Selecting the phase 2 cases

Once the theoretical frame of reference for my study is established, I analyze the milestones discovered in study phase 1 so as to identify the interesting case(s), i.e., the instances of cooperation between the entrepreneur and the resource-providing stakeholder. As per earlier Figure 4 (see Chapter 4), there are six milestones that form the stage on which my study’s phase 2 cases unveil:

#1 – Idea is generated (Q4 2012 – Q1 2013)

Stakeholders: entrepreneur’s personal network consisting of friends and family, GGO (governmental granting organization).

#2 – The firm is formally started (Q1 2013 – Q4 2013)

Stakeholders: the supporting network providing the office space and business development services, IPR-related service providing company, Jack Jones (design consultant from the supporting network), Design Ltd. (consulting company located mid-country), Bill Farrow (an independent design consultant), Advisory Board consisting of four experts supporting the firm for free, Alise Smith (the firm’s first intern

who in 2016 became the firm’s full-time employee), Nellie Lawson (the firm’s product design intern hired to support Alise Smith).

#3 – Manufacturing is set up (Q4 2013 – Q2 2014)

Stakeholders: Industry Organization United (the local professional network actor), Sam Hero (the representative of factory 1 overseas), Thorsten Miles (the owner of factory 2 close to home), Marco Gill (an independent design consultant), Alise Smith (the intern), GGO (governmental granting organization), LSO (local support organization that grants the firm money for marketing and sales activities).

#4 – The product is launched on the market (Q2 2014 – Q4 2015)

Stakeholders: established supply chain actors, manufacturing service provider overseas, unpaid interns, customers – retailers, distributors, and individual consumers, Concept X (large consultancy company that will help the firm with legal services at preferential conditions).

#5 – Equity capital is obtained (Q4 2015 – Q2 2017)

Stakeholders: Concept X offering legal help with production quality and IPR-infringement disputes, customers – retailers, distributors, and individual consumers, established supply chain actors, investors – Angel Network close to home, employees – marketing manager Mike and former intern Alise, manufacturing service provider overseas, seven unpaid interns.

#6 – Strategy for organic growth is created (Q2 2017 – Q4 2018)

Stakeholders: suppliers of services and materials, manufacturing service provider overseas, internal staff – employees and four unpaid interns.

Having established that potential cases for phase 2 are all contained within the milestones presented above, I next devise a set of criteria delimiting the six milestones to such that are most likely to contain the interesting cases. Thus, out of the six milestones, I will consider as a pool for case selection only those that:

(a) could not possibly be executed without extensive involvement of external resource-providing stakeholders;

(b) required substantial use of relationship-oriented bootstrapping behaviors; and (c) temporally occurred so that the outcomes of bootstrapping behaviors could be

fully observed, asked about, and read about.

I begin refining the pool for case selection by considering the above criteria. The work towards attaining each of the milestones required substantial resources, and the

involvement of internal and external resource providers. Within all of the milestones, relationship-oriented bootstrapping behaviors were instrumental in attaining and managing the resources. However, these were particularly critical at milestones #2 and

#3, as phase 1 findings indicate (see Figure 5 in Chapter 4). Within the same milestones

#2 and #3, the cost of required physical resources – materials, premises, equipment – was disproportionally high in relation to the firm’s own financial capacities, as the firm had neither ongoing revenue from sales nor accumulated capital from past operations.

Simultaneously, the entrepreneur struggled in particular with attracting resources from the network, as the firm’s intangible resources in the form of strong brand value, reputation and goodwill were not yet in place at that time. Thus, the internal and external liabilities of age and scale acted most strongly against the firm just at the time of working towards attaining milestones #2 and #3. Temporally, milestones #2 and #3 also satisfy the interest in outcomes – by now, at the time of study phase 2 execution, all of the interesting instances of bootstrapping exchanges within milestones #2 and #3 have already taken place and, with reasonable expectation, resulted in outcomes.

I conclude that milestones #2 and #3 are a good fit as the stage where interesting phase 2 cases can be seen. I thus decide to proceed with milestones #2 and #3 and select my cases within them. Following the tradition of developing theory from data, I stay open to the possibility that selection might be reconsidered in the process of analysis, or that new cases might be added or removed.

I once again discuss with the entrepreneur the possibility of retrieving rich and detailed information regarding milestones #2 and #3, and the entrepreneur reassures me of the feasibility of such investigation (source: interview with the founder on 190521). I also secure the entrepreneur’s permission to approach the stakeholders critically important for achieving the respective milestones. Furthermore, despite the conclusion that milestones #2 and #3 are suitable for discovering my study’s cases-within-a-case, I decide to additionally consult with my previous data and confirm with the entrepreneur the richness and spread of resource needs, bootstrapping behaviors, and stakeholders involved for each of the two milestones.

I decide to start out with milestone #2 – The firm is formally started (Q1 2013 – Q4 2013), and conduct a series of semi-structured interviews with Kevin specifically covering the work towards achieving this milestone, reassuring its fit to the criteria listed above. During the summer of 2019, I approach three resource-providing stakeholders, and conduct a long unstructured interview with Bill Farrow – the critical resource-provider who ensured attainment of the milestone. I followed up the interview with Bill with a semi-structured discussion via email and telephone. Thus, the cooperation with Bill Farrow becomes my first phase 2 case. I supplement the case data with relevant documentation – emails between Kevin and Bill, written agreements, financial data related to the time of cooperation. I also conduct interviews with internal

stakeholders involved in work towards achieving milestone #2 – Alise Smith and Nellie Lawson – and gather their insights on the firm’s cooperation with Bill Farrow.

The second case I select in a similar fashion belongs to milestone #3 – Manufacturing is set up (Q4 2013 – Q2 2014). Here, the critical resource provider that ensured attainment of the milestone is Thorsten Miles, the owner of the factory manufacturing UT’s products. Thus, the cooperation with Thorsten Miles becomes my second phase 2 case. I conduct a long unstructured interview with Thorsten digitally, with the help of video conferencing tools due to external force-majeure circumstances that excluded the possibility of travel and physical meetings during the spring of 2020. I follow up with a semi-structured conversation with Thorsten to confirm and clarify any remaining questions. I supplement the case data with documentation available to me – emails between Kevin and Thorsten, explicit written agreements between UT and the factory, sales projections and financial data related to the time of their cooperation.

Additionally, I speak with an internal stakeholder involved in work towards achieving milestone #3 – Alise Smith – to gather her insights on the cooperation with Thorsten Miles.

The interviews with Bill and Thorsten were audio recorded and later transcribed. To avoid translating the material, I asked for the interviews to be held in English, which is the main working language of the stakeholders, as they work primarily with international customers. I then send the transcribed material to Bill and Thorsten by email to give my informants an opportunity to supplement, correct, extend, or comment on the recorded data in any other way. Once the presentation of case data was developed, the stakeholders were offered another chance to read through and approve the material by signing a written approval form. Bill has read and provided written approval of the contents of Section 6.2.2, and Thorsten has read and provided written approval of the contents of Section 6.3.2. In line with the Agreement from September 20^th 2017, Kevin has read and provided written approval of the contents of Sections 4.1, 4.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.1, and 6.3.2.

Earlier, in methodological Chapter 3, I describe the execution of my semi-structured interviews and list the questions asked. I also list the interesting instances of observations and studied documentation. The presentation of my cases will be structured as follows. I first present the conditions at the start of the cooperation, during the cooperation, and at its end from the perspective of the entrepreneur. In a similar fashion, I then present the perspective of the respective resource provider. My analysis of the individual cases follows, and I conclude this chapter by analyzing the data cross-case. The conclusions of this chapter present the study’s empirical findings.