It is common amongst scholars to use data on employees or sales to measure growth, despite the fact that there is a growing debate on the current literature on how digital businesses are increasingly unpredictable and non-linear in their growth patterns (Huang, Henfridsson, Liu & Newell, 2017; Nambisan, 2017). Lately, access to financing is becoming more utilized as a measure of growth given the increased influence of angel investors and venture capitalists on business growth and scalability (Davidsson, Delmar & Wiklund, 2019).

At the initial growth stages, many companies will go through the process of building and manage an effective board. The lack of experience in management is quite often the key reason for failures in new ventures, and entrepreneurs must overcome that pitfall by attracting the best talent, thus increasing the company value (García-García, García-Canal & Guillén, 2022; Potočnik, Anderson, Born, Kleinmann & Nikolau, 2021; Satisteban & Mauricio, 2017). This may be particularly challenging if the CEO perceives the managerial professionalization of the firm as a threat to the status quo (García-García et al., 2022). A well-developed board of directors may increase the learning curve of firms that are passing through their initial stage development, enriching human capital with information, expertise, experience and networking (Monteiro, 2019).

The networking, information and managerial knowledge provided by venture capitalists and private equity firms in the board development process are essential (Cavallo et al.,2019) as it is quite well known that rapid growth is usually not matched by good and profitable management, given that the recruitment and selection processes face considerable challenges to successfully scale (Potočnik et al., 2021). It is important to notice that there is an important positive correlation between headcount and value creation, as number of employees is not only a rather obvious indicative of growth, but also, in most cases, an indicative of maturity for start-ups as it can be argued that human capital is as important as or even more important than R&D to propel fast growth (Davidsson, Delmar & Wiklund, 2019; Monteiro, 2019; Davila, Foster & Gupta, 2003). However, the emergence of new breeds of start-ups, that can grow into unicorns with very few employees may be challenging this notion as well as the very foundation of the economic thought behind policy making geared towards employment in general (Wallin et al., 2016).

It is important to notice that, in the context of start-ups and scale-ups, exits carry no connotation of failure, quite the opposite (Wennberg & DeTienne, 2014; Li et al., 2018); exits are the ultimate step of the entrepreneurial and start-up process, being characterized by a change of control as well as a liquidity boost for founders and early investors, which represents the possibility of massive earnings, fast growth, successful IPOs and fruitful mergers and acquisitions (Pisoni & Onetti, 2018).

Exits, when studied in the fast growth digital business context, are focused mainly on two financial harvest strategies: the IPO and mergers and acquisitions (Pisoni & Onetti, 2018; Wennberg & DeTienne, 2014). It is also fundamental to realise that exit intentions – the initial strategic predispositions from founders – can influence future decisions and behaviours. Companies that were thought out for quick exits backed by a dynamic growth orientation may not be able to scale beyond a certain point that will most likely demand an IPO or merger & acquisitions (Wennberg & DeTienne, 2014); thus, it is vital for investors to distinguish between venture capital backed start-ups, which are companies derived for a successful exit since inception, from lifestyle companies, which have a business model oriented for continuity (Pisoni & Onetti, 2018; Ries, 2011). However, there are significant studies that point out to the fact that exits should be planned since inception even if only as an alternative strategy (Ma et al., 2014).

The IPO is the process of transformation of privately held business into a publicly owned company (Bradshaw et al., 2022; Wisniewski, 2017). It usually indicates a stage of high maturity, however some digital companies may aim at an early IPO, as the company owner may exchange stock for cash, maintaining control over the business, and the investor, on the other hand, may have the option to leave or diversify the equity holdings (Wennberg & DeTienne, 2014).

Merger and acquisitions are also seen as an important exit route for digital businesses owners and investors, being also an important tool for new technology acquisition and/or diversification and also international expansion, especially when there are joint investments by foreign and venture capitalists (Moss, 2022; Pisoni & Onetti, 2018; Dai, Jo & Kassicieh, 2012). Furthermore, they are also a springboard for established firms to plan their growth, as they can rapidly expand product offering, client base and other resources. In spite of that, there is a considerable gap in the literature, especially regarding high tech and digital firms (Pisoni & Onetti, 2018; Wennberg & DeTienne, 2014).

Another key point taken consideration in the present research is the balance between growth and profit, which is a key interest to business ventures, especially those that undergo a fast growth process through investments and are now located on Funding Series B, C and beyond (See Table 2), as not always such growth results in sustainable performance, especially on very young firms even on IPO events (Rosenbusch et al., 2013).

International expansion is seen as a key element on growth vs. profit balance (Paik & Woo, 2017) as it is a large determinant of business growth (Tekin, Ramadani & Dana, 2021). Such expansion demands a higher networking level, establishing partnerships with key foreign stakeholders to enter global markets, without ignoring the need to work with local partners, in order to further raise venture capital from within and without the local market (Henn, Terzidis, Kuschel, Leiva & Alsua, 2022; Asemokha, Musona, Torkkeli & Saarenketo, 2019).

One of the key elements on the growth strategy discussion is to assess if funds, especially originated by IPOs, can be used for sustainable growth instead of only enhancing short-term financial performance, given that such funds are usually scaled back on situations of budgetary or competitive constraints (Wallin et al., 2016; Lévesque, Joglekar & Davies, 2012).

Access and optimum utilization of capital is an essential element of strategy and it is inseparable from growth strategy (Drover, Busenitz, Matusik, Townsend, Angli & Dushnitsky, 2017). Perhaps, no other factor has the same impact on business success as financial capital acquisition, especially on long product development cycles (Kirwan et al., 2019). The acquisition of financial resources and investments is likely the main challenges entrepreneurs have to address when planning their growth strategy (Rosenbusch et al., 2013).

When analysing funding and capital access, it is fundamental to factor not only financial capital, which is usually seen as the most urgent resource, but also other forms of resources that companies may assess through their investors (Park & LiPuma, 2020; Woo, 2020), as presented on Table 3.

Table 3
Types of capital

Source: Based on Park and LiPuma (2020); Woo (2020); Rosenbusch et al. (2013); Rasmussen, Mosey and Wright (2011).

Venture capitalists are financial organizations focused on investments in privately held companies that are still on the early stages of development, lacking intellectual capital and focused on reaching scalability and international expansion in environments of high uncertainty (Park & LiPuma, 2020; Woo, 2020). Venture capital tends to also provide knowledge, guidance and expanded networking opportunities for such companies, being thus a leveraging business growth and an integrative force amongst the different types of capital (Rosenbusch et al., 2013).

The vast complexity of the industry and the need for a flexible approach to high risk investments has led to the appearance of the angel investor, individuals who invest their personal funds in firms without any primary connection with the entrepreneur whilst operating outside formal financial institutions, which leads to the creation of a rather informal venture capital market (Hellmann & Thiele, 2015, 2022; Dutta & Folta, 2016); such phenomenon is further facilitated by the use of IT as an enabler of financial resource acquisition and funding – for instance, initial offerings via blockchain and crowdfunding (Lévesque et al., 2012).

Lately, foreign venture capital investments have come to represent a significant proportion of the venture financing market and have also become increasingly a cross border phenomenon, with a larger number of deals and capital involved (Woo, 2020). Despite the many opportunities for investors and companies alike, there are also several risks caused by a lack of knowledge or expertise in the local business environment and the problem with geographic distances (Dai et al., 2012). Notwithstanding the universally accepted notion that venture capital increases the success of funded firms in competitive environments, creating a certification effect and lowering the costs of IPO amongst other benefits (Hellmann & Puri, 2002), the empirical evidence on this correlation, for some authors, is somewhat non-conclusive, as there are many examples of well-funded businesses that, nonetheless, failed (Rosenbusch et al., 2013).

It is not uncommon for the same company to receive capital from angel investors at early stages and afterwards from venture capital firms and private equities (Atherton, 2012). However, angel investors may also invest in late stages of funding, usually much higher amounts, which blurs the line that would distinguish them from venture capitalists (Hellmann & Thiele, 2015). Likewise, in many circumstances, venture capital funds have been demonstrating a growing interest in earlier stages ventures (Dutta & Folta, 2016).

Private equity is another source of funding that is highly valuable for fast growing digital businesses seeking financing for survival and growth (Li et al., 2018). They usually are limited partnerships, in which the private equity firm may take up several roles as partner, investment advisor, fund manager and key network players raising capital from several different institutional investors. Private equity firms tend to plan for rapid and successful exits either via trade sales, IPO or secondary buy-out (Rigamonti, Cefis, Meoli & Vismara, 2016; Li et al., 2018).

Private equity firms act mainly as guarantors, providing dispersed investors without too much knowledge about specific businesses, certification about the quality of the firm being sold, decreasing the information asymmetry (Rigamonti et al., 2016; Davila et al., 2003) and allowing for successful exit strategies for external private equity holders, including both venture capitalists and business angels alike (Li et al., 2018).

Private equity and venture capital have moved closer over the years, and the initial distinctions have certainly been blurred; however, it is important to establish some basic differences as presented in Table 4, even though the current work aims to address potential targets for both venture capitalists and private equity firms.

Table 4
Venture Capital and Private Equities – Key distinctions

Source: Based on Drover et al. (2017); Rigamonti et al. (2016); Hellmann and Thiele (2015).

There are also other types of investors giving new forms to risk capital, such as equity crowdfunding platforms and business accelerators (Lévesque et al., 2012; Bruton Filatotchev, Chahine & Wright, 2010). However, they do not seem to present substantial difference from the other types of investors already analysed and will be, thereby, referred as venture capital.

Venture capital plays a pivotal role with the growth and internationalization of companies, taking part in their strategic decisions and also bringing awareness about potential growth opportunities in international markets (Woo, 2020). Thus, companies with foreign corporate venture capital have a higher level of international intensity and increased profitability at least at the early stage around the IPO (Woo, 2020; Park & LiPuma, 2020) and have also a higher likelihood of successful exits via IPOs and acquisitions (Dai et al., 2012). Hence, it is essential for the academia to carrying on studies that may facilitate investment decisions in order to ensure higher competitiveness for companies and optimum ROI for investors.

Given the current work objective of analysing the growth strategy of fast growing digital start-ups in London focusing on the demands that could be addressed by financial institutions and investors such as venture capital firms, private equity firms, investment banks and so forth, it is fundamental do determine reliable parameters for those financial institutions in order to determine the right investment choices, as it may have direct impact on company performance (Woo, 2020; Kirwan et al., 2019; König et al., 2019, Rosenbusch et al., 2013; Li et al., 2018).

Quality function deployment (QFD), developed and implemented in the 60s in Japan, is a tool to identify design characteristics to meet product design and engineering requirements in a customer-oriented manner (Karasan et al., 2022; Kinker, Swarnakar, Singh & Jain, 2021; Haiyun, Zhixiong, Yüksel & Dinçer, 2021). Throughout the next decades, it has been employed for dealing with uncertain, subjective, and imprecise circumstances (Rehman et al., 2022). The strength of QFD to support decision making lies in the fact that it includes expectations and requirements of customers in problem solving, specifically to define customers’ requirements and translate them into solutions to maximize customer satisfaction within a budget constraint (Torkayesh et al., 2022; Shen, Zhou, Pantelous, Liu & Zhang, 2022).

If strategy is to be effective, it must be supported with a decision-making process and QFD may be utilized in different circumstances on its own or as part of a contingency-oriented approach, to assist the deployment of company strategic objectives (Araújo & Trabasso, 2013), the current work proposes to analyse investment alternatives selection in terms of quality characteristics, by applying the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) technique, a perspective that despite being new in the literature, has already been to a certain extend tried in other relevant works (Frank, Souza, Ribeiro & Echeveste, 2013)

The QFD Matrix is based on the idea of quality function deployment, transforming clients’ requirements into technical specifications for products, services and processes, defining the production process variables and its complex interactions, synergy and trade-offs (Frank et al., 2013; Akao & Mazur, 2003). It has evolved in conceptual and practical terms over the years, addressing several different organizational demands by providing a tangible method to manage new product/service development and its relationship with marketing, and for quality assurance of systems in the information age, dealing with issues on e-business, environmental balance and life cycle efficiency and also being utilized as support for strategic decision-making (Araújo & Trabasso, 2013; Frank et al., 2013; Akao & Mazur, 2003).

Fuzzy set theory presents a formal and objective treatment of the decision-making process in nebulous environments, that is, with imprecise and diffuse information, based on decision-makers’ judgement; it may offer further support to QFD matrix utilization as it addresses the linguistic vagueness and impreciseness present in decision-making scenarios, utilizing relative weights of attributes instead of absolute weights. It makes QFD more reliable and robust whilst providing further options to support decisions, given that as the complexity of a system increases, the human capacity to describe it accurately and clearly decreases. (Rehman et al., 2022; Karasan et al., 2022; Zadeh, 1965, 1975).

Evolving beyond product design and engineering, QFD integrated to different weighting methods has been used for a variety of applications, such as decision support models for urban planning (Torkayesh et al., 2022); innovation strategies for supply chain management (Haiyun et al., 2021); product improvement via online reviews (Shen et al., 2022); supply chain sustainability (Chowdhury, Agarwal & Quaddus, 2019); risk mitigation measures (Rehman et al., 2022); and framework for synthetizing strategies in public sector supply chains (Ocampo, Aro, Evangelista, Maturan, Atibing, Ya 2022). Overall, it has found applications in research studies, targeting recommendations of strategies in light of predetermined factors (Rehman et al., 2022). However, no works were found in which QFD matrix and fuzzy set theories were utilised to support business growth and investment decisions, which is the focus of the current work.

The consideration on the QFD utilization limitations could not be forsaken, it is necessary to bear in mind that negative relations, between customer requirements and design parameters in the QFD relation matrix are not taken into account in the analysis, being most likely hidden in the black cell of “No-Relation” (Cheng & Chiu, 2007). Thus, the current article does not propose to replace other types of investment analysis, but only to add to the different options available.

In the procedure performed to establish each existing relationship in the relationship matrix, that is, each element , it was necessary to analyse the present connection between clients’ needs – their growth strategy choice and the investors requirements – the data raised by the researchers (). The analysis was carried out based on the relevant literature information as well as on the data acquired by the researchers.

Once the relevant data was analysed, the authors utilized a five-point Likert scale to assign a relationship level to each element , their evaluation was thus converted into a triangular fuzzy number as shown in Table 7.

Table 7
Relationship levels, their respective fuzzy numbers

Source: Adapted from Kargari (2018).

Alike the relationship matrix, the values referring to followed the same methodological path adopted in the weight evaluation of each element . However, for the elements, the authors utilized Table 8 besides the original research data to support their evaluation.

Table 8
Levels of importance and their respective fuzzy numbers

Source: Adapted from Lima, Osiro and Carpinetti (2014).

This stage consists of exposing the process of calculating the relative importance of each project requirement () present in the requirement matrix; thus, utilizing the existing relation between each and .

According to Bottani (2009), the relation between and can be represented by the weight established by the specialist based on Table 8. Finally, equation 1 is utilized perform the calculation of the relative importance of each , being thus represented by .

Wherein e , that is, the and elements represent, respectively, the total of and present in the research.

The first item analysed by the research was number of employees, as it is a key item to analyse companies’ maturity (Huang et al., 2017; Nambisan, 2017).

Around 45% of the companies have between 76 to 150 employees. It seems that around that size, the companies reach a turning point which forces them to take more relevant strategic decisions. The data can be further analysed on Figure 1.

Figure 1
Number of Employees and Growth Strategy Choices
Source: Developed by the authors.

The companies within 76 to 150 employees have made the most decisions on every strategic choice available. A considerable number – 48% – are still looking for other options to venture capital, which means they are still interested in growth through external investments, but 50% are also keen to hear about growth through acquisitions, which indicates a level of financial maturity and liquidity within those companies.

Balancing growth vs. profit is also a key strategic choice for 46% of the companies within that specific size bracket, which seems quite natural, given the growing complexity that comes with higher employees’ numbers.

It seems that number of employees become a critical element once the company finds itself between 76 and 150 employees. This is a very important information, as it gives investors a parameter not specifically to support investment decisions, but to narrow the pipeline of possible investments.

The data confirm what has been discussed on the positive correlation between headcount and value creation, being indicative of a threshold maturity level for many start-ups and scale-ups (Davidsson, Delmar & Wiklund, 2019; Monteiro, 2019; Davila et al., 2003). However, it also supports the idea that headcount has lost its relevance as a fast-growth indicative, points to a scenario of no correlation between job creation and growth, as already addressed in the relevant literature (Wallin et al., 2016).

Future research could focus on the actual importance of headcount as a growth parameter, specifically for companies with potential to become unicorns. Such scenario also raises questions about the capacity of start-ups and scale-ups to be able to attend the market job demands.

Annual revenue growth is another important item analysed in the current research, as it a key indicative of the funding series level that a company is currently located (Rigamonti et al., 2016; Li et al., 2018), being another important maturity indicator (Lévesque et al., 2012).

Around a third of the respondent companies presented a growth rate between 20% to 50% per year, that figure can be rather higher, given the considerable number of respondents who preferred not to reveal their annual growth rate, 27.73% (Figure 2).

The number of companies with growth rates beneath 20% per year is irrisory and the number of companies above 100% per year is also not very considerable – around 18%. The companies between 20% to 50% annual growth rate present a steady figure of around 30% on all strategic choices, except for Growth Through Acquisitions, which none has chosen as a strategy option. It seems that even though that number indicates a financial maturity for the companies, it still no guarantee of liquidity or access to capital to grow through acquisitions.

In fact, that level of growth may represent many different things, from financial and market maturity to fast and unsustainable growth due to capital injection (Cavallo et al. 2019; Rosenbusch et al., 2013). Investors need to focus on distinguish between these two scenarios, as they pose different types of risk that may directly influence investment decisions and general conditions such as minimum ROI required, equity and exit conditions, including IPOs.

Companies with higher growth rates 50% to 100% yearly, also present a balance amongst its strategic choices of around 25%, except in growth through acquisitions, which is not chosen by any of them. This may imply that acquisitions are not perceived as necessary as a growth tool if the company is maintaining that level of growth, which may be indicative of organic growth, a trait that is vital for long-term profitable investments (Satisteban & Mauricio, 2017; Rosenbusch et al., 2013).

Figure 2
Annual Revenue Growth Rate and Growth Strategy Choices
Source: Developed by the authors.

Most of the companies that have chosen not to reveal their annual growth rate marked the option of growth through acquisition, which one could speculate as being indicative of potential recent capital injections.

This was a key element analysed in the research, as it represents a liquidity boost for the companies as well as capital for R&D, essential elements to value the company, maintain growth and experience successful IPOs and exits (Wallin et al., 2016; Lévesque et al., 2012).

The number of companies that chose not to disclose the amount of funds raised is an element for concern in the current research, as there is no secure way to make inferences about their overall growth strategy.

Another interesting point is that despite the fact that the companies all were on funding series B and beyond, that is, past the development stage and ready for market expansion on a larger scale (Cremades, 2016), close to 18% have mentioned not having received funds recently, which could be indicative of organic growth supported by a solid client base. Figure 3 brings data regarding the growth strategy of companies based on the funds they have raised.

Figure 3
Growth Strategy Choices by Funds Raised
Source: Developed by the authors.

Firstly, there is the fact that most companies that have undisclosed the amount of funds raised showed strong interest in the topic of growth through acquisition (86%), such companies may already be in advanced negotiations and the window of opportunity to close business with them for venture capitalists, investments banks and so forth may be quite small. Overall, the amount of funds raised recently, despite being fundamental for the company, does not seem to have impact on a specific growth strategy, and it needs to be analysed with other variables to offer valuable insights.

Another key point analysed in the research was entrepreneurs’ intention to raise capital on short term. The intention in itself does not reveal much, as the capital could be used for expansion, R&D, acquisitions, and so forth (Wallin et al., 2016; Lévesque et al., 2012). But it is essential for financial institutions to target the companies most likely with which they could do business, focusing their business development resources. On Figure 4 their strategic choice is displayed:

Figure 4
Intention to Raise Capital
Source: Developed by the authors.

38% of the entrepreneurs interviewed have confirmed interest to raise money on a short-term basis; against 27% who said having no interest. A considerable 35% of respondents preferred not to disclose their intention. Overall, it is safe to say that the majority of the companies could be open for investments in the next six months.

Growth through acquisition is the least chosen option for the companies interested in raising capital, as well as the companies with no short-term interest. However, it is, by far, the preferred choice of the companies who opted not to disclose their intention. It is feasible to assume that these companies are going through advanced negotiations that may require them to be secretive.

It is also possible to see a strong balance between two different strategic choices, 44% of the companies who revealed interest in raise short term money also showed interest about pre-IPO planning, which may be indicative of the development of an exit strategy, on the other side, 46% of the companies intending to raise capital were keen to hear more about other investment options, which may indicate that they are still on the growth and consolidation stage, without a short term exit strategy.

Balancing growth vs. profit was also a topic chosen by 44% of the companies that are planning to receive short-term investment; this is an essential condition for a successful exit or IPO (Joseph et al., 2023; Assefa et al., 2022; Paik & Woo, 2017).

According to Meglio et al. (2017), financial and economic interpretations are just a part of the investment decision-making process, which is also influenced by personal experience and judgment. The utilization of the QFD-Fuzzy matrix is an attempt to integrate the investors personal experiences to the investment process by letting them establishing the weighted attributes of their requirements vis-à-vis the companies’ requirements. The data provided by que questionnaires applied in the research could offer further robustness to their decision-making process leading to the development of a new tool to support investment decisions.

The Matrix-Fuzzy was filled by the current authors, that is, the weighted attributes are given based on the authors’ perspective built on the data collected and the relevant business literature analysed. As the attributes were not evaluated by professional investors, the authors will refrain from indicate groups of categories of companies that could be more interesting in terms of investment, but rather, only point out features that should catch the investors’ attention.

The use of the QFD-Fuzzy Matrix revealed some interesting points that could be of relevance for investors on choosing start-ups with which to close business. For the complete analysis readers can refer to Table 10.

Table 10
QFD Matrix Fuzzy: Clients’ Needs vs. Investors’ Requirements

Source: Developed by the authors.

Maximise personal return in an exit as well as interest in exits and acquisitions are a client need more common for companies with higher revenue growth rate, which is akin to the specialised literature as exits and acquisitions are a viable option for organizations seeking accelerated growth (Dai et al., 2012). However, it may be necessary to ask the following question: Are the companies analysed lifestyle companies or companies designed for a quick exit since inception? The answer may define the best companies to invest based on the investors’ requirement (Pisoni & Onetti, 2018; Ries, 2011).

Clients keen on looking at international expansion are those that also present the higher annual revenue growth rate. It seems that those companies, despite being born global, may initiate their organic growth in local markets to expand internationally afterwards (Tekin et al., 2021). Those companies will need more than just capital injection, it is necessary to think in terms of networking and key partnerships; therefore, the investors have to ascertain their capability beyond their liquidity, that is, it is necessary to see if they will have conditions to add beyond the financial capital, focusing on social, managerial and strategical capital alike (Park & LiPuma 2020; Woo, 2020; Rosenbusch et al. (2013); Rasmussen et al., 2011). The companies, on the other hand, have to be prepared to increase their human capital levels, which may include building a board of directors and/or changing leadership (García-García et al., 2022).

Companies looking for a pre-IPO planning displayed high scores on annual revenue growth rate as well as the intention to raise capital in short term. This may indicate that such companies are increasing their perceived market value through capital injections in order to maximize IPO results (Bradshaw et al., 2022; Pisoni & Onetti, 2018; Wisniewski, 2017; Crosier, 2004) For investors, that may mean lower equity and challenges to exert managerial and strategic influence, a situation that has to be factored in the investment decisions.

Other options to venture capital: debt, venture debt & private equity was a client need most common seen on companies with lower annual growth rate. That may be a signal alert, as those companies may have exhausted the initial investment rounds without consolidating the necessary conditions to carrying on growing in the market. For those companies, number of employees is also comparatively high as well as their intention to raise short-term funds (Rigamonti et al., 2016; Li et al., 2018; Cremades, 2016). It may be a trait that may raise caution for investors, even though such inferences cannot be made only analysing the matrix.

Companies that have raised funds in short term seem quite keen on balancing growth vs. profit. This may be an indicative of a business model that have not yet been consolidated (Woo, 2020; König et al., 2019; Meglio et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018), which may indicate opportunities for longer term investments.

In the scenario analysed by the authors, number of employees should be the least important element for investors to take into consideration when choosing new companies in which to invest. Despite the vast literature supporting the importance of this business aspect (Davidsson, Delmar & Wiklund, 2019; Monteiro, 2019; Davila et al., 2003), it is necessary to bear in mind that digital companies may grow and escalate on a very lean business model, demanding very little personal. Such tendency should be explored in future researches.

The willingness to raise capital on a short basis is the second least relevant element to be taken into account when analysing growth strategies. That may be due to the fact that capital raise may not imply sustainable growth on competitive advantage acquisition neither improvements in R&D (Wallin et al., 2016; Lévesque et al., 2012).

Having raised money previously seems to be a determinant element on companies’ growth strategy, coming second in the ranking. It is necessary, however, to analyse if the previous investments generated the expected returns or if the companies have fallen short on their original objectives. It is safe to argue that they are still a key element, as it may indicate the most likely picks for secure short-term returns and exits, but it should not be overestimated.

Finally, the most important element to influence strategic growth decisions and, therefore, to be of relevance for investors to take into account when analysing investment options is Annual Revenue Growth Rate, which come as no surprise, given that growth rate is a fundamental tool for performance measurement.

It is important to notice that the distinct levels of the ranking are quite narrow, especially the fourth, third and second values. That ranking may vary in different geographic and cultural scenarios; or in alternative industry sectors.