This paper focuses on factors impacting the growing and public presentation of little and average endeavors. The purpose was to place strategic factors distinguishing immature and durable growing SMEs. The empirical informations consisted of 32 immature ( 8 old ages or less ) and 33 durable ( 20 old ages or more ) growing SMEs. A comparing of the two groups of growing SMEs revealed strategic differences with of import deductions between immature and durable SMEs. The consequences suggest that steadfast age does affair for SME growing schemes. The consequences increase our apprehension of the factors impacting SME growing and public presentation in two different contexts.

Keywords: growing ; public presentation ; schemes ; little and average endeavors

Introduction

Firm growing is a cardinal focal point country in scheme, organisational and entrepreneurship research. Much research attempt has been targeted peculiarly at look intoing the factors impacting house growing, but to day of the month there is no comprehensive theory to explicate which houses will turn or how they grow ( e.g. Garnsey, 1996 ) . It seems that non even really strong explanatory factors have been identified, though assorted explanatory attacks have been presented.

The research community mostly portions the position that growing SMEs have a particular importance in the economic system ( see e.g. Storey, 1994 ) . During the last 10 old ages, the research on house growing has mostly focused on high-growth SMEs. It is argued that a comparatively little proportion of all little houses are responsible for the major portion of the little house part to net new occupations ( Storey, 1994 ; Birch et al. , 1993 ) . These houses have been described as ‘gazelles ‘ , ‘fliers ‘ , ‘growers ‘ and ‘winners ‘ , and the targeting of attempt towards them has been described as ‘picking ‘ , ‘stimulating ‘ , or ‘backing ‘ victors ( see e.g. Gibb, 1997 ; Freel, 1998 ; Beaver & A ; Jennings, 1995 ) .

More late, the function of aggressive little houses has been questioned, and the issue is known as the ‘mice vs. gazelles ‘ ( Birch et al. , 1993 ) or ‘flyers vs. trundlers ‘ ( Storey, 1994 ) argument. In other words, the argument has focused on the inquiry: which of these really has the major impact on net employment ( Davidsson & A ; Delmar, 1998 ) ? On the other manus, it has been recognized that go toing entirely to firm-level growing and occupations may be excessively narrow an attack. Firms, even really little and non-growing 1s, can hold different strategic functions or places in the local economic system ( Laukkanen 1999 ) . Some are critical facilitators of other houses ‘ growing or of their very outgrowth, and therefore are of import for occupation creative activity at the local degree.

In fact, old research reveals that house growing is a multidimensional phenomenon. There is significant heterogeneousness in a figure of factors associated with house growing and related research ( Delmar et al. , 2003 ) . The most recent research on house growing has increased our apprehension of different growing forms. As Delmar et Al. ( 2003 ) have shown, house growing forms are related to the demographic features of houses such as steadfast age.

SME growing is frequently closely associated with house overall success and endurance ( e.g. Johannisson, 1993 ; Phillips & A ; Kirchhoff, 1989 ) . Growth has been used as a simple step of success in concern ( e.g. Storey, 1994 ) . Besides, as Brush and Vanderwerf ( 1992 ) suggest, growing is the most appropriate index of the public presentation for lasting little houses. Furthermore, growing is an of import stipulation for the accomplishment of other fiscal ends of concern ( de Geus, 1997: 53 ; Storey, 1994 ; Reynolds, 1993 ; Day, 1992: 128 ; Phillips & A ; Kirchhoff, 1989 ) . From the point of position of an SME, growing is normally a critical stipulation for its length of service ( Storey, 1994: 158 ) . Phillips and Kirchhoff ( 1989 ) found that immature houses that grow hold twice the chance of endurance as immature non-growing houses. It has been besides found that strong growing may cut down the house ‘s profitableness temporarily, but increase it in the long tally ( McDougall et al. , 1994 ; californium. MacMillan & A ; Day, 1987 ) .

However, there are several conceptual and empirical challenges in the survey of house growing ( see e.g. Davidsson & A ; Wiklund, 2000 ; Delmar, 1997 ) . Firm growing in general refers to increase in size. In research, house growing has been operationalized in many ways and different steps have been used. This may be one ground for the contradictory consequences reported by old surveies ( Weinzimmer et al. , 1998: 235 ) , though other accounts have besides been presented ( see Delmar et al. , 2003 ; see besides Davidsson & A ; Wiklund, 2000 ) .

The most often used step for growing has been change in the house ‘s turnover ( e.g. Weinzimmer et al. , 1998: 238 ; Hubbard & A ; Bromiley, 1995 ; Hoy et al. , 1992 ; Venkatraman & A ; Ramanujam, 1986 ) . Another typical step for growing has been change in the figure of employees. However, it has been found that these steps, which are often used in the SME context, are strongly intercorrelated ( North & A ; Smallbone, 1993 ; Storey et al. , 1987 ) . Such an intercorrelation may non be among capital-intensive big companies.

Most surveies of house growing have focused on big companies or new venture, while the growing of established, durable SMEs seems to hold attracted much less attending. In fact, many organisational life rhythm theoretical accounts present growing as one phase of development in the organisational life rhythm. On the other manus, it has been shown that most new occupations are created by bing, non new, SMEs ( e.g. Davidsson et al. , 1993 ; see besides North et al. , 1992 ) . However, old surveies of SME public presentation have focused on the public presentation of new ventures instead than on bing SMEs and on the factors behind their length of service and growing ( e.g. Tsai et al. , 1991 ; Duchesneau & A ; Gartner, 1990 ; Keeley & A ; Roure, 1990 ) .

This survey takes a holistic and extended attack to factors impacting SME growing and public presentation. Firm growing and public presentation are much affected by scheme, which involves picks along a figure of dimensions and can be represented by a house ‘s overall aggregation of single business-related determinations and actions ( Mintzberg, 1978 ; Miles & A ; Snow, 1978 ) . Though there is a assortment of definitions of the term of scheme, it can accurately be conceptualized as a form of strategic variables, because the elements of scheme – the single business-related determinations and actions – are mutualist and synergistic ( Galbraith & A ; Schendel, 1983 ) . It is argued that the designation of scheme forms permits a more complete and accurate word picture of overall strategic behaviour ( see e.g. Hambrick, 1983 ; Robinson & A ; Pearce, 1988 ) .

Previous research has suggested that the waies to growing can differ consistently by firm-level factors such as steadfast age ( Fisher and Reuber, 2003 ; Delmar & A ; Davidsson, 1998 ) . In fact, already in the late 1950ss Penrose ( 1959 ) presented the position that a house ‘s growing form is dependent on its age, size, and industry association ( see Delmar et al. , 2003 ; besides Stinchcombe, 1965 ) . As Delmar et Al. ( 2003 ) suggest, it is likely that different growing forms have different deductions for direction and perchance besides for the long-run public presentation of the house.

In this visible radiation it seems utile to compare immature growing SMEs and durable growing SMEs and find whether they differ in features and schemes. The cardinal research inquiry is, how do immature and durable growing SMEs differ in their strategic properties? In other words, the purpose of this paper is to look into whether steadfast age plays a function in house features and schemes. The findings will increase our apprehension of the factors associated with house growing and public presentation in these two different contexts.

FACTORS AFFECTING SME GROWTH

Although there has been much involvement in understanding little steadfast growing during the last 10 old ages ( e.g. Davidsson & A ; Delmar, 1999 ; Delmar, 1997 ; Wiklund, 1998 ) , there is still non much of a common organic structure of tenable cognition about the causes, effects or procedures of growing ( Davidsson & A ; Wiklund, 2000 ) . Furthermore, although several determiners of house growing have been suggested, research workers have been unable to accomplish a consensus sing the factors taking to tauten growing ( Weinzimmer, 2000 ) . Most of the research work in this country fails to supply converting grounds of the determiners of little steadfast growing as a footing for informing policy shapers ( Gibb & A ; Davies, 1990: 26 ) . Attempts to construct theoretical accounts for foretelling the future growing of the house, i.e. picking victors, have non been peculiarly successful. Furthermore, as Spilling ( 2001 ) reminds us, the position of being a growing house may be instead impermanent.

Early surveies of growing focused on big companies and their variegation schemes. However, little houses are non little large houses. In big companies the function of variegation, for illustration, may be significantly bigger than in the instance of SMEs. Indeed, growing through variegation may be necessary for the growing of a big company ( Kay, 1997 ) .

The bing research on the growing and scheme of SMEs has focused chiefly on new ventures ( Olson & A ; Bokor, 1995 ) . There are few surveies of the growing of established SMEs: one case is Davidsson ( 1989 ) , who studied the subsequent growing of an SME from the psychological point of position. Possibly the most comprehensive digest of consequences of old surveies concentrating on little house growing is that presented by Storey ( 1994 ) .

Several categorizations of factors impacting house growing have been presented. The general stipulations for growing have been suggested to be ( 1 ) enterpriser ‘s growing orientation ; ( 2 ) adequate house resources for growing ; and ( 3 ) the being of the market chance for growing ( californium. Davidsson, 1991 ) .

Storey ( 1994: 158 ) claims that there are three cardinal influences on the growing rate of a little independent house: ( 1 ) the background and entree to resources of the enterpriser ( s ) ; ( 2 ) the house itself ; and ( 3 ) the strategic determinations taken by the house once it is merchandising. The most of import factors associated with an enterpriser are motive, instruction, the house holding more than a individual proprietor, and the house holding middle-aged concern proprietors. The growing of the smallest and youngest houses is the most rapid. The location and industry sector besides affect the growing. The most of import strategic factors are shared ownership, an ability to place market niches and present new merchandises, and an ability to construct an efficient direction squad. Storey argues that these three constituents need to be combined suitably for growing to be achieved.

Gibb and Davies ( 1990: 16-17 ) , on the other manus, have grouped the factors explicating growing into four types of attack ( Gibb, 1997: 2-3 ; Pistrui et al. , 1997 ; Poutziouris et al. , 1999 ) . These are: ( 1 ) personality-dominated attacks, which explore the impact of personality and capableness on growing, including the enterpriser ‘s personal ends and strategic concern aspirations ( e.g. Chell & A ; Haworth, 1991 ; 1992 ) ; ( 2 ) house development attacks, which seek to qualify the growing form of the house across phases of development and the influence of factors impacting growing procedure ( e.g. Scott & A ; Bruce, 1987 ) ; ( 3 ) concern direction attacks, which pay attending to the importance of concern accomplishments and the function of functional direction, planning, control and formal strategic orientation in footings of determining the growing and public presentation of the house in the market place ( e.g. Bamberger, 1989 ; 1983 ) ; and ( 4 ) sectoral and broader market-led attacks which focus mostly on the designation of growing restraints and chances associating to little steadfast growing in the context of regional development or the development of specific industrial sectors such as high-technology little houses ( e.g. Smallbone et al. , 1993 ) .

The enterpriser and growing purpose

The behaviour of enterprisers is strongly affected by purposes ( e.g. Krueger & A ; Carsrud, 1993: 315 ; Bird, 1988: 442 ) . The house ‘s strategic behaviour and subsequent growing is apprehensible in the visible radiation of its growing purpose. Therefore, house growing is based non simply on opportunity, but on the direction ‘s witting determination devising and pick. Naturally, the house can turn even though it is non the direction ‘s purpose, but in such a instance the growing is non planned and so may include more hazards. Planing aid in pull offing growing.

In general, ends and aims can be divided into two classs. On the one manus, there are concluding ends which are valuable as such. On the other manus, there are ends which have instrumental value for accomplishing some other ends. Growth can be regarded as the 2nd most of import end of a house, the most of import one being house endurance, i.e. the continuity of the concern. Furthermore, growing is an of import stipulation for a house ‘s length of service. Negative growing of an SME is frequently a mark of jobs, while stagnancy, i.e. a state of affairs where growing has stopped, is normally declarative of jobs that a house will confront in the hereafter.

As a affair of fact, growing frequently has instrumental value. For new ventures, house growing is needed to guarantee an equal production volume for profitable concern. Growth can function as an instrument for increasing profitableness by enlargening the house ‘s market-share. Other similar ends include procuring the continuity of concern in the conditions of turning demand or achieving economic systems of graduated table. Furthermore, growing may convey the steadfast new concern chances ( californium. the corridor rule, Timmons 1999 ) , and a larger size enhances its credibleness in the market. Besides, accomplishing a higher net value of the house can be regarded as a motivation for house growing.

In SMEs, growing aims are frequently bound up with the owner-manager ‘s personal ends ( e.g. Jennings & A ; Beaver, 1997 ) , and so it is of import that they support each other. Much has been written about the importance of the enterpriser ‘s growing motive ( e.g. Perren, 2000 ; Davidsson, 1991 ; Miner, 1990 ) . The close connexion between an owner-manager and the house is the dominant feature of little houses ( Vesalainen, 1995: 18 ) . Alternatively of net income maximization or growing, a house ‘s primary end may be the enterpriser ‘s independency or self-fulfillment ( see e.g. Foley & A ; Green, 1989 ) . Furthermore, there may be no equal resources for growing, or the expected addition in concern hazards may restrict a house ‘s growing willingness. However, antipathy to growing has been said to be the chief ground why most SMEs stagnate and diminution ( Clark et al. , 2001 ) .

In several typologies, enterprisers and houses are categorized by their concern ends, so growing has been a widely used dimension in many typologies. There are two wide attacks in the surveies of little house success: ( 1 ) the concern professionals ‘ theoretical account, and ( 2 ) the little concern owners ‘ theoretical account ( Bridge et al. , 1998: 140-142 ) . These two attacks can be identified in several typologies of enterprisers ( e.g. Smith, 1967 ; Stanworth & A ; Curran, 1976 ) . Harmonizing to the concern professionals ‘ theoretical account, a successful house is one that achieves its highest potency in footings of growing, market portion, productiveness, profitableness, return on capital invested or other steps of the public presentation of the house itself. In the little concern owners ‘ theoretical account, the owner-managers ‘ chief concern is whether the house is supplying them with the benefits they want from it. These benefits are frequently associated with a life style and an income degree to keep it. In the latter theoretical account, house success hence means being able to make a degree of comfort instead than accomplishing the concern ‘s maximal potency.

Firm development

In house development attacks, houses are seen as temporal phenomena which are born, turn, mature, diminution and dice. Firm growing is the basic dimension of the theoretical accounts of organisational life rhythms ( e.g. Greiner, 1972 ; 1998 ; Mintzberg, 1979 ; Churchill & A ; Lewis, 1983 ; 1991 ; Miller & A ; Friesen, 1983b ; Scott & A ; Bruce, 1987 ) . Numerous theoretical accounts of organisational life rhythms have been presented, e.g. a three phase theoretical account ( Smith et al. , 1985 ) , four phase theoretical accounts ( Quinn & A ; Cameron, 1983 ; Kazanjian, 1988 ) , five phase theoretical accounts ( Greiner, 1972 ; Galbraith, 1982 ; Churchill & A ; Lewis, 1983 ; Scott & A ; Bruce, 1987 ) , and a seven phase theoretical account ( Flamholtz, 1986 ) . These multistage theoretical accounts use a diverse array of features to explicate organisational growing and development. Organizational life rhythm theoretical accounts is one application of the configurational attack in depicting the phases of life rhythms and the transmutation from one phase to another ( Mintzberg et al. , 1998 ) .

Common to these growing form theoretical accounts is the claim that changes in an organisation follow a form characterized by distinct phases of development ( Dodge et al. , 1994 ) . Typical of these forms are the sequence of events that show how things change over clip, a hierarchal patterned advance that is non easy reversed, and a complex of a wide scope of organisational activities and constructions. Organizational life rhythm theoretical accounts are of import in understanding the differences in success factors of the house between the phases of the life rhythm.

However, organisational life rhythm theoretical accounts have been criticized because of their utmost simplification of world: in some instances non all phases of development are found, some phases of development may happen several times, the phases of development may happen in an irregular order, and there is a deficiency of empirical grounds to back up the theories ( e.g. Gibb & A ; Davies, 1990 ; Bridge et al. , 1998: 105 ; Eggars et al. , 1994 ; Birley & A ; Westhead, 1990 ; Miller & A ; Friesen, 1983a ; Vinnell & A ; Hamilton, 1999 ; californium. Dodge et al. , 1994 ) . In add-on, on the footing of the consequences of their survey of high-growth houses, Willard et Al. ( 1992 ) concluded that “ the pertinence of conventional wisdom sing the leading crisis in rapid growing entrepreneurial houses may no longer be valid, if, in fact, it of all time was ” .

Despite the reviews of organisational life rhythm theoretical accounts, strategic direction and entrepreneurship research has demonstrated life rhythm theory to be one of the most powerful tools for understanding and predicting venture public presentation. Harmonizing to Greiner ( 1972 ; 1998 ) , for illustration, a house ‘s failure to accommodate to a series of crises caused by growing is one of the chief causes of steadfast failure.

Growth schemes

Several growing schemes related to concern direction attacks have been presented in the literature. Pull offing growing is a major strategic issue for a turning house ( see e.g. Arbaugh & A ; Camp, 2000 ) . Strategy is the most of import determiner of house growing ( Weinzimmer, 2000 ) . Among high-growth houses, Dsouza ( 1990 ) identified three primary strategic bunchs: ( 1 ) physique scheme, i.e. accent on perpendicular integrating ; ( 2 ) expand scheme, i.e. accent on resource allotment and merchandise distinction ; and ( 3 ) maintain scheme, i.e. accent on market laterality and/or efficiency. Thompson ( 2001: 563-565 ) presents four growing schemes: ( 1 ) organic growing ; ( 2 ) acquisition ; ( 3 ) strategic confederation ; and ( 4 ) joint venture.

On the other manus, when looking at the product/market scheme, four options can be seen: ( 1 ) market incursion ; ( 2 ) new merchandise development ; ( 3 ) new market development ; and ( 4 ) traveling into new markets with new merchandises ( Burns, 1989: 47 ) . However, there is a deficiency of understanding in empirical findings refering product- and market-based schemes. While Sandberg and Hofer ( 1987 ) argue that product-based schemes work better than focussed schemes, Cooper ( 1993 ) claim that focused schemes outperform differentiated merchandise schemes ( Pistrui et al. , 1997 ) . Perry ( 1986/87 ) investigated growing schemes for an established little house, and concluded that the most appropriate growing schemes are niche schemes, i.e. market development and merchandise development schemes, in that order. However, it seems that most empirical surveies focus on new venture schemes. Surveies of competitory schemes related to tauten growing have been carried out in the new venture context by McDougall and Robinson ( 1990 ) , McDougall et Al. ( 1992 ) , Carter et Al. ( 1994 ) , and Ostgaard and Birley ( 1995 ) , among others.

As opposed to the organic growing scheme, acquisitions are regarded instead as a big company growing scheme which can be either interactive or nonsynergistic ( Anslinger & A ; Copeland, 1996 ) . Forward or rearward perpendicular integrating means that the acquired house is located at a different degree of the value-addition concatenation, i.e. the acquired house is a client or provider of the house. In contrast, horizontal integrating refers to a house which is at the same degree of value-addition, i.e. it is a rival. Lateral integratings refer to unrelated concerns which represent a variegation scheme.

In add-on to going bigger and therefore geting greater market power, there might be several other grounds for acquisitions, e.g. geting synergisms, industry restructuring, decrease of concern hazard, geting new cognition and other necessary resources, get the better ofing barriers to entry, and come ining new markets rapidly ( see Vermeulen & A ; Barkema, 2001 ; Empson, 2000 ; Birkinshaw, 1999 ; Tetenbaum, 1999 ; Chatterjee, 1992 ) . Despite the fact that growing through acquisitions is more typical of larger houses than smaller 1s ( see e.g. Davidsson & A ; Delmar, 1998 ) , it is one option for the growing of an SME. However, it seems that few surveies focus on acquisitions made by little houses.

Besides, one frequently ignored manner of turning is by puting up new houses. Studies utilizing a house as the unit of analysis have non been able to place growing through a portfolio of houses as one manner of turning ( see Scott & A ; Rosa, 1996 ) . However, it has been found that portfolio entrepreneurship appears to be more common than suspected, and that it is characteristic of enterprisers who own and manage growing houses ( Pasanen, 2003b ) . Wiklund ( 1998: 239 ) concluded that growing through portfolios of houses does non look to be an alternate to turning a individual house, but enterprisers taking quickly turning houses tend more frequently to get down subordinates and independent new houses and to turn these houses. Small concern growing through geographic enlargement is a ambitious growing scheme, as during the class of opening a new geographical site an enterpriser will be confronted with the undertaking of pull offing an bing concern and a start-up at the same clip ( Barringer & A ; Greening, 1998 ) .

Penrose ( 1959 ) proposed already in the late 1950ss that house growing is constrained by the handiness and quality of managerial resources. Many surveies draw attending to the of import function of an entrepreneurial squad for house growing ( see Birley & A ; Stockley, 2000 ) . Besides, in their survey of technology-based ventures, Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven ( 1990 ) found an association between a strong direction squad and house growing ( see besides Weinzimmer, 1997 ) . In add-on to the importance of favorable firm-internal conditions, the schemes should be in harmoniousness with the environmental conditions. Different growing environments may necessitate different concern schemes for SMEs. For case, Chaganti ( 1987 ) found that for little fabrication houses, different growing environments required clearly different schemes. Interestingly, this was contrary to the findings refering big companies. It was concluded that strategic flexibleness is a critical demand for little houses ( Chaganti, 1987 ) .

Growth barriers

Sectoral and broader market-led attacks focus mostly on the designation of growing restraints and chances. It has been found, for case, that economic fluctuations strongly affect the growing chance of little houses ( Kangasharju, 2000 ) . Besides, for house growing, it seems that taking at turning market niches is more of import than taking market portions from rivals ( Wiklund, 1998 ) . However, growing can go on merely if there are no growing barriers. Such barriers can be related to firm-internal and firm-external factors ( see e.g. Barber et al. , 1989 ; Smallbone & A ; North, 1993a ; Vaessen & A ; Keeble, 1995 ; Jones-Evans, 1996 ; Vesper, 1990: 174-175 ; Hay & A ; Kamshad, 1994 ) .

The growing barriers characteristic of little houses in peripheral locations have been presented by Birley and Westhead ( 1990: 538 ) . In the survey carried out by the Cambridge Small Business Research Centre ( 1992 ) , the most common growing barriers were related to factors on the macro degree. The most of import growing barriers were related to troubles in obtaining finance and the monetary value of money, the degree of and lessening in demand ( besides Perren, 2000 ) , and fastening competition ( besides Hay & A ; Kamshad, 1994 ) . Other growing barriers were caused by limitations determined by governments, jobs in obtaining a skilled work force, and the little figure or deficiency of possible cooperation spouses in the country. The firm-internal factors impacting unwillingness to turn include the enterpriser ‘s fright of losing her or his liberty, troubles in suiting together personal and the house ‘s ends, and weak managerial or selling accomplishments ( see besides MacNabb, 1995 ; Perren, 2000 ) . These issues are peculiarly typical when an enterpriser “ transportations ” from the function of enterpriser to that of director, or when the house hires a new director.

DATA AND METHODS

This paper is based on informations from a larger exploratory survey of the factors impacting SME public presentation ( Pasanen, 2003a ) . Empirical informations were collected from 111 turning SMEs in Eastern Finland. The sample was split into quartiles, based on steadfast age. Lower and upper quartiles of houses were chosen for the concluding samples, in order to compare the houses in these quartiles with each other. The lower quartile consisted of 32 SMEs aged eight old ages or less ( immature houses ) , whereas the upper quartile consisted of 33 SMEs aged twenty old ages or more ( durable houses ) . A growing house was defined as a house with existent growing in turnover during the past five old ages. Growth was measured as a alteration in turnover between two clip points disregarding the regularity or abnormality of growing over clip ( see Delmar et al. , 2003 ; Weinzimmer et al. , 1998 ; Delmar, 1997 ) . A mail questionnaire was directed to the CEOs of SMEs runing in the sectors of fabrication, concern services, and touristry. The response rate was 53.7 % .

Firms in the samples shared the undermentioned characteristics: ( 1 ) size: SMEs, i.e. they employed fewer than 250 individuals ; ( 2 ) public presentation: growing houses, i.e. they had grown in footings of turnover during past old ages ; ( 3 ) location: peripheral, i.e. outside major metropoliss and non in nucleus countries ; ( 4 ) ownership: independent houses, non subordinates of other companies ; and ( 5 ) industry sector: operated in the sectors of fabrication, concern services, and touristry. The age of immature houses ranged from 2 to 8 old ages, the mean being 5.5 old ages with standard divergence of 1.7 old ages. The age of durable houses ranged from 20 to 120 old ages, the mean being 40.4 old ages with standard divergence of 24.9 old ages. One-half of the durable houses were less than 35 old ages old.

A comparing of the two groups of SMEs was based on informations mentioning to the features of enterprisers and endeavors, their life rhythms, the strategic picks made, the success factors of SMEs, and the nature of their environment ( see Pasanen, 2003a ) . Several factors in these countries are associated with steadfast public presentation. The features of enterprisers consist of variables associating to entrepreneurs ‘ instruction, experience and other demographic factors. Variables related to the features of SMEs and their life rhythms include the house ‘s demographic features and growing behavior indexs. For the strategic picks made by the house, the focal point was on innovativeness, internationalisation, specialisation and networking. These strategic picks include three of import elements impacting SME public presentation: markets, merchandises, and the manner of making concern ( Normann, 1976 ) . Innovativeness refers to the merchandises of the house, internationalisation to its markets, and specialisation and networking to the manner of making concern. The environment was approached by analyzing the features of the client, industry and location. The success factors of SMEs were presented as statements depicting their importance in the house ‘s competitory advantage.

In placing the differences between immature and durable SMEs, about 150 variables were tested utilizing appropriate statistical trials, depending on the variable: the t trial, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U trial, or chi-square trial. These trials were conducted to prove the differences between the two groups for each of the single variables. In some analyses, the U trial was used alternatively of the t trial due to the lopsidedness of the informations.

Consequence

A figure of differences in features of the owner-managers and houses and their success factors were found between immature and durable growing SMEs. Three variables related to the features of the owner-managers showed statistically important differences between the two groups of SMEs ( Table 1 ) . Almost all immature houses were led by the laminitis ( s ) of the house, whereas this was the instance for merely half of the durable SMEs. Among immature SMEs, owner-managers had less experience and were younger than their opposite numbers in durable SMEs.

Table 1 Differences in features of owner-managers between immature and durable SMEs ( P & lt ; .05 )

Variables

Trial

P value

Laminitis

i??2 = 6.705 ( df = 1 )

P = .010

Entire length of experience as owner-manager

U trial ( z = -2.546 )

P = .011

Age

U trial ( z = -2.459 )

P = .014

Fourteen variables qualifying the SMEs showed statistically important differences between immature and durable SMEs ( Table 2 ) . Young houses had had more laminitiss ( means 3.3 vs. 2.1 ) and had more laminitiss still involved in the house at the clip of the study than durable SMEs had ( means 2.9 vs. 1.1 ) . Almost all immature houses were founded by a squad of proprietors, whereas half of the durable SMEs were founded by a individual proprietor. Bing a household house was more typical of durable SMEs ( 58 % ) than of immature houses ( 19 % ) .

Durable SMEs were bigger in size than their younger opposite numbers: the mean full-time forces was 84 employees in durable SMEs and 21 in immature houses. Furthermore, the figure of constitutions was bigger in durable SMEs than in immature houses, averaging 3.5 and 1.7, severally. Acquisitions or amalgamations were more typical of durable SMEs ( 39 % ) than of immature SMEs ( 13 % ) .

Owner-managers in durable SMEs were more satisfied with their house ‘s success than those in immature houses. On a graduated table of 1 ( to the full satisfied ) to 4 ( non at all satisfied ) , owner-managers in the durable SMEs had an mean satisfaction of 1.7, whereas among immature houses the norm was 2.1. During their life rhythm, more than half of the durable SMEs ( 55 % ) had at least one time faced a state of affairs where the house ‘s being, i.e. endurance, had been threatened, while merely one fifth of the immature SMEs ( 22 % ) reported that their being had been threatened.

Managerial know-how was considered to be higher in durable SMEs than in immature houses. In durable SMEs, rules and patterns of direction had changed more than in immature houses. Among immature SMEs, about all houses ( 91 % ) had stayed near to their original concern, whereas among durable SMEs seven out of 10 houses ( 70 % ) had stayed near to their original concern.

There were besides differences in merchandises and client constructions between immature and durable SMEs. The proportion of merchandises with worsening volume was higher in durable SMEs ( 6 % of their merchandises ) , whereas such merchandises accounted for 2 % of the immature houses ‘ merchandises. Among immature houses, the cumulative proportion of turnover due to the five biggest clients was 59 % of the house ‘s entire turnover, whereas in durable SMEs it was clearly lower, 41 % .

Table 2 Differences in features of houses between immature and durable SMEs ( P & lt ; .05 )

Variables

Trial

P value

No. of laminitiss still involved in the house

U trial ( z = -4.127 )

P & lt ; .0005

No. of constitutions

U trial ( z = -3.490 )

P & lt ; .0005

No. of full-time forces

U trial ( z = -3.513 )

P & lt ; .0005

Family house

i??2 = 10.347 ( df = 1 )

P = .001

No. of laminitiss

U trial ( z = -3.188 )

P = .001

Founder squad

i??2 = 9.876 ( df = 1 )

P = .002

Proportion of merchandises with worsening volume

U trial ( z = -3.075 )

P = .002

Menace to existence

i??2 = 7.326 ( df = 1 )

P = .007

Entrepreneur ‘s satisfaction with concern success

U trial ( z = -2.637 )

P = .008

Managerial know-how

U trial ( z = -2.648 )

P = .008

Changes in rules and patterns of direction

U trial ( z = -2.431 )

P = .015

Acquisitions and amalgamations

i??2 = 5.750 ( df = 1 )

P = .016

Accumulative proportion of turnover due to the five biggest clients

U trial ( z = -2.203 )

P = .028

Staying near to the original concern

i??2 = 4.447 ( df = 1 )

P = .035

A sum of 55 variables formulated as verbal statements depicting possible success factors were analyzed. The CEOs ‘ perceptual experiences of their houses ‘ success factors were by and large similar in immature houses and in durable houses. Three variables, distinct individuality of the house, strong basic values of the house and good cognition of products/services, showed statistically important differences between the two groups ( Table 3 ) . Durable SMEs valued all these three qualities of the house more than did immature houses.

Table 3 Differences in success factors between immature and durable SMEs ( P & lt ; .05 )

Variables

Trial

P value

Clear-cut individuality of the house

U trial ( z = -2.359 )

P = .018

Strong basic values of the house

U trial ( z = -2.228 )

P = .026

Good cognition of products/services

U trial ( z = -2.071 )

P = .038

Discussion

There are differences in the features of owner-managers and houses and their success factors between immature and durable SMEs. Although they have many more similarities, the differences indicate of import factors that may distinguish the schemes of growing SMEs depending on house age.

The findings related to the features of the owner-managers were as expected: in immature houses, owner-managers were younger and less experient than those in durable houses. In several durable SMEs, the laminitiss were no longer running the house but the laminitis ( s ) may still hold of import function ( s ) in the house. Previous research has revealed the critical function of the laminitis in doing the determination to turn or non ( Willard et al. , 1992 ) , and several surveies have besides pointed out the important function of the laminitis in the house – even after his or her decease ( Collins & A ; Porras, 1994 ; Barringer et al. , 2005 ) .

One interesting determination was that immature houses had had more laminitiss and had more laminitiss still involved in the house at the clip of the study than durable houses, although most durable SMEs were household house, whereas merely a little fraction of immature houses were household houses. The fact that about all immature houses were founded by a squad of proprietors may reflect a turning tendency: a penchant for squad entrepreneurship. On the other manus, the findings may bespeak the diminishing popularity of household concerns. It besides seems that the proprietors of squad endeavors are chiefly other than household members. Furthermore, on the footing of old analyses ( Pasanen, 2003a ) , it was found that squad endeavors and household concerns are really different, each holding their ain strategic position. This may bespeak that today most growing houses are set up by a group of experts, and in order to acquire net income, non for using household members. If this is the instance, it has besides an of import deduction for regional economic development: back uping team-based endeavors may be an efficient scheme for furthering entrepreneurship and the creative activity of high-growth SMEs.

Durable SMEs had many features that can be explained by their longer clip of operation: bigger size in footings of the figure of employees and the figure of constitutions. Many of them had grown through acquisitions and amalgamations, which was rare among immature houses. Most immature houses have no equal resources to purchase other concerns, but for durable houses it seems that acquisitions can be an of import manner to turn. In some instances the fact that a durable house is still an SME and has non reached the graduated table of a big company may mention to limited organic growing chances in the markets, and so turning in a non-organic manner, i.e. through acquisitions, may be the lone manner for the house to turn in the same field. Growth through acquisitions is an of import country to research because research on the phenomenon is still scanty in the SME context ( Delmar et al. , 2003 ) .

Without specifying the construct of success, owner-managers in durable SMEs perceived their house ‘s success to be better than did those in immature SMEs. This may bespeak that they consider the house ‘s long-run endurance equal to success or representing a portion of it. Furthermore, compared with immature SMEs, many durable SMEs reported that they had at least one time faced a state of affairs where the house ‘s being had been threatened. This provides more grounds for the decision that owner-managers think long term endurance constitutes at least a portion of house success. This is an of import point for research workers: success is an equivocal construct and can be interpreted in several ways.

The bigger resources of durable SMEs may explicate these houses ‘ higher managerial know-how. On the other manus, longer clip of operation in a altering environment may explicate the alterations in rules and patterns of direction. The longer the clip of operation, the higher the chance of alterations in concerns. It seems that durable SMEs had been able to cut down their possible client hazard due to the little figure of clients. Durable SMEs had besides faced some drawbacks of ageing, e.g. they had a bigger proportion of merchandises with falling gross revenues volume than immature SMEs, and so hold to pay more attending to the direction of worsening merchandises.

The three success factors that indicated differences between the two groups of growing SMEs were related to factors that develop over a long period of clip. Firm individuality, strong values and cognition of merchandises surely takes clip to develop. For this ground, it is apprehensible that durable SMEs valued these factors more than did their younger opposite numbers. Young houses, and immature growing houses peculiarly, can be at the phase where organisational values and house individuality are merely get downing to take form.

Despite the differences found between the two groups of growing SMEs, there were besides similarities with of import deductions. First of wholly, there were no differences in the indexs of the three strategic picks made by the houses: the houses ‘ international concern, innovativeness, and interfirm cooperation. This suggests that both types of growing houses have a varied strength of international concern operations, invention activies, and interfirm cooperation, but as groups the houses do non differ from each other in these facets. Furthermore, immature and durable SMEs mostly portion their positions about the importance of many success factors.

The consequences suggest, nevertheless, that steadfast age does affair for SME growing schemes. On the other manus, there are many more similarities than differences between immature and durable growing SMEs. The most notable differences were related to team-based and family-based houses, and non-organic growing schemes, i.e. growing through acquisitions. It seems that immature growing houses were more vulnerable because of more concentrated clients, i.e. a smaller figure of clients accounted for a higher proportion of the house ‘s gross revenues. On the other manus, durable SMEs need to pull off merchandises with worsening gross revenues volumes. Most of these houses had besides been under menace during their life rhythm, and had needed crisis direction.

Several differences such as bigger house size, higher managerial know-how, more alterations in the patterns of direction, and more alterations in concern between the two groups of growing SMEs can be explained by the difference in the houses ‘ clip of operation. Besides, the bigger resources of durable SMEs may explicate the higher managerial know-how and acquisitions, for illustration. Furthermore, it seems that long-run public presentation does matter to enterprisers: those in houses that had been around for more clip were more satisfied with their house ‘s success than were enterprisers of houses with a shorter life rhythm.

Finally, gestating scheme as a form of strategic variables proved successful in analyzing differences in growing schemes. The consequences show that it is utile to analyze growing forms, since they do differ between immature and durable SMEs ( californium. Delmar et al. , 2003 ) . Bing cognizant of the factors impacting SME growing and public presentation aids in developing more successful schemes and in better understanding the strategic behaviour of different houses. In future surveies it would be interesting to compare, for illustration, the organic and non-organic growing schemes employed by SMEs.