- mutual influence [[📜🟧_anderson13_model(startup, integration-decisions)]] - 2025-05-18 - connecting with [[🪢STRAP]], and cld mentioned nested option [[def(ops4entrpre)]] which was surprising due to the repeated use of words nested e.g. [[📝s25_Lecture18_NestedLogit.pdf]] 2025-04-27 Fine et al. (2022) proposes a structured progression for entrepreneurial operations by compartmentalizing the journey into three sequential phases—**Nailing**, **Scaling**, and **Sailing**​. This framework mirrors a **subpath-based formulation**: instead of trying to optimize the venture journey all at once (route-based) or just making isolated decisions (arc-based), it **modularizes entrepreneurial development into distinct phases**, each with different operational priorities and tools. "Nailing" focuses on rapid experimentation to establish a value proposition, "Scaling" emphasizes building repeatable and robust operational systems, and "Sailing" concentrates on continuous improvement within a matured organization. By treating each phase as a _subpath_, the complexity of modeling or managing the entrepreneurial process becomes tractable—allowing tighter operational focus within each phase while maintaining adaptability between phases. This mirrors the **time-space network optimization** in subpath-based routing: entrepreneurs optimize local subpaths (phases) and stitch them into a coherent venture evolution, avoiding the intractable complexity of full-path optimization. 2022 Abstract Although entrepreneurship-related papers have had some representation in Production and Operations Management (POM) over the past 30 years, the topic still seems a bit like a poor stepchild in the research of operations management (OM) scholars. Yet, entrepreneurship is important to the economy, and many schools are growing significantly their entrepreneurship programs and offerings but often without reference to or inclusion of operations courses. This paper is motivated by the question of the operations needs of new ventures and how they might differ from the needs of large, established firms. Toward that end, we review briefly the state of entrepreneurship scholarship in POM (and beyond), present our own (field-based) research (and cases), and propose a framework for what we call “operations for entrepreneurs,” that we hope can be a basis for further productive research and curriculum development by the OM community. KEYWORDS entrepreneurial operations, evolutionary entrepreneurship, new ventures, operations for entrepreneurs, startup dynamics "under what conditions should marketing and product considerations preempt operations capabilities in startups and when should operations and capability development play a much more substantive role (and perhaps even a pre-eminent role) from Day 1?" Sergey's master thesis: Managing operational capabilities in startup companies Hundreds of papers exist on entrepreneurial marketing and finance, whereas capabilities for operations get far less attention. Furthermore, much of the literature in operations management addresses challenges of companies in stable environments, leaving entrepreneurs with little theoretical or practical guidance on operations strategy. As a result, many entrepreneurs focus their efforts on value creation: marketing, product development, lead generation, and conversion. Ironically, extreme focus on value creation might represent a trap, whereby a company fails not because of a poor value proposition or bad marketing, but because of an inability to scale up and deliver value for perhaps an outstanding, innovative new product or service. In over a dozen case studies written during the past four years, we have found numerous examples where the development of operational capabilities was a determining factor for success or failure in entrepreneurial firms. We study the effect of timing of introduction of operational capabilities on market success as a function of firm's value proposition. We provide case evidence on the challenges and opportunities of building operations capabilities in entrepreneurial firms and we construct theoretical and testable models for assessing when and why entrepreneurs should invest sooner, or later, in operational capabilities. # dynamic capability impact of growth opportunities and competition on firm level capability development tradeoff | Aspect | Operational Capability | Dynamic Capability | | --------------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | Time Horizon | Short-term | Long-term | | Example | Production, quality control | Knowledge transfer, replication | | Performance Impact | Direct/immediate | Indirect/delayed | | Investment Risk | Lower | Higher | | Competitive Advantage | Temporary | Sustainable | | Transfer Difficulty | Easier | More complex | ---- ## Summary 💭 Theory contribution: Proposes framework integrating operations management tools with entrepreneurial practice across "nail-scale-sail" lifecycle stages 📐 Produce/Practical Value: Provides 10 scaling tools and curriculum framework for teaching operations to entrepreneurs 💸 Evangelist evaluation: Authors identify gap between OM theory and entrepreneurial practice, would champion unified operational models that bridge this divide ## Classification **Cluster:** SO - Operations-Solution frontier (current operations research limitations that need addressing) **Evangelist Rationale:** - SO1: This work reaches the research frontier where OM theory has not adequately addressed entrepreneurial contexts, highlighting the mismatch between traditional OM assumptions and startup realities - SO2: The limitation this work aspires to solve is that existing OM frameworks assume stability and maturity that don't exist in entrepreneurial environments, requiring new integrated approaches ## 🗄️ Summary Tables ### Q&A Analysis |Section/Subsection|🔐Question|🔑Answer|🧱Literature Brick| |---|---|---|---| |Introduction|What gap exists between OM theory and entrepreneurial practice?|🧍‍♀️ Entrepreneurs lack operational guidance while 🌏 OM literature focuses on mature firms with steady-state assumptions|• Zhang et al. (2020) OM literature review<br>• McDougall et al. (1992) early POM entrepreneurship| |Framework Development|How should entrepreneurial operations evolve across lifecycle stages?|🧭 "Nail-Scale-Sail" framework with 🗺️ different operational challenges: exploration → systematization → optimization|• Tatikonda et al. (2013) three-phase lifecycle<br>• Furr & Ahlstrom (2011) phase labels| |Scaling Tools|What specific tools help entrepreneurs transition from nailing to scaling?|📐 Ten scaling tools including processification, professionalization, culturalization, automation, segmentation|• Hammer (2001) process definition<br>• Various case studies| |Case Studies|How do real entrepreneurs encounter operational challenges?|💸 14 case examples showing firms struggling with scaling operations, supply chain design, and capability building|• Tesla, Banza, MoS cases<br>• Field interviews across continents| ### Comparison with Existing Theories |Aspect|Traditional OM Theory|Entrepreneurship Literature|This Paper's Approach| |---|---|---|---| |Core Assumption|Stable organizations with established processes|Customer-centric validation and iteration|📐 Operations capabilities matter from Day 1, not just after scaling| |Methodology|Steady-state optimization models|Lean startup, business model canvas|Evolutionary framework with stage-appropriate tools| |Key Strength|Rigorous analytical frameworks|Market validation and agility focus|Bridges gap between operational rigor and entrepreneurial flexibility| |Limitations|Assumes organizational maturity|Limited operational guidance|Still hypothesis-generating, needs empirical validation| ### Practical Implications |Domain|Implication|Example Application| |---|---|---| |Entrepreneurship Education|💸 Need for operations courses specifically designed for entrepreneurs|MBA programs adding "Operations for Entrepreneurs" curriculum| |Startup Advisory|💸 Early-stage operational thinking can prevent later scaling failures|Using 10 scaling tools checklist before rapid growth phases| |Economic Development|💸 Regions can support entrepreneurship through operational capability building|Incubators teaching processification and professionalization| ## Need-Solution Mapping **Problem (💜)**: Operations management scholarship has largely ignored entrepreneurial contexts, while entrepreneurship education lacks operational guidance, creating a gap where startups struggle with scaling due to inadequate operational frameworks. **Solution (💚)**: Integrated "operations for entrepreneurs" framework with three lifecycle stages (nail-scale-sail) and ten specific scaling tools, bridging OM theory with entrepreneurial practice through field-based research and curriculum development. ## Methodology Visualization **Core Framework**: Three-stage entrepreneurial lifecycle (Nail It, Scale It, Sail It) with stage-specific operational challenges and tools **Key Process**: Field-based case study development across multiple continents, iterating between classroom teaching and practitioner feedback **Tradeoffs 🔴(💜,💚)**: Balancing operational rigor with entrepreneurial flexibility; systematic process development versus rapid experimentation needs [[def(abcd_t)]], [[bit(abcd_t)]]