The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Success Factors in New Ventures: A Meta‐analysis*
Open accessAbstract
Technology entrepreneurship is key to economic development. New technology ventures (NTVs) can have positive effects on employment and could rejuvenate industries with disruptive technologies. However, NTVs have a limited survival rate. In our most recent empirical study of 11,259 NTVs established between 1991 and 2000 in the United States, we found that after four years only 36 percent, or 4,062, of companies with more than five full‐time employees, had survived. After five years, the survival rate fell to 21.9 percent, leaving only 2,471 firms still in operation with more than five full‐time employees. Thus, it is important to examine how new technology ventures can better survive. In the academic literature, a number of studies focus on success factors for NTVs. Unfortunately, empirical results are often controversial and fragmented. To get a more integrated picture of what factors lead to the success or failure of new technology ventures, we conducted a meta‐analysis to examine the success factors in NTVs. We culled the academic literature to collect data from existing empirical studies. Using Pearson correlations as effect size statistics, we conducted a meta‐analysis to analyze the findings of 31 studies and identified the 24 most widely researched success factors for NTVs. After correcting for artifacts and sample size effects, we found that among the 24 possible success factors identified in the literature, 8 are homogeneous significant success factors for NTVs (i.e., they are homogeneous positive significant metafactors that are correlated to venture performance): (1) supply chain integration; (2) market scope; (3) firm age; (4) size of founding team; (5) financial resources; (6) founders' marketing experience; (7) founders' industry experience; and (8) existence of patent protection. Of the original 24 success factors, 5 were not significant: (1) founders' research and development (R&D) experience; (2) founders' experience with start‐ups; (3) environmental dynamism; (4) environmental heterogeneity; and (5) competition intensity. The remaining 11 success factors are heterogeneous. For those heterogeneous success factors, we conducted a moderator analysis. Of this set, three appeared to be success factors, and two were failure factors for subgroups within the NTVs' population. To facilitate the development of a body of knowledge in technology entrepreneurship, this study also identifies high‐quality measurement scales for future research. The article concludes with future research directions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250100107 · Cited by 5,981
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Network configuration and innovation success: An empirical analysis in German high-tech industries
Gemünden, H. G., Ritter, T., & Heydebreck, P. (1996) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/s0167-8116(96)00026-2 · Cited by 376
Cited by
Horne, J., Recker, M., Michelfelder, I., Jay, J., & Kratzer, J. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118052 · Cited by 172
Bischoff, K. M., Gielnik, M. M., & Frese, M. (2020) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.1364 · Cited by 64
The sustainable start‐up paradox: Predicting the business and climate performance of start‐ups
Leendertse, J., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Eveleens, C. P. (2021) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2667 · Cited by 64
How venture capitalists decide which new medical technologies come to exist
Lehoux, P., Miller, F. A., Daudelin, G., & Urbach, D. R. (2016) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scv051 · Cited by 35
Carvalho do Prado, G. M. B., Catapan, E., Zanuzzi, C. M. D. S., Matos, F., & Selig, P. M. (2024) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.01.016 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., & Halman, J. I. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-12-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-27
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W2165041965
- Cited by
- 483
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 25.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Success Factors in New Ventures: A Meta‐analysis*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00280.x
- The paper
- Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., & Halman, J. I. M. (2008). Success Factors in New Ventures: A Meta‐analysis*. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00280.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.