科研管理 ›› 2023, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (6): 144-153.

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

科技型企业创业失败修复对象的甄别评估研究

王朋举1,熊壮2   

  1. 1.中原工学院 系统与工业工程技术研究中心,河南 郑州450000;
    2.郑州航空工业管理学院 商学院,河南 郑州450000

  • 收稿日期:2021-07-20 修回日期:2021-12-02 出版日期:2023-06-20 发布日期:2023-06-19
  • 通讯作者: 王朋举
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金项目:“科技型企业创业失败修复机制与再创业意向的扶持对策研究”(18CGL006,2018.06—2020.12);国家自然科学基金:“失败污名如何不污?企业创业失败后的印象管理策略与再创业行为关系研究”(72002206,2021.01—2023.12);国家社会科学基金:“装备制造业‘卡脖子’难题破解路径研究”(20BGL026,2020.09—2023.12);教育部人文社会科学研究项目:“创业者失败污名的作用机制、修复策略与再创业决策研究”(20YJC630171,2020.03—2023.03);河南省高校科技创新人才(人文社科类)支持计划(2020-cx-019,2020.01—2023.12),中原工学院校级青年骨干教师培养计划(2021XQG11,2021.07—2024.07)。
    〖ZK)〗

Evaluation and distinction of the objects of entrepreneurial failure recovery in technology-based enterprises

Wang Pengju1, Xiong Zhuang2   

  1. 1. Center of Systems and Industrial Engineering, Zhongyuan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450000, Henan, China; 
    2. School of Business, Zhengzhou University of Aeronautics, Zhengzhou 450000, Henan, China
  • Received:2021-07-20 Revised:2021-12-02 Online:2023-06-20 Published:2023-06-19

摘要:     创业失败修复对科技型企业失败再创业具有重要作用,但在资源有限约束下需要对创业失败的科技型企业进行甄别,才能发挥好资源支持对科技型企业创业失败修复的效用。为了对科技型企业创业失败修复对象进行科学、准确地甄别评估,在系统分析科技型企业创业失败源的基础上,从属性归因和因果归因的双重维度,构建了包括创业资源获取能力,资源、渠道和方式,创业机会识别能力,市场条件,团队关系和团队正式化等6个一级指标的科技型企业创业失败修复对象甄别评估指标体系,并综合运用区间AHP法、熵权法和拉开档次法,设计了一种主观赋权和客观赋权相结合的组合赋权方式,建立了科技型企业创业失败修复对象甄别评估模型。同时,应用模型对10家创业失败的科技型企业实践案例对象进行了甄别评估。结果表明,根据评估结果在不同属性-因果维度的得分,将科技型创业失败企业划分为能力不足型、缺乏远见型、关系矛盾型、资源稀缺型、市场不佳型和团队背叛型6个类型。研究结论为科技型企业创业失败修复的对象甄别提供一种可供参考和借鉴的思路。

关键词: 科技型企业, 创业失败, 失败修复, 甄别评估

Abstract:     The technology-based enterprise is an important carrier of technology-driven entrepreneurial activity, but affected by the complexity and high uncertainty of innovation and entrepreneurial activity, the entrepreneurial failure of technology-based enterprise is an objective and common phenomenon. However, due to the anti-failure bias, practical and theoretical circles often ignore the concern about entrepreneurial failure. With the deepening of the high-quality development practice of innovation and entrepreneurship in China, as well as relevant theoretical research, it is found that entrepreneurial enterprises with failure experience show more prominent potential in providing jobs, creating wealth, and promoting economic development. It is increasingly recognized that improving the guarantee mechanism for entrepreneurial failure of technology-based enterprises is particularly important to promote the re-entrepreneurship of failed entrepreneurial enterprises and improve the quality of innovation and entrepreneurship. However, constrained by limited resources, the failure recovery policy of entrepreneurial failure is difficult to benefit every technology-based enterprise in the implementation process. Therefore, it is necessary to scientifically and reasonably distinguish the objects of entrepreneurial failure recovery, and give full play to the supporting effect of external guarantee mechanism on the entrepreneurial failure recovery of technology-based enterprises.
    To accurately distinguish and evaluate the objects of entrepreneurial failure recovery of technology-based enterprises, based on the systematic analysis of the source of entrepreneurial failure, from the dual dimensions of attribute attribution and causal attribution, an evaluation index system was constructed including entrepreneurial resource acquisition ability, resources and their channels and access, entrepreneurial opportunity identification ability, market conditions, team relationship and team formalization are the six first-level indicators for the evaluation of entrepreneurial failure recovery in technology-based enterprises. By using the Interval Analytic Hierarchy Process Method, Entropy Method, and Scatter Degree Method, a combination weighting method that combines subjective weighting and objective weighting was designed, and an evaluation model was established. Meanwhile, the evaluation model was applied to evaluate and distinguish the practice cases of 10 failed technology-based enterprises. Results show that according to the scores of the evaluation results in different dimensions, the technology-based enterprises with entrepreneurial failure can be divided into six types: insufficient ability type, lack of foresight type, relationship contradiction type, resource scarcity type, poor market type, and team betrayal type. According to different types of entrepreneurial failure, targeted recovery methods are adopted.
     The contribution of this study lies in two aspects. On the one hand, from the perspective of failure recovery, this study focuses on the distinguishing of the objects of entrepreneurial failure recovery in technology-based enterprises, opens up a new direction for the studies on entrepreneurial failure recovery, and enriches the relevant content in the field of entrepreneurial failure research. On the other hand, from the perspective of attribute causality dimension, this study comprehensively applies a variety of weighting methods, and develops an evaluation model for screening the recovery objects of entrepreneurial failure of technology-based enterprises, which makes up for the deficiency of single-dimensional evaluation of entrepreneurial failure attribution, and enriches the current research status of empirical evaluation in entrepreneurial failure recovery screening.

Key words: technology-based enterprise, entrepreneurial failure, failure recovery, evaluation and distinction