, and the increase in the government index had a significant impact on growth. Also, the individual indicators that make up each index in 2020, the corporate index had the greatest impact on the growth of the number of 100-billion ventures, while the investment index had a recovery amount and the government index had a significant impact. Based on the original data, the startup and venture ecosystem index was analyzed by dividing it into ecosystems (startup ecosystem and venture ecosystem), industry by industry (all industries and manufacturing industry), and region (Korea and Busan). As a result, the growth of the startup ecosystem over the past decade has been slightly larger than that of the venture ecosystem. The manufacturing was lower than that of all industries, and Busan was lower than that of the nation. This study was intended to use it for the establishment and implementation of support policies by developing, measuring, and monitoring the startup and venture ecosystem index. This index has the advantage of being able to research the interrelationships between major actors, and anyone can calculate the index using the results of official statistical surveys. In the future, it is necessary to continuously update this content to understand how economic and social events or policy support have affected the startup and venture ecosystem.

• Journal of Fashion Business
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.1-15
• /
• 2023

This study divided articles into two time periods, from 2012 to 2022, with the aim of using big data analysis to look at patterns in the ecosystem of fashion start-ups. The research method extracted top keywords based on TF(Term Frequency) and TF-IDF(Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency), analyzed the network, and derived centrality values. As a result of comparing the first and second fashion startup ecosystems, elements of policy, support, market, finance, and human capital were derived in the first period. In addition, in the second period, elements of policy, support, market, finance, and culture were derived. In the first period, the fashion startup ecosystem focused on fostering new designer startups by emphasizing support, finance, and human capital factors and focusing on policies. Meanwhile, in the second period, online-based fashion platform startups and fashion tech startups appeared with the support of digital transformation and fulfillment services triggered by COVID-19(Corona Virus Disease 19), private finances were emphasized, and cultural factors were derived along with success stories of fashion startups. This study is meaningful in that it helps in developing strategies for fashion startups to grow into sustainable companies.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.511-533
• /
• 2018

As the developed and developing economies make the transition to knowledge-based economies, the high-tech sector has been the primary engine in enabling this transformation. Given this context, the policy making and implementation abilities of the countries' local administration assume significance. This study therefore attempts to examine the policy evolution undertaken by China and India which resulted in the emergence of high-tech startup ecosystems in these countries. Further, using a theoretical framework for an ideal entrepreneurial ecosystem, it tries to understand the similarities and differences prevalent currently in the Indian and Chinese high-tech startup ecosystem. The results of the study indicate that although both the countries took different paths, from a macro-perspective, they follow the same pattern as observed in the US and Israel policy making - that of the change in the role of Government as a regulator to that of an enabler of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The differences and similarities between the key entrepreneurial ecosystem components provide additional knowledge about the currently prevailing conditions of the ecosystem in these countries.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.9 no.5
• /
• pp.549-555
• /
• 2023

The main point related to the entrepreneurial ecosystem is that in an environment where a good entrepreneurial ecosystem has been established, startup companies can generate good results. From this perspective, this study examined the perception of entrepreneurs regarding the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the Daegu by conducting an analysis of importance and satisfaction towards the Daegu entrepreneurial ecosystem, using the results of the Innovation Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Establishment and Operation Project of the Daegu Creative Economy Innovation Center, which is a key member of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The analysis results showed that the importance and satisfaction of the entrepreneurial infrastructure were classified as high, while the importance and satisfaction of finance (investment and support) and securing human resources were shown to be low. Based on the results of this study, we confirmed the perception of entrepreneurs regarding the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Daegu and provided implications for improving the regional entrepreneurial ecosystem and policy directions.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.131-149
• /
• 2018

Multinational corporations (MNCs) leverage global locations for efficient production and sustained growth, and move significant foreign direct investments globally, particularly into emerging economies. MNCs also engage in entrepreneurial ecosystems of host countries for strategic benefits and impact the ecosystem as well. Of late, MNCs are increasingly entering into emerging economies like India through foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows and they are playing a vital role in start-up promotion in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Therefore, we examine the role of MNCs and its impact on the entrepreneurial ecosystems in India by exploring a symbiotic relationship between MNCs and startups. We use a case-based method to ascertain and analyze specific benefits that emerge from such symbiotic relationships and draw implications for startups in India's technology entrepreneurial ecosystem.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.97-110
• /
• 2020

This paper is on the policy proposal for venture ecosystem. First, one of the three secrets of the US venture ecosystem is the law of 50:50. Angel capital investment is as important as venture capital investment. Although professional angel investors and accelerators account for as much as VC in the venture ecosystem, they are ignored from policy considerations. We argue that the revision of related law is urgent. Second, large US firms invest more in M&As than in internal R&D. Therefore, accelerators and professional angel investors could make effective investment recovery after investing in a startup company. In other words, angel capital does not come in without secondary market development. Angel capital and secondary markets are the two pillars of the venture ecosystem. The government alone is difficult to develop a secondary market. This is why the private sector should come in and introduce corporate venture capital (CVC). Third, we believe the policy direction for national economic growth should be extended from the startup to scale-up. This is because the startup's sales and job creation will start in five years. While the previous study focused on funding (venture financing), this paper aims to balance all three stages of a venture: startup, growth, and recovery, which are the life cycle of a venture company or venture investment. In particular, we propose specific policies in each chapter to improve practical application.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.231-241
• /
• 2024

Discovering innovative startups that use public technologies from universities and government-funded research institutes is crucial for maintaining national competitiveness. Advancing public R&D technology, discovering entrepreneurs from research institutes, and fostering and investing in deep-tech startups are very important at the national level. However, there is a lack of research on activating startups using public technologies, and research analyzing each governance entity is needed to activate the innovation startup ecosystem. Therefore, this study conducted an empirical analysis of the priorities for revitalizing the innovation startup ecosystem among researchers, research institutes, innovative startups, and the government, which constitute the public technology governance. The results of this study revealed that the sustainability of innovative startups (0.308), government innovation startup activation (0.298), research institutions discovering and fostering startups (0.221), and researcher's characteristics (0.173) were the most significant factors in the public R&D technology innovation startup ecosystem. And the sub-factors of researcher's characteristics, seizing business opportunities (0.305) was most important, and creating a startup-friendly culture (0.293) was most important among the sub-factors of research institutions discovering and fostering startups. Investment funds and procurement (0.373) was the most critical sub-factor for the sustainability of innovative startups, while a dedicated fund for public technology (0.305) was the most important among the sub-factors of government schemes for promoting innovative startups. A total of 20 factors were analyzed sequentially according to their importance in the weights for evaluation factors and sub-factors. By sub-factor, investment and financing for innovative startups (0.115), dedicated government fund for public technology (0.091), securing high-quality human resources for innovative startups (0.078), improving government regulations and permits related to innovative technologies (0.074), and creating a startup-friendly culture in research institutions (0.065) were the most important. This result emphasizes the significance of securing competitiveness to become a sustainable public technology startup. In addition, based on entrepreneurship experience, 'dedicated funding for public technology' was most important for the group with startup experience, while the group with no experience needed more 'investment and funding'. Furthermore, By region, 'improving government regulations and permits' was the highest priority in the Seoul metropolitan area, while 'attracting investment and financing' was the most important in Daejeon. Therefore, the results of this research, it is important to give policy priority to innovative startup companies in order to activate the innovation startup ecosystem in the public technology sector. The political and practical implications were derived that long-term (10 years or more) investment and funding for deep tech companies and the establishment of public technology-only funds are the most urgent and important.