Table A2 Example descriptions of mapping... | Emerald Publishing

Table A2

Example descriptions of mapping entrepreneurial networking logic changes

Case company/network path	T0		T1		T2
Case company/network path	Ent. uncertainty	Networking logic	Ent. uncertainty	Networking logic	Ent. uncertainty	Networking logic
PHY (Path A)	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking -- Developed initial business model, i.e. commercializing traditional Chinese medicine in the western markets. Initial networking building were limited and driven by the pre-defined goal.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - With the entry of architects, the networking became more “effectual” coupled with “a medium-term goal”, e.g. actively seeking connections beyond the existing networks through cold calling and attending events with an aim to achieve a private placement.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - With a round of failed private placement, the firm intended to go to AIM IPO to raised desperately needed funds. More architects and functionalists join which spurt further active partnering activities in UK, Europe, US and Asia.
PROX (Path A)	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking - The spinout was founded to keep the research team working on providing contract services and proprietary R&D on neurodegenerative disorders while the renowned leading scientist was about to retire. Initial networking was narrow and driven by the pre-defined goal.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - The reputation of the renowned scientist attracted the attention of an early VC fund, who introduced an architect from US. The business model was re- focused on pre-clinical development and early clinical trials of novel drug candidates in the field of neurodegenerative disease. Networking became effectual and led to partnership across scientific and industry communities in both UK and US	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - In preparation for an IPO, its network continued to expand and include partners in industry, finance and technology community.
ID (Path B)	Type IV (T+M+)	Effectual networking - Initially networking was mainly motivated to seek any funding to do research without specific goals. Founders' proactive networking led to an industry project which allowed them to develop their IP	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - TTO brought in their institutional logics which helped the firm to decide on a spinout route. The entry of an architect helped reshape their business model and their networking became more “effectual” in identifying and filling knowledge gaps.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - With a specific target market in mind, their networking become more “effectual”, leading to the endorsements of two of the world's leading dental schools in New York and California. They signed a partnership agreement with one of the world's largest manufacturers and distributors of bearings and seals.
NOVA (Path B)	Type IV (T+M+)	Effectual networking - The founding scientist mainly focused on science. Her “effectual”networking led her to TTOs, who helped her draft the initial business plan and apply for proof-of-concept funding scheme. However, the application was rejected since “too close to the market”.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking – TTO introduced an architect. The target markets were revaluated, and a new business model was developed. Network building became more “guided”.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - With redefined markets and business models, networking became more “guided”, e.g. seeking potential deals with industry partners, investors, clinical trial partners with a long-term goal in mind.
AUV (Path C)	Type I (T−M−)	Causal networking - The origin of the firm was doing contract work based on the university lab. Network building was limited.	Type I (T−M−)	Causal networking - After spinout, they were struggling with the hybrid model (carrying out contract work and developing their own IP). Remained limited networking driven by a pre-defined goal.	Type I (T−M−)	Causal networking - The late entry of architects found it hard to reshape the firm strategy and networking. Subsequently, the architect advised another company to acquire the venture to develop their technology further.
CYTO (Path C)	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking - Impressed by the potential of technology for cervical cancer, the founder negotiated a licensing deal with Cancer Research Technology to develop this technology into other types of cancer. Networking activities was limited and driven by the pre-defined goal.	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking - networking activities remain in clinical trials and development and the pre-defined focus.	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking - with the entry of an architect, the company started to explore commercial development slowly, though the networking remained on the pre-defined goals.

Case company/network path	T0		T1		T2
Case company/network path	Ent. uncertainty	Networking logic	Ent. uncertainty	Networking logic	Ent. uncertainty	Networking logic
PHY (Path A)	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking -- Developed initial business model, i.e. commercializing traditional Chinese medicine in the western markets. Initial networking building were limited and driven by the pre-defined goal.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - With the entry of architects, the networking became more “effectual” coupled with “a medium-term goal”, e.g. actively seeking connections beyond the existing networks through cold calling and attending events with an aim to achieve a private placement.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - With a round of failed private placement, the firm intended to go to AIM IPO to raised desperately needed funds. More architects and functionalists join which spurt further active partnering activities in UK, Europe, US and Asia.
PROX (Path A)	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking - The spinout was founded to keep the research team working on providing contract services and proprietary R&D on neurodegenerative disorders while the renowned leading scientist was about to retire. Initial networking was narrow and driven by the pre-defined goal.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - The reputation of the renowned scientist attracted the attention of an early VC fund, who introduced an architect from US. The business model was re- focused on pre-clinical development and early clinical trials of novel drug candidates in the field of neurodegenerative disease. Networking became effectual and led to partnership across scientific and industry communities in both UK and US	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - In preparation for an IPO, its network continued to expand and include partners in industry, finance and technology community.
ID (Path B)	Type IV (T+M+)	Effectual networking - Initially networking was mainly motivated to seek any funding to do research without specific goals. Founders' proactive networking led to an industry project which allowed them to develop their IP	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - TTO brought in their institutional logics which helped the firm to decide on a spinout route. The entry of an architect helped reshape their business model and their networking became more “effectual” in identifying and filling knowledge gaps.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - With a specific target market in mind, their networking become more “effectual”, leading to the endorsements of two of the world's leading dental schools in New York and California. They signed a partnership agreement with one of the world's largest manufacturers and distributors of bearings and seals.
NOVA (Path B)	Type IV (T+M+)	Effectual networking - The founding scientist mainly focused on science. Her “effectual”networking led her to TTOs, who helped her draft the initial business plan and apply for proof-of-concept funding scheme. However, the application was rejected since “too close to the market”.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking – TTO introduced an architect. The target markets were revaluated, and a new business model was developed. Network building became more “guided”.	Type II (T−M+)	Guided networking - With redefined markets and business models, networking became more “guided”, e.g. seeking potential deals with industry partners, investors, clinical trial partners with a long-term goal in mind.
AUV (Path C)	Type I (T−M−)	Causal networking - The origin of the firm was doing contract work based on the university lab. Network building was limited.	Type I (T−M−)	Causal networking - After spinout, they were struggling with the hybrid model (carrying out contract work and developing their own IP). Remained limited networking driven by a pre-defined goal.	Type I (T−M−)	Causal networking - The late entry of architects found it hard to reshape the firm strategy and networking. Subsequently, the architect advised another company to acquire the venture to develop their technology further.
CYTO (Path C)	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking - Impressed by the potential of technology for cervical cancer, the founder negotiated a licensing deal with Cancer Research Technology to develop this technology into other types of cancer. Networking activities was limited and driven by the pre-defined goal.	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking - networking activities remain in clinical trials and development and the pre-defined focus.	Type III (T+M−)	Causal networking - with the entry of an architect, the company started to explore commercial development slowly, though the networking remained on the pre-defined goals.

Note(s): T: Technology uncertainty

M: Market uncertainty

+: High uncertainty

−: Low uncertainty