Entrepreneurship - Creativity and Innovative Business Models PDF

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/230634379
ENTREPRENEURSHIP – CREATIVITY AND INNOVATIVE

BUSINESS MODELS
Book · January 2012

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3612.2562
CITATION
18 authors, including:
Vesa Johannes Puhakka Thierry Burger-Helmchen

University of Oulu University of Strasbourg
65 PUBLICATIONS 387 CITATIONS 83 PUBLICATIONS 316 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Antonio Carrizo Moreira Ondrej Zizlavsky

University of Aveiro Brno University of Technology
111 PUBLICATIONS 291 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Heritage Marketing Strategies within Long-lived Firms View project
Lean Healthcare View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Thierry Burger-Helmchen on 22 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP –
CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATIVE BUSINESS
MODELS
Edited by Thierry Burger-Helmchen
Entrepreneurship – Creativity and Innovative Business Models
Edited by Thierry Burger-Helmchen
Published by InTech
Janeza Trdine 9, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Copyright © 2012 InTech

All chapters are Open Access distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles even for
commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which
ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. After this work
has been published by InTech, authors have the right to republish it, in whole or part, in
any publication of which they are the author, and to make other personal use of the
work. Any republication, referencing or personal use of the work must explicitly identify
the original source.
As for readers, this license allows users to download, copy and build upon published
chapters even for commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly
credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications.
Notice
Statements and opinions expressed in the chapters are these of the individual contributors
and not necessarily those of the editors or publisher. No responsibility is accepted for the
accuracy of information contained in the published chapters. The publisher assumes no
responsibility for any damage or injury to persons or property arising out of the use of any
materials, instructions, methods or ideas contained in the book.
Publishing Process Manager Marina Jozipovic

Technical Editor Teodora Smiljanic
Cover Designer InTech Design Team
First published February, 2012

Printed in Croatia
A free online edition of this book is available at www.intechopen.com

Additional hard copies can be obtained from [email protected]
Entrepreneurship – Creativity and Innovative Business Models, Edited by Thierry Burger-

Helmchen
p. cm.
ISBN 978-953-51-0069-0
Contents
Preface IX
Part 1 Ideas, Creativity & Entrepreneurship 1
Chapter 1 Entrepreneurial Creativity as Discovery and

Exploitation of Business Opportunities 3
Vesa Puhakka
Chapter 2 Inside the Entrepreneurial Event:

Creating Schemata of Opportunity for New Business 25
Vesa Puhakka
Part 2 New Business Models 39
Chapter 3 Incubation of New Ideas:

Extending Incubation Models to Less-Favored Regions 41
António C. Moreira and Marta F. S. Carvalho
Chapter 4 The Development and Implementation of Marketing

Information System Within Innovation:
The Increasing of Innovative Performance 59
Ondrej Zizlavsky
Chapter 5 Brazilian Entrepreneurship Reality:

A Trilogy of Imitation, Invention and Innovation 81
Eric Charles Henri Dorion, Eliana Andrea Severo,
Pelayo Munhoz Olea and Cristine Hermann Nodari
Chapter 6 New Service Ventures – Struggling for Survival 99

Jörg Freiling
Chapter 7 Interfirm Alliances:

A Collaborative Entrepreneurship Perspective 115
Mário Franco and Heiko Haase
VI Contents
Chapter 8 Attractiveness of European Higher Education in

Entrepreneurship: A Strategic Marketing Framework 139
Angelo Riviezzo, Alessandro De Nisco
and Maria Rosaria Napolitano
Chapter 9 From Traditional Service to E-Service Market

Change in Poland During Transformation 1989-2010 155
Anna Śliz and Marek S. Szczepański
Chapter 10 Creative Business Model

Innovation for Globalizing SMEs 169
Tõnis Mets
Preface
The birth and infancy of entrepreneurship was turned into a specific area of academic
study and empirical research quite early. The field greatly evolved, and at the same
time, a constant urge to deal with real problems existed, from firm creation to
industrial growth, including firm strategy and economic policy.
Economic, sociological, and managerial academics began to devise a detailed and

interpretative framework for the study of entrepreneurship. Many people came from
different fields, and there was a need to overcome the limitation of the standard
neoclassical theory of entrepreneurship. New areas of research were embraced,
thereby recognizing that powerful mechanisms are at work in entrepreneurship and
require systematic analysis.
The economics of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship, in a very broad sense, has always been at the heart of firm and
industrial dynamics – extoling its influence on a macro level. Starting with the analysis
of the specific properties and effects of entrepreneurship as an economic function,
researchers then proceeded to the historical and normative analysis of resource
allocation mechanisms in the field of entrepreneurship. More generally, they analyzed
the socio-economic institutions that could be relied upon to produce, mediate and
favor entrepreneurship.
Many authors tried to define Entrepreneurship:
“Entrepreneurship is an act of innovation that involves endowing existing resources with new
wealth-producing capacity”
Drucker (1985)
“Entrepreneurship is a process by which individuals pursue and exploit opportunities

irrespective to the resources they currently control”
Stevenson (1985)
“Entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations, the process by which new organizations

come into existence“
Gartner (1988)
X Preface
“Entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, reasoning, and acting that is opportunity drive,

holistic in approach, and leadership balanced”
Timmons (1997)
“Entrepreneurship is about how, by whom, and with what consequences opportunities to bring
future goods and services into existence are discovered, created and exploited”
Venkataraman (1997)
From these definitions, we can see that the academic understanding of

entrepreneurship broadened over time. The first dimension of the entrepreneurial
space is the continuum between economic approaches oriented towards the origin and
context of entrepreneurship, social science approaches and managerial concerns.
Among others, influences can also be found in the education context, or, the
institutional context. And finally, researchers raised the question of what happens if
we do not take those issues into account? What if we take them for granted and simply
state that entrepreneurs do things differently, for whatever the reason and have ideas
in different ways other than economic factors?
The following table summarizes these three divisions of research in entrepreneurship.
Approaches
Classical economic Education, Managerial
and social context development and context
institutional context
Where Why How
Description of the The entrepreneur is an Is one a born The
entrepreneur, important element of entrepreneur? Does entrepreneurial
object of the study: macro and local one become an process, the
development. The entrepreneur through detection
impact can depend on a specific education of opportunities,
gender, geographical system or a special the development
location and social institutional context? of ideas,
context. creativity, and
innovation.
The construction
of new business
models
Sectors of interest: Political level (country, Educational system, Economists
region, town level) historical studies, involved in
political influence theory of
the firm,
management
science
Preface XI
The three volumes of entrepreneurship are each dedicated to one of the above
divisions. The first volume “Entrepreneurship - Gender, Geographies and Social
Context” sheds new light on how the entrepreneur is an important element of macro
and local development by taking into account gender, geographical places, and social
context.
The second volume “Entrepreneurship - Born, Made and Educated” raises the
question why some human beings turn into great entrepreneurs. Is it a gift of Mother
Nature, or the outcome of a specific education system or from other institutional
construction?
The last volume “Entrepreneurship - Ideas, Creativity and Innovative Business

Models” is more managerial oriented and takes into account the detection of
opportunities, the creative processes, and the impact of the entrepreneurial mindset on
business models.
Entrepreneurship – Creativity and innovative Business Models
This book on entrepreneurship is composed of two sections. Section I: Ideas,

Creativity, and Entrepreneurship is devoted to the specific processes, actions and
visions developed by entrepreneurs. Section II: New Business Models, is composed
of articles studying the concrete impact of entrepreneurship and the way a firm can
carry out its activities.
Thierry Burger-Helmchen
BETA-CNRS, EM Strasbourg, University of Strasbourg
France
References
Drucker, P F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York,
USA: HarperBusiness.¨
Gartner, W. 1988. “Who is an entrepreneur ? Is the wong question ?”, American Journal
of Small Business, 12, pp.11-31.
Stevenson, H. 1985. “The Heart of Entrepreneurship.” Harvard Business Review, March-
April, pp. 85-94.
Timmons, J.A. 1989. The Entrepreneurial Mind. Brick House Pub.
Venkataraman, S. 1997. “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An
Editor's Perspective”. Advances in Entrepreneurship. J. Katz and R. Brockhaus.
Greenwich, JAI Press. pp.119-138.
Part 1
Ideas, Creativity & Entrepreneurship

1
Entrepreneurial Creativity as Discovery and

Exploitation of Business Opportunities
Vesa Puhakka
University of Oulu, Oulu Business School
Department of Management and International Business
Finland
1. Introduction
Our perception of the creative formation of organizations through entrepreneurship has
changed dramatically during the past ten years (e.g., Carlsson and Eliasson 1993: Davidsson
2003). For a long time, entrepreneurship was construed in terms of managing a small
business or being the owner-manager thereof. However, entrepreneurship is not directly
associated with this particular context; it is essentially context-free organizational creativity
(Gartner et al. 2003; Hjorth 2003, 2004; Sarasvathy 2001; Steyaert and Hjorth 2003). It is
equally likely to be present in large corporations’ renewal efforts and in the identification of
new markets and technologies as in the development projects of public organizations or, for
that matter, in the reorganization of universities (cf. institutional or social entrepreneurship).
At the core of entrepreneurship lies the creation and exploitation of entrepreneurial
opportunities regardless of the context (Shane 2003). Entrepreneurship is a creative activity
taking place when neither the goal nor often the initial conditions are known at the start, but
constructed during the process (Sarasvathy 2001). This happens, because there is no single
right or best solution, and even the starting situation may be so complex and constantly
changing that it is difficult to analyze it reliably in the extent necessary. Bearing in mind the
discussion above, this paper uses the term entrepreneur to refer to an individual or a
community of individuals (organization) that creates new business in its operational
environment (cf. Hjorth 2003).
Crucial for the study of entrepreneurship is the theory of organizational creativity (Hjorth
2004), for it is impossible to understand the behaviour of an entrepreneurial individual
without considering the entrepreneur's psychological abilities, the social impact of the
environment and the interplay between the two, manifesting itself in the entrepreneur's
capacity to create something new or original (see Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin 1993).
Rational models of entrepreneurial activity presume that the environment induces
individuals to perceive opportunities in it, to identify promising market niches or
introduce new innovations (Shane 2003). Regarding this view as being too narrow (Wood
and McKinley 2010; see also Burrell and Morgan 1979), this paper assumes that
individuals construct their own realities using concepts available in their culture
(Downing 2005). Thus, entrepreneurs and their business opportunities are not merely
products of the environment, which the entrepreneurs will find, if they only know how to
4 Entrepreneurship – Creativity and Innovative Business Models
search rationally (Kirzner 1979); rather, they are a product of the interplay between the
entrepreneurs' own creativity and their organizational environment (Kirzner 1997). This
line of thinking is in alignment with the research of Sigrist (1999), who posits that
perceiving and exploiting business opportunities involves the creative discovery of
something new (see also Sarasvathy 2001).
How can we explore the link between business opportunities and creativity, given that only
a few research papers have been published on creative processes in business (Jenssen and
Kolvereid 1992; Muzyka 1992; de Koning and Muzyka 1996; Kirzner 1997; Hills, Shrader and
Lumpkin 1999)? Too few in number, the conceptual foundation provided by these papers is
insufficient for constructing an adequate framework for research. Nonetheless, research
papers on entrepreneurship often hold entrepreneurship as a form of creative activity (see,
e.g., Schumpeter 1934; Johannisson 1988; Baumol 1993; Bull and Willard 1993; Bygrave 1993;
Hjorth and Johannisson 1997; Kirzner 1997; Wood and McKinley 2010). Moreover, research
has demonstrated that the dynamic, change driving spirit of entrepreneurship is associated
with the ability of entrepreneurial individuals to generate new ventures. More often than
not, however, this research merely stakes its claim, while failing to systematically explore
the creative processes of entrepreneurship (Alvarez and Barney 2010).
This is not to say that no research exists that specifically investigates entrepreneurship as a
type of creative activity (e.g., Fernald and Solomon 1987; Winslow and Solomon 1987, 1989,
1993). Unfortunately, this research is plagued by a problem that, according to Gartner
(1990), pervades the entire history of entrepreneurial research; namely, that is has focused
on distinguishing entrepreneurs from other business people in terms of creativity and
innovation, instead of making an effort to study and understand the creative process itself
(see also Steyaert, 2007). Personality characteristics of entrepreneurs have little bearing on
how they—as individuals or organizations—create new business. As a result, even these
studies fail to provide a sound basis for research. Although falling short of adequately
supporting the development of the idea of viewing organizational creativity as a form of
perceiving and implementing business opportunities, they justify exploring the emergence
of new business ventures as a creative process (cf. Hjorth 2003)
This paper reflects on organizational creativity in terms of discovery and exploitation of
entrepreneurial opportunities. A theoretical foundation for the notion of perceiving and
seizing business opportunities as a creative process is first sought in creativity research. On
this basis, the paper constructs a view of entrepreneurial creativity as a creative process and
presents a theoretical conception of the discovery of business opportunities as a creative
process. The structure of the paper is as follows: First, a theoretical background will be
provided for the research area, followed by an inquiry into what makes the processing of
business opportunities a creative activity. Third, this paper will present a review of existing
research on creativity, which it then uses as a foundation for developing an understanding
of creativity as a phenomenon. Fourth, the essence of creativity will be charted and the
concept of creativity, as it emerges from research, will be discussed. Next, a framework,
based on a theoretical approach to creativity, will be presented for the entrepreneurial
ability to generate business opportunities. Finally, a discussion will be conducted on the
issues raised by this research.
Entrepreneurial Creativity as Discovery and Exploitation of Business Opportunities 5
2. Theoretical background — entrepreneurship as the creation

of new business
A core attribute of entrepreneurship is the ability to develop and exploit business
opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Some have gone as far as claiming that in
today's complex and ever-changing financial and business environments, venture
opportunities and the ability to recognize and seize them are more vital to success than
the entrepreneurs/manager's personal characteristics or the firm's efficiency (e.g.,
Puhakka 2007). One interesting reference in this context is MacMillan and McGrath's book
on strategic management (2000), which states that the central weapon in the strategic
arsenal of business organizations is the ability to create and exploit new venture
opportunities. This represents a remarkable opening gambit to a wider mindset in which
entrepreneurship is regarded as a strategic competence, capable of being utilized in all
manner of organizations.
Recognized as the creation of business opportunities, entrepreneurship comprises ideas,
beliefs and actions directed toward generating new economic activity that emerges
gradually as the process continues (Sarasvathy, Dew, Velamuri and Venkataraman 2003).
Hence, entrepreneurship is strongly present when the actors enter a business space ("entre")
without knowing what it is all about, what kind of business they want to conduct or even
what they are striving at. It is also less relevant, whether the outcome of the activity is the
establishment of a new firm, an extension of existing activities or expansion into a new
market. We are dealing with a problem-solving situation in which the situation, rules,
solutions and goals must be created through action (Sarasvathy 2001). Under these
conditions, it is practically impossible to apply logic to arrive at the right and best solution.
Central to the effort is identifying and creating a business opportunity using the
entrepreneur's creative ability as functional instrument. This is precisely the phenomenon
that entrepreneurship circles around and one that researchers should delve into (Davidsson
2003). After this event, when the actors move forward into the next space ("prendre")
centering around the implementation of the new business activity, we are no longer
concerned with intrinsic elements of entrepreneurship.
"Entreprendre", the original French term for entrepreneurship, offers an excellent
description of the concept's essence (for further details, see Hjorth 2003; Chell 2007).
Entrepreneurship is stepping into a space where new business can be hatched, without an
idea of the nature of that business, and then making an effort to outline it. It also includes
stepping out of that space with a business opportunity and realizing it through other
measures, such as management initiatives and marketing. What goes on in this space is an
exceedingly interesting phenomenon. This entrepreneurial space and the creation of a
business opportunity within it, is by no means an isolated process, detached from its
environment, nor a closed, internal process from which a novel business idea crops up.
Rather, this space is a process in which the mental creative powers of the entrepreneur and
the environment are in continuous dynamic interaction. Occurring within this space is
something that absorbs influences from present business activities, bringing chaos and
discontinuity into it. How can we characterize this process is the question that the next
section seeks to answer.
3. Processing of business opportunity — a creative or rational undertaking

As an organizational process, the task of entrepreneurship is to revitalize and promote the
economy by breaking old routines and patterns. Moreover, a business opportunity can be
viewed in terms of entrepreneurial cognition of the business situation, the entrepreneur's
internal model of it, arising out of the entrepreneur's construal of not only the situation's
temporary dimension, window of opportunity and key business elements, but also of their
interrelationships (Vesalainen and Pihkala 1996). It is through these three factors and their
relations that the entrepreneur constructs an internal model of the opportunity.
By regarding business opportunity in terms of cognition, we must presume that it originates
from a cognitive process. This, then, leads to a notion that the ontological stance of this
study is cognitive (social) constructivism (Chell 2007; Chiasson and Saunders 2005; Steyeart
2007). Cognitive constructivism, according to Steyaert (2007), “focuses upon (mostly
individualized) cognitive processes through which individuals mentally construct their worlds using
socially mediated categories, simultaneously ‘downplaying’ the role of language as an external
expression of internal cognitions”.
In this research, cognitive process is not seen as a systematic and rational arrangement of
knowledge gleaned from the environment (e.g., Christensen, Madsen and Peterson 1994),
but as a creative process, in which information is utilized to develop a completely new
knowledge structure (Chell, 2007; de Koning and Muzyka 1996; Hills, Shrader and Lumpkin
1999). In other words, business opportunities are not the result of first searching for seeds of
knowledge in the available resource base, including technological innovations, markets,
competent personnel, available production facilities and equipment, and then applying logic
to single out the best possible opportunity (see Cadotte and Woodruff 1994).
It is not as simple as that, because perceiving a business opportunity calls for a creative
insight (cf. Kirzner 1997) to combine the wealth of information at hand in a meaningful way.
Were it only a matter of organizing information, everyone would be able to identify venture
opportunities. This is blatantly not the case (e.g., de Koning and Muzyka 1996; Hills and
Shrader 1998), however, it is entrepreneurs who are specifically good at spotting business
opportunities based on snippets of information found in the environment. Nevertheless,
information alone is not enough, because piecemeal information tells us precious little about
business opportunities. They only emerge when the entrepreneurial mind (either
individually or collectively) arranges and assembles the pieces, putting them in a
meaningful relation to one another, and thereby creates a new knowledge structure.
Similarly, a large circle, two small circles, a triangle and a line are devoid of meaning as
separate entities, other than as geometric shapes, and yet they acquire a meaning when
arranged in a specific order, such as a human face. Relationships among the pieces are just
as important as their meaning content.
Thus, business opportunities are processed such that the entrepreneur uses acquired
knowledge and previous experiences to assemble a new whole of the pieces, because the
situation is baffling, confusing, chaotic and, most of all, inconducive to providing a right
answer (see Singh, Hills, Hybels and Lumpkin 1999). Reassembling the pieces does not lead
to a collection of pieces, but to a novel image, whose totality is defined by the relationships
among its elements. Equalling the content of knowledge in importance, these relationships
are forged through creative thinking. This cannot be achieved merely by rearranging
existing knowledge content. For example, working on a jigsaw puzzle, we know that each
piece has a specific place in the overall picture. Through diligence and a systematic
approach to the task, the pieces can eventually be fitted together. Business is not a jigsaw
puzzle. Instead, it constitutes a situation in which you have a few pieces, but no idea as to
what to make of them. Relying on your creative talent you have to figure out what the
pieces are all about and how to arrange them into something meaningful. Similarly, the
entrepreneur must work out how to combine the snippets of information to come up with a
viable solution. And not only that, the entrepreneur also needs to learn from that experience,
in order to draw on this personal resource in analogous situations.
In a situation where business opportunities could be arrived at simply by the application of
logic, the entrepreneur would be able to determine the starting conditions and decide what
information will be required and relevant, where to get it and what aspects to focus on. At
the onset, the entrepreneur would be in a position to obtain an overview of the business
situation. In the same way, it would be a relatively straightforward task to envision the
desirable end state. In addition, the entrepreneur would be able to deduce by what means
the business potential inherent in the starting situation could be converted into a profitable
business opportunity (see Mayer 1992: 5-7)
As already noted, the creation of a venture opportunity is not a rational process of this type
(Sarasvathy 2001). Humans are incapable of capturing all information available in any
situation, or using it to construct a comprehensive representation of reality (cf. Simon 1979).
Instead, they focus on the parts they deem salient and ignore the rest. Through internal
processing they create their own versions of reality, based on the knowledge they possess
and the social situation that prevails in that particular problem-solving situation (cf. Weick
1979).
In terms of problem solving, acquisition and processing of information are not rational in
the strict sense, because humans are creative and innovative information processors.
Opportunity identification is more closely linked to creating meaning from a fragmented
and ambiguous context than reaching a decision grounded on exact information within a
confined decision space (see Weick 1979). Thus, the entrepreneur creates reality rather than
selects it.
Reasons behind the non-rational nature of the problem-solving process are the following:
firstly, due to cognitive and social constraints, entrepreneurs are incapable of deciding what
information is important. Relying on previous experiences, they tend to select information
that they are already familiar with (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). However, since this
information may not be relevant to the present situation, the rational underpinnings of the
process will be compromised. Secondly, situations in which business opportunities maybe
present are so complex that correct answers are not deducible from its elements. This impels
the entrepreneurial mind to search for a novel solution, a mental construction providing an
at least somewhat coherent interpretation of the environmental clues. Further, if
opportunity discovery were a rational process, entrepreneurs would be able to utilize
proven solution models, either directly or in modified form. This is prevented by the
dynamic and complex nature of the situation, compelling the entrepreneurial mind to
jettison past solutions and devise a new one, which manifests itself as a business
opportunity (see Saariluoma 1990).
In a rational process, the entrepreneur would be able to collect all information that has
relevance to the present situation, gain an overview of it and all of its elements, and then
look for a solution based on existent, definable and selectable operations. Opportunity
identification in real life suffers from the constraints discussed above, hampering the
rational, logical approach. Somehow the entrepreneurial mind must sweep the situation and
apply creative thinking to arrive at a viable solution. But what is creativity, a notion often
cropping up in entrepreneurial literature, yet rarely subjected to a rigorous conceptual
analysis. In which scientific discourse may we find the basis of creativity? That is the
question this paper shall address next.
4. Creativity as a research topic

Creativity research on has traditionally been the domain of psychology (Busse and
Mansfield 1980), but in recent years creativity has increasingly attracted the attention of
other sciences as well, including organization theory (e.g., Drucker 1998). Interest in it has
increased, because theories on creativity offer conceptual tools for explaining and
understanding the genesis of novelty, which is an integral part of competitive business (de
Konig and Muzyka 1996; Muzyka, de Koning and Churchill 1997). It also provides a basis
for understanding the emergence of new business (Hills, Shrader and Lumpkin 1999). This
section aims at using major theories of creativity to provide a conceptual framework for
creativity and then anchoring entrepreneurial creativity in this framework.
Schools of creativity
Creativity has been approached from several different theoretical perspectives, which can be
viewed as different schools of creativity (see Getzel and Jackson 1962; Gowan 1972;
Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin 1993; Treffinger 1995). According to Woodman, Sawyer and
Griffin (1993), these schools fall into three categories: personality, cognitive and social
psychological. This classification will be used here as a starting off point for a more detailed
survey.
Personality-oriented school of creativity. Not a coherent approach, the personality-oriented
school of creativity can be divided into several sub-groups. What they all have in common is
that they approach creativity from the perspective of the individual personality. Thus, they
see creativity as an expression of personality. The following is a brief description of these
approaches, based on Woodman's classification (1981) in which this school comprises the
psychoanalytic, humanistic, behaviourist and trait perspectives.
Foremost among the representatives of the psychoanalytic perspective on creativity are
Freud, Jung, Rank, Kris and Kubie (see Taylor 1975). Their concept of creativity draws on
ideas formulated by Freud (e.g., 1958), who associated creativity with the individual's need
to maximize satisfaction of desires while minimizing punishments and guilt. To Freud,
creativity translated into sublimation of unconscious drives and instincts. He claimed that
individuals have needs and desires which they cannot satisfy directly; instead, they
transform their urges into socially acceptable creative outcomes. In his thinking, Quentin
Tarantino's intense and violent, yet highly acclaimed films, such as Kill Bill, are creative
reflections of the film-maker's sexual and aggressive repressions.
Jung, a one-time student of Freud, renounced the latter's idea of sublimation of libidinal
energies as the source of creativity (see Jung and Franz 1964). It was unacceptable for Jung
that behaviour, including creative activities, would be motivated by animalistic, especially
sexual, drives. He too viewed creativity as springing from the human unconsciousness, but
assumed that it stemmed from the collective rather than individual unconsciousness (cf.
Woodman 1981). Collective unconsciousness is a repository of all knowledge and
experiences we have inherited from our ancestors. Constantly accumulating, this shared
repository is the origin of all new ideas, which, according to Jung, the conscious mind then
shapes into a creative product (e.g., Jung and Franz 1964). Tarantino's films can thus be seen
as reflective of the entire human society and its historical development. Having consciously
accessed the repository of collective knowledge, Tarantino has picked his outrageous
themes from the collective unconsciousness and then presented reflections of our own
thoughts about modern society back to us.
Further developing Freud and Jung's theories of creativity, Rank (e.g., 1996) emphasized the
central importance of creativity in explaining and understanding human nature. To Rank,
creativity amounted to overcoming life's fears (cf. Chambers 1969; Woodman 1981), and he
saw the creative individual as an ideal, an artist of his or her own life, who has consciously
managed to solve unconscious fears. Tarantino's films are then a way of unravelling his
inner fears. In this way, he has solved his problems and translated them into creative
products.
Kris' theory of creativity stressed the importance of the conscious at the expense of the
unconscious (Kris and Kurz 1981). Alike his predecessors, Kris believed that the source of
creativity is located in the unconscious, but that the conscious mind taps into this creative
potential and gives it a concrete expression. He equated creativity with regression at the
service of the ego (id) (cf. Busse and Mansfield 1980; Woodman 1981; Heikkilä and Heikkilä
2001). In other words, using regression as a mediator to put the individual in touch with an
earlier developmental stage, creativity engages the conscious and unconscious in fruitful
collaboration. Tarantino's films can be seen as expressions of his return to childhood war
games with their unrestricted brutality and cruelty. Guided by his strong ego, he now
consciously re-enacts these games, albeit at a more varied and sophisticated level.
Kubie (1958) broadened Kris' theory of creativity and contended that the origin of creativity
is the preconscious, falling between the conscious and the unconscious (see also Busse and
Mansfield 1980; Woodman 1981; Heikkilä and Heikkilä 2001). He regarded the preconscious
as a system that transmits ideas from unconscious deep structures to conscious thinking
processes. On this view, creativity corresponds to the realization of preconscious images.
Within this framework, Tarantino's work represents an outpouring of preconscious images,
emotions and ideas. In short, the psychoanalytical school holds that creativity is the
transformation of resources contained within the deep structures of the human mind into
socially acceptable forms.
In its essence, the humanistic approach to creativity is based on work by Rogers (1961),
Maslow (1943) and Fromm (1947) (see also Heikkilä and Heikkilä 2001). Rogers placed
particular emphasis on freedom and safety as sources of creativity, meaning that creativity
cannot be forced or mandated, but springs from free will, like a child's play (see West 1990).
Freedom permits the individual to access primal processes and tap into unconscious
impulses for stimulus. Creativity is seeing the versatility of life in new ways, and Rogers
(1961) stressed that this is possible only when the individual is open to new experiences, has
the ability to play around with elements and concepts and is capable of evaluating when
something valuable emerges out of the process. In this framework, Tarantino's work could
be interpreted as the purposeful exploration of a novel perception of life. He may be able to
bring forth something from his unconscious, a reflection of the shape of things to come.
Maslow, equating creativity with the voluntary self-fulfilment of a free individual in a free
environment (see also Woodman 1981; Treffinger 1995), ranked creativity at the top of the
hierarchy of human needs. Moreover, he asserted that, while all people are born with a
creative ability, civilization lays restraints on some of our basic instincts. And yet, there are
individuals who do not lose their childlike craving for self-actualization and creative
expression. Everyone has the right, as well as the opportunity, to be creative and innovative,
provided that they grasp that opportunity. Like a child in a safe and free environment,
Tarantino seizes the opportunity for self-actualization, and does things he has always
dreamed of doing. While fulfilling his dreams, he makes artistically ambitious movies.
In Fromm's view (1947, 1989), creativity allows people to recognize themselves and find
their place in the world (see also Woodman 1981; Levine 1999). He would say that Tarantino
uses films as a vehicle for defining his position in the social environment; they are a means
of determining his identity and place in the world. Thus, Tarantino employs creativity to
forge a meaning for his life.
The humanistic approach converges with the psychoanalytic view on the point that
creativity and innovation involve both primary (unconscious) and secondary (conscious)
processes. Also humanistically oriented thinkers believe that the unconscious is a pool of
resources, providing material for conscious processing. The difference is that they do not
agree on the pushing effect exerted by drives, energies or needs. Creativity is not the result
of impulses pushed or even forced up from the psyche, but a voluntary and consciously
chosen state. Driven by the conscious, it is a lifestyle, representing the most advanced way
of leading a life. In the humanistic view, creativity is a self-chosen, voluntary realization of
goals and objectives arising from an individual's personality, indicating the human need to
find one's place in the world by fulfilling one's life goals.
In behaviourist conceptualizations, creativity is the result of learning. Behaviourists posit that
creativity is based on cumulative, hierarchical knowledge that is processed in response to
environmental stimuli (Woodman 1981). Furthermore, creative products are no different
from any other, but because the creators possess superior knowledge, the solution or
product appears as exceptional or original to others. Behaviourists hold that creative output
is never achieved by discrete jumps, it is always anchored in previous experience and
knowledge, albeit the stimulus may be unique.
Skinner (1957) argued that creativity is a reflection of that which is learned and that its
originality derives from future expectations. Thus, a painter's creativity is based on
anticipation of positive feedback. In essence, the creative process represents a normal
response to a stimulus in a situation where a creatively productive individual has been
conditioned by future expectations and where the individual has such vast knowledge and
experience as to be able to produce high-quality output eclipsing that of others (Woodman
1981). Future expectations serve as stimuli and the creative product represents the response
(see Skinner 1957), with the quality of the product being dependent on the respondent's
level of knowledge.
Behaviourists would therefore tend to think that Tarantino is creative, because he expects to
receive something in exchange. The excellence of his motion pictures attests to the fact that
he is in possession of relevant and sufficient knowledge and skills. In principle, though, he
is not doing anything that is qualitatively different from what anyone else could do—the
only difference is in the amount of accumulated knowledge. As apparent, there is a sharp
distinction between the behaviouristic approach on one hand and the humanistic and
psychoanalytical approaches on the other. Underlining the importance of knowledge and
learning, behaviourists do not regard creativity as a higher dimension of personality, but as
a perfectly ordinary activity—a mere response to stimuli, albeit one that is socially valued.
Trait theorists attribute creativity to certain personality traits (e.g., Guildford 1967; Barron
1969; MacKinnon 1978), which are relatively enduring predispositions to behave in a
particular way (Guildford 1967). Having studied creative individuals, trait theorists have
identified a host of traits that characterize them, including independence, diligence,
originality, stubbornness, enthusiasm and openness to new ideas and experiences (see
Mellou 1996). Trait theorists look upon creativity as a special mental capacity, stemming
from certain personality traits.
Tarantino, for example, is creative, because he has the intellectual wherewithal to do so. He
has such relatively stable attitudes toward film-making and ways of working as allow him
to turn out critically acclaimed movies. Compared with the psychoanalytic and humanistic
approaches, trait theorists are shallower and more practically minded. In their view,
creativity does not originate from within the unconscious, nor does it represent the
fulfilment of life goals. Creativity is the sum total of clearly distinguishable traits, and
individuals in possession of these traits are intrinsically creative. While both behaviourists
and trait theorists regard creativity as a response to stimuli, the former see the response as
based on knowledge, the latter as based on personality traits. It must be noted, however,
that this comparison is unfair to trait theorists, because they are not interested in stimulus-
response relationships. Despite their differences, both theories agree that creative output
occurs in response to a need, although the foundation for creativity is different in these two
approaches.
Fragmented though the personality-oriented school of creativity may be, all the different
approaches regard creativity as a personality dimension. Creativity is a characteristic of
personality, and in a sense, creativity is personality. What these approaches fall short of is
explaining the creative process itself. How does a creative personality find its expression in
a creative product? While psychoanalysts analyzed primary and secondary processes,
humanists self-actualization processes, behaviourists learning processes and trait theorists
life stories as processes, the cognitive school of creativity started exploring creative
processing in the human mind.
Cognitive school of creativity. Focusing on process models of creativity (Pesut 1990; Sapp
1992; Mellou 1996; Kirschenbaum 1998), cognitivists look on creativity as a mental process
involving the generation of new ideas and concepts. Wallas (1926) suggested that the
creative process comprises four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination and
verification. At the first stage, individuals collect information required for solving the
problem at hand. Then, at the incubation stage, they push out the problem from the
conscious mind, allowing the unconscious to do its work. Reaching the third stage, they
solve the problem through a sudden cognitive insight. Finally, at the last stage, they verify
the correctness of their solution by applying it to the problem. Criticism has been levelled
against Wallas' model on the basis that it is largely the result of introspective observations
(Mayer 1992: 48). It is not without empirical support, however, and current process models
of creativity are not so far removed from his theory (cf. Sternberg 1988: 132–135).
Cognitive approaches associate creativity with normal cognitive processes such as
perception, remembering and understanding. Sternberg (1988) has postulated that creativity
arises from selective classification, selective encoding of information, selective combination
of relevant information and selective comparison interrelating new information with what is
already known. If existing knowledge suffices to solve the problem, there is no need for a
creative approach. However, in case a novel solution is required, new information must be
integrated with previously stored knowledge. Thus, creativity is a mental process that
includes the perception, comparison, selection and synthesis of existing knowledge and new
information to generate a creative output.
Furthermore, presuming that creativity favours the prepared mind (Sternberg 1988),
cognitivists believe that a diligent effort to seek for and apply information is a prerequisite
of creativity. In addition to viewing creativity in terms of mental processing, they also see it
as an intellectual style, a way of conceptually organizing the environment (see Woodman
and Schonfeldt 1989, 1990). Creativity is thus associated not only with processing (Wallas
1926) and manipulating information (Sternberg 1988), but also with cognitive styles, or
preferred ways of using our intellectual capacity (Sternberg 1997). Research has shown that
the cognitive style of creative individuals can be characterized as flexible, fluent, original
and divergent (Woodman and Schoenfeldt 1989, 1990). Amid fragments of information,
these individuals are capable of discerning something that others fail to see (flexibility), they
can reject old models and assimilate new knowledge with ease (fluency), their solutions are
different from those of others (originality) and they seem able to find relationships and
connections between things that are superficially very different (divergence).
Cognitivists would say that Tarantino's creativity involves subtle perception, classification,
comparison and transformation of information relating to movie making, and that he
applies his flexible, fluent, original and divergent cognitive style to the task. Tarantino has
just the right type of mental capacity that allows him to process information into the motion
picture format.
The cognitive school is set apart from the personality-oriented school by its focus on the
creative process and how it works. Uninterested in the personality of the creative
individual, cognitivists turned their attention to mental processing of information. As the
personality-oriented school had failed to find a satisfactory explanation for creativity,
cognitivist theories sought to fill the gap and provide a deeper understanding of the
phenomenon. Aside from their obvious differences, both schools centre on the individual,
neglecting to attend sufficiently to the environment/society surrounding the creative
individual. Because these factors have an undisputed effect on creativity, a new school
emerged, referred to as the social psychological school of creativity.
Social psychological school of creativity. Creativity is the product of environmental

influences is the basic tenet of the social psychological school. These influences are so
powerful that creativity cannot be studied without an understanding of its context
(Woodman and Schoenfeldt 1989). Csikszentmihalyi (1988) has noted that creativity does
not occur in a vacuum, but has a domain in which it takes place, as well as a symbolic field,
in which it belongs. The domain and field can be thought to generate the knowledge, skills
and characteristics that the individual is in possession of —and thereby creativity. To the
social psychological school, individuals are embedded in their context, and vice versa,
which is why the two cannot be dissociated from one another when investigating creativity.
Depending on whether emphasis is placed on the sociological or psychological aspects of
social psychology (see Eskola 1982: 14), context is seen either as the direct source of
creativity or as exerting its influence through the individual. The latter interpretation is
more prevalent among creativity researchers (e.g. Amabile 1995, 1997). A likely explanation
for this is that, in the psychological perspective, creativity appears as a trait possessed by
individuals. We may therefore conclude that, regardless of the social psychological school,
creativity research suffers from a lack of engagement from sociological theory, which could
shed new light on creative processes.
Currently, the most prominent representative of the social psychological school of thought
on creativity is Amabile (e.g. 1988). She has advocated a psychological perspective, in which
context, expressing itself through the individual, either impedes or promotes creativity
(Hennessey and Amabile 1988). She has also pioneered the idea that creativity is a
manifestation of intrinsic motivation, which arises largely from social motivators. Hence,
strict discipline and punishments block intrinsic motivation and hamper creativity in
consequence. Amabile's background is in motivational research, where empirical evidence
suggests that performance is not significantly improved though external rewards only, but
through an intrinsic interest in the task. It has also been found that the quality of creative
output increases as a function of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci and Ryan 1985).
Having studied the effects of internal and external motivation on the quality of creative
work, Amabile has concluded that, while intrinsic motivation stimulates creativity, external
motivation may even serve as an impediment (Hennessey and Amabile 1988). In addition,
she has noted that intrinsic motivation is adversely affected by such external factors as
restrictions, rewards, control and feedback. When intrinsic motivation is replaced with
external motivation, the joy of doing something for its own sake is substituted with an
extrinsic motive, with a resulting decline in quality and creativity. Noteworthy though
Amabile's findings may be, it must be borne in mind that, among the schools of creativity,
the social psychological school suffers the distinction of being the least theoretically
structured and sophisticated (Woodman and Schoenfeldt 1989). Nonetheless, it has
demonstrated the value and impact of social aspects for the study of creativity, and that
creativity can only be understood in context.
The presentation above is not intended as a complete description of the schools of creativity,
but as a brief overview of the most important ones, selected on the basis of previous
researchers' findings. The presentation was kept succinct, for its purpose was merely to
provide a theoretical and historical framework for discussion. It may be concluded that the
different schools have brought different perspectives and different units of observation to
bear on creativity. Some focus on the individual, others on the process and yet others on the
context of creativity. Many have a shared interest in the creative outcome. Due to the
number of schools and perspectives, the field is somewhat fragmentary, an impediment that
this overview, albeit short, has sought to remedy.
Creativity research on tends to cluster around four perspectives: context, individual, process
and product. Conceptualizing creativity as a process, context constitutes a field in which this
process takes place and which empowers the individual to be creative. Creative individuals
are defined as actors seeking to find their place in the relevant context to fulfil their goals by
the dynamic interaction of resources in their deep structure, learned symbol systems and
individual capabilities. Potentials in the context and individual are channelled by the
creative process, a mental transformation, in which the individual redefines problems, finds
novel solutions and tests them against reality. The artefact of this activity is a creative
product, a communicable symbol, which is an improvement of previous ones and which the
social organization deems creative.
To make a long story short, we may conclude that context is a field in which and for which
creative output takes place. Striving to find their place in this field, individuals tap into
resources residing in the field and in themselves and transform these into creative energy.
They accomplish this by engaging in a mental process focused on finding new solutions to
problems. The result of this process is a concrete product that in the view of the social
organization advances the field in a creative fashion. This summary, while seeking to
elucidate the essence of creativity, is still conceptually defective and even confusing. It has
provided a description of the different schools of thought and of the perspectives adopted
and attempted to link them together in a meaningful way. However, this process is still very
much underway and more needs to be done. To that end, this paper suggests that
conceptualization may best be achieved by combining the varying views and perspectives of
the different schools. Based on previous theories and perspectives, the next section makes an
effort to sketch an outline for a unified approach to creativity.
5. Entrepreneurial creativity – entrepreneur's capacity to generate novel

economic artefacts
The previous section was rounded up by the conclusion that creativity is a system which,
through the dynamic interaction of personal characteristics, social psychological context and
cognitive processing, produces an output that the social organization in the field finds
valuable (cf. Csikszentmihalyi 1988). Of particular significance in this formulation is the
notion of interaction. Rather than a manifestation of a separate part of the system, such as
specific personality characteristics, creativity is seen as the sum total of the various system
elements. The theoretical framework adopted in this paper is the interactionist view, which
posits that the individual and context are engaged in a dialogue and that behaviour stems
from the individual's interpretation of this context. This makes the entrepreneur the unit of
observation, although it might just as well the organization, community or network.
Although creativity research would benefit from a community-based approach, it has been
left outside the scope of the present paper, which centres on the entrepreneur as an agent of
organizational creativity.
As evidenced by the brief review above, creativity requires an entrepreneur, a context and a
process as well as interaction between these elements to produce a novelty, such as a
business opportunity. This section aims at sinking its teeth into the heart of creativity and
presenting its viewpoint on the topic. The goal will achieved by finding answers to the
following questions: what does creativity mean to the entrepreneur, what is its role or
significance to her and how does creativity function within the entrepreneur.
In terms of the entrepreneur, the essence of creativity may be explored by asking what it
means to the entrepreneur; or rather, what is entrepreneurial creativity. In other words,
what happens within the entrepreneur, when she creates something new? What are the
forces, desires or intentions that pull or push her forward? Then again, creativity might
equally well turn out to be a commonplace and even constantly ongoing human activity,
which just happens to produce something new and unique on particular occasions. Maybe
creativity is at the core of the human experience, a key function that separates us from other,
purely biological organisms. It has certainly been the subject of vehement argument across
the centuries, particularly in conjunction with the relationship of mind and matter as the
basis of human activity. Or, perhaps creativity can be reduced to a biological, chemical
and/or electric activity, which is how brain researchers at the end of the day seem to
conceive of it. Since human creativity spawns a multitude of questions, it is not only
interesting, but of paramount importance from the standpoint of this paper to stop and
reflect on what creativity really is. Although everyday thinking offers a host of answers, we
are unlikely to get past the discussion stage. As a result, this presentation focuses on
gleaning answers from the views and ideas that the different schools of creativity have
expressed on entrepreneur creativity.
Personality. Attempts to explain the creative personality are many and varied, but this lack
of unity is not necessarily a disadvantage (Woodman 1981) but an asset, helping to construct
a many-faceted picture of it. By illustrating various aspects of creative personality, the
different approaches in effect complement each other, providing valuable insights for the
development of a more complete understanding of the phenomenon. Thus, the notion of
creative personality is a composite of the various views presented by the different schools of
creativity.
As the starting point for a description of creativity, this research contends that creativity is
self-actualization (Maslow 1973). This starting point was chosen, because it treats the
entrepreneur as a conscious agent with intentions, i.e., as a human actor, who proceeds
purposefully towards an open-ended goal, driven by inner needs. Self-actualization is
intimately bound up with the entrepreneur's social environment. Sought after, held in high
esteem and self-fulfilling, creativity is tied to our historical context, our field of activity or
our social networks. This is because entrepreneurs are neither separate entities, satisfying
their own motives regardless of those around them, nor are they entirely social or
institutionalized. Rather, they have a free will within the framework we, as rational agents
with restricted abilities, are able to understand (see Tversky and Kahneman 1974). This
paper treats the entrepreneur as a social psychological actor.
Creative personalities have internal intentions that drive them to realize their dreams
(Rogers 1961). In this sense, the goal of the creative personality is self-actualization, and the
means of achieving that goal are mustered from the deep structures of personality. Creative
personalities have the ability to tap into the preconscious and conscious, and even to access
the unconscious, and use the symbol collections found there as material for self-fulfilment
(Kris and Kurz 1981; Kubie 1958). Thus, they pursue their internal intentions under
conscious control and exploit preconscious and unconscious deep structures to find an
expression for their creative urges.
However, creative personalities must be able to give concrete shapes to their ideas, to
express themselves and function within their environment (Guildford 1967). Consequently,
they are characterized as possessing specific, and rather conspicuous, traits. These include
being energetic, having a broad sphere of interests as well as a fascination with the aesthetic
and the complex, being independent-minded and self-confident as well as self-reliant in
decision making, intuitive, aware of the relative nature of all things and, finally, having a
firm sense of self as creative (Barron 1969; MacKinnon 1978). By making the best of these
traits, entrepreneurs are in constant interplay with their environment and realize their
dreams and themselves as well as the potential creativity residing in the deep structure of
their personalities.
In addition, these entrepreneurs need a tool for incorporating their creative ideas into
preconscious and unconscious symbol structures for future reference. This tool is learning.
Thus, creative personalities take in what they have learned and apply their learning to new
situations (Skinner 1975). To sum up, we may conclude that the creative personality can be
viewed in terms of self-actualization, whose content and concrete expression are drawn
from the deep structures of the mind by means of personality traits and which, once learned,
constitute raw material for further innovation.
In this way, the humanistic school provides a goal to creativity and the psychoanalytic a
source, while trait theorists provide the means and behaviourists the tool for transferring
knowledge to new situations. However, the creative process must also be carried out, and
this is accomplished through cognitive processing. The personality-oriented and cognitive
schools differ from one another in that the former looks at creativity as an expression of
personality, while the latter places the main emphasis on active intellectual engagement. If
the creative personality is a reflection of creative goals, sources, tools and an ability to
transfer knowledge, how do these elements interact to produce an innovation? To find a
concrete manifestation, creativity relies on the active realization of potential residing within
the personality. Outlining this process is the primary focus of the next few pages.
Process. It is through the creative process that entrepreneurs seek to realize themselves
(Sternberg 1988), as it allows them to fulfil the potential their personality holds. However,
the creative personality itself does not generate a product; it merely sets a goal and provides
a source from which to derive content, tools with which to work toward that goal and
means of converting experiences into new sources of creativity. But the implementation of a
creative product requires the concrete process of actualizing an entrepreneur's potential.
Broadly speaking, the creative process has been conceptualized as a cognitive event (Pesut
1990; Sapp 1992; Mellou 1996; Kirschenbaum 1998), which can be viewed in terms of its
stages and its essence. The stages through which entrepreneurs progress in gradually giving
a concrete form to their creative ideas are problem definition, information gathering,
generation of solution alternatives, selection of a solution and creative outcome (e.g., Wallas
1926). Logical though it appears, the process is characterized by peculiar aspects. First of all,
it involves a creative entrepreneur with a capacity to exercise fluent, flexible, original,
elaborate and lateral thinking (Woodman and Schoenfeldt 1989, 1990). Despite having
discernible stages, the creative process is unpredictable in nature and produces unforeseen
results. For example, the creative entrepreneur may take an unexpected turn or jump off the
beaten path and head in a new direction, unguided by logical analysis. Moreover, the
process is very fluent and flexible; if a particular solution model fails to address the
problem, the creative entrepreneur changes the model and goes in pursuit of a more suitable
one. A process that is both original and elaborate ensures that the outcome is also somehow
unique.
To sum up, the creative process includes problem definition, information gathering,
generation and selection of a solution and generation of a product. However, these stages
can be found in the entire range of human thinking and are not specific to creativity. What
really makes the process creative is its characteristic nature: creative thinking is fluent,
flexible, original, elaborate and lateral in essence. The unpredictability and unexpectedness
inherent in this type of thinking enable the entrepreneur to generate new ideas, resorting, at
times, also to logical reasoning. Fundamentally then, at the core of the creative process are
not the stages, since they can be assumed to be present in all human thinking processes.
What is of paramount importance is the quality of the process.
Weaving together these diverse strands of thought on the essence of creativity, we arrive at
the following: creativity is the expression of creative personality, which is the active agent in
the creation process. Creative personality seeks self-actualization within the framework
provided by the collective knowledge contained in the social context. To achieve its goals,
the creative personality taps into its very own deep structures for material, and uses its
personality traits as a tool for transforming this material into a creative outcome. Also
learning is an instrument for transferring new material for creative exploitation. Through
the creative process, the entrepreneur converts creative potential into genuine creative
activity. This process has several stages: problem definition, information gathering,
generation of solution alternatives, selection of a solution and, finally, the production of a
creative outcome. Even this description does not suffice to truly describe the essence of
creativity, because creativity does not take place in a vacuum. Entrepreneurs are always
situated in a context, in which they conduct creative activities. This context will be the focus
of the next section of this paper.
Context. Referred to as context, the creative environment in which entrepreneurs perform
creative acts influences their personalities and processes (Amabile 1995, 1997; Amabile,
Conti, Coon, Lazenby and Herron 1996). This environment also determines what is
recognized as creative (Csikszentmihalyi 1988). Thus, though entrepreneurs may feel
creative, the context may not confirm this belief, and it is the context that ultimately settles
the matter. Social relationships, contextual factors and the entrepreneurs' social history
(Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin 1991) create a context, which has a deep effect on what self-
actualization goals they perceive as worth pursuing, what kind of deep structures they
develop, how their personality traits evolve, what and how they have learned—and will
learn—as well as what they process and how they process it. In this way, context prevails
over all aspects of entrepreneur existence.
A creative context consists of three subcontexts: social, contextual and historical (Woodman,
Sawyer and Griffin 1990). Of these, the historical subcontext, comprising entrepreneur
experiences, can be viewed as having the most immediate influence on how entrepreneur
identities crystallize and what the entrepreneurs do. Also the social context, that is to say
other people, has an instant, deeply transformative effect by the provision of evaluations,
expectations, role models, support, rewards and punishments. Contextual factors, on the
other hand, have a more indirect effect by setting up frameworks that, when unsuccessful,
subdue creativity. Such contextual factors include culture, physical environment,
atmosphere and different types of constraints. The environment either promotes or
suppresses entrepreneurs' activities and quest for creativity, while creativity offers the
environment a way of revitalizing itself and staying viable. Society progresses by drawing
on the creative potential of its entrepreneur members.
What, then, is the essence of creativity? This paper seeks to provide a synthesis of previous
studies to highlight the multidimensional essence of creativity. There are good reasons for
adopting a multidimensional approach, because creativity is beyond a doubt a multifaceted
phenomenon that does not easily lend itself to a single approach. The essence of creativity
comprises three elements: a creative personality, a creative process and a creative
environment. A creative personality is driven by an entrepreneur's need for self-
actualization, which is enabled by calling on resources in deep structures of the mind,
character traits that value goal-oriented work and a learning system that allows the transfer
of knowledge. The creative process consists of several overlapping stages, namely, problem
definition, information gathering, solution generation, solution evaluation and creative
outcome and is characterized by fluent, flexible, original, elaborate and lateral thinking. The
third element, creative context, incorporates a historical, social and contextual subcontext.
The essence of creativity functions as a system in that the creative personality is either
stimulated or suppressed by the context. When creative personality traits are activated to
find ways of expressing themselves, the creative process sets in motion. In other words, the
creative personality turns on the creative process. Once this process has produced an
outcome, this outcome becomes part of the creative context, activating it either to encourage
new ideas or to stifle them.
6. Discussion
This paper kicked off with a discussion on the nature of entrepreneurship. A crucial
distinction was drawn between the traditional notion of entrepreneurship as the
management and/or ownership of a small or medium-sized enterprise and the perspective
adopted here. Building on work originally conducted by Schumpeter (1934), this perspective
focuses on the entrepreneur's ability to recognize new business opportunities and innovate
solutions, thereby creatively destroying existing business models and solutions. Having
gained considerable support from recent research on entrepreneurship (e.g., Davidsson
2003), this view does away with the notion that entrepreneurship is not a valid function for
already established business ventures. On the contrary, entrepreneurship is always present
when an individual creates new business, regardless of whether it takes the form of setting
up a new venture or expanding an existing firm using novel technology (Davidsson 2003).
Why should the entrepreneurial approach to business opportunity be regarded as a creative
activity? Numerous studies show that the innovative activities of individuals produce
changes in reality (Amabile 1988; Woodman and Schoenfeldt 1989; Puccio 1991). Creativity,
manifesting itself in the form of unexpected, original and unique results, is a force that
generates something that it better than what existed before. Saariluoma (1990) has
maintained that creativity is called for in the face of complicated novel problems for which
no established solutions are readily available. Findings such as these seem to suggest that
business opportunities are results of creative entrepreneurial activities, and that they can be
considered as expressions of creativity, because their generation requires complex
information processing and they lead to unpredictable and original solutions. This line of
thinking has been followed by researchers such as Gilad (1984), who has asserted that
business opportunities arise from creative behaviour and that the generation of new
business invariably involves a creative component. Such a component can also be found in
the work by Schumpeter (1934), for he has stressed the importance of creative destruction in
entrepreneurial ventures. Also Leibenstein (1966) and Kirzner (1979) have emphasized the
role of creativity for entrepreneurship.
What consequences does all this have on research focusing on entrepreneurial creativity
and innovation? At the very least, we may conclude that since business opportunities are
unique expressions of organizational creativity, they are quite hard to investigate. Complex
and multidimensional, the task facing the researcher could be described as follows:
creativity is like joining a game halfway through without knowing what the game is all
about or what its goals are, and yet you are expected to grasp its essence and figure out
what problem needs to be solved—and then solve it. In other words, creativity is not an
activity, where all the pieces are known before the game begins, and the right solution is
arrived at simply by arranging the pieces correctly (as in a jigsaw puzzle). Rather, it is a
game, whose name, pieces, rules, logic and outcome have to be decided, while it is in
progress. Having the skills to needed to play the game is a crucial success factor in the
dynamic organizations of the digital age, but academic research and conceptual
understanding of the phenomenon is lagging behind. As a result, this paper proposes that
research into both private and public organizations should focus attention and resources on
such dynamic organizational processes as entrepreneurship.
7. References
Alvarez, S., Barney, J., 2010. Entrepreneurship and epistemology: the philosophical
underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of
Management Annals, 4, 557–583.
Amabile, T. (1988). Within you, without you: the social psychology of creativity and beyond.
In: Research in Organizational Behavior B. M. S. L. L. Cummings, Ed. Greenwich,
CT: ANDI Press, 1988, pp. 123-167.
Amabile, T. (1995). Attributions of creativity: what are the consequences. Creativity
Research Journal 8: 4, 423-426.
Amabile, T. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and
loving what you do. California Management Review 40:1, 39-58.
Amabile, T., R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby and M. Herron (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39, 1154–84.
Barron, F. (1969). Creative Person and Creative Process. New York: Holt.
Baumol, W. (1993). Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: existence and bounds.
Journal of Business Venturing 8:4, 197–210.
Bull, I. and G. Willard (1991). Towards theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing 8:3, 183–195.
Burrell G. and G. Morgan (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.

Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann.
Busse, T. and Mansfield, R. (1980). Theories of the Creative Process: A Review and a
Perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14:2, 91-103.
Bygrave, W. (1993). Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm. Journal of Business
Venturing 8:3, 255–280.
Cadotte, E. and R. Woodruff (1994). Analyzing market opportunities for new ventures. In:
Marketing and Entrepreneurship: Research Ideas and Opportunities. Ed. G. Hills.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Carlsson, B. and G. Eliasson (2003). Industrial Dynamics and Endogenous Growth. Industry
and Innovation, 10:4, 435–455.
Chambers, J. (1969). Beginning a multidimensional theory of creativity. Psychological
Reports, 25.
Chell, 2007; Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship. Towards a Convergent Theory of the
Entrepreneurial Process. International Small Business Journal February 2007 vol. 25
no. 1 5-26
Chiasson, M., Saunders, C., 2005. Reconciling diverse approaches to opportunity research
using the structuration theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 747–767.
Christensen, P.S., O.O. Madsen & R. Peterson (1994). Conceptualizing entrepreneurial
opportunity identification. In: Marketing and Entrepreneurship: Research Ideas
and Opportunities. Ed. G. Hills. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In:
The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, Sternberg, R
(ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davidsson, P. (2003). The Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: Some Suggestions. JIBS
Working Paper Series WP2003-3. Jönköping: Jönköping International Business
School.
Deci, E. L. and R.M. Ryan (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational
processes. In: Advances in experimental social-psychology, L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
(Vol. 13, pp. 39-80). New York: Academic.
de Koning, A. and D. Muzyka (1996). The convergence of good ideas: When and how do
entrepreneurial managers recognize innovative business ideas? In: Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Eds. N. Churchill, W. Bygrave, J. Butler, S. Birley, P.
Davidsson, W. Gartner & P. McDougall. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Downing, S. (2005). "The Social Construction of Entrepreneurship: Narrative and Dramatic
Processes in the Coproduction of Organizations and Identities," Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 29(2): 185–204.
Drucker, P. (1998). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review 76:6, 149–155.
Eskola, A. (1982). Vuorovaikutus, muutos, merkitys. Sosiaalipsykologian perusteiden
kriittinen tarkastelu. Helsinki: Tammi.
Fernald, L. and G. Solomon (1987). Value Profiles of Male and Female Entrepreneurs,
International Journal of Small Business 6:3, 24-33.
Freud, S. (1958). On Creativity and the Unconscious Papers on the Psychology of Art,
Literature, Love, Religion. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Fromm, E. (1947). Man for Himself: An Inquiry Into the Psychology of Ethics. Rinehart, NY:
Henry Holt.
Fromm, E. (1989). The Art of Being. New York: Continuum.

Gartner, W. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship.
Journal Of Business Venturing 5:1, 15–28.
Gartner, W., Carter, N. & Hills, G. (2003). The Language of Opportunity. In Steyaert, C. and
Hjorth, D. (Eds.). New Movements in Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited.
Getzel, J. W. and P.W. Jackson (1962). Creativity and Intelligence: Explorations with Gifted
Students. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Gilad, B. (1984). Entrepreneurship: The issue of creativity in the market place. Journal of
Creative Behavior 18:3, 151–161.
Gowan, J.C. (1972). Development of the Creative Individual. Robert R. Knapp, Pub.
Guildford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Heikkilä, J. and K. Heikkilä (2001). Innovatiivisuutta etsimässä. Irtiottoa
keskinkertaisuudesta. Jyväskylä: Gummerus.
Hennessey, B. and T. Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In: The nature of
creativity, R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), (pp. 11-38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hills, G. and R. Shrader (1998). Successful entrepreneurs’ insights into opportunity
recognition. In: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Eds P. Reynolds, W.
Bygrave, N. Carter & S. Manigart. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Hills, G., R. Shrader and G.T. Lumpkin (1999). Opportunity recognition as a creative
process. In: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Eds P. Reynolds, W. Bygrave,
K. Shaver, C. Mason, S. Manigart, G.D. Meyer & H. Sapienza. Wellesley, MA:
Babson College.
Hjorth, D. (2003). Rewriting Entrepreneurship – for a New Perspective on Organisational
Creativity. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Hjorth, D. (2004). Creating Space for Play/Invention – Concepts of Space and
Organizational Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
16(5), 413–432.
Hjorth, D. and B. Johannisson (1997). The ugly duckling of organizing - on
entrepreneurialism and managerialism. Proceedings of 1st ICSB Conference, San
Francisco, CA, June, 1997
Jenssen, S. and L. Kolvereid (1992). Critique. In: International Perspectives on
Entrepreneurship Research. Eds S. Birley, I. MacMillan & S. Subramony. North-
Holland.
Johannisson, B. (1988). Business formation – a network approach. Scandinavian Journal of
Management 4:3, 83–99.
Jung, C. AND M.-L. Franz (1964). Man and His Symbols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Kirschenbaum, R.J (1998). The creativity classification system: an assessment theory. Roepler
Review 21:1, 20-26.
Kirzner, I. (1979). Perception, Opportunity, and Profit. Studies in the Theory of
Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an
Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature 35:1, 60–85.
Kris, E. and O. Kurz (1981). Legend, Myth and Magic in the Image of the Artists: A
Historical Experiment. London: Yale University Press.
Kubie, L. (1958). Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process. Lawrence, KS: University of
Kansas Press.
Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency ”x-efficiency”. American Economic Review 56,
392-415.
Levine, D. (1999). Creativity and change: on the psychodynamics of modernity. American
behavioral scientist 43: 2, 225-244.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In Search of Human Effectiveness. Buffalo, NY: Bearly
Limited/Creative Education Foundation.
McGrawth, R. Gunther and I. MacMillan (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for
Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50:4, 370-396.
Maslow, A. (1973). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. Harmondworth, Eng: Penguin
Books.
Mayer, R.E. (1992). Thinking, Problem Solving, and Cognition. New York: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
Mellou, E. (1996). Can creativity be nurtured in young children?’ Early Child Development
and Care 119, 119–30.
Muzyka, D. (1992). The nature of entrepreneurial decision making: inside the black box. In:
International Perspective on Entrepreneurial Research. Eds S. Birley, I. MacMillan
& S. Subramony. North-Holland.
Muzyka, D., A. de Koning and N. Churchill (1997). On transformation and adaptation:
building the entrepreneurial corporation. Working Papers 97/100/Ent.
Fontainebleau Cedex: Insead.
Pesut, D.J. (1990). Creative thinking as a self-regulatory metacognitive process – a model for
education, training and further research. Journal of Creative Behavior 24: 2, 105-
110.
Puccio, G. (1991). William Duff's Eighteenth Century Examination of Original Genius and Its
Relationship to Contemporary Creativity Research. Journal of Creative Behavior
25:1, 1-10.
Puhakka, V. (2007). Effects of opportunity discovery strategies of entrepreneurs on
performance of new ventures. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 16:1, 19-51.
Rank, O. (1996). A Psychology of Difference: The American Lectures. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy. London:
Constable.
Saariluoma, P. (1992). Taitavan ajattelun psykologia. Helsinki: Otava.
Sapp, D.D. (1992) The point of creative frustration and the creative process: a new look at an
old model. Journal of Creative Behavior 26:1, 21-28.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic
Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. Academy of Management Review,
26(2): 243–263.
Sarasvathy, S., N. Dew, S. R. Velamuri and S. Venkataraman (2003). Three views of
entrepreneurial opportunity. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research: an
interdisciplinary survey and introduction, ed. Z. Acs and D. Audretsch, 141–160.
New York: Springer.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.
Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual–Opportunity
Nexus. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Sigrist, B. (1999). How Do You Recognize an Entrepreneurial Opportunity? Entrepreneurial
Opportunity Recognition in a Swiss Context. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Zurich.
Simon, H. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. American economic
review 69: 4, 493-513.
Singh, R.. G. Hills. R. Hybels and G.T. Lumpkin (1999). Opportunity recognition through
social network characteristics of entrepreneurs. In: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research. Eds P. Reynolds, W. Bygrave, K. Shaver, C. Mason, S. Manigart, G.D.
Meyer & H. Sapienza. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Steyaert, C. 2007). 'Entrepreneuring' as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories
in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 19: 6, 453-477.
Steyaert, C. & Hjorth, D. (2003). Creative Movements of Entrepreneurship. In Steyaert, C. &
Hjorth, D. (Eds.). New Movements in Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited.
Sternberg, R. (1988). The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence. New York:
Viking.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, I. A. (1975). A retrospective view of creativity investigation. In: Perspectives in
creativity. I. A. Taylor and J. W. Getzels, eds. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co,
pp. 1-36.
Treffinger, D. (1995). Creative problem solving: overview and educational implications.
Educational Psychology Review 7:3, 301-312.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.
Science 185, 1124–1131.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison Wessley.
Vesalainen, J and T.Pihkala (1996). Developing a Typology for Innovations in Small Firms.
Proceedings of the RENT X conference. Brussels, Belgium.
West, W. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: Innovation and
Creativity at Work, M. A. West and J. L. Farr (Eds). Chichester, UK: Wiley and
Sons.
Winslow, E. and G. Solomon (1987). Entrepreneurs are more than non-conformist: they are
mildly sociopathic. Journal of Creative Behavior 21:3, 202-213.
Winslow, E. and G. Solomon (1989). Further development of a descriptive profile of
entrepreneurs. Journal of Creative Behavior 23, 149-161.
Winslow, E., and Solomon, G. (1993). Entrepreneurs: architects of innovation, paradigm
pioneers and change. Journal of Creative Behavior 27:2, 75-88.
Wood, M. and W. McKinley (2010). "The Production of Entrepreneurial Opportunity: A
Constructivist Perspective," Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 4(1): 66–84.
Woodman, R. (1981). Creativity as a construct in personality theory. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 15: 43-66.
Woodman, R., J. Sawyer and R. Griffin (1991). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321
Woodman, R. and L. F. Schoenfeldt. (1989). Individual differences in creativity: an
interactionist perspective. In: Handbook of Creativity, J. A. Glover and C. R.
Reynolds, Ed. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1989, pp. 77-92
Woodman, R. and L.F. Schoenfeldt (1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior.
Journal of Creative Behavior 24: 279-290.
2
Inside the Entrepreneurial Event:

Creating Schemata of Opportunity
for New Business
Vesa Puhakka
University of Oulu, Oulu Business School
Department of Management and International Business
Finland
1. Introduction
My wife and I argued about what kind of film we would watch on Saturday evening. We
were at a movie rental and were browsing through the selection  Hollywood action,
romantic comedies, psychological thrillers and a few British dramas. I suddenly
remembered that I had purchased the previous day two movies from a sale: a psychological
drama about repressing a child and the evil in the world by an Italian director, and a
documentary-style filmed drama about the relationship of two brothers and their attitude
towards their youngest brother’s cancer  difficult subjects and serious films. The reason for
our argument was that my wife doesn't want to relax in her free time by watching movies
on the dark and tragic side of human nature. She particularly would like to avoid them in
movies, because life is hard enough without having the movies we watch emphasize it. I
myself tried to explain that one can learn things from them, that one can live lives that one
cannot otherwise experience and one can feel emotions with them that one would not
normally experience. I was not terribly satisfied with my own explanations. I felt, however, I
was on the right track, but I could not put my thoughts and feelings into words. How does
this relate to entrepreneurship?
Entrepreneurship is a very personal and emotional matter. It is difficult to explain and
present logically, like when I was trying to put into words that watching a film can be more
than just a light-hearted nine-day wonder. Please note that this is my interpretation of my
world and from my wife's world the situation looks completely different. In the same way I
am bothered by the way entrepreneurship is handled using rational logic as if we had the
possibility of defining entrepreneurship using one method in order to satisfy our research
needs so that we can research phenomena more efficiently, productively and better. From
my perspective this perhaps possesses the biggest danger to entrepreneurship research, that
we are too hastily "engraving into stone" what entrepreneurship is and at the same time
proclaiming how it should be researched, where it should be discussed and who really
knows about it.
This study approaches entrepreneurship from the angle that nothing is more common than
the most personal (see Rogers 1989). This research is my interpretation of entrepreneurship
and the objective is to discuss the nature and concept of entrepreneurship. When I present
my personal interpretations of entrepreneurship, I hope that it touches as many as possible
and so would be as prevailing as possible. But not so that my view is "The" definition of
entrepreneurship, rather that it would arouse discussion and diverseness in
entrepreneurship research and especially in the creation of new business activities amongst
businesses, and would support the possible doubts and thoughts of others, which there no
doubt is, and so would support the diversity that has prevailed in entrepreneurship
research. I admire the work of many leading researchers of the field, through which they
have been able to redirect entrepreneurship research, but I also suspect that something
valuable is being thrown away. As the conception of entrepreneurship unifies, the
questioning, recreating, alternativeness and the testing of new ideas decreases.
Entrepreneurship researchers should perhaps perceive that this may be part of the field’s
evolution and that unity is on some time frame dangerous to the vitality of research. A need
amongst researchers to reach equilibrium is interacting in the background, even though the
phenomenon of research is usually seen as being continually out of balance – there is a
significant conflict between the two.
I am purposely approaching the research topic in a structurally different manner – as a
pondering essay. How a scientific article is normally written is in a specified form and is
precisely defined. The normal form of an article is to reflect the rational requirements of
efficiency, sense of direction and transferability of information. These are, of course,
understandable goals, but at the same time they reflect the impression of doing something,
which is the opposite of entrepreneurship – creating something from nothing. Thus, in a
way when we write about entrepreneurship in such a manner as we usually do, we are anti-
entrepreneurs. Every one of us knows that writing is creative problem solving in that
moment and place one happens to be. One tries to manage that place where one is and has
to give space and time to what the end result is and to the form it takes. From my
perspective entrepreneurship is fundamentally about this kind of activity. Entrepreneurship
is not a product nor should entrepreneurship research be an average product, which has
been made sleek, true to shape and predictable.
This research essay flows as it was created: raw, genuine and untidy, complete with
mistakes and flaws. The content is however the most essential element in scientific writing
and next I shall begin creating my own view on entrepreneurship. The aim of this research
essay is to examine and present a conceptual frame for studying entrepreneurship as a
creative activity.
2. What then is entrepreneurship – a definition for a common foundation

Let us think of Aki Kaurismäki's film "The Man Without a Past", where the main character
losses his memory and has to rebuild his life from scratch – he has no past, no future
ambitions and no goals. Instead in his present moment where he currently is and with the
people he bumps into, he starts to process the present and future. He starts with a clean slate
and creates a new life as he goes along. The situation demonstrates well the kind of social-
cognitive processing of information, which is at the core of entrepreneurship. I do not mean
that the person who acts as an entrepreneur is simple or starts from the clean slate but rather
Inside the Entrepreneurial Event: Creating Schemata of Opportunity for New Business 27
that the activity creating entrepreneurship is constructive. In entrepreneurship initial

situations and goals are created as you go along (Sarasvathy 2001).
Now you must be wondering what has a European filmmaker Aki Kaurismäki got to do
with this research and what has he got to do with entrepreneurship? Aki Kaurismäki is one
of Europe's most well known and individual directors, but to Hollywood he is relatively
unknown. He is a very important reformer of films and an idiom re-molder, but unfamiliar
to the masses even though he has won many of the most important film prizes. I use this
analogy because entrepreneurship is like Aki Kaurismäki. Entrepreneurship is creative
activity where new activity is created without knowing precisely what the goal is or what is
the initial situation, but still new activity is created (see van Eijnatten 2004).
Entrepreneurship is a renewable force, which questions the existing, but which has not
gained the attention deserved while in the crush of rational business logic.
The concept of entrepreneurship has changed drastically over the past ten years (e.g.
Eckhardt and Shane 2003; Shane 2003; Alvarez and Barney 2007). Entrepreneurship was
long seen as the leading of a small business or a business's owner-management. However
entrepreneurship does not directly relate to these concepts, rather entrepreneurship is
context free (see Alvarez and Barney 2007). Entrepreneurship is noticeable in big companies’
renewal efforts, in identifying new markets and technologies and also in public organization
development projects. The core to entrepreneurship is creating new opportunities and
implementing them irrelevantly to the contexts in which they take place (see Carlsson and
Eliasson 2003). Entrepreneurship is creative activity, where the goal is not clear and nor is
often the initial situation, instead both of these are created as one goes along. This happens
because there is no one right and best solution and often the initial situation is so complex
and continuously changing that it is impossible to analyze in a broad and reliable enough
manor.
The traditional view on entrepreneurship has unnecessarily bounded research, the
development of knowledge and the transfer of information for the use of businesses and
people. Entrepreneurship is an everyday occurrence in every organization, but
gratuitously glorified to be a characteristic and behavior of heroic business people
(Christensen and Raynor 1997). One of the most important research findings relates just to
this, it has been reliably shown that entrepreneurship is not anyone's or any thing's
property (e.g. Gartner 1990). The view that entrepreneurship cannot be learnt because
self-confidence or energetic traits are so heavily involved is also a myth. Entrepreneurship
is today that same sort of myth that creativity was a few decades ago when creativity was
linked to genius.
The latest empiric research on entrepreneurship has shown that entrepreneurship is
episodic, especially in the use of resources, in the level of commitment and in risk taking
(e.g. Sarason, Dean and Dillard 2006). Entrepreneurship is also about taking affordable
expenses (Sarasvathy 2001). That means doing things in the beginning that if fail, can be
endured. The gradual weaving of ambitions and goals as one goes along is also key to
entrepreneurship. An important way of accomplishing this is by building strategic
partners in order to understand the market place, the customers and the technology and
to create trade. So, it is the building of understanding with the stakeholders, and
convincing them of the correct direction. Entrepreneurship also seems to be about the
tolerance of surprising events and seeing them as possibilities – without surprises there is
no entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is the opposite of a goal-directed world-view, in
which case every surprise is dangerous because they interfere with reaching the goal and
what one does and the way the business has to adapt in order to get back on the path to
the set goal.
Entrepreneurship is more about creativity, of which rational decision-making is not part of.
Entrepreneurship does not work or at least most often does not work by analyzing the
customers and competitors, by defining segments, manufacturing products for these
segments and test marketing (see Sarasvathy 2001). Entrepreneurship is not most often so
rational in existing businesses, although that is how new business activity is wanted to be
perceived or how it is imagined to be. It works if the market can be clearly seen, what we
have to offer and what others do not have is precisely known, and it is known how to get
the demand and supply to meet (Sarasvathy, Dew, Velamuri and Venkataraman 2003).
Rarely is the situation so clear. The traditional rational model works here, but it is based on
the idea that knowledge of the markets is available to everyone if you are prepared to spend
time analyzing it. This way the market gap is definable and a solution can be developed.
Very often businesses, developers and financiers think that new business activities and ideas
are born like this. This is one of the biggest mistakes in our way of thinking and it has long
roots (e.g. Sarasvathy 2004).
A second possibility is that either the goal is unknown but the initial situation is known, or
that the initial situation is unknown but the goal is known (Sarasvathy et al., 2003). So, either
there are no markets but the offering is ready, or there are markets and demand but there is
no offering to serve them. (For example, on the Internet how one can charge for such minor
use of computer programs that 20 cents could be charged. However there is no technology
for this where the costs would be smaller than the revenue per instance of use. If more were
to be charged, no one would use it, which is why e.g. demos are distributed for free.) This is
the chance to invent an opportunity. It is strategic thinking where gradually through trial
and error the "correct" ways of working are found.
The third possibility – genuine entrepreneurship – is the creation of opportunities where
both the initial and end situation are unknown (Sarasvathy et al., 2003). Markets are
created and supply is created. These are not things that just happen by creating a business
plan in the beginning (as important as it is), instead the business plan is created as one
goes along. It is known that with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship that the goals
constantly change as you go along. Decisions are quickly made and tried without great
analyses or research because it cannot be known in advance whether things are being
done, that could cause the whole business to crash, so they could be endured. Partners are
quickly found with whom things can be pondered and done. So, commitments are
created, potential customers are quickly gone to, even to sell products that do not exist
yet, and to look and ask what the customers may need, because the customers either
cannot perceive what they need and want in today's hectic world. That is the ability to see
surprises as being part of normal life and even seeking surprises because they kick things
into a new direction and rather than engrave things into stone, as changes always take
place. In the centre there is a quick commitment to activity with potential customers, so
that mistakes can be endured, the quick finding of partners in order to create
understanding and in order to take surprises.
Here I propose that entrepreneurship does not compose of a teleological view of life or
processes. It is a creative activity where the route is created as you go along.
Entrepreneurship is creative processing – entrepreneurship is the creation of impressiveness
in that instance in which we live, and the prediction of the future and the setting of goals to
be secondary. Entrepreneurship thus identifies with the opportunities of creating business,
which consists of ideas, beliefs and needs that evolve along the journey to the goal
(Sarasvathy et al., 2003).
Thus, entrepreneurship is at its strongest as its actors in a way, enter the (“entré”) business
condition, in which there is no clue what-so-ever about what is going on, what kind of trade
is desired and what it is we are pursuing (see Hjorth 2003). It does not matter whether a new
company is born from it, trade grows or a new market is conquered. It is about a problem-
solving situation where the rules, solutions and goals have to be created as one progresses.
In this kind of situation the right and best solution cannot be logically derived. In this
situation the core content of actions is related to the possibility of creating and perceiving
new opportunities, and the creativity of entrepreneur is a functional aid. This is the
phenomenon that entrepreneurship is about and this phenomenon is what researchers
should determine. Once this stage has gone beyond and one steps into the "prendre" stage
which is about implementing, managing and marketing the new trade, it is not
fundamentally any more about entrepreneurship, even though it is always there (see Hjorth
2003).
The original French term "entreprendre" reflects very well what entrepreneurship is
fundamentally about (see Hjorth 2003). It is stepping into a space were it is known that
new business is wanted, but what kind is not known and it is perceiving the character of
new business as well as leaving with a business opportunity that is then implemented
using moulds (e.g. leadership, marketing) by others. What happens inside this space is a
very interesting phenomenon and this research will try to shed light on it. If we think of
this space and creating an entrepreneurial opportunity in it, it is in not detached from its
surroundings nor is it a closed internal process from which business ideas emerge. This
space, which is being talked about, is a process where the mental creation and
surroundings of the entrepreneur are in strong and continuous interaction with each
other. Inside this entrepreneurial space something is happening that is absorbing
influences from the present business activities and that is causing chaos and irregularity
as a result. What an entrepreneurial opportunity is it that causes dynamics in the
economy?
3. The core of an entrepreneurial opportunity

An entrepreneurial opportunity can be understood as an individual's or a group's
schemata. Thus, in other words the intellectual and abstract interpretation of hints from
reality (see Weick 1979). In this research I am interested in the individual; hence we will
talk about the cognitive of the individual entrepreneur, remembering however that an
entrepreneurial opportunity can also be a collective cognition. A cognition of an

entrepreneurial opportunity means that the opportunity is a mental outcome. It is the
entrepreneur's intellectual product based on numerous internal and external information
signals. An entrepreneur constructs an opportunity based on observations of his
surroundings and previous experience. An opportunity is the product of creative-
cognitive process where a new entirety is built from small fragments of information (e.g.
Ardichvili, Cardozo and Ray 2003).
Vesper (1991) described an opportunity as a message from which the rules of interpretation
are missing, a jigsaw puzzle or an untold story. In this way an opportunity is like an
unsolved problem for which there are no rules or instructions. An entrepreneur's creative
intelligence is needed to solve the cognitive puzzle. The solutions thereby cannot be found,
they have to be created because there are no ready-made rules or answers. The game, rules
and result have to be created in that situation, and that is why creating an opportunity is so
difficult. There are no ready-made opportunities but they have to be created. In this sense an
opportunity is a product of imagination. So, an opportunity is not a jigsaw, it is an entirely
new game. Solving the problem – understanding and winning the game – creates a new
opportunity.
However, an opportunity is also a vision of time. It is a vision of what kind of an
opportunity will bring the best result. Some entrepreneurs see their visions in past light.
They imagine that a possibility that has previously worked is still today a current vision.
Visions from the past are simple, distinct and predictable. They merely strengthen
previous activities and have very little novelty value. However there are also business
visions that are present day oriented. An entrepreneur examines the present and creates
business visions based on that. Present-day visions are more ambiguous and intricate
because the present can be read in many ways. These visions work as a target for
allocating resources and are relatively novelty. In addition to the previous, there are also
visions that are directed to the future. They are based on a belief of future events. These
future visions are by nature novel and abstract. Their purpose is to catalyze new and new-
like business activities.
If we combine the thoughts of above, an opportunity is a creative schemata of the business
situation and which is a current vision of the past, present and future. How then does this
complex cognitive schemata then become concrete in an entrepreneur's mind? What this
dynamic is like, has been left unclear. In the next chapter we will try to outline how
creativity reflects into an individual’s talent to create something new.
4. Creativity – an individual talent at creating something new

The core from an entrepreneur's standpoint can be pondered by asking what is creativity to
an individual – or maybe even better; what is creativity in an individual. What is it that
happens in an individual, when creativity is born? What forces, desires and intentions is one
being pushed or pulled by? Or is it even about this? Maybe creativity is an everyday event
in an individual and maybe it is human activity that just happens to create something new.
Or is just creativity that is human activity – activity that sets us apart from purely biological
organisms and the initial human situation between spirit and material that has been a cause
of arguments for hundreds of years. Or is creativity returnable back into a biological,

chemical and/or electrical activity from which current neurologists would better
understand it. An individual's creativity raises many questions and probably more than can
be answered here. Still it is interesting and essential to this study that one can ponder what
at the end of the day is creativity.
In this research self-fulfillment is chosen as a starting point when depicting what creativity
is as an individual's personality. This basis was chosen because it best describes humans
as a conscious being. An individual tries to consciously gain something for which an inner
need is felt. A creative personality has inner ambitions that fulfill their personal dreams.
Fulfilling one's self is the goal of a creative personality. Where are the "building blocks"
drawn from to reach this goal? The presumption is that it is drawn from the inner
structures of personality. Creative personality is able to cross the border between pre-
awareness and awareness and even the border of unawareness and use this "symbol
reservoir" as a source material for fulfilling one's self. So, a creative personality tries to
consciously, within the control of consciousness, seek one's inner ambitions and is capable
of utilizing pre-acknowledged and unconscious inner structures when seeking content for
creativity.
However, a creative personality has also got to be able to make their thoughts concrete,
express them and behave in their environment. That is why a creative personality has
certain clearly distinctive characteristics to use as tools. He or she is amongst other things
energetic, has a diverse interest, attracted to aesthetics and complexity, independent and
self-reliant, independent at decision making, initiative, aware of relativity and understands
that he or she is creative. With these features an individual works in their environment and
fulfils themselves and their dreams as well as the potential creativity in their inner
structures. Finally, it can be thought that an individual needs "tools" with which they can
transfer the occurred creativity for the next use, partly as pre-acknowledged and
unconscious symbolic structures. This tool is learning. A creative personality knows how to
learn from itself and use it to its advantage the next time. If summarized, creativity is an
individual's personality fulfilling one's self and where the contents for this are gathered
from resources within an individual's inner structures. They are realized with concrete
personal characters and which transfer to the next creative event as source material.
A creative personality reflects creative goals, sources, tools and transferability. But how does
this happen and what kind of event is it? Creativity requires the potential active realization
of personality. This activity is outlined next with a cognitive creative process. With a
creative process an individual can seek to fulfill one's self. It is a process that realizes the
possibility created by a creative personality. So, a creative personality in itself does not yet
create anything. A creative personality creates a goal, something that fulfils an individual's
inner needs, grants a source from which contents can be drawn, tools with which to work
with and equipment with which experiences can be transferred to a source of creativity. But
even after this, a concrete process, where an individual does something that is needed and
where creativity is realized.
A creative process has usually been seen as a cognitive event. A creative process can be
divided into process stages and process assumptions, based on previous research. The
process stages, or episodes, through which creativity gradually becomes concrete are:
defining the problem, gathering information, creating a solution, making a choice, and the
creative product. The method of how these stages are to be realized is essential. By
definition it looks like a normal process, but for it to be creative it needs certain special
features. Related to this process is the creative individual’s way of thinking, which is fluent,
flexible, original, complex and lateral. By essence a creative process is unexpected and
unpredicted regardless of the fact that usually certain stages can be separated. It has been
noticed that these stages have to be completed one way or another in order to reach a
concrete result. In order for the result to be creative, the process must be by nature lateral. So
an individual can make an irregular leap in thinking and divert from a logically concludable
path. However the process is fluent and flexible. If a certain way of thinking doesn't seem to
work, a creative individual changes their method of thinking and seeks a suitable solution.
It is also essential that the process is original and complex which assures that the result is
not conventional.
As a summary: Defining a problem, seeking information, creating a solution and choice, and
creating a result, are parts of a creative process. These stages are however can be found in all
human thought and which aren't directly involved with creativity. The essence of the
process makes it creative, an essence which is fluent, flexible, original, complex and lateral.
Due to this unpredictability and unexpectedness, an individual can process creative results
through stages of logical process. With a creative process it isn't so much about stages
because they can be thought to be common to all an individual's thought processes. The
question is more about the quality of the process; what is it like.
Until now the following were noticeable in the descriptions of a creative essence: creativity
is affected by a creative personality, which is an active factor that creates creativity. The
creative goal of this factor is self-fulfillment. In order to fulfill it's self an individual has to
seek material from its inner structures. On the other hand he or she exploits the
characteristics of their personality to use as tools with which to create creativity. To he or
she learning is a tool with which one can transfer what one has learned into building blocks.
This however does not fulfill creativity; rather a creative process is needed. With a creative
process an individual converts potential creativity into real creativity. This process in
question includes stages where the problem is defined, information about the problem area
is collected and the solution(s) as well as the final product is evaluated. Even this however is
not enough to define the core of creativity because creativity does not happen in a vacuum.
The creativity of an individual has an environment where it happens. This will be examined
next.
A creative environment is a context where the phenomenon takes place and which affects a
person and his or her processes. The environment also ranks what is creative and what not.
Even if creativity is creative to the individual, it is not necessarily creative to the context.
Only the environment decides the real quality of the creativity. As it was told earlier, the
environment affects an individual. An individual’s social relationships, contextual factors
and their own personal history create an environment that affects what goal an individual
sees self filling, what his inner structures are like, into what his characters have formed and
what and how he learns and has learned, as well as what and how he processes. The
environment thus affects everything in an individual.
A creative environment comprises of three partial environments: social, contextual and

historic. It can be thought that the historical environment has the largest effect. It
comprises of an individuals own experience of life and these directly affect on what the
individual.
l is like and what he does. A social environment, in other words other people, has a great
impact. A social environment affects as an evaluation, as anticipation, as a role model, and
as a reward or punishment-system. Contextual factors have less of a direct influence. They
create frameworks which if unsuccessful can inhibit creativity. These factors are culture, the
physical environment, the atmosphere and limitations. Here creativity's core environment
sort of ignites and extinguishes an individuals desire to act creatively. It doesn't realize
creativity, but causes an individual to fulfill creativity. Creativity is a way for an
environment to renew and stay vibrant. Through creativity the environment utilizes an
individual's potential and develops through individuals’ creativity.
So what is the core of creativity? There is no short and simple answer to this, or at least
not in this research because this research tries to make a compilation of previous points
view on creativity, which of course brings multi-dimensions to the core. This kind
multidimensional heart for creativity is however justifiable, as creativity is clearly an
elaborate phenomenon and so it cannot be understood from just one point of view. So,
what is the heart of creativity? Firstly it comprises of three elements: a creative
personality, a creative process and a creative environment. Of these elements a creative
personality is built on an individuals need to fulfill one's self using the resources, the
characteristics made possible by goal-oriented work, and a learning method that can
transfer experience, all found in the psychological inner structures. A creative process on
the other hand is made up of interconnected stages and quiddity which are: the defining
the problem, the gathering of information, creating a solution, evaluating the solution and
the creative product, and fluency, flexibility, originality, complexity and lateral nature. A
creative environment is built on historic, social and contextual partial environments.
Secondly, the heart of creativity works as a system by the environment igniting or
extinguishing creative personality. It activates characteristics in a personality to pursue
creativity. When an individual’s personality has been awoken and gone to seek creativity,
the creative process begins. So a creative personality activates a creative process. When a
creative process has achieved a creative product, it shifts to be part of the creative
environment at the same time as activating the creative environment to function either for
or against creativity.
5. Developing the frame of reference

Above we presented that the heart of creativity is the entirety of a creative personality,
process and environment. The idea was that a creative environment ignites a creative
personality, which in return activates a creative process, the product of which transfers to be
part of the creative environment and so further increasing the advancement of creativity.
And so these elements make up a system. How does this system work, in other words how
is creativity processed in an entrepreneur? What role does creativity have in an
entrepreneur? These questions are to be examined next.
5.1 The environment ignites the personality

What causes an entrepreneur as an individual to create something new? Is someone pushing
him or her foreword or is he or she completely self to blame. The idea here is that an
environment that supports creativity, ignites a desire to behave creatively. An entrepreneur
is presumed to be an intentional and self-guiding being, but only partly. He or she is in
interaction with their environment, affecting, acting, perceiving, and seeking feelings,
knowledge and impressions. So the environment doesn't directly cause an individual to
become creative, rather the creativity of an individual is enabled by the interaction between
environmental features and individual factors. Still there is something in the environment
that ignites creativity.
The presumption here is that an individual despite their potential isn't roused into creativity
if the environment doesn't inspire. So the idea is that an environment affects an individual.
An individual's social relations with the environment, their own historic experiences and
contextual factors, and above all culture, give an individual picture of their attitude towards
creativity, and providing the individual has adequate personal features, these features can
be enabled due to positive support from the environment. The presumption is then that an
individual has features for creativity, which become active and begin to "control" in a
suitable environment. The environment doesn't create creativity in an individual, but it
devolves talent already present.
5.2 The personality ignites the process

What happens when an individual's personality starts seeking creativity? It starts to look for
activity that could fulfill its personality caused need for creativity. A personality creates
activities through which it can create something new. So personality in itself is not yet
activity. It is being inspired or focusing on activity. A creative personality inspires to make
creativity concrete when supported by a suitable environment. A creative personality is
motivated to fulfill itself using inner structures, features and by learning, but this is only just
wanting. The wanting process happens through a creative process, which only is born when
the personality has been enabled to creativity. So a creative personality in turn ignites a
creative process.
A creative process is an entrepreneur’s mental road to realize personality. In a creative
process self-fulfillment is fulfilled. It can be thought that when a personality is extremely
tuned to creativity, the process is very favorable for creativity, but when a personality for
some reason or other doesn't tune into creativity, the process is anything but creative, rather
mediocre. In order for a creative process to create concrete creativity, creative personality is
needed, which is enabled for creativity, and which has sufficient characteristics needed for
creativity. So a process doesn't work properly, if the personality hasn't got the necessary
characteristics needed for creativity and if these characteristics haven't been enabled. A
creative process is prevented by missing characteristics or their insufficient activation, which
in turn is caused by the environment. A creative process also reflects back and affects
personality. It is presumable that if an individual's process works, it further increases an
individual’s personality to seek creativity, digging up even the deepest characteristics into
action. At the same time the situation can be opposite. If an individual isn't capable of a
creative process or if he or she isn't inspired, then the creative process fades even more.
Fig. 1. A creativity-based model of opportunity creation.

5.3 The process ignites the environment

The environment also needs "fuel" in order to promote creativity. Providing an
entrepreneur's creative process produces concrete creative products into the environment,
the positive changes may further stimulate creativity. It is even possible that an
environment's characteristics further improve and actually support creativity even better
than before. So an environment's creative advancement is dependent on the entrepreneurs'
action in that environment. If entrepreneurs don't actively bring creativity into the
environment and demonstrate the importance of creativity, then the environment can't
notice creativity to be so important, nor can it continue to support these activities.
Entrepreneurs also have to function actively themselves on behalf of their own creativity, so
the environment can notice how best to support creativity. By functioning actively with
one's own creative processes, an individual can affect how the environment relates to
creativity, and so gradually change the creative environment. This of course doesn't happen
quickly and one individual’s contribution is small, but every individual's contribution is
needed so that the environment can become and continue to be a supportive environment
for creativity. Based on that, I conclude that an entrepreneur’s creative process stimulates
the environment to promote creativity, because the environment notices creativity to be
beneficial to itself.
6. Discussion
In this research, the creative process is regarded as a system through which entrepreneurs,
as members of their organizational environments, interpret the evolutionary potential
offered by their environment's business dynamics and take action to create outcomes that
the market values. A burning desire to pursue perceived business opportunities is either
ignited or extinguished by the organizational community. In the former case, the
entrepreneurial personality first channels its motivation and energy to understanding and
interpreting the business situation and then focuses on giving a concrete shape to the
opportunities.
Creating a business opportunity involves three different types of activity. Firstly, it includes
social activity, because entrepreneurs are embedded in their own social communities,
drawing from it influences, ideas, operational models, resources and encouragement.
Moreover, this social community offers a forum for exchanging ideas on what kind of
business is being conducted and what the current needs are and creating visions and
dreams for business. Secondly, the creation of a venture opportunity involves cognitive
activity with the entrepreneurs attempting to understand ideas about entrepreneurship and
business in their organizational environment and cultural heritage. In effect, they are
striving to control and manage complexity. The third type of activity intrinsic to the creation
of business opportunities is entrepreneurial actions. Entrepreneurs perform pragmatic tasks
in searching for and devising the best possible solution to their problem. In absolute terms,
this solution, a business opportunity, may not be the most innovative or best, but for a
particular entrepreneur in a particular situation and organizational setting, it is the most
viable and valid option.
Entrepreneurship as creativity isn't simple and logical, because an opportunity needs

creative insight and sensitivity on what combines all fragmented information. If it were only
the arrangement of information, everyone would notice his or her opportunity. However,
this is not the case. For example, with a jigsaw puzzle, we know we are putting together a
jigsaw and that every piece has its own place. By diligently and systematically trying the
pieces, the puzzle is solved. An entrepreneurial opportunity is not this kind of puzzle.
Instead of a jigsaw, imagine a situation where you have some pieces of sorts, but have no
concept of what you should do with them. You have to based on your own creativity,
conceive what it is about, work out what the pieces are linked to, conceive a solution,
conceive in what way the pieces bring about a solution, and understand what is the trick of
it all is. An opportunity is more about creating a meaning based on scattered and
ambiguous information, rather than deriving a decision within a limited decision space and
being based on exact information.
7. References
Alvarez, S. & Barney, J. (2007). Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of
Entrepreneurial Action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1): 105–123.
Carlsson, B. & Eliasson, G. (2003). Industrial Dynamics and Endogenous Growth. Industry
and Innovation, 10(4): 435–455.
Christensen, C. & Raynor, M. (1997). Innovator’s Solution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Eckhardt, J. & Shane, S. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management,
29(3): 333–349.
Gartner, W. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship.
Journal Of Business Venturing 5:1, 15–28.
Hjorth, D. (2003). Rewriting Entrepreneurship  For a New Perspective on Organisational
Creativity. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Rogers, C. (1989). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and
opportunity: a structuration theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3): 286–305.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2):
243–263.
Sarasvathy, S. (2004). Making it happen: beyond theories of the firm to theories of firm
design. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28(6): 519–531.
Sarasvathy, S., Dew, N., Velamuri, S.R. & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three views of
entrepreneurial opportunity. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An
Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction, ed. Z. Acs & D. Audretsch, 141–160. New
York: Springer.
Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual Opportunity Nexus.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
van Eijnatten, F. (2004). Chaos and complexity: an overview of the “new science” in
organization and management. Revue Sciences De Gestion, 40: 123–165.
Vesper, K. (1991). Venture idea discovery mental sequences. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wessley.
Part 2
New Business Models

3
Incubation of New Ideas: Extending Incubation

Models to Less-Favored Regions
António C. Moreira1 and Marta F. S. Carvalho2
1DEGEI/GOVCOPP/University of Aveiro
2ISMAI/Instituto Superior da Maia
Portugal
1. Introduction
The search for models regarding the business incubation process is on a multifaceted
road. Existing literature is crowded with a wide range of proposals emphasizing different
foci: some of them focus on results, some address the importance of internal processes,
some present a holistic perspective of incubation by dealing with both environmental
forces and internal aspects, some use virtual approaches and some follow a more
contingent approach in order to address specific issues such as those presented in rural,
less endowed regions.
Considering that incubation models will definitively influence the life of both incubators
and incubatees, it is important to envision the incubation environment. With progressively
complex structures, these environments require an effective and efficient management that
is ready to answer to vivid entrepreneurs, which demand qualified and committed teams
tuned to the objectives defined by the incubator.
Departing from the premise that the "success" (successful management) of a business
incubator is the consequence of the "success" of its incubated companies, the management
business model of the incubator directly contributes to this "success". In this sense, the
incubator macro business process (selection – incubation – graduation) must be organized
and modeled to select good business plans, assess and evaluate the new business
undertakings and graduate successful firms (Bergek & Norrman, 2008; Hannon, 2003).
The main objective of this chapter is to present a review of the literature regarding
incubation services and models. Furthermore, it will extend incubation models in order to
include the incubation of business ideas, specifically targeting less-favored regions.
This chapter is divided in six sections. The introduction covers the first section whereas the
second section presents a revision of the literature regarding incubation and incubators.
Section three covers the incubation process. Section four addresses business incubation
models, in which the most important models are presented and analyzed. Section five
introduces a new concept on virtual incubators. Section six introduces the concept of
incubation of business ideas, which is developed from the specific needs of rural, less-
favored regions. Final conclusions are drawn in section seven.
2. Incubation and incubators

2.1 Concepts
The globalization process, experienced by most economies in the last years, has unleashed
the importance of the innovative capacity of firms, regions and countries in their search for
competitive advantage and efficiency. In this way, the new technological dynamics imposed
on business environments have generated new forms of organization and interaction among
firms, and between companies and other institutions, thus, assisting in the search for
stronger competitiveness and long term survival.
The role performed by business incubators, by underpinning the generation of new
competitive firms, or by training future entrepreneurs, is of crucial importance. Business
incubators are mechanisms that stimulate the creation and development of new micro and
small companies (technology-based firms, manufacturing firms, service firms or agricultural
firms). By providing the complementary training to young entrepreneurs, both in the
technical and management aspects of the new firm, business incubators have facilitated and
accelerated the process of innovation as well as economic and regional transformation.
Hannon (2003) considers that the business incubation process supports the identification
and exploitation of a successful opportunity for the creation of a new business undertaking.
According to Hannon (2003), the business incubation process should be faced, firstly, as the
environment where new business ideas and undertakings can be developed according to a
set of business support resources.
The business incubator’s public image appears as a network of individuals and
organizations. Included in this network are the incubator’s manager and personnel, the pool
of advisors, the incubatees and their staff members, the local universities, the local
development associations, the industrial contacts and all the services provided by the
incubator, such as lawyers, marketing consultants, accountants, investors and volunteers
(Hackett & Dilts, 2004a).
Although reinforcing this idea, Bergek & Norrman (2008) also claim that the business
incubator should have a network mediating role amongst the incubatees as well as between
them and the environment that surrounds them. Considering that business incubators
should be positioned for actively cooperating in the initial phase of new entrepreneurial
undertakings, this mediating role may bring benefits for the incubatees by increasing their
probability of succeeding in the business arena. According to Bergek & Norrman’s (2008)
position, it is possible to infer that it is the responsibility of the business incubator to make
feasible cooperative relationships that provide incubatees with greater access to the
information generated in the environment in which incubated firms are inserted, thus,
nurturing the development of competences by means of learning processes. As a
consequence, the final objective of the incubation process is to deploy among incubatees the
capability to survive in the business arena and to transform a business idea in a successful
business venture.
Finally, Bergek & Norrman (2008) claim that illustrating a nurturing awareness policy that
contributes to the establishment of cooperative relations is the first step for a business
incubator to establish and promote viable businesses.
Incubation of New Ideas: Extending Incubation Models to Less-Favored Regions 43
Despite the prominent role of business incubators in the process of nurturing and
underpinning the promotion of new firms, Hackett & Dilts (2004b) consider that they can be
regarded as a resourceful technology that, by itself, is not presented as a tool that guarantees
the new firms’ success. The absence of entrepreneurial capabilities and the lack of marketing
knowledge can lead to the failure of new ventures. Accordingly, they defend that the
incubator must, in this sense, be understood as a means to an end.
If it is correct that the absence of potential/capacity of the incubatee can doom the new
entrepreneurial undertaking to failure, it is not less true that the networking role of the
incubator as a mediator between the incubatee and the external environment is also
important. Nevertheless, we stress that during the initial phase the incubator’s role is
multifaceted. Consequently, we defend Hackett & Dilts’ (2004b) conclusion that though the
network based view of the incubator is important, the structural contingent theory is even
more important to guarantee that there is a “proper fit” between the business incubator and
the external environment faced by new firms.
This mixed concept of network support and structural contingency are confirmed by
Hackett & Dilts (2004b) and Bergek & Norrman (2008) when they try to come up with the
different forms to define an incubator. They define an incubator as a place where resources
can be rationally and dynamically invested. The business incubator is seen as a dynamic
community where selected incubatees can locate their emergent firms in an incubating
environment. This includes routines, procedures, culture, working environment, learning
experience and working costs, which incubatees can hardly obtain by themselves.
2.2 Typology
Many changes have occurred since the establishment of the first business incubators due to
(a) the role they have had in the creation of new firms and (b) the mechanisms for achieving
the technological development they have been using.
Initially, the majority of incubators was positioned, on the one hand, as a public tool for the
creation of jobs, urban rehabilitation, commercialization of university innovations and, on
the other hand, as private organizations for the incubation of new high-growth firms
(Hackett & Dilts, 2004a).
Grandi & Grimaldi (2005) segment incubators in two different types: those with lucrative
objectives, such as private incubators, and those with non-profit purposes, including
university incubators and business innovation centers, such as those that appeared in
Europe during the 1980s. According to Grandi & Grimaldi (2005) the initial objective of
public incubators was to reduce the costs of doing business by offering a set of services,
space, infrastructure, technical experience and assistance in the elaboration of the business
plan. With the changes and evolution of markets, this type of positioning began to change
due to the boom of private incubators. These have as main purposes the creation of new
firms and the obtainment of profit from incubatees as a result of fees charged for new
undertakings.
Through time incubators have been assuming the role of supporting the development of
start-ups with a broad range of services. This has led to the detriment of the initial passive
behavior of offering physical space, basic infrastructures and communication channels to
tenant companies. For Bergek & Norrman, (2008) the services provided by an incubator
within a typology centered in the provision of physical space and administrative services
resemble the concept of hotel and not of incubation. According to the demands of current
markets and the growing need and sophistication of innovation, incubators should be
prepared to assume themselves as the engines of that innovation, thus, supporting and
nurturing potential entrepreneurs in order to strengthen their potential growth and to
endow them with the business tools that they normally lack to achieve current or potential
opportunities.
Our comprehension of the positioning of an incubator resembles that put forward by Bergek
& Norrman (2008) as a large percentage of potential entrepreneurs are neither able to
prepare their business plans nor start their own businesses as they lack managerial
competences, business contacts and financial resources. They reveal need of a "mentor" able
to support and guide the new firm towards the “right” position, in the “right” moment.
Peters, Rice & Sundararajan (2004) reiterate this pattern as they defend that incubators must
assume the role of organizational developers by contributing to the training, networking
and assistance of incubatees in the initial phase.
It is imperative to fully comprehend the incubation process. However, we must have in
mind that incubators can accelerate the learning process by training entrepreneurs,
counseling them, and supporting their managerial know-how.
3. The incubation process

Following the inherent concepts of the incubators and the incubation process we will now
focus our attention on the process itself. According to the analysis of the different concepts
of the incubator, we can infer that the incubation process can include the support of business
development including: the formulation of the business plan, the recognition of business
potential, the planning of business activities, the preparation of the market study, the
entrance in the market and the sustainable development of the business.
Carter & Jones-Evans (2000) propose a generic five-step incubation process, as shown in
figure 1. One feature of the Carter & Jones-Evans’ (2000) model is that the steps put forward
are focused on the needs of the incubatee, which will be supported by the service provided
by the incubators during the incubation process. Carayannis & Zedtwitz (2005) identify five
services provided by incubators that are crucial for the incubatees:
1. access to physical resources;
2. administrative support;
3. access to financial resources;
4. business/organizational support in the start-up phase;
5. access the networking activities.
Despite the validity of the services provided and of the model proposed by Carter & Jones-
Evans (2000) and Carayannis & Zedtwitz (2005), it is possible to question not only if all
incubators perform the whole range of steps and services, but also if they are effectively
carried out and properly assessed in the incubation process. One of the criticisms put
forward regarding the model is that it does not answer how an in what way incubators
provide their support. As most of the incubators were developed as a response to the
challenge posed by technological pressures, namely university business incubators, business
innovation centers, science parks, etc. it is also questionable if the model is suitable in rural
areas where pace technologies are rare and there is a scarcity of human capital.
Fig. 1. Key steps in the incubation process
Given the importance of the incubation process, Hannon (2003) affirms that managerial
capacities as well as the level of experience associated to the incubator are vital for the
success of the assessment of the incubation process. The incubator will have to be capable of
correctly managing the incubation environment, supporting the incubatee’s new business
creation during the incubation process, and, of reducing the probability of failure of the new
undertaking and speeding up the process of business creation. In order to deal with these
issues the incubator should have an adequate management profile that includes financial,
analytic, interpersonal, entrepreneurial and bargaining capabilities.
Considering the importance and the relative complexity associated to the incubation
process, we shall address the models and components related to this procedure.
4. Incubation models
Due to the incremental role of incubators in society and in the economy, the comprehension
of the whole incubation process is of key importance. However, the studies and proposals
carried out throughout time do not present a holistic vision of the process. Bergek &
Norrman (2008) consider that the majority of models are centered on results and do not
intertwine the processes of selection and management of the incubator and its results.
Campbell, Kendrick, & Samuelson (1985) are amongst the first to propose a model that
attempts to conceptualize the incubation process. They tried to explain, as shown in figure 2,
how the different components and activities of an incubator can facilitate the transformation
of a business proposal in a viable new firm.
Fig. 2. Campbell, Kendrick & Samuelson's (1985) incubation model
The model proposed by Campbell et al. (1985) suggests four areas where the incubators
create value: 1) the diagnosis of business needs, 2) the selection and monitoring of the
services provided to the firms, 3) the investment of capital, and 4) the access to the working
network of the incubator.
According to the process described and the components presented by the model, it would
be possible to make a potential business into a viable firm. However, the model fails when
considering that all businesses are potentially viable and does not take into account the lack
of capabilities of potential entrepreneurs and, the environmental barriers that can arise
during the process that might doom the new venture to failure. In addition, the model is not
explicit in what criteria to adopt when selecting a business to support.
Would not a bad or incorrect selection process influence (negatively) the feasibility and
future growth of a potential new business? Moreover, it is still visible that the model is
basically centered on private incubators with little support in rural areas or social programs.
Having in mind the question raised about the selection criteria, Kuratko & LaFollette (1987)
confirm that inconsistent selection of the incubatee can increase the probability of failure of
both the incubator and incubatee. This arises from the probability that selection is not
focused on the value proposition of the business proposal and on the competences of the
potential entrepreneur.
Following this line of thinking, Merrifield (1987) created a selection proposal for potential
incubatees. That approach consisted of three main questions being the first two based on the
potential incubatee: 1) is this a good business in which anyone could be involved? 2) is this a
business in which the (incubated) firm has resources and competences to successfully
compete? With these two questions Merrifield (1987) intended to verify the attractiveness
and suitability of the new venture. In the case the answers were favorable the last question
would be raised: 3) Which is the best approach for the firm to enter the business arena and
grow?
Although Merrifield’s (1987) approach looks solid, it can be considered as a very
simplistic way of analyzing the potential of a new business undertaking. It is also possible
to assert that the proposal is applicable in technology-based new ventures. However,
it falls short of expectations in less endowed regions. This is the case in rural areas in
which young entrepreneurs do not have the same qualifications and the incubators
capabilities and resources are far from those found in universities or business and
innovation centers.
As was previously referred, Campbell et al.’s (1985) model is open to refinement, and was
addressed by Smilor (1987) who perceives incubators as a transformation mechanism in
which industry, government and university are interrelated. Smilor (1987) categorizes the
benefits that incubators provide to their incubatees through four dimensions: 1) credibility
development, 2) the shortening of the learning curve, 3) faster troubleshooting, and 4) access
to the network of entrepreneurs.
According to Smilor’s (1987) model, there is a strong emphasis on the external perspective,
neglecting the internal one, in which the entrepreneur plays an important role. However, as
the model was developed and proposed having in mind typical innovation-based
entrepreneurs, it seeks to identify the different components of the new business incubation
process. It conceptualizes the incubator as a system that gives incubatees the structure and
credibility for the creation of new firms while ensuring a set of immediate, key resources for
the setting up of the new undertaking. For example, if we take into account the lack of
entrepreneurial capabilities as well as the lack of economic resources in most rural areas, it is
possible to conclude that this systemic approach, encompassing the internal and external
environment, seems to be lacking in Smilor’s (1987) model.
Fig. 3. Smilor’s (1987) incubation model

In the search of a model that presents the different components of the incubation of a new
firm (either internal or external), we find Bergek & Norrman’s (2008) proposal. They reject
the principle of a black box incubation model centered merely on results. They consider that
it is only possible to evaluate the performance of a business incubator when taking into
account the particular objectives of the incubator, i.e. confronting objectives and results.
They identify a set of components that try to translate the incubation process according to
the internal and external variables:
1. The selection of firms that should be accepted and the ones that must be rejected;
2. Infrastructures, regarding the physical facilities and administrative services to be
provided;
3. Mediation, i.e. the way in which the incubator mediates the relationship between the
incubatees and the external world;
4. Graduation, which concerns the policy defined by the incubator about the moment and
circumstances of exit of the incubated firms.
Fig. 4. Bergek & Norrman’s (2008) incubation model
In regards the selection component, Bergek & Norrman’s (2008) mention that it is one of the
most important tasks. Consequently, the selection criteria must be adjusted to the
characteristics and objectives of the incubator. However, they identify two different
approaches: selection based on the business idea and selection based on the entrepreneur.
When the criterion is based on the idea, it requires that the incubator has the technological
and business knowledge as well as the background necessary in order to evaluate the
feasibility of the business idea. On the other hand, if the criterion is based on the
entrepreneur, the incubator must have competencies to assess the entrepreneur’s personality
traits, personal skills, and capabilities related to the new venture.
The adoption of one or the other is a matter of option and flexibility. Nevertheless, it is
arguable that the “picking the winners” policy is a successful approach. Accordingly, as
Bergek & Norrman’s (2008) suggest, in order to avoid possible evaluation errors it would be
advisable to deploy a selection process that involves both approaches in order to assess
pairs of ideas/entrepreneurs, and winners/survivors. The application of this selection
strategy seems to be more complete, as it involves the two variables that are important for
the new venture to succeed: the business idea and the entrepreneur.
In what concerns the business infrastructure, it is important to remark that beyond the need
of a broad support, it is vital to intertwine that support with the way it is provided.
Concerning the incubator mediation capacity, Bergek & Norrman (2008) defend the
importance of the role of the mediator among incubatees and between them and other
actors. In this manner, mediation capacity is a way of projecting the incubatees in the
market, creating opportunities for them as well as reducing uncertainties.
A closer look at the components presented by Bergek & Norrman (2008) leads us to consider
the model as properly adjusted as it takes into account the demands of the incubator’s
internal dynamics as well as the external environment. Therefore, it leaves each incubator
with the responsibility of applying the different components of the model and adapting the
incubator to the intricacies of each particular reality. Nevertheless, Hackett & Dilts’ model
(2004b), shown in figure 5, based on Campbell et al.’s (1985) model, also proposed a holistic
vision of the incubation model. Although focused on the results/performance (black box)
approach, they developed a theory, based on the real options theory, as a way to maintain
and complement the model.
Fig. 5. Hackett & Dilts’ (2004b) incubation process model
The incubation process proposed by Hackett & Dilts (2004b) suggests that incubatees are
selected from a pool of candidates, being monitored and supported with resources while
they go through their initial developmental phase. The results are referred to the survival or
failure of the incubates at the moment he/she leaves the incubator.
By analyzing the model it would be possible to pose the following two questions: what
criteria should be considered at the time of the selection of possible incubatees? Would the
existence of predefined criteria contribute to the economic results of incubation?
The answers to these questions are found in the real options theory proposed by Hackett &
Dilts (2004b). These authors seek to resolve how and why the variability in the measures of
the components of the model can explain and forecast the probability of survival of new
undertakings during the development phase. The theory presented by Hackett & Dilts
(2004b) defends that: the performance of incubation depends on the incubator’s ability to
create options through which the selection of weak-but-promising intermediate potential
firms is interesting. However, it must be implemented with monitoring and counseling, and
the infusion of resources.
The performance of incubation can be measured in terms of growth and financial
performance at the time of incubator exit. As indicator of success Hackett & Dilts (2004b)
identify the following mutually exclusive outcomes:
1. The incubatee is surviving and growing profitably;
2. The incubatee is surviving and growing and is on the road of profitably;
3. The incubatee is surviving but not growing and is not profitable or is marginally
profitable.
4. The incubate operations were terminated while still on the incubator, but the losses are
minimized;
5. The incubate operations were terminated while still on the incubator, and losses are
very large.
In relation to the outcomes, Hackett & Dilts (2004b) consider the outcome number four as a
success factor, according to the real options theory. However, it is possible to pose the
following question: will it effectively be a success indicator or an indicator of a bad option
upon selection of the incubatee? Well, it is indeed possible that the selection of the incubatee
was right and the absence of “luck” played a crucial role. If Hackett & Dilts (2004b) affirm
that according to the real option-driven theory the third indicator should be a failure
outcome, then it looks that a mismatch exists when defending that the fourth outcome is a
success outcome. The issue is simple: would not a “marginally profitable” business be better
than a “dead” business? More importantly, if both are in the incubator, one should pose the
following question: How would their performance be outside in the real world?
Hackett & Dilts (2004b) argue that selection performance is the capacity of the incubator
to behave as a venture capitalist of the undertaking at the moment of selection and
admission of the incubatee. Accordingly, it will be expected that incubators behaving as
venture capitalists adopt selection criteria such as: managerial capacities of the
enterprising team, market and product characteristics and potential, and the expected
financial results. According to Hackett & Dilts (2004b), the existence of a selection
mechanism makes potential candidates more demanding with themselves, leading them
to self-corrective measures.
Regarding the selection performance, it is possible to argue that the model might not be
pervasively used in all type of incubators, especially for those that are targeted for social
minorities or rural areas in which social responsibility plays a crucial role. Accordingly,
although the incubator might behave as a venture capitalist, it must consider what target
groups it is serving. In addition, the incubator must ponder how those target groups can be
served in developing managerial competences. However, this selection criterion is
important as it also allows potential entrepreneurs to understand that they have to cope
with the risks of the new venture. This factor was not considered by Bergek & Norrman
(2008), as they regarded the selection criterion as being centered on the entrepreneur.
In what concerns the intensity of monitoring and business assistance, Hackett & Dilts
(2004b) claim that the more intense the monitoring and the business assistance to the
incubatees, the larger the probability of success of incubation process performance. Hackett
& Dilts (2004b) consider that the probability of obtaining positive results increases with the
capacity for supporting the incubatees with a variety of resources.
According to the analysis of Hackett & Dilts’ (2004b) model and the description of the real
option-driven theory of business incubation, it is possible to defend that the model tries to
explain business incubation performance. However, it is centered on the incubator
perspective, without strong elements of reference or importance to the incubatee, who the
incubator is supposed to serve.
Confronting the models, we recognize that Bergek & Norrman’s (2008) model effectively
translates a more holistic vision, not being centered on results or performance, and considering
the incubation process as a whole including both the incubator and the incubatee.
Moreover, it is possible to notice that all the models referred above identify internal aspects
of the incubator. Nevertheless, there is no agreement on what criteria can be assumed as
relevant for the process of business incubation. On the other hand, the internal resources of
incubators and the way they are used are extensively used and analyzed according to the
business plan of the incubator. Of equal importance is the fact that incubators closely
scrutinize the costs of all training, consultancy provided, partnerships/interactions the
incubator holds with different agents and all infrastructural costs. In this manner, incubators
are closely monitoring their own business.
Another important issue is that not all the models properly highlight external issues, such as
location and partnerships maintained. The external environment can strongly influence the
incubator, as it will depend on the partnerships gained and maintained with higher
education institutions, technology centers and other research institutions. These
partnerships support the incubator in the development of new firms, thus, fulfilling the
incubator’s own mission. If the location the incubator inhabits does not possess those
institutions, the incubated companies can face some difficulties in reaching stability
(graduating). The same is true if the location does not possess companies that can be clients
of the new firms, which may hinder local development. This is certainly what happens in
many rural areas in which the main markets are far away and technology oriented
institutions are scarce, giving particular attention to rural incubators.
Components seem to be one of the main challenges incubators face in the incubation
process. However, to better articulate the incubation process one must consider a wide array
of criteria that can encompass the type of incubator, its area of influence, the services
provided, and its geographical location, among others. Accordingly, although all incubation
models are suitable, it seems that Bergek & Norrman’s (2008) proposal is an open road that
deserves further development.
Considering the growing tendency and accessibility of internet resources and information
technologies, we have decided to approach new incubation models – virtual incubation – in
order to face and readjust towards a changing reality.
5. Cyber incubation
The growth and pervasiveness of the Internet is amplifying creative processes and leading
to new scientific and technological developments.
Firms both in developing and developed economies are increasingly hiring professionals
using the Internet to expand research and development projects and to create new
businesses in a networked sustainable development.
Nowadays, we are witnessing a stimulating and proactive participation in cyber work and
cyber business creation. High levels of market competitiveness lead firms to be more active
and competitive in Internet-based business (Ohmae, 2000; Turban et al., 2000). Accordingly,
business incubation is being influenced by the development of new, emerging incubation
models in which talented, skillful people can work at home or in innovative environments
providing e-services or knowledge-based services.
This new concept of incubation will eradicate some of the items related to the components
previously presented, such as physical space, equipment and relationship management
between incubatees. Virtual incubators need to provide valuables resources and e-services
to assist potential entrepreneurs in the creation of their new ventures.
Aernoudt (2004) states that incubation should be considered as an interactive and dynamic
new firm creation process with the purpose of stimulating people to start their own business
and supporting start up enterprises in the development of innovative products. A real
incubator it is not an office space with a desk. It should offer management services, financial
assistance, juridical support, operational know-how and access to new markets, which can
be done both in a physical or virtual space.
Nowak and Grantham (2000) argue that in traditional business development entrepreneurs
face a common challenge: the absence of capital, human resources, and management
capabilities. This leads to the development of new models that facilitate the creation of new
businesses. They propose the creation of a virtual incubation model, based on networked
innovation. They consider that the combination of specialists and information technologies
would assist in establishing strategic alliances between managers, marketing strategists and
specialized engineers, thus, achieving better business opportunities. The components of this
virtual model are shown in table1.
Human resources focus + capital focus = source of integrated resources

Focus on strategic alliance formation helps to underpin all key success ingredients as early
as possible
Intellectual capital valuation and management expertise
Internet-based, distributed resources
Profitable solutions (specially for private incubators)
Private sector plays a leading role, while university and public sector paly supporting roles
Formalized management control systems (accounting, etc.) for generating stability
National and international business and market focus
Work in conjunction with physical incubators when needed
Table 1.
Nowak and Grantham’s (2000) model shows a combination of successful elements applied
to traditional incubation with a new focus on virtual channels and strategic alliances.
Nevertheless, their contribution seems to be in a very embryonic state as it does not explain
the whole cycle of virtual incubation.
It seems that new technologies will strengthen the proliferation of this new kind of
incubation. However, we think that there are some important challenges to be overcome, in
particular, an extensive application in the primary sector or in rural areas. Hackett and Dilts
(2004a) state that virtual incubators should be regarded as business incubation programs, as
these are much more a provision of services than incubation services. They also defend that
the absence of interaction between incubatees might result in the absence of desired effects
present the traditional incubation environment.
Virtual incubation may go through a dramatic change in the near future, especially with the
provision of e-services for the development of business plans, virtual classrooms, virtual
training and virtual mentoring. Portals may play a crucial role in the creation of a virtual
facility for e-learning purposes. Nevertheless, the traditional roles are not yet set aside.
6. Incubation of business ideas

Rural entrepreneurship plays a crucial role in the economic development of rural and less-
favored areas. These suffer from very particular characteristics that most technology-based
firms do not go through: weak infrastructural facilities, relative remoteness to main markets,
disadvantaged populations, relatively low income and a fragile economic fabric.
Accordingly, new ventures are even more important in less-endowed areas in order to
diversify the local economy and to increase welfare. Rural entrepreneurship can play an
important role in creating new jobs, income and wealth and thus, fighting the main
economic and environmental weaknesses of rural communities. Consequently, the creation
of new ventures seems mandatory for an integrated development to happen.
Entrepreneurial activity is not the same in all countries, regions and cities. Entrepreneurship
is conditioned by various factors settled in the behavior, motivations and knowledge of the
individual. However, it is dependent on opportunities and available resources and on the
conditions of the surrounding environment (Stathopoulous, Psaltopoulos, Skuras, 2004).
Although rurality may be defined using terms such as population density, rate of
population outflows and inflows, settlement size, local economic structure and landscape
(Skuras, 1998), it can also be addressed as a set of rules and resources existing in a certain
space and drawn upon discursive and non-discursive actions (Halfacree, 1995).
Two realities are related to rurality: on the one hand, more developed rural areas,
characterized by their relative proximity to main economic markets and, on the other hand,
remoter areas, characterized by depopulation, infrastructural inadequacies, high
dependence on farming and a weak industrial fabric. As a consequence, rurality has
obstacles and opportunities for entrepreneurship to occur and alters both the
entrepreneurial process and outcomes (Stathopoulous, Psaltopoulos, Skuras, 2004).
If launching new firms is a difficult issue in the entrepreneurial process, the problems are
more specific to rural entrepreneurs due to three types of problems. Such problems are
related to social and economic structures and to the physical environment (Lichtenstein and
Lyons, 1996; Knack and Keefer, 1997). Low population size/density and remoteness make it
difficult for rural entrepreneurs to achieve economies of scale or critical mass. Furthermore,
the difficulties brought upon by the remoteness of rural areas impose a high transaction cost
to rural businesses as it limits accessibility to suppliers, customers, new markets and social
capital of urban and sub-urban communities. Lastly, the lack of a social capital fabric, the
qualitative characteristics of the civil society, and the activities of other more developed
areas jeopardize the operation of businesses and their networking activities.
As seen above countless business incubation models were developed and used extensively
in business incubation centers, university business incubators, independent private
incubators, corporate private incubators, high-technology business incubators and
technology parks. The particularity of those models is that they depart from technological
backgrounds and specific characteristics that are not valid in most rural, less-endowed
areas. Clearly, the ideal environment for entrepreneurship is where firms can take
advantage of the agglomeration and proximity of sources of information, qualified labor,
technology and capital. Classical incubation models thrive in those environments.
In rural areas, however, where the networks have yet to be developed, where innovation
and technology do not belong to the local culture and economy, and where enterprises
struggle to become more competitive (Keeble and Tyler, 1995), business incubation models
must have the following key attributes:
 They are first centered on entrepreneurs and only then on the business activity;
 They build entrepreneurial support systems to help entrepreneurs develop business
ideas, create viable enterprises and grow sustainable businesses within the rural
community;
 They help build entrepreneurial environments with the support of public and private
sectors;
 They are strategically focused in meeting the needs of rural entrepreneurs.
Moreira and Martins (2009) developed a methodology to support rural entrepreneurs in an
integrative way throughout the following three phases:
 Information and Nurturing entrepreneurship and business creation
 Maturation and Finalization of a business plan
 Test and Experimentation of business ideas
Each phase involves different actions with several tasks. Each action has instruments and
procedures in order to help potential entrepreneurs throughout the process.
In the Information and Nurturing phase, the potential entrepreneur is interviewed and
her/his business ideas are assessed. A file is prepared with the personal entrepreneur
motivations, his/her business ideas and an analysis of the entrepreneur’s needs in terms of
support and/or resources.
The objective of the interview is to analyze the entrepreneur’s profile, his/her technical and
personal competencies, the business idea, the business feasibility and the possibility of
supporting the entrepreneur in the next phases. This action is the most important in the
follow up process as it ends with a business check-up about the entrepreneur/idea/project
concerning the type of support the prospective entrepreneur will be given (or not) during
the following phases of the process.
Clearly, all entrepreneurs must go through this stage as the diagnosis will reveal the
potential of the entrepreneur/idea/project.
In the maturation and finalization phase the elaboration of the business plan takes place. This
phase begins with the establishment of a contract between the entrepreneur and the
institution, therefore, defining the duration and terms of support and training. In this
manner, the potential entrepreneur develops the skill to prepare the Business Plan.
There are training sessions so that the entrepreneur can prepare the business plan, undergo
market research and collect the necessary information. A tutor provided by the institution
helps the entrepreneur with the search and collection of information, and the training
received by the entrepreneur is expected to help him/her with the preparation of the
business plan.
By the end of this phase, the entrepreneur must have a business plan, an investment plan
and a financial plan and must understand, explain and defend their contents to third parties.
The experimentation and test phase is the most innovative phase of the process. It allows the
entrepreneur to test the business idea before the formal creation of the firm. This phase can
be considered a radical innovation as it gives potential entrepreneurs the opportunity to
incubate business ideas before formally beginning the business.
The entrepreneur has the support of the business incubation structure and his/her tutor in
all main business areas: accounting, finance, marketing, communication, image,
infrastructures, etc. Clearly, during the test and experimentation process, the entrepreneur
has the opportunity to test his/her business without the formal creation of the firm, thus
forming a business idea bed-test. In order for this to be possible, the entrepreneur will have
administrative support from the business idea incubator, which will be responsible for the
invoices and receipts during this phase. In this situation the business incubator is providing
a brand new service in upstream activities of the value chain: the testing of the business
ideas.
According to Moreira and Martins (2009), this type of business idea incubator is very
innovative as it provides a hands-on approach to training prospective entrepreneurs. This
action oriented methodology supports prospective entrepreneurs before the actual creation
of the new business.
The combination of different actions overcomes the obstacles identified by potential rural
entrepreneurs in the preparation of the project: poor access to capital; lack of institutional
support; heavy administrative and bureaucratic burdens; lack of information about support
and programs for business creation.
7. Conclusion
While incubators have been proliferating throughout the world as way of supporting the
creation new start-ups, the way of understanding them is becoming more diverse due to the
need of targeting them to specific situations.
There are several literature-based definitions for business incubators. Some conceptualize
incubators as a place that hosts and shelters new business undertakings, some as the
supporting base of the planning, creation and launching a new business in the market, and
others include the concept of virtual incubation where e-business services are provided. The
concept recently has been stretched to include business idea incubation, extending the
incubator value chain to upstream activities in order to support less-endowed firms in rural
areas. However, in a general way, all of them aim to stimulate and support the creation of
new firms. Nevertheless, the way they provide the service varies considerably according to
the typology used: private or public incubators, technology or rural incubators, physical or
virtual incubators.
In an attempt to understand all the inherent processes of incubation, it is clearly
understandable that there is no unanimous opinion on how the process should be or how
the model should provide this service to the potential entrepreneurs. The majority of
business incubation models tend to describe the process by attempting to assess the
incubator results, thus, leaving unaddressed several characteristics of the models and
incubatees who they supposedly serve. However the applicability of a global model for all
types of incubators might be very limiting considering that each type of incubator is
targeted to very specific needs.
Bergek & Norrman’s (2008) offer a general structured model in which each incubator can
adjust its services to the three components (selection, support and mediation) it follows in
the process of supporting new businesses. In such a way this model can also be applied to
virtual incubators as well as to business ideas incubators as proposed by Moreira and
Martins (2009).
One important aspect of the incubation models analyzed in this chapter is that classical
models provide services based on the provision of physical facilities. On the other hand,
virtual incubators are targeted to potential entrepreneurs who seek services as virtual
classrooms, virtual set-by-step idea evaluation process, virtual business plan mentoring and
an array of e-services that are very interesting for high-tech entrepreneurs.
Although business incubators, as shown by Bergek and Norrman (2008), tend to provide
three basic functions, Moreira and Martins (2009) have extended incubators to business idea
incubators, where a business idea is pre-tested before the formal creation of the new firm.
This methodology has been of added value as it has underpinned the creation of brand new
firms providing plentiful business skills to potential entrepreneurs during the testing phase.
Other important issues that deserve closer scrutiny are, on the one hand, how virtual
incubators can be used (and of added value) for supporting the creation of new firms in
rural areas and, on the other hand, how the incubation of business ideas can be used to
support new business creation in more technology-driven environments.
In fact, there are several contributions found in the literature concerning incubation models.
However, we have not performed an in depth analysis, which is the biggest limitation of the
article.
8. References
Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for Entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, Vol.
23, pp. 127-135.
Bergek, A. & Norrman, C. (2008). Incubator Best practice: A framework. Technovation, Vol.
28, No. 1/2, pp. 20-28.
Campbell, C.; Kendrick, R. & Samuelson, D. (1985). Stalking the Latent Entrepreneur.
Economic Development Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 43-48.
Carayannis, E. & Zedtwitz, M. (2005). Architecting gloCal (global?local), Real-virtual
Incubator Networks (G-RVINs) as Catalysts and Accelerators of Entrepreneurship
in Transitioning and Developing Economies: Lessons Learned and Best Practices
from Current Development and Business Incubation. Technovation, Vol. 25, No. 2,
pp. 95-110.
Carter, S. & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Enterprise and Small Business: Principles, Practice and
Policy, Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow, England.
Grandi, A. & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Business Incubators and New Venture Creation: An
Assessment of Incubating Models. Technovation, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 111-121.
Hackett, S. M. & Dilts, D. M. (2004a). A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research.
The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 55-82.
Hackett, S. M. & Dilts, D. M. (2004b). A Real Options-Driven Theory of Business Incubation.
The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 41-54.
Halfacree, K. (1995). Talking About Rurality: Social Representations of the Rural as
Expressed by Residents of six English Parishes. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 1-20.
Hannon, P. D. (2003). A Conceptual Development Framework for Management and
Leadership Learning in the UK Incubator Sector. Education Training, Vol. 45, No.
8/9, pp. 449-460.
Keeble, D. & Tyler, P. (1995). Enterprising Behaviour at the Urban-rural Shift. Urban Studies,
Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 975-997.
Kuratko, D. F. &. LaFollette W.R. (1987), Small Business Incubators for Local Economic
Development. Economic Development Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 49–55.
Merrifield, D. B. (1987). New Business Incubators. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp.
277–284.
Moreira, A. C. & Martins, S. L. (2009). CRER: An Integrated Methodology for the Incubation
of Business Ideas in Portugal, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places
in the Global Economy, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 176-192.
Nowak, M. J. & Grantham, C. E. (2000). Virtual Incubator: Managing Human Capital in the
Software Industry. Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 125-134.
Ohame, K. (2000). The Invisible Continent, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, England.
Peters, L.; Rice, M. & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The Role of Incubators in the Entrepreneurial
Process. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 83-91.
Smilor, R. W. (1987). Managing the Incubator System: Critical Success Factors to Accelerate
New Company Development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.
34, No. 4, pp. 146–156.
Stathopoulou, S.; Psaltopoulos, D. & Skuras, D. (2004). Rural Entrepreneurship in Europe. A
Research Framework and Agenda, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
& Research, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 404-425.
Skuras, D. (1998). Rural Development in the European Union, Cahiers Options
Méditerranéennes, Vol. 29, pp. 143-151.
Turban, E.; Lee, J.; King, D. & Chung, H. (2000). Electronic Commerce. A Managerial
Perspective, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
4
The Development and Implementation

of Marketing Information System
Within Innovation: The Increasing
of Innovative Performance
Ondrej Zizlavsky
Brno University of Technology
Czech Republic
1. Introduction
In his work, a prominent Czech expert on innovations, (Valenta, 2001), reached the
conclusion that current tougher and tougher competition, globalization of production and
markets, as well as implementation of new technologies mean that the success of businesses
is dependent on effectiveness and intensity of innovation activities. Innovation is a process
that is created via interactions between various actors, e.g. (Dolourex, 2004) and represents
an important element of a company's future success. Each innovation is unique and specific
for every entrepreneurship. American authors warn that innovation is more than just an
idea or thought. It is bringing an idea to life (Tidd & Bessant, 2009). Currently, innovation is
considered a decisive condition of a competitive advantage in entrepreneurship. This is
stressed by prominent Czech, as well as foreign experts; e.g. (Hamel & Green, 2007;
Kislingerova, 2008; Kosturiak & Chal, 2008; Skarzynski & Gibson, 2008). The course of the
fading economic crisis that negatively impacted operation of current business
unambiguously supports the inevitability of innovations. A company that strives to
maintain and strengthen its position on the market has to implement a suitable innovation
policy that would enable it to achieve a more advantageous position, in comparison with the
competition. (Dinis, 2004) declares that the success of any innovation (and consequently, the
competitive advantage of companies) is dependent on the marketing method of
management, through which companies strive to adjust or (even better) foresee market
trends. (Synek, 2011) also supported the idea that marketing of innovations plays a
considerable role in the success of innovations. In their work, they declare that a competitive
advantage can have a differential character in the form of supply of more sophisticated or
more varied products that better suit the needs and wishes of users, or it can rest in
improvement and better productivity of used production processes or increased quality of
products. At the same time, in his work, Professor Maciariello presents and relates to the
economist Peter F. Drucker who is known because of his statement that the purpose of
existence of a company rests in creation of customers, and its primary tasks are innovation
and marketing (Maciariello, 2008). Only they produce results; the remainder produces only
costs.
However, without putting innovations on the market, the implementation process is not
complete and, therefore, innovation cannot be considered realized. Therefore, activities
related to preparation of the market and relevant marketing activities for promotion of a
new product have to take place in parallel with solution of technical problems. Even though
a prepared product is technically perfect, there is no guarantee that people will accept it and
utilize it in the long term. Therefore, if innovation should be successful, it has to be not only
feasible, but also its result, the new product, has to be marketable. It has to catch the interest
of customers and invoke their willingness to buy this product. Therefore, an important
aspect affecting the perception of its output, e.g. behaviour of customers on target markets,
cannot be forgotten in innovation activities. At the same time, in their work, the German
authors declare that in their opinion, a large part of variations of success or failure is caused
by factors that can be ranked with marketing in the broader sense of the word (Trommsdorff
& Steinhoff, 2006). Among them, there are strategic, as well as operative decisions and
information from market research, from which such decisions are derived. In every case,
such factors are linked to behaviour of target customers and competition. It is precisely the
target market that decides if an innovation is accepted and, therefore, an innovation process
successfully completed, e.g. (Tidd & Bessant, 2009).
Overall, marketing has the task of understanding and managing innovations within
companies and markets where the primary objective of an innovation rests in development
of new or modification of old products, in order to improve profitability. The inevitable
component of profitability is income and its amount depending on whether a company is
able to satisfy customers' needs better than its competitors, e.g. (Hauser et al., 2006). In
today's knowledge-based society, correct information can help a company to act against its
competition, especially if such company has built a strong marketing information system
that is able to quickly convert knowledge into values for a customer, e.g. (Allak, 2010). For
its importance in competition effort, information ranks among very important assets of
every company. Marketing decisions also have to be supported by information that helps
marketing managers to decide what to produce, when to produce it, and for how much, e.g.
(Chatzipanagioton et al., 2008). Such necessary information is provided by the marketing
information system.
The objective of the article rests in summary and presentation of results of two primary
research studies whose tasks rested in acquiring knowledge on the current state of
management of innovations in companies of the South Moravian Region of the Czech
Republic and formulate proposals for entrepreneurs leading to improvement of information
support of effective management of marketing of innovations.
2. Definition
First, the terms “innovation”, “innovative performance” and “marketing informational
system” will be defined, as well as their properties and dimensions.
2.1 Innovation
There are numerous definitions of the concept of “innovation” existing in economic and
business literature. The significance of innovation was highlighted as early as the beginning
of the twentieth century by Schumpeter. He proposed a list of five types of innovations
(Schumpeter, 1912):
of Marketing Information System Within Innovation: The Increasing of Innovative Performance 61
 Introduction of new products.

 Introduction of new methods of production.
 Opening of new markets.
 Development of new sources of supply for raw materials or other inputs.
 Creation of new market structures in an industry.
Based on Schumpeter’s theory Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005) defines innovation as the
implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a
new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace
organisation or external relations.
The minimum requirement for an innovation is that the product, process, marketing method
or organisational method must be new (or significantly improved) to the company. This
includes products, processes and methods that companies are the first to develop and those
that have been adopted from other companies or organisations. A company can make many
types of changes in its methods of work, its use of factors of production and the types of
output that improve its productivity and/or commercial performance. The Oslo Manual
defines four types of innovations that encompass a wide range of changes in firms’ activities:
 Product innovations involve significant changes in the capabilities of goods or services.
Both entirely new goods and services and significant improvements to existing
products are included.
 Process innovations represent significant changes in production and delivery methods.
 Organisational innovations refer to the implementation of new organisational methods.
These can be changes in business practices, in workplace organisation or in the firm’s
external relations.
 Marketing innovations involve the implementation of new marketing methods. These can
include changes in product design and packaging, in product promotion and
placement, and in methods for pricing goods and services (OECD, 2005).
2.2 Innovative performance

Performance is a level of reached results by individuals, groups, organizations and their
processes (European Foundation for Quality Management).
The innovative performance can be understood as the ability to transform innovation inputs
into outputs, thus the ability to transform innovation potential into market implementation.
Result of innovative performance is the (innovation) market success (Zizlavsky, 2009).
The innovative performance overarches the measurement of all stages from R&D to
patenting and new product introduction. In other words, this definition of innovative
performance in the broad sense focuses on both the technical aspects of innovation and the
introduction of new products into the market, but it excludes the possible economic success
of innovations as such (see also Ahuja and Katila, 2001; Ernst, 2001; Stuart, 2000).
2.3 Marketing information system

Marketing information system is the structure of people, equipment and procedures used to
gather, analyse and distribute information needed by an organization. These are the data to
be used as a basis for decision-making (Reid & Bojanic, 2009).
Full definition of marketing information system and its concept can be found in Chapter 6.
3. Material and methods

For the research process, the following hypotheses were defined:
H1: The majority of innovation activities are undertaken by large and medium-sized companies
that have sufficient funds for it.
H2: Direct expression of effects of innovation activities strongly depends on market development
prognoses, and marketing information systems have to help with their predictions.
With regards to the identified objective of research projects – learn and study the current
state of issues of management of innovation activities and their information support as these
areas are currently being solved in Czech, as well as foreign expert literature and practice in
Czech companies – and the method of their fulfilment, when processing the research, the
system approach and the following scientific work methods were utilized:
 Analysis is used as a method of acquiring new knowledge and its interpretation. When
processing secondary data, a method of secondary analysis was utilized. A source of
secondary data was professional literature, especially foreign – books, magazines,
articles from scientific and professional databases (Emerald, Science Direct, etc.) or
proceedings from scientific conferences, with respect to their professional level and
relevance.
 Questionnaire (see below).
 Comparison was utilized for mutual comparison of results of the questionnaire inquiry
of individual companies. This basic benchmarking approach selected more innovative
companies for further personal interviews with the company's management.
 Inquiry with the objective to acquire the particular data and following discussion about
acquired results and verification of their implementation and realization in practice was
carried out in the form of personal interviews with companies' managements, i.e.
especially with members of the top management, executive agents, or owners of
production facilities.
 Content analysis was applied to study of texts processed and acquired in the course of
interviews with managers of selected companies (interview transcriptions, personal
supporting documents acquired from respondents).
 Synthesis is used especially when results are pronounced and during production of a
methodical proposal for correct development of information support of innovation
activities and, thereby, improved competitiveness of a company.
 Induction was utilized especially when generalizing all the findings achieved in the
questionnaire inquiry. Verification of found dependencies was verified by application
of deduction.
 Statistical methods were utilized when analysing primary data and their results are
presented in tables in this report.
A questionnaire inquiry was carried out for the purpose of determination of the real state of
solved issues of management and support of innovation activities. Before the research was
commenced, the circle of respondents was duly considered. Research could have been
limited based on a company's size, a field, and distribution of companies in the Czech
Republic. After careful consideration, it was decided to carry out the research via a random
selection between various-sized companies in the South Moravian Region of the Czech
Republic (see Figure 1). The purpose of limitation to only the South Moravian Region rests in
provision of larger predicative abilities of the questionnaire inquiry. Therefore, the executed
research has much higher quality because we succeeded in (despite frequent unwillingness to
fill out the questionnaire and provide cooperation) in collection of data from a relatively large
number of companies within the whole region, which would not necessary happen within the
whole Czech Republic, and individual data would be too scattered.
Fig. 1. South-Moravian Region of the Czech Republic
Within two consecutive research projects1 carried out in 2009 and 2010 under the
sponsorship of the Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Business and Management Brno
University of Technology, various approaches to management of the innovation process and
creation of innovation strategy were examined in companies operating in the South
Moravian Region of the Czech Republic. A total of 53, mostly production, companies
participated in the first research project called Research of a level of development of innovation
potential, creation, and evaluation of the innovation strategy of medium-sized and large machine-
industry companies in the South Moravian Region in the Czech Republic. This project uncovered
several unfavourable findings on the state of management of innovation activities.
Therefore, this area was examined in detail in the second related research project called
Development of knowledge for improvement of information support of the economic management of
company development, in accordance with development of the business environment undertaken in
1 2009: Internal grant No. AD 179001M5 Research of the level of development of innovation potential, creation,
and evaluation of the innovation strategy of medium and large-sized machine-industry companies in the South
Moravian Region in the Czech Republic.
2010: Internal grant No. FP-S-10-17 Development of knowledge for improvement of information support of the
economic management of company development, in accordance with development of the business environment.
2010. This related and more extensive research took place from February to June 2010. The
key was to approach as many respondents as possible and, therefore, to acquire a
sufficiently large data scale factor for evaluation of the primary research. The inquiry itself
provided quantitative, as well as qualitative data on the current state of the issue in
question. Simplicity and relative briefness of the questionnaire, affecting a respondent's
willingness to fill it out, was an important factor when creating the questionnaire. There
were the following types of questions:
 With selectable answers and the option to select just one.
 With selectable answers and the option to select several answers at once.
 With pre-defined answers with an evaluation scale.
 Some questions had the option to fill in answers freely.
The questionnaire inquiry itself was carried out in two manners: By electronic questionnaire
sent via e-mails. This form of inquiring is very advantageous from the aspect of filling in the
questionnaire and, most of all, its evaluation. Absence of personal contact between the
interviewer and the interviewee and, therefore, a possibility to provide supplemental data
or explain a question, represents a slight disadvantage here. This insufficiency was
eliminated by the subsequent phone or e-mail contact. Furthermore, by a personal contact
with top management members, executive agents, or company owners in the South
Moravian Region. This method of inquiring enables an interviewee to fully grasp the
researched issue, and it also allows discussion of the topic in question, in which other
valuable findings related to the researched issue are often involuntarily acquired. The
disadvantage of this method rests in the big time demand of inquiring.
Two hundred and fifty questionnaires were mailed during the 2009 questionnaire survey.
Companies contacted in the survey were selected from the Technological Profile of the Czech
Republic (www.techprofil.cz), a database containing over 2,000 Czech companies engaged in
business innovation. Author received a total of 53 correctly completed questionnaires, which
represents a 21.2% return rate. That return rate can be considered as very good because return
rates of mail-back questionnaires are usually less than 10%. Even so it is necessary to
determine the reasons why more than 71% of companies did not respond to the questionnaire.
They can include negative experience with similar questionnaires, reluctance to participate
because of a spate of similar questionnaires, and also because managers are much too busy.
Detailed statistics of the 2009 questionnaire survey is in Table 1.
Number of addressed companies 250

a) By e-mail 230
b) By personal visit 30
Number of undelivered e-mails 13
Number of partially filled questionnaires 4
Number of completely filled questionnaires 53
Real return 21.2%
Table 1. Overall statistics of the questionnaire survey 2009
Within the questionnaire inquiry in 2010, a total of 800 respondents were addressed; of
those, 750 in electronic form and 50 with printed questionnaires during a personal visit.
Companies for the electronic research were selected from the database of contacts called the
Technological Profile of CR (www.techprofil.cz) containing more than 2,000 Czech
companies operating in the innovation business. The world-wide database, Kompass
(cz.kompass.com), which contains more than 34,000 Czech companies, was further utilized.
Search based on individual parameters as selected by a user is the guarantee of a required
selection of innovating companies. Selection of companies for a personal visit was done
based on contacts from the previous solution of the project. That represented a guarantee
that companies that are actively involved in innovations and have something to say
regarding this topic were included in the inquiry. A total of 139 correctly filled in
questionnaires were returned, which represents a 17.4% rate of return. The aforementioned
rate of return of the questionnaires can be considered very good because, for questionnaire
inquiries, the expected rate of return is usually up to 10%. Despite that, it is necessary to
determine the causes of more than 82% of companies not reacting to the questionnaire.
Among them could be bad experience with similar questionnaires or unwillingness to
participate because of a clutter of similar questionnaires, as well as managers being very
busy. The detailed statistics of the questionnaire inquiry is shown in Table 2.
Number of addressed companies 800

a) By e-mail 750
b) By personal visit 50
Number of undelivered e-mails 35
Number of partially filled questionnaires 9
Number of completely filled questionnaires 139
Real return 17.4%
Table 2. Overall statistics of the questionnaire survey 2010
Results of the questionnaire inquiry and interviews with top managers or executive agents
enabled identification of significant insufficiencies when managing innovation processes in
companies. They include, for example:
 In most cases, innovation is not a company's key process, and more often than not it is
based on technology transfer rather than the company's internal research and
development.
 Research and development activities start late, take too long and are expensive. This
causes time loss and delays in marketing innovations. That in turn negatively impacts
profits.
 Indifference and unwillingness of owners and top-level managers to take risks even in
the case of promising innovations is manifest, and the prioritizing of certainty prevails.
 In companies, insufficient innovation culture predominates, which can of course be
traced back to the lack of top management's interest.
 An unsuitable model of innovation process management is employed. There is no
clearly defined problem description, innovation project management, coordination of
activities, communication or cooperation. Vague objectives cause changes in the stages
of the innovation process, missed deadlines and increased costs.
 There is no marketing information system in place for the modelling of future markets
or the analysis of customers, their behaviour and unexpressed needs. Such insufficient
knowledge of market requirements is a reason for excessively high innovation costs.
Methods of solution of such insufficiencies were examined by researching professional

literature of prominent Czech, as well as foreign authors and other sources, with the
objective to contribute to a flawless, if possible, realization of innovation activities of a
company. Such solution is already seen in the opening stage of the process where it is
necessary to clearly define the customers' needs. Managers first have to utilize results of the
market research for determination of its size, nature, customers' preferences, and supporting
information for determination of prices of the target products and services. Once companies
develop their internal processes towards satisfaction of particular customers' needs,
availability of the correct information on the market size and customers' preferences
represents the main road to success. In addition to determination of needs of existing and
potential customers, this segment can be a source of information on completely new
opportunities and markets for products and services, which the company can supply.
Information on markets and customers serves the purpose of entry for the second step of the
innovation process; i.e. the process of proposal and development of the current product or
service. The aforementioned task represents a necessity of marketing development and
implementation of the marketing information system.
4. Research results
Information acquired from the questionnaire inquiry in 2010 were evaluated in the
following areas:
 Basic data on companies.
 Strategy and planning of the innovation process.
 Marketing.
 Cooperation.
 Evaluation of realized innovation activities and innovation barriers.
 Financing.
With regard to the scope of the chapter, thematic focus, and objective, only selected areas of
the primary research will be presented here.
Questions from the first part of the questionnaire were related to the basic characteristic data
of the company, such as the company's size, origin, market of operation, etc. Of the total of
139 respondents, the most participating companies in innovations in the South Moravian
Region are micro companies (1-9 employees, with a turnover of up to 2 mil. EUR) – 43% of
respondents, small companies (10-49 employees, with a turnover from 2 mil. EUR to 10 mil.
EUR) – 32% of respondents, medium-sized companies (50-249 employees, with a turnover
from 10 mil. EUR to 50 mil. EUR) – 13% of respondents and the least participating in
innovations are large companies (more than 250 employees, with a turnover exceeding 50
mil. EUR) – 12% of respondents. This result is probably caused by the fact that the larger the
company is, the more demanding organization of any innovation changes in it is and,
therefore, smaller companies with more flexible organization structures innovate more.
Such finding refuted the original hypothesis that said that the majority of innovation
activities are undertaken by large and medium-sized companies that have sufficient
resources for it. The results of the answer about the size of the company are shown in more
detail on Figure. 2.
Size of the companies

12% Micro companies
13%
43% Small companies
32% Medium-sized
companies
Large companies
Fig. 2. Distribution of companies by size
The vast majority of addressed companies (83% of respondents) have Czech owners, 10% of
companies have foreign participation, and only 7% have foreign owners. Here, 65% of
inquired companies are doing business within the Czech Republic; of it, 38% operate on the
domestic market within the whole CR, 27% of those questioned operate on regional markets
only within the CR regions, 23% are doing business in the EU member and candidate
countries, and the remaining 12% are doing business around the world. These facts are
graphically shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Origin of the companies

7%
10% Czech
Czech with foreign

83% participation
Foreign
Fig. 3. Origin of the companies

Market orientation
12% Czech regional
market
27%
23% Czech national
market
38% EU market
Other
Fig. 4. Market orientation
4.1 Strategy and planning area

The strategy and planning area, in which respondents answered the question about what
innovations were implemented by the company during the last three years and what
importance they carry for the company, represented another part of the research. They
could select from five predefined answers. Since respondents were able to select more
answers for this question, a recalculation had to be carried out where a relative frequency
was determined as a percentage of a number of selected answers to the total amount of
respondents in the group. The following finding was derived from it:
 Product innovation: 28% occurrence of this answer.

 Process innovation: 25% occurrence of this answer.
 Organization innovation: 22% occurrence of this answer.
 Marketing innovation: 23% occurrence of this answer.
 None innovation: 2% occurrence of this answer.
These balanced results highlight the fact that product innovations often require process
innovations, e.g. in the form of acquiring new production technology, and in order for these
product innovations to be successful on the market and bring the company a higher value, it
is often necessary to seek new distribution channels via marketing innovations.
Respondents also evaluated the importance of such innovations for the company based on
the following scale: 1 – very important, 2 – important, 3 – neutral, 4 – not important, 5 –
completely unimportant. In the summary of the percentage ration of positive answers, i.e.
values 1 (very important) and 2 (important), the order of individual possibilities was
determined. Therefore, results show that respondents see the importance of innovations for
their company in the following order: innovation of products, processes, organization, and
marketing. Companies that have not implemented any innovations evaluate their
importance as almost zero because the field or market in which the company participates or
on which it operates, does not require an innovative approach and, therefore, they maintain
the existing amount and quality of their output. Evaluation of the importance of individual
types of innovations for companies in the South Moravian Region is shown in Table 3.
Standard Evaluating 1–5 (%) Σ 1+2

Average Modus
deviation 1 2 3 4 5 (%)
Product innovation 2.2857 1.0302 2 18 29 14 12 27 47
Process innovation 2.2419 0.9619 2 18 28 16 10 28 46
Organizational
2.3485 0.9127 2 15 28 26 8 23 43
innovation
Marketing innovation 2.3226 0.9801 2 16 27 19 10 28 43
None innovation 2.3125 0.8455 3 4 7 7 1 81 11
Table 3. Importance of particular innovation types for companies
The main motives leading to commencement of such innovation activities are growth of
revenues/profits, reaction to demand, increased quality, increased market share, and last
but not least, inspiration by competitors. A review of the main motives for commencement
of innovations and their importance is summarized in Table 4.

Average Modus
deviation 1 2 3 4 5 (%)
Revenue/profit
1.5556 0.7027 1 53 33 8 1 5 86
growth
Demand reaction 1.8750 0.8120 2 34 41 15 4 6 75
Product/service
1.7595 0.8600 1 45 28 15 4 8 73
quality increase
Market share increase 1.8182 0.9220 1 42 28 14 6 10 71
Inspiration by
2.4133 0.7676 2 7 46 27 8 12 53
competitors
Education Challenge 2.2714 0.9699 2 19 34 17 12 18 53
Product line extension 2.5000 0.9528 2 12 38 21 18 11 51
Employee satisfaction 2.3784 0.8495 3 14 33 33 7 13 47
Legislation limits 2.3143 1.1025 1 26 20 21 15 18 46
Exigency of
2.3134 0.9337 3 19 24 29 7 21 42
production decrease
Environmental
2.3750 1.1110 1 22 18 20 15 25 40
legislation
New technology
2.6984 1.0486 3 13 16 25 20 26 29
development
Production capacity
2.8392 0.9407 3 7 14 27 18 34 21
expansion
Other 2.000 1.000 - 1 0 1 0 98 1
Table 4. Main motives for innovation activities and their importance
Results were derived from evaluation of respondents, again, based on the scale: 1 – very
important, 2 – important, 3 – neutral, 4 – not important, 5 – completely unimportant.
Inspiration by competitors represented an important motive as well. Therefore, it is possible

to find so-called imitating companies among companies that implemented innovations,
which created new innovations only for their own company, but not from the aspect of the
market; i.e. they implemented new products or services already provided by competitors. A
similar situation applies to process innovations where sources of innovations were modified
or assumed technologies developed by competitors. As for inquired companies, innovators
who assume and modify already known technologies unambiguously prevail.
Motives of innovation activities represent a starting point for innovation strategies. Strategic
marketing and research, with a nomination by top management, participates in strategy
proposal and formulation. The objective of every innovation strategy rests in achieving a
competitive advantage leading to the company's improved position on the market (other
objectives are derived). When creating a competitive advantage, first of all, companies have
to be aware of their competitors' strategies, as well as their own competitive advantage.
Almost all inquired companies (93% of respondents) are aware of their competitive
advantage, which they have in comparison with their competitors. Only 7% are not aware of
such advantage.
The process of formulating strategy results in production of an innovation plan that serves
as the base for creation of other partial plans. When evaluating how much importance a
company gives to production of innovation plans, the majority of companies replied that the
biggest consideration goes to short-term plans, plans up to 1 year, and plans up to 2-3 years.
Then, 8% of respondents do not compile any innovation plans and 1% of respondents
compile plans that have different deadlines than defined (see Table 5).

Average Modus
deviation 1 2 3 4 5 (%)
Short-term plans 2.1618 0.9642 2 23 28 20 8 21 51
1 year plan 2.4783 0.8095 2 8 34 30 8 20 42
2–3 years plan 2.5714 0.9974 3 12 17 23 13 35 29
None plan 2.7500 0.8874 3 2 6 10 5 77 8
Other 2.7500 0.4330 3 0 1 4 0 95 1
Table 5. Innovation plans development
4.2 Marketing area

If we wish to seek sources of innovation ideas, it is necessary to verify if companies are able
to identify, grab, and further process innovation impulses and ideas. Impulses for
innovations in a company's vicinity come most often from external customers. That is
closely followed by generation of impulses based on competitors. Utilization of impulses
from professional literature, conferences, trade fairs, and exhibitions comes next. Innovation
impulses inside a company come the most often from employees or as a result of a need to
change technology and processes, via which products are produced or services offered. A
list and evaluation of innovation impulses are shown in Table 6.
In-house collection of innovation ideas from employees is an interesting area. The
brainstorming system is very often utilized during staff meetings on all the levels. Here,
some companies also apply a motivation element in the form of a one-time bonus paid to an
employee who solves a problem in question. On the other hand, other companies have a
system based on collection points where employees may leave their impulses that are
further evaluated during staff meetings. Based on realized interviews, it is possible to state
that individual systems of communication with one's own employees when collecting
innovative ideas differ from company to company. The bonus system represents a unifying
element.

Average Modus
deviation 1 2 3 4 5 (%)
Customer 1.3855 0.6555 1 66 26 2 2 2 92
Internet 2.0988 0.8549 2 24 42 22 6 6 66
Competitors 2.2561 0.8087 2 15 48 26 7 4 63
Employee 2.1538 0.8332 2 21 39 26 5 9 60
Partners 2.1842 0.8692 2 20 40 21 7 12 60
Own research
2.2836 0.9433 2 16 34 17 11 22 50
into customers
Suppliers 2.4595 1.0804 2 19 30 17 21 13 49
Service 2.4079 0.7809 3 12 34 38 5 11 46
Exhibitions 2.4478 1.0116 3 17 21 27 13 22 38
Conferences 2.7581 0.9278 2 4 28 20 20 28 32
Professional
2.7727 0.8841 2 5 27 27 18 23 32
literature
Public sector 2.6379 1.0618 3 13 16 21 17 33 29
Management
2.9434 0.8559 3 4 14 27 17 38 18
consultants
Table 6. Innovation incitation and its importance
When determining in which manner market information is shared in a company, it was

discovered that 32% of companies are utilizing a high-quality information system
(hereinafter the "IS") that is used by competent workers. That is a status in which a
company has correctly implemented IS with correctly defined access possibilities for
competent workers. That creates prerequisites for effective creation of strategic plans in a
company and for sharing innovation impulses within individual company departments
and between them. Unfortunately, only approx. 1/3 of inquired companies operate like
this. For the other 32% of companies, there is practical knowledge that is sufficient and
known to all the competent workers and, therefore, there is no need to engage in
collecting and processing additional information. Such companies are utilizing know-how
of their workers. When such worker leaves, a problem occurs. Non-sharing of information
leads to growth of such worker's value and creation of pseudo-key positions in the
company. For 29% of inquired companies, information on the market, contracts, and
competitors is usually taken by competitive workers; however, they are not systematically
shared for further utilization in the company. Such companies have IS, but only on the
level of local stations, and mutual interconnection of information flow across a company
is not utilized. Slow-down of flow of marketing information then expresses itself in delay
in production of strategic plans or their frequent changes and corrections. The remaining
7% of inquired companies record information about the market by means of the

company's information system, but workers do not optimally utilize it. Such companies
do not pay enough attention to transfer of marketing information. Such companies are
usually based on routine and practical experience and adjust their planning accordingly.
Results of answers of inquiries companies to the transfer of market information issue are
shown on Figure 5.
Way of market information

transfer
Utilization of IS
32% 32%
29% Evidence in IS, but

none utilization of
7%
information
Fig. 5. Way of marketing information transfer
In addition to internal communication, external communication with the company's

partners is important for a company as well, and in the majority of cases, it takes place via
competent workers who register suggestions and comments (64% of respondents). Informal
communication with partners via marketing staff is the basis. They are responsible for
transfer of information to the company and for ensuring that it is undistorted. A quarter of
companies communicate with partners via the company's information system (25% of
respondents). 6% of companies do not have the scope to react to partners' suggestions. Such
companies behave as closed units and consider all the information related to their internal
environment their know-how and, therefore, they usually are not too willing to
communicate with their partners. The remaining 5% of companies communicate with
partners only in the case of serious problems. Figure 6 presents results of communication
with partners.
Next aim of a questionnaire research was to find out whether companies do evaluate the
realized innovations activities and whether they utilize marketing information system for
the evaluation of predictions of future markets. For that purpose the hypothesis H2 Direct
expression of innovation activities effects significantly depends on market development forecasts.
Marketing information systems have to support their predictions and following questions from
the questionnaire will be used: Does your company evaluate the realized innovation projects? and
Is there implemented and utilized marketing information system for future markets modelling in your
company?
Way of communication with

partners
6% 5%
No reaction on
partners’ new
25%
ideas
64%
Communication
only in case of
serious troubles
Fig. 6. Way of communication with partners
innovation activities evaluation / markets

No Yes ni
forecasts
No 26 8 34
Yes 37 68 105
nj 63 76 139
Table 7. Relations research of innovation activities evaluation and markets forecasts
Independency statistic test of two qualitative characters will be carried out for statistic
dependency verification. Null fragmental hypothesis DH0 is going to be tested that random
values are not depended in comparison with alternative fragmental hypothesis DH1.
DH0: Expression of innovation effects and modeling future markets are not relate to each other.
DH1: Expression of innovation effects and modeling future markets are related to each other.
Calculated test criterion χ2 = 6,959 for selected significance level α = 0,05 is determined a
2
quantile  0,95  1  of Pearson distribution  0,95
2
 1   3,841 . Because the value of test
criterion was realized in critical field (6,959 > 3,841), fragmental null hypothesis DH0 is
refused on five percentage level signification and alternative fragmental hypothesis DH1 is
accepted. Random values are dependent and relationship between direct expression of
innovation activities effects and market progress forecasts by marketing information system
was demonstrated.
Based on primary research results and statistic independency test it is possible to consider
the research hypothesis as confirmed.
5. Discussions
In SMR, those most engaged in innovations are micro companies (43%) and small
companies (33%) that have a Czech owner (82%); of those, 39% operate on the domestic
market within the whole Czech Republic and 27% operate only on the regional market.
During the last three years, the majority of innovations executed by companies were
organization and marketing innovations; however, companies perceive product and process
innovations as more important. It generally applies that almost every product innovation
should invoke at least one process innovation. When, for example, a company begins to
produce a new product, a need for necessary technology that is needed for production of a
new product can arise. Such a need can be fulfilled by purchase of new machinery. This is
innovation of a production process. In other cases, companies maybe do not even perceive
changes executed in relation to product innovations as process innovations. When a
company, e.g. as a result of a new product supply, modifies activities of its sales
department, in reality it is a process innovation invoked by the initial product innovation. In
some cases, even product innovation of a lower intensity invokes subsequent process
innovation of a higher intensity. (Theodor, 2008) singles out the beginning of the Ford car
factory, as an example. Even though its first mass-produced car, the Model T, meant an
important product innovation, production organization through standardization, flow
production, and Taylor principles of scientific management brought a lot of much more
fundamental innovations. The Model T was designed in such a way that it prompted a need
to completely innovate the process of its production. Without such process innovations,
Henry Ford would not be able to achieve his plans for production of a standardized cheap
car in large series.
The result of a significant innovation activity is logical because, in general, if organizations
are not prepared to continually renew their products and processes, their chances of
survival are significantly jeopardized.
The main motives leading to commencement of such innovation activities are especially
factors of growth of revenues and, therefore, operation profits, reaction to demand,
increased quality of products or services, and increased market share. The aforementioned
motives are derived from innovation needs prompted by a customer, and they serve as a
starting point for creation of innovation strategy.
The structure and intensity of competition and its more or less aggressive behaviour affects
competition and innovation pressure. According to (Trommsdorff & Steinhoff, 2006), when
identifying competitors, it is necessary to include, in addition to publicly acting competitors,
also the potential ones, i.e. those who are not in the market yet or who do not engage in
public tenders of the field in question, but have potential and strategy available. The
majority of enquired companies (87%) monitor and know the competitors' strategy and, at
the same time, 93% of respondents are therefore aware of their competitive advantage.
The process of formulating strategy results in production of an innovation plan that serves
as the base for creation of other partial plans. Almost all inquired companies emphasize
processing of short-term plans and plans for 1 year.
The conclusion derived from the aforementioned facts is that if a company wants to receive
impulses for its further development and maintain its position on the top, it is necessary to
always focus on a customer who should be perceived as a driving force for progress. High-
quality relations have to be built between companies and their customers. Primary research
results showed that an innovation impulse primarily arises from a customer.
Individual innovation impulses are then target-collected by a company. During the

collection, in-house networks are utilized, as well as networks of external co-workers; for
example, authorized dealers, etc. In practice, collection that is rather informal is more often
proven good; for example, via discussions with service technicians during assemblies. A
customer does not feel so bound and is willing to handle matters that he would not even
mention otherwise. With regards to their own potential, companies try to convert received
impulses to innovation ideas that can be utilized during the following work. The main
source of innovation ideas are then employees or management of companies. With regard to
the fact that companies engage their employees in seeking innovation ideas, they are also
trying to motivate them.
In personal interviews, managers of some companies admitted that they do not pay enough
attention to transfer of marketing information, despite the existence of some information
system. At the same time, marketing management within the innovation process is usually
left out, especially in the case of small and medium-sized companies. Therefore, a company
management loses its insight into environment and new trends, which can cause problems
with distribution, downturn of revenues, decreased profit, and it can even lead to existential
problems in the future.
These days, everybody is probably aware of the importance of high-quality and timely
information for correct decision making. It is also considered a matter of fact that a company
has to reflect the wishes of its customers and very closely monitor development on markets,
otherwise it would not be able to react accordingly and maintain its position on markets.
Therefore, companies should have marketing information systems (hereinafter the "MIS")
implemented. Their necessity was ultimately highlighted by results of the primary research
as well. In smaller companies, such system can even have a completely informal process
when all the interested parties meet and discuss a problem. It is apparent that from a certain
size of a company, such "system" is completely unsuitable, and a marketing information
system has to be formalized and systemically built.
Unfortunately, as shown by the primary research, the majority of companies lack a
sophisticated marketing information system, modeling and analysis of the future market,
analyses of customers, their behavior and unsaid needs, definition of price strategies, and
analysis of new expansion areas.
Information necessary for effective functioning of a marketing information system that is
necessary for acquiring innovation impulses from the market and management of the whole
innovation process with the objective of increases competitiveness of a company as a whole
can originate from different sources. Information received from contacts between
companies' employees and customers, competitors, and suppliers within business meetings,
exhibitions and trade fairs, professional seminars, execution of maintenance and repairs, etc.
are considered very important.
In the ideal situation, MIS serves the purpose of:
 Collection and transfer of information – thanks to computers and other communication

means, collection and transfer of information is significantly faster and, also, costs of
data collection decreased.
 Information processing – when data is saved, it has to be processed, which can

sometimes be difficult without utilization of an information system, especially in a large
volume of various data.
 Data interpretation and modeling – information is useful only if it has a value for a user.
Collected information has to be put into context and interpreted.
 Information utilization – thanks to an information system that integrates data
processing techniques with data modeling and with analytical tools supporting
strategic decisions, it is possible to utilize acquired information for marketing decision
making on various levels.
Planning and management
Businessmen Technical
engineers Managers
Distributors
Service men
External
data
Environment Development so
Competitors Internal Marketing far
Suppliers Customers
informational intelligence
Customers Products
system system Competitors
Media
Databases
Internet
Seminars Future
Internal data Marketing development
Own studies research Customers
Support
R&D system Products
system
Trade-fairs Strategies
Exhibitions Opportunities
Catalogues Competitors
Prospects
Fig. 7. Scheme of MIS
The majority of renowned companies thoroughly monitor all their employees' contacts and
information received about them. Such information is very important and, in principle, it is
a company's asset because staff handles all dealing at its costs. It is a problem of effect of a
company's culture and due verification of evaluation and a bonus system to make sure that
staff members accept organization rules and enter information into MIS via standard forms.
Especially for small and medium-sized companies, such a system is irreplaceable, but its
accessibility is not easy. That is, employees consider acquired information their personal
know-how and intend to utilize it for strengthening of their own positions only. However,
we know from experience of foreign companies that enforcement of a company's interests is

possible, but it requires long-term influence on a company's culture and, sometimes, slight
"breach" of human rights of employees (Solar, 2006).
Limited funds of small and medium-sized companies significantly limit possibilities of
utilization of external information sources for MIS whose level keeps increasing, but prices
of the services are high. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully consider every utilization of
their services. Organizational provision of collection of free external data from the Internet
and other external sources is also problematic for small and medium-sized companies.
However, it applies to them as well, that even small and medium-sized companies have to
collect, save, and utilize information so that they can improve their decision making,
communication with customers, suppliers, and consumers so that they are able to maintain
their competitive advantage.
Solution of marketing and MIS problems that are available in professional literature, e.g.
(Ranchhod & Gurau, 2007), are very complex and systemic, but practically useless for small,
as well as a lot of medium-sized companies. If we examine their organization structure, we
will find out that marketing is often provided by one staff member who is organizationally
placed either in the sales department, or the department of the company's CEO. There is the
same staffing for controlling of small companies whose performance is again provided (in
the optimistic variant) by one staff member usually placed in the financial department
where such person is usually also assigned a lot of other functions.
The authors of the article see a possible solution in nomination of a team consisting of more
professions that will ensure motivation and evaluation of results of collection of external
and internal information for MIS by all the company's employees, solution of problems
related to authorization of access to the information stored in MIS, evaluation of information
from MIS from the aspect of comparison of the company's performance with its main
competitors, and proposing measures within strategy updating. Such team should be led by
a CFO, and it should consist of professions necessary for evaluation of products,
technologies, customers, suppliers, and markets, i.e. representatives of all main functions in
a company. Selection of particular team members would be carried out by a company CEO,
in cooperation with a team leader. MIS would represent the technical provision of work of
the team, and a designated worker also carrying out collection of internal and external
information would be responsible for its operation.
The proposed access would simplify realization of a necessary change of a style of work
with information, regular saving of critical data to the system, and enable its sharing by
other staff members. It is a complicated problem in the area of a company culture, and the
proposed system of team management could contribute to its solution. It is necessary to
realize that to acquire information is one thing, but to process it, interpret it, and
subsequently use it is an entirely different thing. Therefore, it is necessary to think about an
information system, create certain rules, procedures, and processes so that everybody in a
company would know what to do.
A complex marketing information system has a wide range of use in a company. It is able to
inform on the current market development and performance of its own company, as well as
competitors. The basic information structure of MIS is as follows:
 Information on market subjects (suppliers, customers, competitors).

 Information on market objects (products and services purchased, as well as produced).
 Information on business cases (data transfer from customers' and suppliers' invoices).
 Information on contacts (evaluation of contacts, planning of contacts).
 Information on demands (filling, performance evaluation).
In addition to the basic structure, MIS can also contain software tools for execution of
analyses (SWOT, Pareto, Portfolio, etc.), management of projects, administrative activities,
and various supporting tasks. By utilizing information from MIS, it is possible to decrease
risks of strategic decisions, prepare to a high standard for dealing with partners, increase
purchase effectiveness, or improve the marketing mix for a certain product.
Necessary condition for developments in marketing and innovation activities is working
MIS. MIS should be an indivisible part of the Executive Information System (hereinafter the
“EIS”). Currently there are many Enterprise Resource Planning (hereinafter the “ERP”)
systems to choose from. These ERP systems can be enhanced when connected to Supply
Chain Management (hereinafter the “SCM”) and Customer Relationship Management
(hereinafter the “CRM”) systems. In the Czech Republic the EISs which support decision
making are not used very frequently. An array of large Czech companies therefore
implements the MIS as a way to improve their existing ERP system. Some ERP systems
partially serve as SCM and CRM with obvious limitations. The philosophy of integration of
the MIS into the existing IS is demonstrated in Figure 8.
Fig. 8. Scheme of the integration of the MIS into the existing IS structure
MIS implementation itself, from preparation, over installation, to verification lasts several
months; however, significant contributions for management can be expected only after
databases are filled, i.e. within 1 to 2 years. The authors also perceive utilization of the
newest versions of MIS in small companies as problematic. Here, upon agreement with a
supplier, it will be necessary to accede to implementation of simplified versions because the
newest versions – very extensive ones – could not be filled and it would not even make
sense to fill them because of significantly simplified process, as well as the organization
structure of small companies. These requirements are logical, and the system supplier
should be able to flexibly react to them. The ability of a supplier to ensure interconnection
between MIS and the existing basic ERP system is also a limiting factor.
6. Conclusion
The article summarizes the issue of management of innovation activities and findings of
empirical research. It strives to show the importance of information provision of innovation
activities linked to the overall effectiveness and competitiveness of an entrepreneurship. As
the research proved, information support for modeling of future markets, analyses of
customers, their behavior, and needs is extremely important in innovation marketing and,
therefore, innovation activities should be supported by a successfully implemented and
functioning marketing information system. Only then, is it possible to recognize and process
potential innovation signals, acquire necessary information, and carry out decisions as for
which innovations a company would focus and spend resources on.
Several hypotheses were declared before the research was commenced. In the area of potential
predetermining more or less innovative companies, a company's size used to be considered
the key factor when innovation activities are usually undertaken by large and medium-sized
companies that have sufficient resources for it. However, this hypothesis was not confirmed
because in the South Moravian Region, the majority of innovations are undertaken by micro
companies and small companies (these groups form a total of 75% respondents).
In the marketing area, it was assumed that direct expression of effects of innovation
activities strongly depends on market development prognoses, and marketing information
systems have to help with their predictions. Based on the found facts and statistic
independency test, it is possible to declare this hypothesis confirmed.
7. Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank participants at the research survey and Faculty of Business
and Management BUT for its support within research projects and this publication.
8. References
Ahuja, G. & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisition and the innovative performance of
acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3,
197-220, ISSN 1097-0266
Allak, B. (2010). Evaluating the Adoption and use Internet–based Marketing Information
system to Improve Marketing Intelligence (The Case of Tourism SMEs in Jordan).
International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 87-101, ISSN 1918-719X
Dinis, A. (2004). Marketing and Innovation: Useful tools for competitiveness in rural and
Peripheral Area. European Planning Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, 9-22, ISSN 0965- 4313
Doloreux, D. (2004). Regional Networks of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: Evidence
from the Metropolitan Area of Ottawa in Canada. European Planning Studies, Vol.
12, No. 2, 173-189, ISSN 0965-4313
Ernst, H. (2001). Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from
time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy, Vol 30, No. 1,
143-157, ISSN 0048-7333
Hamel, G. & Green, B. (2007). The Future of Management. Harvard Business School Press,
ISBN 978-1-4221-0250-3, Boston, USA
Hauser, J.; Tellis, J. G. & Griffin, A. (2006). Research on Innovation: A Reviwe and Agenda
for Marketing Science. Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 6, 687-717, ISSN 0732- 2399
Chatyipanagiotou, K.; Vassilikopoulou, A. & Siomkos, G. (2008). An Empirical investigation
of the relationship between market orientation and MrkIS effectiveness in upscale
hotels in Greece. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol.
16, No. 4, 285–297, ISSN 0967- 3237
Kislingerova, E. (2008). Inovace nastroju ekonomiky a managementu organizaci, C.H.Beck, ISBN
978-80-7179-882-8, Prague, Czech Republic
Kosturiak, J. & Chal, J. (2008). Inovace: Vase konkurencni vyhoda, Computer press, ISBN 978-
80-251-1929-7, Brno, Czech Republic
Maciariello, J. (2009). Marketing and Innovation it he Drucker Management system. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 1, 35-49, ISSN 0092- 0703
OECD (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, OECD
Publishing, ISBN 92-64-01308-3, Paris, France
Ranchhod, A. & Gurau, C. (2007). Marketing Strategies a Contemporary Approach, Pearson
Education Limited, ISBN 978-0-273-70674-8, Essex, U.K.
Reid, R. & Bojanic, D. (2009). Hospitality Marketing Management, Wiley, ISBN 978-0-4700-
8858-6, New Jersey, USA
Schumpeter, J. (1912). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Duncker und Humblot,
Leipzig, Germany
Skarzynski, P. & Gibson, R. (2008). Innovation to the Core: A Blueprint for Transforming the Way
Your Company Innovates, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 978-1-4221-0251-0,
Boston, USA
Solar, J. (2006). The Problems of Efficient Functioning Appraising the Efficiency and
Benchmarking in the Production Companies, Proceedings of Management, Economics and
Business Development in the New European Conditions, ISBN 80-7204-454-0, Brno, May 2006
Stuart, T. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of
growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21, No. 8, 791-811, ISSN 1097-0266
Synek, M. (2011). Manazerska ekonomika, Grada Publishing, ISBN 978-80-247-3494-1, Prague,
Czech Republic
Theodor, M. (2008). Intensity of innovations and impulses of innovations. Ekonomika a
management, Vol. 2, No. 3. 8 pp., ISSN 1802-8934
Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and
Organizational Change, Wiley, ISBN 978-0-4709-9810-6, West Sussex, U.K.
Trommsdorff, V. & Steinhoff, F. (2006). Innovationsmarketing, Vahlen, ISBN 978-3-8006-2022-
7, Germany
Valenta, F. (2001). Inovace v manazerske praxi, Velryba, ISBN 80-85860-11-2, Prague, Czech
Republic
Zizlavsky, O. (2009). Approaches to Innovation Performance Increasing in Manufacturing Companies,
Brno University of Technology, ISBN 978-80-214-4091-3, Brno, Czech Republic
5
Brazilian Entrepreneurship Reality:

A Trilogy of Imitation, Invention and Innovation
Eric Charles Henri Dorion, Eliana Andrea Severo,
Pelayo Munhoz Olea and Cristine Hermann Nodari
University of Caxias do Sul, Caxias do Sul,
Brazil
1. Introduction
There are a lot of discussions on the characteristics of the successful businessman, who
contributes to development of the economy through wealth creation. There are many
authors who talk about such businessman as someone innovative, creator of differences,
creative in services or business, or else. For theses reasons it is intended to study the
entrepreneurial and innovative dimensions, more precisely in a Brazilian context, discussing
innovation from the inside in a business perspective. From this discussion, it is our objective
to demonstrate that Brazilian people are either entrepreneurs or inventors but not so
innovative. On one hand, there is a clear perception related to new business opportunities
but most of them are in an imitation process of existing businesses. On the other hand,
Brazil is offering an extensive network of incubators that create inventors instead of
entrepreneurs.
This chapter shows an extended bibliographic research about different concepts that various
authors have related to entrepreneurship and innovation in order to consequently, discuss
such concepts, comparing them to data from researches on Brazilian entrepreneurs about
innovativeness of their business.
Pirich et al. (2001) mentions that observing innovation jointly with entrepreneurship are
consequent on three key elements: economical conditions and encouraging incentive of
business behavior; sophistication and efficiency in generating and spreading knowledge and
the proper capability of companies, employees, and individuals.
The ANPROTEC (2006) literature demonstrates that entrepreneurship and innovation refer
to a stimulus or support in the creation process of new ventures; it also refers to the
preparation of people to act in new market shares, proposition of new ways to take profit of
regional potentialities as well as local qualities to create new products and services,
involving a community to discuss forms of economical empowerment for its region and
create a favorable environment to emerge creative ideas that may generate in new
businesses.
Schumpeter (1934) mentions that entrepreneurship behavior is a configuration of
competitiveness in search of combinations of elements that generate innovation. For
Drucker (1985), innovation is a specific instrument for entrepreneurs in a way to explore

changes as an opportunity for a different business or services. Entrepreneurs must
deliberatively look for innovation sources, changes and their symptoms, which indicate
opportunities so that innovation can happen and be successful.
Throughout times, Schumpeter’s (1934) point of view became predominant: the
entrepreneur is the engine to move the economy forward, the agent of innovation and
changes, able to trigger economical growth. This is very important, because it means that
communities, through their entrepreneurial activity, may have the initiative to lead and
coordinate efforts for their own economical growth. There is a possibility to change
economical and social stagnation curve by inducing innovative activities, capable of joining
economical and social values (Dolabela, 1999:54).
The entrepreneur is the agent of creative destruction process. It is a fundamental impulse to
start and keep on going the capitalist engine, constantly creating new products, new
markets, and, implacably, overcoming old methods less efficient and more expensive
(Schumpeter, 1934).
Innovation emerges to entrepreneurs as advantages from the point of view of economical
prosperity. It allows developing new products or services for the market as well as it
stimulates interest in investing in newborn businesses.
This chapter initially presents various concepts throughout time related to entrepreneurship
and innovation. Then it discusses imitation as a form of entrepreneurship from many
authors’ points of view and afterwards, it presents the challenges for entrepreneurship in
Brazil. It shows figures related to new businesses, their importance for the economy in this
country and after that presents some data related to innovation in the industry.
It has the objective to confront the profile of the most common behavior in Brazilian
industry. As a result of various researches realized, it is possible to demonstrate that
Brazilian entrepreneurs are either, in most cases, in a deliberate imitation process of existing
businesses, or engaged in an incubating process based on product invention, still with a
poor innovative profile. These conclusions allow discussing entrepreneurship concepts
presented by several authors that mostly tend to characterize the entrepreneur as someone
who is primarily active but not necessarily very creative, innovative.
2. Theoretical thoughts of entrepreneurship thru time

The Word “entrepreneurship” means to deliberate about practices, to propose them and
put them into execution, to try it on. The first definition of an entrepreneur as a broker is
Marco Polo, who tried to establish commercial routes to the Far East (Hisrich & Peters,
2001).
In the XII century, an entrepreneur was someone who used to incite fights. Later in the XVII
century, it meant someone who was responsible for and coordinator of a military action.
Only by the end of the XVII century and beginning of the XVIII century, the word referred
to someone who created or ruled enterprises. The following Table shows the evolution of
the theory of entrepreneurship and of the entrepreneur.
Brazilian Entrepreneurship Reality: A Trilogy of Imitation, Invention and Innovation 83
Evolution of the theories on entrepreneurship and on the entrepreneur

Middle Age Person in charge of projects for large scale production
XVII Century Person who would take risks for profit (or loss) in a contract of fixed
value with the government
1725 Richard Cantillon – a person who takes risks is different from the one
who offers capital
1803 Jean Baptiste Say – enterpriser’s profits are separate from the capital
profits
1876 Francis Walker – he distinguished between the ones who would support
founds and receive from taxes and the ones who would gain from
management abilities
1934 Joseph Schumpeter – the entrepreneur is an innovative person and
develops technology that has not been tested yet
1961 David McClelland – the entrepreneur is someone dynamic who takes
moderate risks
1964 Peter Drucker – the entrepreneur maximizes opportunities
1975 Albert Shapero – the entrepreneur has initiative, organizes some social
and economical mechanisms and takes risks
1980 Karl Vesper – the entrepreneur is differently perceived from the point of
view of economists, psychologists, businessmen or politicians
1983 Gifford Pinchot – the intra entrepreneur is an entrepreneur who acts
inside an organization
1985 Robert Hisrich – entrepreneurship is the process of creating something
different and with value, spending time and necessary efforts to do so,
assuming corresponding financial, psychological, and social risks, and
receiving the consequent rewards of economical and personal
satisfaction
Source: Hisrich & Peters (2001)
Table 1. Development of the theory of entrepreneurship and of the entrepreneur
The economists understand entrepreneurship is motivated in the comprehension of its

interlink to the economical system. Thus, they understand entrepreneurs are responsible for
detecting and making a good use of opportunities; foreseeing profit and (re) acting to some
risks (Filion, 1991; Paiva Jr. & Cordeiro, 2002). Schumpeter believes the entrepreneur is
responsible for a process he called creative destruction, the fundamental impulse to trigger
and keep on working in the capitalist economy. This person, according to the author, should
constantly create new products, new production methods, new markets, implacably
overcoming old methods that are less efficient and more expensive.
The function of the entrepreneur is to reform or to revolutionize the production pattern by
exploring an invention or, more generically, a technological possibility not tested yet, in
order to produce new goods or to find another way of producing something that already
exists. It may happen through the discovery of new supply sources or new distribution for
products, or through the organization of a new industry (live translation from Schumpeter,
1934).
Behaviorists’ school refers to psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, and others who are
specialists in human behavior (Filion, 1991). For them, entrepreneurship is more than
increasing production or the per capita income because it involves starting and building
changes in the structure of the business and of the society. This transformation happens
while production increases and there is more wealth to be shared among participants.
Entrepreneurship is an efficient method that links science to the market economy, creating
new companies and bringing new products or services to the world of business (Hisrich &
Peters, 2001).
The modern definition of entrepreneurship described by Filion (2001) covers essential
elements of its specific characteristics: An entrepreneur is a person who imagines, develops,
and executes visions.
Hisrich & Peters (2001) indicates that even if there is some divergence among concepts
related to entrepreneur, there is a common understanding for a specific behavior that
includes having initiative, to organize and reorganize social and economical mechanisms to
transform resources and situations to take a practical profit and accept risk or failure. Table
2 is a matrix of quotations of these characteristics throughout time.
Date Author Characteristics

1848 Mill Tolerance to risk
1917 Weber Origin of formal authority
1934 Schumpeter Innovation, initiative
1954 Sutton Search for responsibility
1959 Hartman Search for formal authority
1961 McClelland Risk taker and need for realization
Ambition, desire for independence, responsibility, self-
1963 Davids
confidence
Human relationship, communication ability, knowledge of
1964 Pickle
the technique
1971 Palmer Risk evaluator
Need for realization, autonomy, aggressiveness, power,
1971 Hornaday & Aboud
recognition, innovation, independence
1973 Winter Need for power
1974 Borland Internal control
1974 Liles Need for realization
1977 Gasse Guided by personal values
Self-confidence, target guided, moderate-risk taker, control
1978 Timmons
center, creativity, innovation
1980 Sexton Energetic, ambitious, positive reverse
Need for control, responsibility aimer, self-confidence,
1981 Welsh & White
moderate-risk taker
Dunkelberg &
1982 Growth guided, be professional, independence
Cooper
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
Table 2. Matrix of quotations of entrepreneur’s characteristics throughout time
GEM (2000) determines entrepreneurship as any tentative of creating a new business or a

new enterprise; for example, autonomous activities, a new company or expanding an
existing business. These initiatives may come from an individual, from groups of people or
from companies that are already established.
Concluding, we may understand that entrepreneurship has various perspective of study,
including economical, political, social, cultural and compartmental issues. To Hisrich &
Peters (2001), entrepreneurship is a dynamic process of creating more wealth to a region, for
the benefit of its own community.
3. Concept of innovation in an academic perspective

Despite a strong consensus in conceptualizing innovation as “something new”, there also is
a great disagreement about what may be considered “new”. Once newness is a situational
quality, it is possible to presume innovation is situational as well. If something is new for
some sort of environment, it may be seen as innovation, even if it is well known by others
(Moreira & Queiroz, 2007).
One of the pioneers and still up to now the most distinguished author in the innovation
area, Chris Freeman used to point that one of the problems in managing innovation is the
great range of understandings people have of this word, frequently confusing its meaning to
invention. Innovation is the process of making new ideas from opportunities and putting
them into practice of an extensive use (Plonski, 2005).
For Plonski (2005), confusion happens because of three misunderstandings: reductionism
(considering innovation only as a technological basis), enchantment (considering
technological innovation as spectacular), and mischaracterization (relaxing on the
technological change requisite for the innovation).
By the end of the XIX century and beginning of the XX century, entrepreneurs and managers
were not distinguished. So, in order to make a difference between those who never invented
anything, but would adapt a new technology in creating products to reach an economical
vitality, it was established the notion of entrepreneur as an innovative person (Hisrich &
Peters, 2001).
Schumpeter (1934) points out this way: “The function of the entrepreneur is to rebuild or to
revolutionize the production pattern by exploring an invention or, more generally, a non-
experimented method, in order to produce a new good or a new commercialization for
goods, organizing a new sector”.
Entrepreneurship, for the economists, is the engine of the economical system. According to
Schumpeter, taking profit from new opportunities is connected to innovation.
Entrepreneurs are agents of changes; they make things new and different. One can only call
a person entrepreneur if he contributes with something new (Filion, 2001). Schumpeter,
Hoselitz, Cole, Gartner, and Dollinger (Paiva Jr & Cordeiro, 2002) conceptualize the practice
of entrepreneurship as the act of creating an economical and innovative organization for the
purpose of getting profit or increasing under conditions of risks and uncertainty.
The difference between the entrepreneur and the inventor is that the first one uses his
creativity connected to his management abilities and business knowledge to identify
opportunities to innovate. The inventor does not have the commitment of creating
something with economical objectives; his motivation is the creation itself, the discovery,
and nothing else (Dornelas, 2003).
4. Innovation profile and its relation with entrepreneurship

With respect to innovation profile, it is known of a strong consensus on understanding its
concept as “something new”. Nevertheless, there is great disagreement on what can be
considered as “new”. Since “newness” is a situational quality, it can be presumed that
innovation is situational, if something is new for environmental data, it can be considered as
innovation. One of the problems in managing innovation comes from the variety of
understandings that researchers have on this term, frequently confusing it with the concept
of invention. For Plonski (2005), this confusion happens for three reasons: reductionism (to
only consider innovation as a technological matter), enchantment (to consider technological
innovation spectacular) and un-characterization (to ease the requirement of technological
change in an innovation).
Throughout history, more specifically in the XVIIIth century, Adam Smith relates the
accumulation of capital with manufacturing technology; studying the concepts related to
technological change, to division of work and, to growth of production and competitiveness.
In the XIXth century, List was considered a pioneer to introduce the concept of intangible
investment. For him, the condition of a country is the result of the set of all the discoveries,
inventions, improvements, up-grades and efforts of all the generations that had lived before
us: this forms the intellectual capital of the human race. Marx and Schumpeter analyzed the
concept of technology under the perspective of economic development. For Schumpeter
(1934), it is necessary to develop ways to combine material and knowledge in order to
promote economic development; consequently, it is necessary to introduce new
combinations, which are known as innovative processes. At the beginning of the XXth
century, there still was no research that distinguished the characteristics of an entrepreneur
from the ones of a manager. To differentiate the characteristics of the ones who did not
invent from the ones who used new technologies for the creation and the development of
new products, to reach economic vitality, it was established the notion of the entrepreneur
as innovative (Hisrich & Peters, 2001).
The function of the entrepreneur is to remodel or to revolutionize the production standard
exploring an invention or, in a more general way, a non experimented method, to produce a
new good or for the commercialization of products, in a new sector (Schumpeter 1934).
For Schumpeter, the proper advantage of new opportunities is associated to innovation. For
Drucker (1985), innovation is an act that contemplates the resources with a new capacity to
create wealth. “Entrepreneur is an agent of change; it makes new and different things. It can
only be called an entrepreneur if it contributes to something new.” (Filion, 1992).
Schumpeter, Hoselitz, Cole, Gartner e Dollinger appraise the practice of entrepreneurship as
an act of creation of an economic and innovative organization with the intention to get
profitability or growth under risk conditions and uncertainty. However, there are some
entrepreneurs who open similar business, whether with the same product or processes, or
either in the same region.
Consequently, it can be considered that there is the individual who is, in fact, either an agent
of change, as suggested by (Filion, 1992), or there is this other individual who does not opt
for change, but more for copying what is already available in the market, without producing
something new for its community. Both types can be considered equally as an entrepreneur,
considering that both have some of the characteristics of the entrepreneur.
According to Schumpeter (1934), it is proposed three basic phases to define the process of
innovation: (i) invention, as a result of a discovery process, new technical principles,
potentially opened for commercial exploration but not necessarily carried through; (ii)
innovation, as a process of development of an invention for commercial purpose and; (iii)
diffusion, as the expansion of an innovation of commercial use, new products and processes.
Pinchot (1985) also indicates the distinction between innovation and invention. Invention
consists in the creation of a new concept; but innovation not only demands invention, but
the transformation of the invention into a commercial success.
For Schumpeter (1934), inventions are economically irrelevant; considering that innovations
are conversions of suitable inventions into consumer’s habits and contribute, therefore, to
economic development.
The difference between the entrepreneur and the inventor is that the entrepreneur uses his
creativity combined with his management abilities and his knowledge of the businesses to
identify opportunities to innovate. The inventor does not have any commitment to create
something with economic results; his motivation is the creation, the discovery and nothing
more (Dornelas, 2003, p. 18).
It is obvious that in joining the attributes of entrepreneurship and innovation to one
individual constitutes the best combination for economic growth, because it creates an ideal
mix which results in the opening of new enterprises focused on innovation, which creates
exclusive and new market demands. Innovation constitutes one constant challenge for the
organizations, considering the inherent risks and the advantages that it can generate. The
risks are the consequences of the consumption of resources without getting returns, or even
worse, not to spend and not to be prepared duly for the future challenges (Dorion et al.,
2008).
In this sense, Paiva Jr. & Cordeiro (2002) defines the entrepreneur as being a person who
initiates a business or a person who operates and develops it. For them, the entrepreneur is
the person who destroys the economic order already existing thru the introduction, in the
market, of new products/services, with the creation of new forms of management or thru
the exploration of new resources, materials and technologies.
When there is a surplus of information in a specific process, imitation becomes a convenient
heuristic resource. Considering the epistemological sense of the concept of imitation,
imitation itself does not consist in a worthless resource; to the contrary, it represents the
fundaments of learning and language, contributing to social cohesion and is the natural
mechanism for both inspiration and aspiration. It can also be considered a rational economic
option (Bonabeau, 2004).
In a research carried through in one hundred of the 500 companies who demonstrated the
most important growths in the United States, in 1989, it points out that 71% of the ideas of
the entrepreneurs refer to current modifications from their previous work environment. On
the other hand, only 4% of the entrepreneurs discover, through systematic research,
opportunities (Bhide, 1994).
Then, innovation constitutes an effort to produce an intentional and focused change in the
economic or social potential of the enterprise (Drucker, 1985). It consists in the creation and
the lucrative use of new technologies, new products, new services, new systems and new
forms of operation (Pinchot &Pellman, 2000). As mention Simantob & Lippi (2003), to
innovate is to have an idea that its competitors do not have yet and to implant it
successfully. Innovation is part of the strategy of the companies: its focus is the economic
performance and the creation of value.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in Becker & Cunha
(2006), differentiates technological innovation from innovative activity. The first one refers
to new products and processes launched in the market or existing product or process
significant improvements. The second one consists in organizational policies and practices
directed (i) to research activities and development (it refers to creative and systematic
activities which aims at increasing knowledge supply); (ii) to industrial engineering (with
the objective of acquiring or modifying equipment, tools, quality control, methods and
standards, and produce new products or to adopt new process); (iii) to production
(modifications of product and process); (iv) to marketing of new products (launching of
these products in the market, its adaptation and commercialization); (v) to acquisition of
intangible technology (register of patents, licenses, know-how and services of technological
content and also the acquisition of equipment and machines of technological content
introduced thru the innovations of the company); and (vi) design activities (definition of
procedures, operational and technical specifications and production of new product or
adoption of new processes, and the activities of design related to new product or process).
Simantob and Lippi (2003) mention that technological innovation consists in the
development or in the improvement of a process or a service that already exists. It differs
from the concept of invention, which refers to the creation of inexistent intellectual capital
that may not have still any economic consequence. According to Moreira & Queiroz (2007),
“in more recent studies, technological innovation is defined by the introduction in the
market of a product (good or service) technologically new or substantially improved or by
the introduction in a company of a productive process technologically improved or new”.
Technological innovation may result from new technological developments, new
combinations of existing technologies or the proper use of knowledge acquired in a
company.
In respect to the innovation profile of a manager, authors mention that this professional is
associated with the following characteristics: (i) he attracts, stimulates and give autonomy to
the decision process of the team; (ii) he has sense of urgency to resolve problems with high
degree of uncertainty; (iii) he has tolerance to risk, but he always measures the return on
investment; (iv) he knows how to take risk with responsibility and persistence; (v) he creates
an experimentation culture; (vi) he enhances commitment with any learning process, inside
and outside the company; and (vii) he understands that as part of his work to convince other
people to bare a new and good idea to be implemented (Simantob &Lippi, 2003)
The innovation profile of an enterprise shows that up to 30% of its billing comes from
products or services launched less than five years. The result of a stimuli for innovation can
be seen as a learning aspect (the produced knowledge is stored and shared with the other
areas of the enterprise); as content (a new good, service or product); as value (financial and
economic profits thru innovation); as behaviour (incorporation of capacities that changes the
forms to act and to think of the people); and as entrepreneurial spirit (incentive for
innovation projects without raising a concern for immediate success) (Simantob & Lippi,
2003).
Thus, it cannot automatically be attributed to the entrepreneur the practice of innovation,
since many entrepreneurs launch their business in the market with some products already
in use or, a lot of times, with some ideas identical to unedited management models, as a
practice of entrepreneurship and wealth creation. The habit of copying success models is a
common practice in Brazilian companies, considering the data on the initial amount of
royalties and licenses of US$ 200 million paid in 1992, passed to US$ 3,5 billion in 2001
(Simantob & Lippi, 2003). Drucker (1985), positioning himself as a partisan of the attribute of
innovation to the entrepreneur, agrees with the importance of the imitation process of the
entrepreneur, meaning that the entrepreneur can make or do something that somebody else
has already made. However, the author considers that such imitation process is, in fact,
innovative when applied to his development strategy because the entrepreneur understands
better what the imitation represents and what can be aggregated from it.
5. Imitations as an entrepreneurship action

It is not possible to necessarily insert to entrepreneurship the practice of innovation, once
many entrepreneurs come to the market with similar ideas, or many time these ideas are
identical to the inedited model; this way, they do not only undertake action but they also
create wealth, despite of not innovating.
The habit of copying successful models is a practice in Brazilian companies. This fact can be
demonstrated just facing the amount of royalties and licenses paid: US$ 200 million in 1992
and US$ 3.5 billion in 2001 (Simantob & Lippi, 2003).
Drucker (2002), still considering innovation as an attribute to entrepreneurship, recognizes
entrepreneur’s imitation as a deliberate strategy. He believes that aggregating the
entrepreneur with an innovative profile gives attributes to the same person and constitute
the best combination for economical growth. It allies inherent disposition to start new
enterprise thru innovations, creating openings in the consuming market fore new demands.
Paiva Jr. & Cordeiro, 2002 defines the entrepreneur as a person who starts a business or a
person who operates or develops it. To him still, the entrepreneur is a person who destroys
the existing economic order for the insertion of new products or services in the market, to
the creation of new management patterns, or to exploring new resources, substances, and
technologies.
Imitation becomes a convenient heuristic resource when there is too much information to be
processed. Imitation is not a despicable resource; for example, it is fundamental to learning
processes, it promotes social cohesion, and it is a natural mechanism to breath in and breath
out. Besides, it may also be a rational economical option (Bonabeau, 2004).
In a research held in 100 of 500 companies that a major growth in the United States in 1989,
it was pointed that 71% of entrepreneur’s ideas were modifications of ideas identified in
their former working environment, and only 4% of theses managers discovered new
opportunities through a systematic research (Bhide, 1994).
Innovation is an effort to produce an intentional change, focused in the economical or social
potential of entrepreneurship (DRUCKER, 1985). Innovation consists in creating and profitably
using new technologies, new products, new services, new systems, and new operation forms
(Pinchot & Pellman, 2000). It does constitute a central matter for businesses expecting to
become more competitive, desiring to develop new knowledge based management strategies
about cooperation/alliance for technology products (Dorion et al., 2008).
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Becker & Cunha,
2006) makes a difference between technological innovation and innovative activity. The first
means new products and processes inserted in the market or a significant improvement in
these same products or processes. The second refers to policies and organizational practices
focused on research actions and development (they refer to creative and systematic work
that aims to increase the knowledge stock); industrial engineering (acquiring or changing
equipment, tools, quality control, methods and patterns, with the objective of manufacturing
a new product or adopting a new process); production (changes in product and process);
marketing of new products (launching these products into the market, their adaptation and
commercialization); acquisition of intangible technology (patent office, licenses, know-how,
and services of technological content, as well as acquiring equipment and machines of
technological characteristic related to innovations started by the company); and drawing
activities (definition of proceedings, technical and operational specifications, for the
production of a new product or for the adoption of a new process, and artistic drawing
activities related to the new product or process.
According to Moreira & Queiroz (2007), the most recent studies define technological
innovation as introducing in the market a product (a good or a service) technologically new
or substantially improved, or as introducing in the company a productive process
technologically improved or new. Technological innovation may result from new
technological development, from new combinations of the existing technology, or from the
use of other knowledge acquired by the company.
6. Do Brazilian entrepreneurs imitate or innovate?

Historical factors of the Brazilian industrialization process have contributed to the dominant
perception among national companies and businessmen of treating technology as something
finished and ready to be applied. This “alienation” ended up in developing a feeling of
suspicion related to technological development that has prejudiced the companies and
excluded them from world tendency of taking part in international networks of strategic
alliances. The protectionist character of the Brazilian industrialization model in substituting
importations has de-motivated national sectors that would be beneficiated in being part of
technological competition with potential international opponents, once they had a domestic
market of great proportions.
There are some indexes on the importance of technological innovation on economical

growth and business competitiveness (IBGE, 2003):
a. Technological innovation has been responsible for about 70% of economical growth,
and perhaps for 80% to 90% of productiveness gain;
b. Private taxes of return on investments in R&D are around 20% and 30%, while social
taxes of these same investments are over 50%.
On the other hand, investments are slow in Brazil. In 1994, Brazil invested 0.7% of its GNP
in science and technology; from this sum, 75% are still supported by the government
(Guedes & Bermúdez, 2006).
What blocks creativity, according to Filion (2001), is:
a. The belief that there always is a correct answer to a certain problem;
b. The fallacy that the resolution for any problem must be logical;
c. The practical sense limits creativity;
d. Breaking up rules, beliefs or paradigms is innovation in many cases;
e. Observing only one perspective for the problem;
f. Not seeing a connection between mistake and innovation;
g. Think of solutions only on the activities of a certain sector of the company;
h. Non-conventional thought criticized by the colleagues;
i. To be a person who believes to be without any talent or creative intelligence.
To Simantob & Lippi (2003), inhibitor factors for innovation are critics and punishment.
Thus, there is a block for the capacity to dare, to risk. The innovator, as well as the
entrepreneur, needs to be tolerant with unsuccessful ideas. The companies themselves
define their innovative profile. They can see 30% of their income comes from products or
services launched less than five years ago (Simantob & Lippi, 2003).
A Mintzberg & Quinn (1992) state that in innovative configuration is the environment what
precedes? An innovative environment, according to Simantob & Lippi (2003), is composed
of qualified and continuously trained people, clear and transparent communication, without
any filter, a good environment for exchanging information, for daring, and for collective
recognition. In Table 3 below, it is possible to analyze the nine dimensions of innovative
environment proposed by Simantob & Lippi (2003):
Once there are these necessary characteristics so that companies may have an innovative
environment, in Brazil it seems that challenges are even greater. A research carried out by
IBGE/CEMPRE (SEBRAE, 2006), surveyed that the number of micro companies in the
country, between 1996 and 2002, has increased from 2,956,749 to 4,605,607. The accumulated
growth of 55.8% passed to a participation in the total number of companies from 93.2%, in
1996, to 93.6%, in 2002. The total number of people occupied in micro companies has gone
from 6,878,964 to 9,967,201. With a growth of 44.9% in this period, it increased its
participation in total occupation in companies from 31.8% to 36.2%. The number of
companies with activities for the same period has increased from 181,115 to 274,009, a
growth of 51.3%. The total of people increased from 4,054,635 to 5,789,875, with a growth of
42.8%, showing an evolution from 18.8% to 21.0%. According to this research, micro and
small companies corresponded, in 2002, for 99.2% of the total number of formal companies,
57.2% of total jobs, and 26.0% of salary mass. Because of the expressive increase of the
number of jobs generated in in both segments, salary mass presented a real improvement of
57.3% in micro companies and of 37.9% in small companies. Data from this research
demonstrates that there are in Brazil a great number of entrepreneurs and they have a major
participation in the economical activity of the country.
Challenge and They come out when people make what let them happy. The natural
involvement consequence is a strong complicity to the activity.
Freedom It conquers autonomy to execute and develop ideas and projects.
Time to create There is a greater and greater demand for time in the agenda and
physical environment proper to have ideas.
Support to There is not so much one can do without resources, support or
create patronage from leaderships, either for investing in uncertain experiment
or to recognize a group merit.
Conflict Sometimes, organizations stimulate good competition. As athletes of a
same team, people compete among themselves to look for a better
result, but respecting team spirit.
Debates They are basic ingredient to share ideas and knowledge, respecting
opposed points of view.
Humor and joy They are more natural in informal environments and with few behavior
rules.
Trust and They are perhaps the most important stimuli to assure the freedom of
sincerity speech and the consciousness that punishment is something to be
avoided.
Tolerance to risk It expresses clear understanding in accepting mistakes as part of the
learning process.
Source: Simantob & Lippi (2003)
Table 3. Nine dimensions to innovative environment
Another research, carried out by the Institute of Economical Applied Research (Ipead),
presents, in Table 4 below, that 1.7% of Brazilian industrial companies innovate.
Furthermore, the results demonstrate that an innovative company has 16% more chances to
be an exporter than the other ones and represents 25.9% of the whole Brazilian industrial
income, occupy 13.2% of all jobs generated in the activity, and pay salaries that are 23%
higher that the other ones.
The effort of these companies to innovate corresponds to 3.06% of expenses with internal
R&D; however, as they represent a minority among Brazilian companies, the total spending
by industries with R&D falls to 0.7%, while the average of other countries like Germany and
France corresponds to 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively (Arbix et al., 2005).
It is possible to observe from data presented in both Sebrae and Ipead research that
although there are a great number of micro and small companies, there also is a practically
insignificant percentage of companies which formally innovate in Brazil. It proves these new
companies are merely imitator’s entities of already existing businesses.
Other researches indicate a correlation between expenses with innovation and R&D and
wealth. While England, the United States, Japan, South Korea, France, and Germany invest
around 3% of their GNP in science and technology, Brazil invests around 1%. According to a
research realized by Human Development Report (UNDP), that established the index of
technological development, Brazil, in 2001, occupied the 41st place in the ranking that was
headed by Finland, the United States and Sweden. While Brazil has patented 125
technological innovations in 2003, the United States registered 98,663 (Simantob & Lippi,
2003).
Competitive strategy Participation (%)

Number of companies
Profit Employment
Innovation and product 1,199
25.9 13.2
difference 1,7%
Specialization in pattern 15,311
62.6 48.7
products 21.3%
Non differentiation for
55,495
product and smaller 11.5 38.2
77.1%
productiveness
Total 72,005 100 100
Source: Institute of Economical Applied Research (Arbix et al., 2005)
Table 4. Competitive strategy and innovations in companies
According to IBGE (2003), 50% of investment in innovations refers to the acquisition of

machines and equipment; only 20% are destined to research and development. In Brazil,
only 177 companies made some worldwide innovation in 2003.
In Table 5 below, it is possible to observe the index of Brazilian innovations throughout
time, divided in classes of number of people occupied by them.
People occupied with Innovation index Innovation index

innovations 1998-2000 (%) 2001-2003 (%)
Total 31.5 33.3
From 10 to 29 25.3 30.4
From 30 to 49 33.3 34.2
From 50 to 99 43.0 34.9
From 100 to 249 49.3 43.8
From 250 to 499 56.8 48.0
From 500 on 75.7 72.5
Source: IBGE, PINTEC (2003).
Table 5. Indexes of innovation in companies 1998-2000 and 2001-2003
The smaller the company is, the smaller is the index of innovativeness of this same
company. It proves once again that Brazilian entrepreneurs do not have an innovative
profile, in disagreement with the concept of entrepreneur of most authors mentioned that
relate the entrepreneur to a creative and innovative person.
In a research carried out by FAPESP agency, despite of the number of innovative companies
in Brazil increased from 22,698, in 2000, to 28,036, in 2003, this increase has not reflected in
the creation of new products or new technological processes yet. A study of technological
innovation in Brazilian industry, carried out by the National Association of Research,
Development and Engineering of Innovative Companies (Anpei) and presented in the 6th
Annual Conference of this organization, shows: “The index of innovative products focused
on the internal market has fallen drastically, from 4.1% to 2.7% [of the total products in the
analyzed period]”, says Roberto Vermulm, professor at Faculty of Economics, Management,
and Accounting (FEA) at São Paulo University (USP). According to Vermulm, in Germany
or in Italy this index is around 22%. “To be few innovative is still a structural characteristic
of Brazilian company”, he stated. Innovative processes focused on the internal market also
decreased, from 2.8% in 2000 to 1.2% of total processes in 2003.
The Federação das Indústrias do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FIRJAN) system (2007), using the
methodology of Business Week, also presents indexes of innovation for Brazil. It shows that
the country dominates important top technologies. That is the case, for example, of
petroleum exploration in deep water, aero-spatial technology, and agro-industry. The
comparative analysis shows the expense in Brazil with R&D is close to the ones carried out
by Russia, India, and China. However, it is worth to point out that it represents only one-
third of the amount of investment in South Korea.
While analyzing professional formation in Exact Sciences and Engineering, in absolute
terms, in the FIRJAN system Brazil has 56,000 graduate professionals, ahead of Singapore
(5,600), of Israel (14,000), and of Taiwan (49,000). In relative terms, that is, considering
demographic density of these countries, Brazil graduates less capable professionals to work
on essential activities to innovation than any other country, except for China.
Of the three indexes considered by Business Week, the patent office in the United States is
the index of technological development in which Brazil has its worse performance, with an
increasing close to the one reached by Russia and quite below the performance of India and
China. In absolute terms, in 2003, Brazil was the country with the smallest number of
patents in the USA. Even worse, considering the index of evolution in the patent office in the
period 1993-2003, Brazil has more registers than Israel only, remembering that Israel has an
absolute number of registered patents greater that Brazil does.
It is observed that, despite the environment was not favorable to innovation in the last two
decades; Brazilian industry could improve and get results in areas with significant
investment, such as energy, agriculture and stock growth, and aero-spatial research.
7. Clue on Brazilian business incubation entrepreneurs

The process of transformation of an idea into a sustainable company is sufficiently complex.
It evolves from the preparation and qualification of the titular of the idea, the planning of
this new company and the determination of the choices through the necessary decisions for
its continuity up to the articulation of the environment where the company is involved, in
order to provide the necessary resources for the implementation of the practice of an
imaginative conception. Furthermore, the appearance of an idea from repeated experiences
may be reached as long as there is in the incubator a common and continuous effort to
understand the nature of lived processes and to identify opportunities to improve these
processes (Dorion et al., 2008). According to data, it is favourable to associate intelligence
generation from a manager’s of incubator point of view.
Evaluating the profile of the managers of the incubators, under the optics of the
entrepreneurship and innovation, there are great similarities with the managers of the
incubated companies, which must facilitate the tuning and the harmony in communication,
in the establishment of projects and the flow of discussions.
Intra-entrepreneurship constitutes a strong and important characteristic for the managers of
incubators. However, by having only one citation referring to this characteristic, this does
not mean that the managers do not have it, since, in the elapsing of the interviews, it was
asked to the participants to cite entrepreneur’s characteristics and knowing that the answers
were open and represented the most noticeable and remembered characteristics from the
participants.
In respect to the evaluation of the incubated companies and its collaborators, the profile is,
in its majority, of technicians, which are constituted of researchers of specific areas that
develop studies on ideas for the construction of innovative solutions. The most present
citations consisted in the expressions: “to look for new”, “to search other alternatives”, “to
create new solutions for old problems”. This indicates the direct link with characteristics
related to innovation. This way, the incoming ones to the incubator have innovative
characteristics, understanding that business incubators are disseminators of these practices,
but will not develop innovative profiles.
The characteristics that have been perceived are innovation, search of opportunities,
disposal to take risks, creativity, initiative, knowledge of the product, the necessity of
achievement and pro-activity. Among the cited characteristics, were observed the attitude of
independence, the ability to lead with situations and the capacity of learning, as mentioned
by Filion (1992); determination and devotion pointed out as characteristics of the
entrepreneur by Dornelas (2003) and the proper business commitment and the adaptability,
cited by Timmons & Spinelli (2007).
Amongst the entrepreneur’s characteristics, leadership of the actors could not be identified.
Also, market knowledge was not in accordance with the behaviour of the participants, since
many had only an ideal of a product and perceived thru being incubated the possibility of
transforming it into reality, not possessing knowledge, and not having an interaction with
the segment that they were to participate in.
Moreover, Filion (1992) detaches that the entrepreneurs are involved on a long term basis.
From data collection, it was possible to perceive that a vision of the future is mainly linked
to the product itself to be developed, showing that there is no indication from the
participants of any constructed vision of the future for their business. In some cases, it was
demonstrated that the companies were basically a vehicle to create a product, fruit of an
idea, or an invention, known in the market; considering the fact that the benefits of
entrepreneurship only reinforced the initial idea, but did not enhance the proper action.
It is recognized that entrepreneurs are excellent planners; a fact that could not be identified
in the research on the profile of the managers of the incubators. To the opposite, it was
possible to perceive that the majority of the interviewed, thru their technical profile, did not
have any planning established, with a definite plan of actions and when it had, it was the
fruit of a business plan, which constitutes a requirement to enter and benefit from the
business incubator.
In compensation, the characteristic of innovation of the participants is very high, considering

that the sense of urgency to resolve problems with high degree of uncertainty, tolerance to risk
and culture of experimentation can easily be identified; but, the profile of the participants does
not show relevant characteristics of entrepreneurship, since the designated attitudes as
entrepreneur are not necessarily similar to innovation profile. For this reason, the encountering
of a profile oriented toward the one of an inventor demonstrate the lack of commitment to
create something with economic outputs, understanding that their motivation resides in the
creation and in the discovery, nothing more.
8. Conclusion
The study of these concepts allows observing that, on one hand, despite possessing an
excellent perception in relation to new business opportunities, the Brazilian entrepreneur
does not present, in its essence, an innovative character. This can be confirmed by the
statistics who point out the fact that smaller is the company, minor is the probability to be
innovative, considering the fact that in Brazil, the representation of micro and small
companies reaches 99%.
It is important to mention that, without having still a consensus between the authors of the
area, there is a trend in the literature showing that entrepreneurship is related to innovation,
creativity and change. In this perspective and by observing the Brazilian context, it is
encountered the existence of an entrepreneur who characterizes himself against such theory
based proposal, due to the fact that his link with innovative activities is very weak or
inexistent.
However, it is possible to perceive in the profile of the Brazilian entrepreneur a high capacity
to perceive business opportunities but as imitation of existing enterprises. This can be
confirmed, from one hand, by data showing a growth of 50% of the numbers of micro and
small companies established in the country between 1996 and 2002 and, on the other hand, by
the lecture of an index of only 1.7% of the companies which innovate in its businesses.
In this sense, although the imitation may consist as the most common business alternative
for Brazilians wishing to create a new venture, an existing entrepreneurial potential in the
country would justify a greater investment in innovation within these organizations. This
initiative would make possible the creation of new markets and new offers and would
minimize the vulnerability of these companies in front of global competitiveness effects.
This context enhance the urgent necessity of these companies to invest in research and
development for new products and services, which can occur, for example, through the
creation of more structured and active R& D activities.
Finally, this brief analysis of the entrepreneurial and innovative realities of the Brazilian
context shows a lack of presence and use of the entrepreneurial potential and its
competitiveness on a national scale. Moreover, the existing concepts in the literature which
characterize the entrepreneur as somebody who possesses creativity, is innovative and is an
agent for change, mischaracterize the Brazilian entrepreneur, since his act mainly relates to
imitation business-oriented, having few characteristics related to innovation.
On the other hand, it can be observed that the profile of the managers of the incubators do
have entrepreneurship and innovation characteristics, while the profile of the managers of
the incubated companies only possess innovation characteristics. The evaluation of the
profile of the managers indicates a distortion between the theoretical and the practical
orientations of the incubation process. This occurs because business incubators do focus on
ideas that, many times, are deriving from scientific research or inventions that, if
transformed into companies, do result in innovations.
As of how innovation can impact on such transition process, the results demonstrate that the
managers of the incubators and the director of the incubated companies present a highly
innovative profile, but it does not necessarily an entrepreneurial profile. The identification
of characteristics, such as the perception of change as a normal phenomenon, the lack of
discomfort with new situations, creativity and brainstorming, constitute characteristics
which describe the profile of an inventor. But, from the results of this study, they can also
demonstrate the ones of a good technician who resolved to commercialize a great idea.
Consequently, as of the identification of the profiles of entrepreneurship and innovation, it can
be stipulated that business incubators do focus on the development of the missing
entrepreneurial and innovation characteristics identified in this analysis; but in very distinct
manners. One aspect to be valued from this research refers to qualification, training,
management support, posture to interact with the academic sphere; which will generate results
and benefits for both the worlds of business and science; because both professors and
researchers from the academic world constitute a good source of learning and development for
relevant business management practices. Thru such strategy, it would be possible to develop
better managerial abilities and entrepreneurial attitude with the managers of the incubated
companies. Such action would allow the conciliation of entrepreneurship and innovation
characteristics, from the vision of the actors up to their systemic interaction pattern, generating a
dynamic disequilibrium, rule of a healthy economy and reality of the economic theory.
9. References
Anprotec. (2006). Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos de Tecnologia
Avançada. 19.08.2006 Available from http://www.anprotec.org. br
Arbix, G.; Salerno, M. & De Negri, J.A. (2005). Internacionalização com foco na inovação
tecnológica e seu impacto sobre as exportações das firmas brasileiras. Revista Dados,
Vol. 48(No.1): 395-442.
Becker, G.V. & Cunha, N.C.V. (2006). Competências organizacionais: desvendando a
inovação em empresas de manufatura. Proceedings of 24th Simpósio de Gestão da
Inovação Tecnológica. Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em
Administração, Gramado, Brazil, october of 2006, CD ROM.
Bhide, A. (1994). How entrepreneurs craft strategies that work. Harvard Business Review on
Entrepreneurship.
Bonabeau, E. (2004). The perils of the imitation age. Harvard Business Review.
Dolabela, F.(1999). Oficina do empreendedor: a metodologia de ensino que ajuda a transformar
conhecimento em riqueza. São Paulo: Cultura.
Dorion, E.; Pavoni, E.T .& Lazzari, F. (2008). Strategic cooperation for technology products
through knowledge-based management learning: a case study on Randon
Implements S/A, Caxias do Sul (Brazil). International Journal of Technology
Marketing, Vol. 3(No 4): 342-357.
Dornelas, J.C.A. (2003). Empreendedorismo corporativo: como ser empreendedor, inovar e se

diferenciar em organizações já estabelecidas. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Drucker, P.F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker P.F. (2002). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review on the innovative
enterprise. Harvard Business School Press.
Filion, L.J. (1991). Vision et relations : clef du succès de l’ entrepreneur. Montréal Chaire d’
entrepreneurship McLean/Hunter, Montreal, HEC.
Filion, L.J. (1992). Bolton twenty years on. The Small Firm in the 1990s. Revue Internationale
PME, Vol.5(No.3): 171-189.
Filion, L.J. (2001). Compétence métier et vision chez lês dirigeants: réflexions sur le devenir de l’
entrepreneur. Document non publié. Chaire d’ entrepreneurship McLean/Hunter,
Montreal, HEC.
Firjan (2007). Federação das Indústrias do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. 14.07.2007 Available from
http://www.firjan.org. br
Gem. (2001). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Entrepreneurship in Brazil - 2000: National
Report. Curitiba: IBQP.
Guedes, M. & Bermúdez, L.A. (2006). Parques tecnológicos e incubadoras de empresas em países
em desenvolvimento: lições do Brasil. Brasília: ANPROTEC: SEBRAE.
Hisrich, R. D. & Peters, M. P. (2001). Entrepreneurship. 5. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ibge. (2003). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. As micro e pequenas empresas
comerciais e de serviços no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
Mintzberg, H. & Quinn, J.B. (1992). The strategy process. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Moreira, D.A. & Queiroz, A.C.S. (2007). Inovação organizacional e tecnológica. São Paulo:
Thomson Learning.
Paiva Jr., F.G. & Cordeiro, A.T. (2002). Empreendedorismo e espírito empreendedor: uma
análise da evolução dos estudos na produção acadêmica brasileira. Proceedings of
26th Encontro Nacional da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em
Administração. Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em
Administração. Salvador, Brazil, setember of 2002, CD ROOM.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: why you don't have to leave the corporation to become an
entrepreneur. Harpercollins.
Pinchot, G. & Pellman, R. (2000). Intrapreneuring in action: A Handbook for Business
Innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Pirich, A.; Knuckey, S. & Campbell, J. (2001). An interface between entrepreneurship &
innovation - New Zealand SME’s perspective. Prepared for DRUID Nelson & Winter
Conference 2001. Aalborg University, Denmark.
Plonski, G.A. (2005). Bases para um movimento pela inovação tecnológica no Brasil. São
Paulo em Perspectiva, Vol. 19(No. 1): 25-33.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development. 1 ed. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Sebrae. (2006). Serviço Brasileiro de apoio às micro e pequenas empresas. 13.08.2006 Available
from http://www.sebrae.com.br
Simantob, M. & Lippi, R. (2003). Guia valor econômico de inovação nas empresas. São Paulo:
Globo.
Timmons, J.A. & Spinelli, S. (2007). New venture creation: entrepreneurship for the 21st century.
New York: McGraw-Hill, Irwin.
6
New Service Ventures – Struggling for Survival

Jörg Freiling
University of Bremen
Germany
1. Introduction
While the tertiary sector of the economy is, in most countries, the dominating one, the
entrepreneurial activity of this sector accounts for about 83% of the total entrepreneurial
activity (KfW, 2011). Facing this fact little has been said about the peculiarities and
challenges new service ventures have to face in general, i.e. beyond the particular issues of
certain service industries. This paper intends to fill this gap. It is argued that there are in fact
general peculiarities of service ventures that make a difference to other modes of venturing.
More, due to the very nature of services, ventures of this realm face particular problems of
achieving a state of sustaining establishment in the target market. To address these
challenges in more detail, we introduce the ‘liabilities of serviceness’ as another category of
liabilities young firms typically face beside the well-known liabilities of newness,
adolescence, and smallness (King, 2006). As a consequence, the drop-out rate in many
service industries is very high. Accordingly, we consider the struggling for survival of new
service ventures an appropriate sub-title of this chapter. To better understand this process
and to focus our analysis we raise the guiding question which factors particularly make a
difference at the cross-road of survival and failure.
Since we do not conduct primary empirical research, we consider it useful to ground our
analysis on a sound theoretical framework that frames our analysis. In this connection,
particularly approaches from economic theory address issues of failure and survival. As the
dominating frame of reference in management studies competence research allows for a
solid understanding of the issues relevant to this chapter. Thus, we employ competence-
based theory (Teece et al., 1997; Sanchez & Heene, 1996; Freiling et al., 2008) and adapt
competence-based reasoning to the service peculiarities by referring to the so-called ‘service-
dominant logic’ of Vargo and Lusch (2004). The service-dominant logic (henceforth: SDL)
addresses the transition and transformation of value-added processes from a goods
orientation to a service orientation. Service orientation does not primarily and exclusively
mean the provision of services but rather implies thinking in terms of serving the customer
and implementing a value co-production by both the supplier and the customer.
The chapter proceeds as follows: In section 2 we portray briefly the very nature of services
and the particular situation of service ventures to the end of a first understanding what
‘liabilities of serviceness’ might be about. Subsequently, in section 3 we mirror these
liabilities against competence-based theory. To this end, we refer to the open system view of
the firm and develop Sanchez and Heene’s (1996) framework to better respond to
peculiarities of service ventures. With this newly developed framework we can specify the
challenges in case of service ventures struggling for survival. The chosen causalities are
transformed into propositions that may guide future research. In section 4 we portray the
managerial conclusions of the debate. The aim is responding to the question what service
ventures can do to overcome critical liabilities of venturing and to achieve a state of
sustaining establishment in the market. Finally, in section 5 the chapter concludes with a
brief outlook.
2. New service ventures, peculiarities of services, and liabilities of

serviceness
2.1 On the nature of services
What is different in case of services in general and in case of service ventures in particular?
Services are different from other goods in numerous ways (Lovelock & Wirtz, 2007; Bruhn &
Georgi, 2006; Desmet et al., 2003). Most often, researchers point to the intangible nature of
services. Indeed, services are predominantly of intangible nature. However, we need to be
careful when contrasting goods and services. Neither it is correct that all goods are purely
tangible nor can we say that every service is solely intangible. In case of goods it is
mandatory that a tangible core offering is accompanied by services, sometimes as pre-sales
services, sometimes as after-sales services, and sometimes as sales-related services. It is
simply impossible to market goods without any kind of service provision. Services, instead,
can be provided without any tangible add-on. Nevertheless, in most instances this is simply
not the case. E.g., in case of business consulting, a typical service with a high level of
intangibility, elements of the final result are tangible (final report, documentation, etc.).
Insofar, intangibility is an important, but not pervasive feature of services. Against this
background we challenge the typical notion of the intangibility of services (Lovelock &
Wright, 2002) and specify them in the above mentioned manner. However, in case of
intangible solutions customers face a problem to evaluate the quality items. This restricted
and sometimes lacking transparency increases the likelihood that customers do not make a
purchasing decision simply because of the fact that the transaction-related risk might get out
of control. For service ventures, the intangibility of their solutions is thus a first core
challenge they have to cope with in their long and uncertain process of getting established
in the market. It is worth noting that the (predominant) intangibility is an output peculiarity of
services.
What else characterizes services? Apart from this output feature there are other criteria that
refer to the input or throughput dimension. Serviceness is particularly characterized by the
process of service provision (throughput peculiarity). This motivates scholars to stress that
services are processes (Bruhn & Georgi, 2006). In this context, services always require the
participation of the single customer in the value-added process (Grönroos, 1990; Marion,
1996; Lovelock & Wright, 2002). Sometimes this phenomenon of customer participation is also
called ‘customer integration’ (Bruhn & Georgi, 2006). The term indicates that the customer
and/or information and/or objects of the customer are integrated in the sphere of the
supplier - at least temporarily. Thus, the customer participates via providing information,
objects of his own sphere (e.g. machines to be repaired), and/or people. This integration of
external factors is mandatory to trigger the final value-added process with the end to supply
a customized solution. The simple fact that the customer is directly or indirectly involved in
New Service Ventures – Struggling for Survival 101
the process of service provision reveals the decisive service encounter of the supplier and
the customer. Due to the interaction between the two parties, the service encounter is
relevant to the customer’s evaluation of the supplier and the solution to be provided. More
than that, the encounter itself is relevant to the quality of the service, for customer and
supplier agree on the service design and the related specifications. Moreover, they make
first steps of co-producing the service - and oftentimes of co-developing a tailored solution
(Toffler, 1980; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Therefore, customer participation is inseparable from
the phenomenon of value co-production (Cowell, 1984; Rodie & Schultz, 2000). As for newly
founded service companies, customer integration is a challenge. Those firms have neither
sufficient customer-related experience available, nor a sound database at hand, nor are they
fully aware of the implications of customer participation. Thanks to their newness they often
had no chance to build routines of customer integration and hence face problems related to
the service encounter. This leads to disadvantaged situations compared to established
companies.
So far, customer integration is an integral part of the very nature of services. As for the
process dimension of services, the debate on the so-called ‘service-dominant logic’ (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004) sheds light on another service peculiarity: it is simply not enough to view the
value-added process of the supplier the customer is involved in. Oppositely, the
customer/supplier interaction does not finish when the solution is provided. Different from
that, the supplier is in many instances welcome to support the utilization process of the
customer. In order to make the most of the solution provided, customer and supplier
continue their joint operations, but now also containing supplier integration in the customer’s
sphere. E.g., business consultancies do not leave their clients alone when they provided their
solution. Instead, they are usually open for any kind of feedback or requests from their
client(s). This supplier integration in case of services is, compared to customer integration,
not mandatory but often takes place. The reason for this is that the supplier comes with
considerable use-related know-how that may leverage the customer’s benefit considerably.
Once again, new service ventures are forced to develop skills of supplier integration that
require empathy to better understand what the customer really needs and expects.
Next, we analyze service peculiarities before the value-added process starts so that we
consider the input dimension as well. In this respect, services are, in fact, very different from
other goods. In the moment of the sales-act, services may simply be referred to as non-
finished goods. The supplier provides services always after an agreement with the customer
on the specifications and terms of trade. Insofar the supplier promises future performance
but does not sell something finished ‘right from shelf’. The typical run of events of
production followed by the sales-act is inverted. With the agreement, the customer buys a
‘promise’; this promise triggers follow-up value-added processes - independent from the
possible situation that the supplier might be prepared for service transactions to some
extent. Alchian and Woodward (1988) differentiated in this sense between contracts and
exchanges, the first one being relevant to services. Contracts promise future performance.
Thus, customers have to believe in the quality of the service and the competence and
willingness of the supplier. In case of new service ventures the customer is often unaware of
the skills and competences of the supplier due to newness reasons. For new service ventures
this may be a serious obstacle of the establishment process since it is very hard to convince
customers with an organizational competence that is just developing.
There are many more items of services presented in literature (Lovelock & Wright, 2002;
Desmet et al., 2003; Bruhn & Georgi, 2006; Lovelock et al., 2009): variability of inputs and
outputs, people as part of the product, perishability, lacking inventories for services, etc. We
state that all these items are derived from the one we listed above. Moreover, there are
features mentioned in literature (Desmet et al., 2003), that simply do not reflect the service
nature. One example is the argument of simultaneity of production, selling, and
consumption. As outlined above, the value-added process of services follows the final
agreement and thus the contract and the sales-act. Furthermore, using the provided solution
might last much longer than production. In this vein, we differentiate between customer
integration in the value-added process and supplier integration in the usage process. Thus,
services are predominantly (but not necessarily entirely) intangible solutions (output) that rest on
mandatory processes of customer integration (with people, information, and/or objects of the customer
as external factors to be integrated in the supplier’s sphere at least temporarily). Services are contract
goods with an agreement between customer and supplier prior to the final value-added process.
These peculiarities challenge newly founded service firms considerable. Most of the
problems are connected with quality evaluation by the customer and quality assurance by
the supplier. The next sub-section portrays these challenges in more detail.
2.2 Liabilities of service ventures and liabilities of serviceness

Population ecology of organizations (Hannan & Freeman, 1977; 1984) tells us that
organizational evolution goes along with different problems and challenges depending on
the phase of evolution. Older firms face other problems than younger firms. Among the
most prominent problems of young firms, entrepreneurship research usually deals with
‘liabilities of newness’, ‘liabilities of adolescence’, and ‘liabilities of smallness’. We briefly tie
in this discussion. Our main point, however, is to portray another category of liabilities that
we termed ‘liabilities of serviceness’. The latter directly refers to the issues we raised in the
preceding sub-section.
Hannan and Freeman (1984) point to the particular situation of newly founded firms
(liabilities of newness). From the outset, their embeddedness in markets and society is rather
low and they are forced to build business relationships fast. Firms with higher levels of
reliability have much better chances to survive. The same holds true for other factors such as
reputation as well. Young firms are disadvantaged in this respect. This makes them prone to
crises. Liabilities of newness occur right from the beginning of the venturing process, so that
already in the seed-phase the first problems appear, followed by challenges in the start-up
phase. Population ecologists (Hannan & Freeman, 1984) argue that liabilities in later steps of
the organizational evolution appear as well. Similar to human life, the liabilities of
adolescence refer to the phenomenon that in earlier stages of organizational development
processes do not run in the smooth manner that is typical for well-established firms. Instead,
due to an under-developed resource endowment, the younger firms face different resource
bottlenecks they have to deal with. In financial regards, young firms need to manage stage
financings (in particular seed, start-up, expansion, and bridge financing, cf. Volkmann et al.,
2010; Freiling, 2006) several times which is in most cases an open and uncertain process.
Another issue is coping with barriers to growth. Since growth challenges the given
structures, restructuring is necessary every once in a while.
Whereas the two above-mentioned liabilities directly refer to the age of the firm, the
liabilities of smallness focus the problems connected to the size of the organization
(Amburgey et al., 1994). These liabilities decrease the likelihood of survival in particular due
to the following reasons: limited access to capital markets, limited cost efficiencies and
economies of scale, and limited access to high-potentials. The entire resource endowment is
limited and bottlenecks are more likely to appear.
As for service ventures we can state that all the mentioned liabilities might appear. How far
they might affect the organizational evolution of these ventures depends on the situation. In
fact, there are service industries and service businesses, where corporate size does not
matter or at least is of less interest. Nevertheless, we should not under-estimate these factors
and analyze them in connection with the debate on potential ‘liabilities of serviceness’.
What are the liabilities of serviceness? We can answer this question by directly referring to
the considerations above. A first liability is the problem to demonstrate the quality of the
output. Nelson (1970) and Darby and Karni (1973) differentiated three different categories of
quality perceptibility of products. Search qualities, as obvious items (e.g. color, material), are
easy to assess prior to purchase (ex ante) by simply inspecting a finished good. We learned
that due to the contract character of services the solution is not finished, yet, but has to be
provided. Search qualities of the solution are thus simply non-existent. Experience qualities
are those attributes of a solution that cannot be immediately assessed. The solution has to be
used in the utilization process of the customer so that experience-based learning paves the
way to customer’s quality evaluation (ex post). Many items that are typical for services
belong to this category, such as reliability, fitness for use etc. Many service items are
experience qualities so that quality assessments are possible (only after the transaction has
taken place) but at the same time require some costs as well. The third category refers to the
so-called ‘credence qualities’. Customers are at no time able to assess the quality of these
items. If a guru of a religious sect promises eternal life, then we can speak of real credence
qualities. Different from the view in literature (e.g. Desmet et al. 2003), there are only a few
attributes that belong to this category. In most cases it is possible to assess the quality at
least by third-party support (e.g. experts). However, customers do not take this chance due
to cost and/or convenience reasons. In those instances, when quality judgment is possible
but de facto does not happen, the situation changes. Figure 1 portrays that in those cases we
can speak of so-called ‘calculus credence quality’ (Welling, 2006; Sohn & Freiling, 2011).
Following Welling’s (2006) train of thoughts, service transactions take place in constellations
that can be called ‘Akerlof situations’ (according to Akerlof, 1970).
Against this background, services go along with considerable problems of the customer to
evaluate the quality of the solution to be provided. Oftentimes, the customer makes use of
surrogates that might indicate whether the quality of the solution will conform to
requirements or not. In particular, the supplier can be such a surrogate. The customer
figures out the skills and motivations, asks for references and testimonial letters to reduce
his personal risks. In case of service ventures, this liability of serviceness comes to a serious
issue. The supplier is completely new in the market. There is simply no reliable information
on the supplier available that can fill the information gap of the customer. Insofar, liabilities
of serviceness and liabilities of newness or adolescence form a liaison dangereuse from the
supplier’s point of view. The intangibility of the output as well as the contract character of
services play a pivotal role in this respect.
Possibility of quality judgement

judgment by the customer
Neither before
Only after
Before exchange nor after
exchange
exchange
Before
Search quality - -
exchange
Calculus
After Experience
De facto experience -
exchange quality
judgement quality
Neither
Calculus Calculus
before nor Credence
Credence Credence
after quality
Quality Quality
exhange
exchange
Nelson Akerlof Arrow

situations situations situations
Source: Welling, 2006: 168; Sohn & Freiling, 2011: 13
Fig. 1. Quality Judgment in Case of Services
Another liability of serviceness rests on the phenomenon of customer integration. Taken

seriously, customer participation in the value-added process implies that the quality of the
solution is not solely dependent on the supplier and his operations. Instead, by providing
external factors of the customer to be integrated in the value-added process of the supplier
(Bruhn & Georgi, 2006), the customer contributes considerably to the quality of the solution.
In this respect, quality is a function that depends on the quality of customer’s and supplier’s
production factors and operations. Business consultancy illustrates the problem. Following
the logic of ‘garbage in, garbage out’ in case of misleading information on the customer’s
basic problem, a consultant is simply unable to deliver a solution that fixes the customer’s
problem. Service quality is therefore not perfectly manageable by the supplier alone.
Consequently, he is forced to manage the entire customer integration process as well. In
many cases, this is only possible in case of bilateral adaptations. This liability of serviceness
is accompanied and reinforced by the liabilities of newness (no considerable adaptations
took place so far) and the liabilities of smallness (absolute lack of inputs and resources).
Once again, we have a dilemma in case of service ventures. Service firms can replace lacking
control of the quality management process by available routines and capabilities. This,
however, is often impossible in case of service ventures.
We can conclude that liabilities of serviceness do exist. However, what is more important is
the fact that they interact with other liabilities. The oftentimes self-reinforcing effects might
threaten the survivability of the new service ventures. Next, we employ theory to better
understand the background.
3. Establishing service ventures in competition - a competence-based

perspective
3.1 An open system view on service value-added processes
Organizational competences are repeatable, non-random abilities to render competitive output
that are based on knowledge and experience and channeled by rules and patterns (Sanchez et
al., 1996; Teece et al., 1997; Freiling, 2004; Freiling et al., 2008). Research on organizational
competences suggests that the availability and utilization of organizational competences is
vital to firm’s competitiveness and survival in competition (Freiling et al. 2008). Insofar, also
new service ventures are well-advised to build and leverage organizational competences. Once
developed, they stabilize the often under-developed process structures of young service
companies. This may lead to more predictable and reliable output. Moreover, existing
competences that are perceptible by customers or business partners work as surrogates in the
above-mentioned sense. Since services have no search qualities on the product/output level,
competences at hand might be a search or experience quality - not of the product but of the
supplier. In this respect, customers are able to reduce their transaction-related risk when
organizational competences of the supplier are available and evident. More generally,
competences are a response to all the liabilities of serviceness mentioned above besides (or in
addition to) the liabilities of young and small-sized firms. This is the reason why we employ a
theoretical approach that directly addresses the role of competences in competition and the
issues of competence building and leveraging.
Source: Sanchez & Heene 1996: 41.

Fig. 2. The Open System View of the Firm
Within the competence-based theory of the firm we focus our attention on the model of the
firm as an open system, following the initial proposal by Sanchez and Heene (1996) which is
displayed in figure 2. Sanchez and Heene argue that the firm consists of different system
elements that closely interact with each other. Among the system elements, the strategic
logic is in a certain way the driving force of all processes. The reason for this is that the
strategic logic consists of the decision-making rules and patterns of the entrepreneurs and
the other managing workforce that drive the whole value-added architecture of the firm. As
such, the strategic logic rests on previously learned knowledge and experience. This logic
steers the process of information selection and processing as well as the application of
available interpretation schemes. In Sanchez and Heene’s (1996) model the strategic logic
permanently interacts with the management processes. In fact, no management process can
evolve without an impulse of the strategic logic. Oppositely, every management process will
be, to some extent, reflected by the decision-makers. Insofar, we clearly see the link between
these two phenomena. For the sake of parsimonious model building and simplification, we
question the independent state as two autonomous system elements because they are
inseparably linked. In this vein, we model the strategic logic and the related management
processes as only one system element henceforth. Subsequently, Sanchez and Heene (1996)
model the intangible assets, the tangible assets, the operations, and the product offerings as
separate system elements. Once again, we question this variety of system elements in the
light of the service peculiarities and make some modifications we explain in more detail
below. First, there is no convincing proof why a differentiation between tangible and
intangible assets is meaningful and, thus, necessary. Despite some minor differences such as
limited imitability of intangibles (Hall, 1991; 1992), there is no reason for fundamental
differences. Later on, within the debate on the service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004)
we come back to the need of distinguishing between different resource categories. However,
at this point of reasoning we simply model the resources at hand without any further
differentiation. We follow Sanchez and Heene (1996) insofar as we consider the value-added
processes and activities an independent and meaningful system element of service
provision. Here, the resources represent the input dimension of services and the value-
added processes the throughput dimension. Notwithstanding, facing the service
peculiarities we must be careful when considering the output dimension. As outlined above,
the output is co-produced. Moreover, services involve in most cases no transfer of property
rights to products, although we might think of certain ways to define them. Facing the fact
that the customer is deeply involved in developing the solution and considering that
thereafter the customer makes use of it, we believe that it is better to assign the performance
delivered to the customer - and not to the supplier. The logic that a supplier produces goods
to be marketed belongs to the goods-related paradigm. Services are different, as we pointed
out above. Consequently we depart from the Sanchez and Heene (1996) model once again -
and this time considerably, for we do not only model the supplier but, as shown in figure 3,
the customer as well - be it a consumer (b-to-c) or an organization (b-to-b or b-to-a). We do
so for reasons we explain in more detail in the follow-up sub-section below.
Before, we clarify two more basic principles of the open system view of the firm. First, the
role of competences in this system view is still open. One can argue that competences are
nothing else but (intangible) resources so that they are already considered within the system
element ‘resources’. This would be less than a half-truth. The reason for this is the simple
fact that the interplay of the internal system elements is to be managed and mastered.
Insofar, every firm needs capabilities that translate between the system elements and that
‘keep the wheels on rolling’. A competence thus resides in managing the dynamic interplay
between the system elements. This does not exclude that the firm’s competences might
reside in other system elements as well. However, the basic ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’
processes in this system rest on capabilities in use.
Source: Own Illustration

Fig. 3. The Modified Open System View of Service Firms
Second, the firm is an open system. The firm, young or old, small or big, is embedded in a
business and social environment. To better understand the drivers of survivability in
particular of young and small firms, the open system view deals with the external system
element called the ‘firm-addressable assets’. When service ventures are challenged by scarce
resources and bottlenecks, access to firm-addressable assets mitigates the problems and
might keep the organization alive. This reasoning is fully in line with the resource-
dependence view with Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) as the main protagonists (cf. Freiling,
2008, for the relationship between resource-dependence theory and the resource-based and
competence-based view). Anyway, accessing firm-addressable assets is an endeavor that
rests on the availability of capacities as well, since the young firm needs to identify
promising assets, find a way to assimilate them, and to integrate them in its own value-
added system. The debate on the absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) provides us
with a basic understanding how this may proceed - with the absorptive capacity as a
cumulative capability to access external knowledge.
Figure 3 displays two more links of the firm as an open system to the environment. One is
the link to the market, the other the link to external advisors. Firms, in particular new
service ventures, are well advised not only to participate in market processes for the sake of
sales but to learn in the market. In particular, they need to know how far their value-added
architecture is ready to pass the market test. In many cases adaptations are strongly
required and major as well as minor changes almost unavoidable. What differentiates
service firms from other companies is the fact that market interactions are very much more
located on a one-to-one level. This implies that service ventures receive direct feedback from
their business relationships to customers, not primarily from anonymous market structures.
To this end and different from the Sanchez and Heene (1996) model, there are feedback
processes between the customer and supplier related to every system element.
The link between the firm and external advisors is decisive as well, particularly from a
viewpoint of a new service start-up. The young entrepreneurs typically have a certain sense
of direction how to position the company, how to access the market, and how to do the
business. These considerations are mirrored in the strategic logic and the management
processes as well. The open system view tells us that a strategic logic is usually prone to
organizational rigidities. This is not surprising at all for a strategic logic is grounded in basic
beliefs and attitudes. Planned change of these phenomena is often impossible. If change
happens then the change emerges over a rather long time. These rigidities might threaten
the survivability of the young service firm because in unfavorable situations the
entrepreneurs might get disoriented and lose their open-mindedness. In those cases it is
vital to have access to external advisors they can trust. Insofar, the problem of ‘mental
rigidities’ can be circumvented as long as the entrepreneurs are open-minded as well as
willing and able to integrate external advice.
Finally, we condense our considerations by formulating research propositions that may
guide future empirical work on this issue. Against the background of this sub-section and
keeping in mind service ventures struggling for survival, we propose:
Proposition 1.1. Rigid strategic logics of service ventures decrease the likelihood of survival.
Proposition 1.2. Absorbing external advice decreases rigidities of the strategic logic and
increases the likelihood of corporate survival.
Proposition 2.1. Limited access to firm-addressable assets decreases the likelihood of survival.
Proposition 2.2. Absorptive capacities as for all kinds of assets fill critical resource gaps and
increase the likelihood of corporate survival.
Proposition 3.1. Lacking capabilities of managing the value-added architecture prevent the
service ventures from smoothly running operations and hence decrease the likelihood of
survival.
Proposition 3.2. Permanent competence building and leveraging in the realm of the value-
added architecture increase the likelihood of corporate survival.
We already addressed learning in the market process. However, within the scope of our
next sub-section we can specify the considerations so that the respective propositions are
developed below.
3.2 The survival of service ventures in the light of the service-dominant logic
When comparing the original and the modified open system view in the light of service
ventures, the most striking difference is that there are two open systems with the customer
and the supplier. What is this differentiation good for? The answer can easily be given by
pointing to the basic understanding and intent of the service-dominant logic (henceforth:
SDL), developed by Vargo and Lusch (2004). SDL departs from the value-added principle of
‘make and sell’ to ‘sense and respond’. Customer and supplier interact, co-develop, and/or
co-produce what the customer needs. This requires a mutual openness and often intense
bilateral adaptations so that the metaphor of a temporary unit of both parties well fits the
basic character of cooperation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Lusch & Vargo, 2006). Whereas Vargo
and Lusch (2004) suspect that the SDL implies a shift from a single transaction to a long-
term business relationship of a customer and a supplier, surrounded by a number of
different service transactions, we do not need to go so far. More important is the notion that
a temporary collaboration of the close kind develops. This implies a different kind of
governance. Whereas in many anonymous markets many suppliers stand vis-à-vis many
customers, service markets are personalized to an extent that relational governance replaces
market governance. If this holds true, it does not make sense any longer to model markets as
the centerpiece of feedback from the other side of the market. Instead, learning in the market
is nothing else but learning from a single customer and transferring the insights internally to
all system elements of the supplier according to figure 3. A key facilitator of these learning
processes is customer integration in the value-added process on the one hand and supplier
integration in the utilization process on the other. This viewpoint reveals that it is too
myopic focusing only on the value-added process and the related transaction between
customer and supplier. The utilization process enhances our view as usage is particularly
relevant to a sound understanding of the service nature. Again, we propose:
Proposition 4.1. New service ventures with a low intensity of learning from the customer and
in the market are more likely to fail.
Proposition 4.2. With developed capabilities of both customer integration and supplier
integration new service ventures decrease the likelihood of corporate failure.
We already raised the question which resources might be of utmost importance to corporate
survival. SDL tells us that two different kinds of resources exist, both with completely
different roles within the corporate value-added architecture: operant resources and
operand resources (Constantin & Lusch, 1994; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Operant resources are
those that act upon other resources to create value. They are deeply embedded in the firm’s
resource endowment, enable a smooth run of activities, and are virtually not affected by
depreciation. Instead, in most cases their value increases in use. Knowledge, skills,
capabilities are prominent examples of this category. Operand resources, however, are those
which must be acted on to create value. The typical production factors (materials, energy,
machines etc.) belong to this category. Having said this, our next propositions are:
Proposition 5.1. Resource gaps decrease the likelihood of the survival of new service
ventures.
Proposition 5.2. Among the resources, the availability and development of operant resources
allow for an increasing likelihood of the survival of new service ventures.
So far, we addressed all the system elements modeled in the modified open system view of
new service ventures, some of them directly, others indirectly. The research propositions are
intentionally formulated in a more general fashion. It is up to on-going research to specify or
modify the propositions in the light of empirical research. Next, we introduce some selected
managerial consequences and discuss our findings.
4. Managerial implications and discussion

New service ventures find themselves confronted with different liabilities when running a
new business. These liabilities are in most cases highly interrelated. The aim of this chapter
was to highlight managerial challenges and to locate ways to circumvent the above-
mentioned liabilities. To this end, we developed, one by one, propositions as for corporate
failure as well as for ways how to cope with these challenges. This section is to translate the
theoretically founded findings into a more application-oriented format. The question is:
what do entrepreneurs and/or managers in new service ventures have to do to make
survival in competition more likely?
A first basic insight is that new service ventures need to care for an entire quality
management system. We learned that quality challenges appear coevally at the input,
throughput, and output level. Moreover, we are aware that not only the supplier produces
service quality but the customer as co-developer and/or co-producer as well. This challenge
is demanding, for it is not enough to establish a system of company-wide quality control but
a system that crosses firm’s boundaries. Facing the liabilities of newness, adolescence, and
smallness, new service ventures need to find solutions that save scarce resources while
providing a high degree of efficacy. In this dilemma-like situation, new service ventures are
not left alone. In fact, there are proven techniques of service quality management that allow
for escaping from trade-offs. In this realm, service blueprinting (Shostack, 1984; 1987;
Kingman-Brundage et al., 1995) is a technique that supports process management while
considering input and output issues as well. The technique was developed for service value-
added processes and thus carefully considers all activities connected to customer and
supplier integration including all processes in the ‘back-stage’ area of the supplier.
Blueprinting is a technique that can be supported by modern software solutions. Practiced
in a more informal manner, young and small companies find sound opportunities to employ
this method.
Practicing techniques, such as service blueprinting, is already a first step into the direction of
fostering capability maturity. We know the capability maturity models and systems from
other discussions (e.g. quality and reliability of software systems, cf. April & Abran, 2008)
and, particularly, from bigger companies longing for professionalizing their activities. In
this vein, new service ventures are forced to improve the stability of all operations. To this
end, it is useful to develop organizational routines (Pentland & Feldmann, 2008). Mastering
a service blueprint already implies the development of routines. People become aware of
and familiar with a planned run of events. The more they practice it, the more the routine
becomes internalized and hence deeply embedded in the cognitive structures of people.
Routines themselves are elements of organizational competences. It is up to service ventures
to control this process and to transcend practices from the micro level of the individual to
the macro level of the firm. These processes rest to a large extent on organizational learning.
Figure 4 describes the process from individual intuition to develop something new, patterns
or routines included. The model developed by Crossan et al. (1999) indicates how this
momentum, created by intuition or, as Freiling and Fichtner (2010) extend, by absorption of
external impulses, translates into action sequences beyond the individual by processes of
interpretation, integration and, finally, institutionalization in the feed-forward manner. The
feedback way of learning allows for refreshing and deepening what was previously learned.
From a managerial viewpoint it is up to entrepreneurs and/or managers in service start-ups
to keep these feed forward and feedback processes alive that spread between different
ontological levels (individual, group, organization). If these processes work, it is most likely
that organizational competences develop.
institutionali-
organization zation
Feedback
Feed-forward
integration
group
interpretation
individual absorp- intui-

tion tion
Source: Freiling & Fichtner 2010: 161.

Fig. 4. The Modified Crossan et al. (1999) Organizational Learning Model
Competence-based research suggests that competences are the main reason why firms are
able to withstand the competitive pressure. However, having and utilizing competences is
not enough, in particular in the service business. When new service ventures find
themselves struggling for survival, they need to ensure that available competences can be
communicated so that also customers get aware of them. This is by no means an easy
endeavor for competences are rather implicit and equipped with a high degree of opacity
and causal ambiguity (Dierickx & Cool, 1989). Customers will not get aware of the
supplier’s competences easily. Nevertheless, without demonstrating this potential of the
supplier to fix problems in a predictable and reliable manner, customers cannot reduce the
uncertainty as for a particular supplier. Without a minimum reputation in this regard,
service transactions will not take place. Thus, signaling available competences becomes an
issue for new service ventures as well. Although this might not be easy at first glance,
service start-ups should be aware of the oftentimes hidden chances in this respect. With
every process of customer and supplier integration the two parties work together closely. It
is useful to take the chances of these ‘moments of truth’ to clarify the competence at hand. In
this sense, customer interaction management comes to an issue.
5. Outlook
This chapter intends to advance our understanding of service ventures in particular as for
the so-called ‘liabilities of serviceness’. We coined this term to pinpoint the challenging
situation most of the service ventures are in. What we need to know is how far these
liabilities cause higher failure rates of service start-ups or whether service ventures develop
particular skills to cope with this issue. It is up to on-going empirical surveys to research on
that.
We modeled the system elements of the supplier - and the customer as well. As for these
system elements we need to know more about the relevance of particular types of resources.
Maybe the differentiation of operant and operand resources is already useful in this regard.
However, we need more empirical research to make a precise statement on that.
Finally, we need to know more about the peculiarities of competence development in
service ventures. Is it so that service start-ups can overcome obstacles to competence
development? And if so: what are the most important levers?
Insofar, the chapter raised follow-up questions that can fuel more research activities on this
relevant but highly neglected field of research.
6. References
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market
Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.84, No.3, pp. 488-500, ISSN 0033-
5533
Alchian, A. A. & Woodward, S. (1988). Review: The Firm Is Dead; Long Live The Firm a
Review of Oliver E. Williamsons’s The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Journal
of Economic Literature, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 65-79, ISSN 0022-0515
Amburgey, T.L., Dacin, T. & Kelly, D. (1994). Disruptive selection and population
segmentation: interpopulation competition as a segregation process. Baum, J. A. C.
& Singh, J. V. (Eds.). Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. ISBN 0-19-508584-1,
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 240-254
April, A. & Abran, A. (20008). Software maintenance management. Evaluation and continuous
improvement. ISBN 978-0-470-14707-8, Hoboken/NJ: Wiley
Bruhn, M. & Georgi, D. (2006). Services Marketing. Managing the Service Value Chain, ISBN 0-
273-68157-5, Harlow/U.K.: Prentice Hall
Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, pp. 128-152,
ISSN 0001-8392
Constantin, J. A. & Lusch, R. F. (1994), Understanding Resource Management. ISBN 0-7863-
0360-3, The Planning Forum: Oxford, OH
Cowell, D. (1984). The Marketing of Services, ISBN 0-750-60209-0. London: Heinemann
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. & White, R. E. (1999). An Organizational Learning Framework:
From Intuition to Institution. The Academy of Management Review, Vol.24, No.3, pp.
522-537, ISSN 0363-7425
Darby, M. & Karni, E. (1973). Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud. Journal of
Law and Economics, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 67-88, ISSN 0022-2186
Desmet, S., Van Looy, B. & Van Dierdonck, R. (2003). The nature of services, In: Van Looy,
B., Gemmel, P. & Van Dierdonck, R. (Eds.), Services Management: An Integrated
Approach, 2nd Ed., ISBN 0-273-67353-X, Harlow/U.K.: Prentice Hall, pp. 3-26
Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and the sustainability of competitive
advantage. Management Science, Vol.35, No.12, pp. 1504-1511, ISSN 0025-1909
Freiling, J. (2004). A Competence-based Theory of the Firm. Management Revue, Vol.15, No.1,
pp. 27-52, ISSN 0935-9915
Freiling, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship, ISBN 3-8006-3277-2. Munich: Vahlen
Freiling, J. (2008). RBV and the Road to the Control of External Organizations. Management
Revue, Vol.19, No.1&2, pp. 33-52, ISSN 0935-9915
Freiling, J. & Fichtner, H. (2010). Organizational Culture as the Glue between People and
Organization: A Competence-based View on Learning and Competence Building.
ZfP - German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, Vol.24, No.2,
pp.152-172, ISSN 0179-6437
Freiling, J., Gersch, M. & Goeke, C. (2008). On the Path Towards a Competence-based
Theory of the Firm. Organization Studies, Vol.29, No.8&9, pp. 1143-1164. ISSN 0170-
8406
Grönroos, C. (1990). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm
shift in marketing. Management Decision, Vol.32, No.2, pp. 4-20, ISSN 0025-1747
Hall, R.H. (1991). The Contribution of Intangible Resources to Business Success. Journal of
General Management, Vol.16, No.4, pp. 41-52, ISSN 0306-3070
Hall, R.H. (1992). The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 135-144, ISSN 1097-0266
Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American
Journal of Sociology, Vol.82, No.5, pp. 929-964, ISSN 0002-9602
Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American
Sociological Review, Vol.49, No.2, pp. 149-164, ISSN 0003-1224
KfW, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (2011): KfW-Gründungsmonitor, Frankfurt/Main: KfW,
ISSN 1867-1489
King, C. (2006). Erfolgreiche Marketingstrategien für technologieorientierte
Unternehmensgründungen, ISBN 3-924848-00-9, Lohmar: Eul
Kingman-Brundage, J., George, W. & Bowen, D. (1995). „Service logic”: achieving service
system integration. International Journcal of Service Industry Management, Vol.6, No.4,
pp. 20-39, ISSN 0956-4233
Lovelock, C. & Wirtz, J. (2007). Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 6th Ed., ISBN
0-13-187552-3, Harlow/U.K.: Prentice Hall
Lovelock, C. & Wright, L. (2002). Principles of Marketing and Management, ISBN 0-13-040467-5,
Harlow/U.K.: Prentice Hall
Lovelock, C., Wirtz, J. & Chew, P. (2009). Essentials of Services Marketing, ISBN 987-981-06-
7995-8, Harlow/U.K.: Prentice Hall
Lusch, R.F.& Vargo, S.L. (2006): Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and
refinements. In: Marketing Theory, Vol.6, pp. 281-288, ISSN 1470-5931
Marion, F. (1996). Service Coproduction and Customer Participation, In: Mühlbacher, H. &
Flipo, J.-P. (Eds.): Advances in Services Marketing. ISBN 3-8244-6508-6, Wiesbaden:
DUV, pp. 17-26
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and Consumer Behavior, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.78,
pp. 311-329. ISSN 0022-3808
Pentland, B.T. & Feldman, M.S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing
artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, Vol.18,
pp. 235-250, ISSN 1471-7727
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource

Dependence Perspective. ISBN 978-0804747899, California: Stanford University Press
Rodie, R.A. & Schultz, K.S. (2000). Customer Participation in Service Production and
Delivery, In: Swartz, T.A. & Iacobucci, D. (Eds.): Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management, ISBN 0-761-91612-1, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 111-125
Sanchez, R. & Heene, A. (1996). A Systems View of the Firm in Competence-based
Competition, In: Sanchez, R., Heene, A. & Thomas, H. (Eds.). Dynamics of
competence-based competition. ISBN 0-08-042585-2. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 39-62
Sanchez, R., Heene, A. & Thomas, H. (1996). Toward the theory and practice of competence-
based competition. In: Sanchez, R., Heene, A. & Thomas, H. (Eds.). Dynamics of
competence-based competition. ISBN 0-08-042585-2. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 1-35
Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, Vol.62, No.1,
pp.133-139. ISSN 0017-8012
Shostack, G. L. (1987). Service Positioning Through Structural Change. Journal of Marketing,
Vol.51, No1, pp. 34-43. ISSN 0022-2429
Sohn, A. & Freiling, J. (2011). Is Entrepreneurial Branding Relevant to B-to-B Service
Ventures? IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol.8, No.2, (June 2011), pp. 7-18, ISSN
0972-9097
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.
Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18, No.7, pp. 509-533, ISSN 0143-2095
Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. ISBN 0-517-32719-8, London: Bantam Books
Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal
of Marketing, Vol.68, No. 1, pp. 1-17, ISSN 0022-2429
Volkmann, C.K., Tokarski, K.O. & Grünhagen, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship in a European
Perspective. ISBN 978-3-8349-2067-6, Wiesbaden: Gabler
Welling, M. (2006). Ökonomik der Marke. ISBN 3-8350-0226-0, Wiesbaden: Gabler
7
Interfirm Alliances: A Collaborative

Entrepreneurship Perspective
Mário Franco1 and Heiko Haase2
1University of Beira Interior, NECE – Research Unit in Business Sciences,
2University of Applied Sciences Jena, Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
1Portugal
2Germany
1. Introduction
For several years, competing meant reducing costs, as this concept was closely linked to
scale economies, and the same strategies were systematically applied. The term of
competitiveness was used to characterise firms’ greater or lesser capacity to face the
competition. Nowadays, the European Union forces firms to adopt stronger competitive
positions, so as to respond to market changes, and to some extent, to be able to survive in
their sphere of operation. The continuing need for improvement and constantly increased
productivity is an important challenge faced by firms today. For this reason, it can be stated
that firms have difficulty in competing individually supported exclusively by its own
resources. In fact, at present, and even more so in the future, competitiveness appears in
firms’ relationships and networks. Therefore, to compete in a highly complex market, firms
must establish cooperations as a business strategy to face difficulties that may emerge.
In this context, entrepreneurship appears to be a suitable approach, as it aims at discovering,
evaluating and exploiting new business opportunities (Kirzner, 1973; Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). This includes activities such as scanning the
external environment for new markets, unmet needs, existing problems in work processes
and new product ideas (Sandberg, 1991; Sayles & Stewart, 1995). Entrepreneurship is a
concept that began to be important at the end of the eighties (Miller & Friesen, 1983;
Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). Since then, a growing amount of literature has helped firms to
understand the organisational process that facilitates business behaviour.
However, despite all the efforts to study this behaviour and although the business context
offers an excellent reference to carry out investigations, entrepreneurship still requires more
study in order to establish its legitimacy and specific contribution. Examination of business
initiative involves distinction between two types of research: one based on the function of
the business-person and the other analysing the business behaviour of existing firms. Older
studies focus on the first category, i.e., they focus on the characteristics and behaviour of
business-people and analyse the creation of new organisations (e.g. Aldrich, 1990). This
paper, however, will come under the second category, i.e., concentrating on business
initiative at the corporative level (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990).
According to this perspective, Miller (1983) set the first cornerstone by introducing the
concept of entrepreneurial orientation, characterised by innovation, pro-activeness and risk-
taking. Although there is no single term and notion of entrepreneurial orientation, these
dimensions were adopted by many subsequent studies (e.g. Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Kreiser
et al., 2002; Tarabishy et al., 2005). In this context, Middel (2008) concluded that
entrepreneurial capability is an important requisite for a firm to collaborate effectively with
external partners and therefore be able to absorb the beneficial competences of other firms,
increasing its level of knowledge and improving its innovative characteristics. According to
Antoncic (2007), firms are considered entrepreneurial if they form interfirm relationships
and show themselves to be innovative, pro-active and with a capacity for constant self-
renewal. As noted by Gundry and Kickul (2007), entrepreneurship tends to require
cooperation and collaboration among many parties.
In this sense, interfirm alliances can help large and small firms be more entrepreneurial
(Ireland et al., 2006; Montoro-Sánchez et al., 2009). In this paper, an interfirm alliance is
defined as an organisational arrangement, through which two or more firms acting in
isolation manage to overcome their resource constraints. In fact, a growing number of firms
rely on alliances to capture the resources they need to achieve their strategic objectives
(Bragge et al., 2007; Urbano & Yordanova, 2008). Research shows that interfirm alliances are
useful measures to fill resource gaps and to access additional competences (Montoro-
Sánchez et al., 2009; Zacharakis, 1998). The concept of cooperation through alliances is found
to be particularly involved with the phenomenon of collaborative entrepreneurship. As
stated by Yan and Sorenson (2003), the cooperation among firms is one of the dimensions
that contribute most to collaborative entrepreneurship.
Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano (2009) characterise collaborative entrepreneurship as a firm’s
ability to collaborate outside the organisation. For Miles et al. (2005), collaborative
entrepreneurship involves a group of firms that develop a strategy which allows them
continuous innovation, through the respective collaborative capacities. This process is
developed from alliances between two or more parties, all aiming to reach beneficial results.
In this vein, the present paper conceives collaborative entrepreneurship as a strategy
involving implementation within the firm, of knowledge and information coming from
outside. The synthesis of the relationship between entrepreneurship and interfirm alliances
is an interesting and fruitful area of investigation, but hitherto studies have mainly
concentrated on small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) (Marino et al., 2002; Zacharakis,
1998), with a shortage of research applied to large firms. To fill this and other voids, in this
paper the unit of analysis is the firm, whatever its size, and interfirm alliances.
One of the main contributions of this paper is to establish an interface between two
important areas of management: entrepreneurship and strategic management. More
precisely, the intention is to examine to what extent the formation of interfirm alliances can
contribute to the development of collaborative entrepreneurial activities, i.e., how this
decision can be interpreted as a form of collaborative entrepreneurship. To date, the role of
entrepreneurship in alliance research, or vice versa, has received very limited attention in
the literature (Alvarez & Barney, 2005). In particular, the influence of entrepreneurial
orientation and firm resources on the decision to enter into alliances is an under-researched
field. Consequently, the objective of this conceptual paper is to fill this caveat. In doing so,
Interfirm Alliances: A Collaborative Entrepreneurship Perspective 117
its contribution lies in developing theory and a better understanding of how to use interfirm
alliances as an approach to collaborative entrepreneurship.
The remainder of this book chapter is organised as follows: Section 2 refers to the main
theories on which this paper is grounded, namely, resource-based theory and resource
dependence theory. Section 3 discusses some definitions of interfirm alliances and,
subsequently, the main reasons leading firms to adopt this business strategy, namely,
obtaining and developing new resources. Section 4 offers a depiction of the various types of
resources, capacities and competences a firm should possess, and more precisely, presents
some typologies of these resources. As entrepreneurial orientation is the keyword to
evaluate whether a firm adopts entrepreneurial actions, Section 5 deals with this concept
and presents its various dimensions. Section 6 shows how formation of interfirm alliances
can be interpreted as a form of collaborative entrepreneurship. The paper concludes with
proposing a conceptual model for future analyses and some final considerations.
2. Principal theories
Various theories support the formation of alliances between firms, but in this book chapter
highlights the two most important of them: Resource-based Theory and Resource
Dependence Theory.
2.1 Resource-based Theory

According to Barney (2001), the development of Resource-based Theory resulted from
frustration with the neo-classical economic justifications for firm performance, particularly
neo-classical arguments based on market power such as homogeneity and mobility of a
firm’s resources. On the other hand, for Mahoney and Pandian (1992), the origins of
Resource-based Theory are found in the field of strategy, in institutional economics (Positive
Agency Theory, Theory of Ownership Rights, Theory of Transaction Costs and Evolutionist
Theory) and in Industrial Organisation (Chicago School and Harvard School). Corner,
quoted by Mahoney & Pandian (1992), places the origins in Neo-classical Theory, Industrial
Organisation and Theory of Transaction Costs. They argue persuasively that the resource
approach reflects both a strong industrial organisation approach and one which at the same
time is unique.
However, Resource-based Theory is due to Edith Penrose, in 1959, with her book ‘The
Theory of the Growth of the Firm’, where the firm is looked on as a wide set of resources
(Buckley & Casson, 2007). Contrasting with neo-classical ideas, Penrose (1959) assumed
the heterogeneity and immobility of resources and carried out an analysis of how some
firms manage to achieve competitive advantage in a given industry while others do not
(Bowen, 2007). In this way, resources were both the key to a firm’s success and the main
limitation of their growth (Buckley & Casson, 2007). The vision of Penrose made a useful
contribution to good management practice, highlighting the creation of value through
creative activity influenced by internal and external stimuli which lead to growth and
innovation (Pitelis, 2005). Besides Penrose in 1959, other authors such as Hofer and
Schendel (1978), Wernerfelt (1984), Grant (1991) and Peteraf (1993) also contributed to
Resource-based Theory.
The objective of Resource-based Theory consists of analysing the position of resources in a

firm and looking at some strategic options suggested by that analysis, namely the
relationship between profitability and resources and ways of managing the position of
resources in the firm over time (Wernerfelt, 1984). A central proposition of this theory is that
firms are heterogeneous. Each firm is seen as a unique set of tangible and intangible
resources (Esteve-Pérez & Mañez-Castillejo, 2008; Wernerfelt, 1984) and capacities that are
acquired, developed and expanded over time. A firm’s resources and capacities are the
result of its strategic choices and commitment of resources over time and determine its
performance at any time (Esteve-Pérez & Mañez-Castillejo, 2008). Therefore, the unit of
analysis of this theory is the firm and that firm’s resources (tangible and intangible) and
capacities.
A resource is understood to be anything that can be thought of as a strength or weakness of
a given firm (Wernerfelt, 1984). A firm’s current resources are defined as those assets which
are connected semi-permanently to a firm, such as: brand name, knowledge of technology,
use of competent collaborators, commercial contracts, machinery, efficient procedures,
capital etc. (Furrer et al., 2008). For Hart (1995), resources include physical and financial
assets as well as employees’ competences and organisational (social) processes. A firm’s
capacities are the result of the sets of resources acquired for unique activities that create
value (Hart, 1995). Penrose (1959) refers to resources using the term of services, and other
investigators (Chaston & Mangles, 1997; Hamel et al., 1989; Smart & Conant, 1994) refer to
central competences. The firm can give a different direction to resources according to
purpose. However, it is fundamental that they are ‘labelled’ to avoid conflict and to define
the situations in which they will be used.
The term of capacities is used to describe how resources are applied in the firm. Grant (1991)
suggests that capacities are what is generated from the result of applying the resources a
firm possesses. Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1991) suggest that an optimal combination of
a firm’s resource profile and its activities in the product market should optimise its
performance. It was this theory, therefore, that gave rise to articulation of the relationships
between a firm’s resources, capacities and competitive advantage. For Wernerfelt (1984),
competitive advantage can be sustained if the capacities that create that advantage are
supported by resources that are not easily copied by competitors. In other words, a firm’s
resources should raise barriers to imitation in the same line of thought. Bowen (2007) states
that analysis of the characteristics of resources emerging in a firm and identification of the
current or potential location of competitive advantage may lead to improved economic
performance.
There seems to be consensus about the characteristics of resources that contribute to a firm’s
sustainable competitive advantage (Peteraf, 1993). At the most basic level, those resources
must be valuable, irreplaceable and inimitable. For a resource to have effective value, it
must contribute to a firm’s capacity having competitive meaning and not being easily
accompanied by alternative meanings (Barney, 2001). In the view of Miller and Shamsie
(1996), resources should provide profit or avoid possible losses for the firm. The existence of
resources that are heterogeneous and difficult to create, substitute or imitate by competing
firms allows competitive advantage associated with a high level of performance. It is often
questioned whether firms use resources and capacities appropriately, in order to give them
competitive advantage. Therefore, Grant (1991) underlines that one of managers’ concerns
consists of adopting strategies which enable the firm to make effective use of the resources
and capacities available.
Resources and capacities allow formulation of competitive strategies, this fact being proven
in the investigations by Chandler and Hanks (1994) who propose a relationship between
resources, capacities and a firm’s performance. Some authors (e.g. Chandler & Hanks, 1994)
claim that the sustainability of a firm’s capacities is the key to competitive advantage in the
long term. Definition of sustainable capacities includes capacities that are not easily created
by the competition, and which serve as a support for the strategic plan. In this connection,
Grant (1991) underlines that a firm’s resources and capacities have to be protected in order
to ensure greater competitive advantage.
As long as a firm has the right resources, it is in a position to identify and explore new
growth opportunities that may arise, as the environment is not a conditioning factor in a
firm’s evolution. Associated with resources is strategic management focusing on the firm’s
internal characteristics and respective performance (Grant, 1991). This approach differs from
the classical theory of strategy by focusing fundamentally on resources, and it can also be
assumed that some firms are heterogeneous concerning the resources they control (Greene
et al., 1997). Combination and/or overlapping of resources allows firms growth and
consequently expansion of business activities. However, it is not enough to analyse this
theory in isolation in order to explain a firm’s growth and performance, it being
fundamental to consider firms together with the environmental context. Small firms cannot
exclude their surrounding environment. This fact is due to the great influence exerted by the
environment on small firms (Chandler & Hanks, 1994).
Resource-based Theory presents some limitations. For Bowen (2007), one limitation of this
theory is that it focuses only on analysis of a firm’s internal resources for implementation of
its strategy, without taking into account the external institutional pressures which affect
firms and the stance they adopt with regard to those pressures. Furrer et al. (2008) argue
that Resource-based Theory does not suitably explain the difference in performance
between firms that have the same level of uniqueness, rarity, inimitability and isolation of
resources. For Barney (2001), this theory should be completed with theories of the
entrepreneurial process and creativity for a better understanding of the strategic alternatives
a firm can adopt given the resources it controls. It is in that context that this investigation
emerges.
2.2 Resource Dependence Theory

Resource Dependence Theory is highlighted in studies involving organisational
cooperation. This theory reflects the importance of resources as a ‘critical variable’ of the
organisation. Resource Dependence Theory covers several variables, such as power, control,
uncertainty and trust (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). According to some authors (Das et al., 1998;
Grandori & Soda, 1995), this theory offers a dimension of qualitative and quantitative
dependence in explaining business cooperation phenomena. The respective assumption
considers that firms manage to survive by establishing interfirm alliances, allowing them to
access indispensable resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Zinn et al., 1997). In simple
cooperation relationships, there is total inter-dependence between firms, and these alliances
are regulated by association agreements so as to face up to competitors’ resources. In the
most complex alliance processes, these are regulated through relational and binding
contracts involving the transfer of resources (Grandori & Soda, 1995).
The choice of a partner in an alliance depends on the position of the resources in the market,
and for that reason, it is important to analyse the environment. If the resources are abundant
and their supply is stable, resource dependence is not a problem. However, if resources are
scarce, firms need to develop strategies in order to diminish resource dependence and
control the environment (Zinn et al., 1997). Reduced resource dependence can be achieved
by forming alliances and other forms of collaboration. It is from the environment that scarce
resources are obtained and opportunities identified. These resources are obtained through
interfirm relationships. Some resources can be developed inside the organisation, but most
of them are obtained by sharing when alliances are developed with other firms (Holmlund
& Tornroos, 1997).
According to Sachwald (1998), forms of cooperation have been widely put into practice in
order to lower entry or mobility barriers. With these cooperative agreements, the goal is to
gain entry to markets at a low cost, in relation to the necessary resources. That is why Oliver
(1997) and Sachwald (1998) consider the phenomenon of business cooperation as one of the
main methods for firms to reach resources, competences and capacities that are not available
in competitive markets, and also intangible resources (reputation, for example). The value or
usefulness of a resource depends on its combination with other resources, as resources in
isolation have no value. When resource availability is limited, the formation of alliances can
be a strategy that is preferred over other organisational forms (Sachwald, 1998).
Nevertheless, in some cases, business alliances do not bring benefits as the advantages
brought to the firm are not as great as the costs involved. Resource dependence can be a
question of technology, lack of raw material, access to new markets and new competences
(Sachwald, 1998).
Grant (1991) considers differences between resources and competences. Resources are
production method inputs, and so these methods need coordination between resources.
Competences are described as the capacities of a set of resources to carry out a task or
activity. This author also underlines that resources are the source of capacity, and
competences are the source of competitive advantage. So the essential element between a
firm’s resources and competences is the capacity to achieve coordination in work teams.
Sachwald (1998) also distinguish a firm’s resources from its competences. These authors
state that in a firm there may be resources, which are coded knowledge, or competences
which are tacit knowledge. As resources are explicit they have a market value, and are easy
to control and transmit, but competences are non-expressed (invisible) resources, they
cannot be compared and so do not have market value. According to Pucik (1988),
competences are tacit knowledge obtained over time, being constructed progressively by
firms themselves.
Despite the contribution of Resource Dependence Theory, several criticisms of this approach
have been expressed in organisational studies. The lack of empirical studies allowing
analysis of the combination of resources is one of the criticisms made by Peteraf (1993).
Collis (1991) also points out as a criticism the absence of applicability of the theoretical
studies made of Resource Dependence Theory in the field of cooperative strategies. The
same author emphasises that practical studies are only applied to multinational firms and
not to small and medium-sized ones. Grant (1991) and Priem and Butler (2001) also criticise
this approach for the non-existence of integration of theoretical foundation, and for the
limited effort in developing practical implications of this theory.
3. Interfirm alliances
3.1 Characteristics of interfirm alliances
Alliances are a phenomenon that firms have adopted to promote technological modernisation,
through shared investment, in the search for competitiveness. However, certain doubts often
still remain regarding the concept of interfirm alliances, despite their application being
increasingly common. Some definitions of this concept are therefore discussed.
According to Badaracco (1991), alliances are organisational arrangements and operational
policies through which individual firms share an administrative domain and form social
relationships. Dussauge and Garrette (1999) underline that alliances are formed by
relationships between independent firms that choose to act together in carrying out projects
or activities. For Porter (1998), these cooperation phenomena are presented as organisational
methods of economic activity using coordination and/or cooperation between firms.
According to Lewis (1990), alliances are cooperative strategic arrangements that allow
cooperation between firms, aiming to satisfy common needs with the advantage of sharing
risks. Wheelen and Hunger (2000) understand alliances as partnerships between two or
more firms or business units, with the intention of reaching mutual objectives. Aaker (2000)
adds that alliances reinforce the parties involved until the initially established goals are
achieved. For this to happen, cooperating firms must adapt their assets or competences so as
to face up to attacks from competitors.
All alliances are motivated by the need for partners’ resources, in areas where own
resources are more critical (Wilson & Hynes, 2008). In essence, these relationships allow
partner firms to combine resources creatively in establishing sets of competitive advantage
(Teng & Das, 2008). In these alliances, the intention is to stimulate the specialised
competences of each firm so that they can join resources, allowing the creation of greater
market strength (Bucklin & Sengupta, 1993). Alliances between firms include the sharing of
resources with a view to the allies’ general objective and the individual objectives of partner
firms. The fundamental reason for forming an alliance between firms is the sharing of
material and non-material resources to give firms a stronger competitive position (Chathoth,
2003). The resources obtained through alliances can include location, brand name and client
base (Preble, 2000), for example.
Firm alliances arise from partnerships between firms which, using their own individual
capacities, are unable to create one or more specialised resource internally or acquire it
through the market. Therefore, an alliance becomes the vehicle through which partner firms
have access to specialised means (Chathoth, 2003). In particular SMEs feel the lack of
sufficient resources to develop marketing activities and penetrate the market. So with
partners, a great variety of needs are met (Pansiri, 2008).
Alliances are forms of voluntary cooperation involving the share of information, mutual
learning and exchange between members, as well as social control (Johannisson et al., 2002).
Alliances are considered as a complementary system which facilitates firms’ innovative

activity. These partnerships are a source of external knowledge, and so a firm’s competitive
advantage depends on its position in the relationship (Lechner et al., 2006). Alliances are one
of the most powerful assets a firm can possess, as they give access to power, information,
knowledge and capital (Hulsink & Elfring, 2003).
The majority of firms do not have the financial resources to allow expansion. Therefore, an
alliance becomes fundamental, since the costs of obtaining a partner are less than those of
firm expansion outside (Wilson & Hynes, 2008). One of the main advantages of this type of
relationship is risk sharing. These alliances are advantageous for firms in the sharing of
resources and risks, which is especially important as the uncertainty of their results
increases (Chathoth, 2003).
Following these various investigations in the field of alliances, the conclusion is that when
this type of business relationship is formed, higher rates of productivity, efficiency and
effectiveness are reached. In order to overcome limitations that usually affect SMEs in the
business process, whether through lack of resources (human and financial) or experience,
this type of firm has increasingly adopted cooperation strategies in order to strengthen
resources and capacities. Cooperative actions are a way for firms to organise themselves to
compete at a local, regional and global level. However, these strategic alliances imply the
loss of autonomy, as they require the mutual collaboration of partners.
3.2 Reasons for interfirm alliances formation

The motives leading firms to form alliances with others have been the subject of various
investigations. The reasons stimulating alliance formation can be diverse, such as: improved
competitiveness, risk reduction, the search for scale economies, access to technology, market
exploration, the need to develop, response to government threats or pressure, among others.
Bamford et al. (2003) restructure the motives for developing strategic alliances according to
the following topics: possibility to create new business; easy access to the partner’s
capacities when resources are scarce or when risks are high; cost reduction; creation of scale
economies; overlapping business; improvement of supplier efficiency through establishing
optimal relationships; increased innovation and quality; and value creation.
For Lewis (1990), the inter-dependence of firms created by the shortage or absence of
resources is a condition for alliance formation. Aaker (2000) also argues that strategic
alliances serve as an instrument compensating for the lack of competences and resources.
Alliances form a bridge between firms and the competences each party possesses, more
efficiently and quickly (Hamel et al., 1989). This exchange of competences and resources
allows firms to remain competitive in the market.
According to Neto (2000), the main reasons motivating alliance formation are: (a) to combine
competences and use other firms’ know-how; (b) divide the burden in carrying out
technological research; (c) share the risks and costs of new opportunities; (d) offer an
improved and more diversified range of products; (e) exert more pressure on the market; (f)
share underused resources; (g) strengthen buying power with suppliers and consumer sales;
and (h) strengthen firms so as to operate in international markets.
The study by Rossi et al. (2009) identified three base-lines supporting justification of alliance
formation, only two of which are relevant for this investigation. One of the basic ideas is
related to the need to access resources which are absent or in short supply and which can be
supplied by the partners in the alliance. The other base-line is centred on the combination of
resources in order to gain competitive advantages.
Studying Rossi et al. (2009) in more detail, the first base-line justifying alliance formation
sets out from the assumption that the firm is not self-sufficient in relation to the resources it
needs. This is the motive for forming an alliance, in order to satisfy the shortage or lack of
resources. This approach to sustaining alliances is supported by Resource Dependence
Theory, stating that firms are engaged in a constant struggle to obtain the resources they
need and control that dependence.
The second approach of Rossi et al. (2009) supporting the development of alliances identifies
that the combination of resources between the firms involved in these relationships allows
them to achieve results which would not be possible if acting in isolation. This combination
of resources is seen as a source of competitive advantage, this idea being supported by
Resource-based Theory. As already exposed, this theory argues that alliances are
instruments for combining resources among various firms, with the aim of obtaining new
business opportunities.
The following Table 1 presents the various motives gathered from analysis of the literature
review.
Reason Author(s)
Complementary Technology Mariti & Smiley (1983)
Transfer of Technology, Information Bamford et al. (2003); Harrigan (1985); Mariti &
and Capacities Smiley (1983)
Marketing Agreements Mariti & Smiley (1983)
Scale Economies Bamford et al. (2003); Contractor & Lorange (1988);
Harrigan (1985); Mariti & Smiley (1983); Mason (1993)
Risk-sharing Bamford et al. (2003); Contractor & Lorange (1988);
Harrigan (1985); Mariti & Smiley (1983); Neto (2000)
Diminishing Instability/Uncertainty Harrigan (1985)
Achieving a New Positioning Harrigan (1985)
Exploitation of Synergies Harrigan (1985)
Diversity and Evolution in sector of Harrigan (1985)
operation
Surmount Barriers Contractor & Lorange (1988); Harrigan (1985)
Creation of New Business Bamford et al. (2003)
Cost Reduction Bamford et al. (2003); Harrigan (1985); Neto (2000)
Increased Innovation and Quality Bamford et al. (2003); Mason (1993)
Exchange of Resources and Capacities Aaker (2000); Contractor & Lorange (1988); Hamel et
al. (1989); Harrigan (1985); Lewis (1990); Neto (2000)
Control of Markets Neto (2000)
Reduction and Rationalisation Neto (2000)
of R&D Expenditure
Profit Generation Bamford et al. (2003)
Product Differentiation Grant (2002); Neto (2000)
Table 1. Reasons for Interfirm Alliance Formation
4. Resources, capacities and competences

Considerable irony exists around the process of alliance formation, as firms must possess
some resources to be able to capture more resources (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996; Saad
et al., 2005). Indeed, according to Penrose (1959), firms tend to possess resources so as to
increase their use, for example, technology, the firm’s reputation, brand image and
knowledge of marketing. In these circumstances, Das & Teng (2000) suggest there are two
distinct motives for establishing strategic alliances: one of them involves the need to obtain
new resources and the other consists of developing own resources by combining them with
those of other firms.
A literature review suggests that firms’ resources can be tangible (physical and financial)
and intangible (based on knowledge). According to resource-based theory, intangible
resources are more specific than tangible ones (Lorente, 2001). Intangible resources
determine the method of growth, and as they are specific for the purpose for which they
were created, they are difficult to codify and therefore protect against imitations or copies
(Nonaka, 1994; Hill & Kim, 1988).
More concretely, the classification by Miller and Shamsie (1996), used later by Das and
Teng (2000), distinguishes between property-based resources (physical and financial
resources) and knowledge-based resources (intangible resources and skills). In fact, a firm
is made up of resources and capacities that are managed differently from one firm to
another (Nunamaker et al., 2002; Penrose, 1959). Following Penrose (1959), Hofer and
Schendel (1978) also proposed six categories of resources: (a) financial resources; (b)
technological resources; (c) physical resources; (d) human resources; (e) organisational
resources; (f) reputational resources. Other classifications are referred to by other
researchers (Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984), however, they concern the same
type of resources.
Amit and Schoemaker (1993) consider resources as a set of specific factors held and
controlled by the firm, and subsequently converted into products or services through
technological mechanisms, information management systems, systems of incentive and trust
between the different social partners. Those resources consist of: commercial know-how
(patents and licences); financial or physical assets (buildings, premises and equipment) and
human resources.
Barney (1995) classifies resources into: human resources – experience, knowledge, value
judgments, risk tendency and individual wisdom associated with the firm; physical
resources – machinery, equipment and premises; financial resources – debts, profits and
shares; and organisational resources – history, relationships, trust, organisational culture
(attributes of groups of individuals linked to the firm), formal and informal communication,
control systems and reward policies, adding that these must be: valuable; rare; unable to be
perfectly imitated and irreplaceable.
Other investigators such as Barney (1991) and Froehle and Roth (2007) refer to
organisational resources. These authors argue that this type includes a firm´s formal
reporting structure, its formal and informal planning, controlling and coordinating systems,
as well as informal relations among groups within a firm and between a firm and those in its
environment. Froehle and Roth (2007) state that organisational resources also comprise the
development championing, employee motivation, internal communication, lines of
responsibility, managerial support, social networks, reward structure and development of
team diversity. These resources reflecting the total sum of managerial decisions and
activities are predominantly tacit and difficult to transfer across firms, and hence of
questionable value in acquisitions.
The skills developed by the firm are also a crucial determinant for its development and
growth. According to Penrose (1959,) managers’ experience allows development of internal
knowledge, skills and competences. This means that the experiences in earlier
entrepreneurial activities and the management and negotiation of alliances in the past may
impact on knowledge and future decision taking (Eden & Ackermann 2001; Hasty et al.
2006).These specific capacities mostly include tacit elements. Taking into account the various
types of firm resources and capacities, Table 2 presents a typology which serves as the basis
for this research.
Resources and Capacities Description Author(s)

Tangible Physical - Only affect choice of the type of Chatterjee
Resources Financial diversity & Singh (1999)
Intangible Technological - Difficult to protect against copy or Hill & Kim
Resources imitation (1988)
Commercial - More specific than tangible resources, Montoro-
for the context in which they were Sánchez
created et al. (2009);
- Difficult to codify or make explicit Nonaka (1994)
- Determine the choice of method of
firm growth
Organisational - Resources that include a firm’s Froehle & Roth
structure, formal reports, formal and (2007)
informal planning, system control
and coordination, as well as informal
relations between groups within a
firm and between a firm and those
operating in its environment
Specific Prior alliances - Experience allows development of Penrose (1959)
Capacities experiences internal and tacit knowledge of
resources, competences, operation
and standard organisational
procedures
Experience in - The business-person’s experience in Eden &
collaborative business activities can have an Ackermann
entrepreneurship impact on knowledge and future (2001)
decision-making
Table 2. Typology of Resources and Capacities
To conclude, firm success is connected to the important role of resources, as these are
considered strategic for the firm when they are indispensible for the conception and
implementation of competitive strategies (Barney, 1995). The challenge for a firm is to
identify and implement strategic assets, i.e., resources that are difficult to imitate, scarce,
valuable and irreplaceable, specific resources as differentiating factors that allow it to
achieve competitive advantage in terms of production and economic value (Amit &
Schoemaker, 1993; Barney, 1995) and greater economic profitability over time (Grant, 1991).
5. Entrepreneurial orientation
According to various authors (e.g. Fillis & McAuley, 2000; Hills, 1994), the concept of
entrepreneurship consists of the process through which it is possible to create value by
combining different types of resources, so as to exploit a new opportunity such as entry to
new external markets. Other researchers such as Styles and Seymour (2006) refer to
entrepreneurship as an individual attitude associated with innovation, which creates value
and takes on risk. Entrepreneurs are merely actors who have a talent for exploiting
opportunities that are not easily identifiable.
In organisations in generally, and in firms in particular, various forms of entrepreneurship
can be found. Thereby, the entrepreneurial process is independent of firm size (Antoncic &
Hisrich, 2003). Entrepreneurial orientation is the key to understanding whether a firm
adopts entrepreneurial actions or not, i.e., it is through the actions of both collaborators and
the type of culture established internally in the firm (Covin & Miles, 1999). According to
Stevenson and Jarillo (1990), intra-entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial orientation), is a
process through which individuals in an organisation follow up opportunities irrespective
of the resources they currently control. Brunaker and Kurvinen (2006) relate entrepreneurial
orientation to the opportunity for existing organisations to be able to develop the way their
business operates.
For Thornberry (2003), entrepreneurial orientation involves the creation of something new
which did not exist before, and that can be a new business, product, service, delivery system
or a new proposal of value to the consumer. That ‘something new’ requires additional
resources or alterations to the standard strategic positioning of the firm’s resources.
Learning takes place both in creating ‘something new’ and in its implementation, which
results in the development of new competences and capacities.
Entrepreneurial orientation combines competition inside the organisation with long-term
cooperation directed towards winning. Consequently, the development of entrepreneurial
orientation can be understood as socially effective and processes supporting all
organisational members and their cooperative interaction. Internal entrepreneurial
orientation indicates responsibility for all and at the same time allows teams to use their
own flexibility and freedom.
For Miller and Friesen (1983), entrepreneurial orientation includes innovation, pro-
activeness and accepting risks. In their studies, many researchers follow these authors’ basis
for investigation, for example, Covin and Slevin (1991), Lumpkin and Dess (1996) and
Naman and Slevin (1993). Many consider these three dimensions of entrepreneurship as
essential for innovation and new business creation.
Innovation as a dimension of entrepreneurial orientation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Covin &
Slevin, 1991; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Kenney & Mujtaba, 2007; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miller
& Friesen, 1983) corresponds to introducing new products and production technologies, and
searching for new solutions to marketing and production problems. It is the extent and
frequency of product innovation in an organisation and its tendency towards being at the
forefront of technology. It is a firm’s tendency to initiate and support new ideas, novelty,
experimentation and creative processes which can result in new products, services or
technological processes.
Also authors such as Miller and Friesen (1983), Covin and Slevin (1991), Lumpkin and Dess
(1996), Antoncic and Hisrich (2003) and Kenney and Mujtaba (2007) define pro-activeness as
another dimension of entrepreneurial orientation. It is the willingness to differentiate ideas
from opportunities through researching and analysing tendencies. This requires the firm to
be orientated towards the future. It is the attempt to lead rather than follow the competition,
the pioneering nature of the firm’s tendency to compete aggressively and pro-actively
against industry rivals.
Also the fact of firms taking on risks is considered a dimension of entrepreneurial
orientation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Kenney & Mujtaba, 2007;
Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miller & Friesen, 1983). So in a firm with entrepreneurial orientation
there is risk-taking in terms of investment decisions and strategic action at stages of
uncertainty. There is a clear understanding of the business, financial and professional risks
associated with entrepreneurial orientation.
In order to understand the phenomenon of collaborative entrepreneurship, the collective
business capacity is another important dimension of entrepreneurial orientation. As Miles
et al. (2006) show, in the first phase of collaboration, the concept of collective business
capacity emerges. Timmons (1994) considers the value of the team inside the firm to be
extremely important in the early stages of new undertakings. The fundamental
component of collective business capacity involves the whole team’s skill in dealing with
opportunities which may arise. Johannisson (2002) highlights that for better
understanding of collective entrepreneurial capacity, the whole organisation must be
recognised as a collective image.
For Reich (1987) and Tiessen (1997), the idea that entrepreneurial actions are developed
individually is set aside, as these authors argue that entrepreneurship involves collective
actions. Stewart (1989) defines this attitude and collective spirit when there are
entrepreneurial teams and all collaborators are involved. This is why a firm that already has
a good internal collective capacity is more able to develop entrepreneurial activities (Miles et
al., 2006), and consequently shows a greater capacity to form alliances with other firms
(Miles et al., 2005).
Other authors (e.g., Johannisson, 2002, Kenney & Mujtaba, 2007) see entrepreneurial
orientation as a collective phenomenon resulting from collective actions where, in a new
undertaking, the entrepreneur is never alone. In the understanding of Eisenhardt and
Schoonhoven (1996), the collective image is represented by a connection between team
members and decision-making by the whole team. In the case of small firms, the business-
person’s attitude with regard to his collaborators is very relevant, as only he can exert
influence by creating the conditions that increase the collective spirit, making the firm more
entrepreneurial (Exton, 2008; Lounsbury, 1998). Table 3 summarises the dimensions
characterising entrepreneurial orientation formerly discussed.
Dimension Definition Author(s)

Innovation A firm’s tendency to initiate and Antoncic & Hisrich (2003);
support new ideas, novelty, Covin & Slevin (1991);
experimentation and creative Guth & Ginsberg (1990);
processes that can result in new Kenney & Mujtaba (2007);
products, services or technological Lumpkin & Dess (1996);
processes. Miller & Friesen (1983)
Pro-activeness Organisational decision-making Antoncic & Hisrich (2003);
through anticipation and following upCovin & Slevin (1991);
new opportunities and participating in
Kenney & Mujtaba (2007);
emerging markets. Lumpkin & Dess (1996);
Miller & Friesen (1983)
Acceptance of Risks are accepted in terms of Antoncic & Hisrich (2003);
risks investment decisions and strategic Covin & Slevin (1991);
action in face of uncertainty. Lumpkin & Dess (1996);
Miller & Friesen (1983)
Collective Involves the whole team’s skills in Johannisson (2002);
business dealing with opportunities which may Middel (2008);
capacity arise. Stewart (1989);
Timmons (1994)
Table 3. Classification of the Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation
Authors such as Bragge et al. (2007) argue that for a firm to present continuous innovation,
it must establish a combination between, first of all, collective entrepreneurship, and
subsequently collaborative entrepreneurship. Therefore, the next section describes the
concept of collaborative entrepreneurship, and more precisely, connected to the formation,
or not, of interfirm alliances.
6. Alliances as collaborative entrepreneurship

Due to the growing emergence of new challenges and so as to establish an entrepreneurial
culture at the heart of firms, the adoption of strategic alliances appears as one possible
response to these challenges, through reinforcing resources of a diverse nature. In this
context, a growing number of firms depend on alliance formation to access the necessary
resources to reach their strategic objectives (Bragge et al., 2007; Urbano & Yordanova, 2008).
The investigation carried out shows that alliances are used as a way of filling gaps in firms’
resources (Montoro-Sánchez et al., 2009; Zacharakis, 1998).
Alliances emerge as means of accessing new resources, with the purpose of creating or
entering new business. To explain this process, this paper turns to resource-based theory
and resource dependence theory. These theories see the firm as a set of tangible and
intangible resources and capacities (Wernerfelt, 1984), which provide competitive advantage
(Das & Teng, 2000).
The decision to form an alliance is a strategy that allows firms to access resources and
competences, and consequently that decision can be seen as a form of collaborative
entrepreneurship. The concept of collaboration (alliance formation) is particularly involved

with the phenomenon of collaborative entrepreneurship, which results in something new
through sharing knowledge, information and other resources. As Yan and Sorenson (2003)
state, the collaboration process is one of the dimensions that contributes most to
collaborative entrepreneurship.
For Miles et al. (2005), collaborative entrepreneurship involves a set of firms that develop a
strategy which allows them continuous innovation through respective collaborative
capacities. This collaborative process is developed from alliances between two or more
parties, all aiming to achieve beneficial results. In this paper, the focus will be on
collaborative entrepreneurship which can be defined as a strategy involving the
implementation inside the firm, of knowledge and information coming from outside the
firm.
The development of alliances began to be very important in the last decades, as this kind of
strategy, when well implemented, allows increased performance and success by the parties
involved in reaching their intended goals (Parkhe, 1993). This fact contributed to increased
investigation in this area, with studies analysing topics as diverse as investment models,
choice of organisational management, network structure and trust-building (Alvarez et al.,
2006), among others.
As a means of adapting to a competitive environment, application of strategic alliances
has been common practice, taking advantage of firms’ underused resources and
competences. Therefore, alliances allow integration of fundamental strategic resources
and other business, so that increasingly entrepreneurial firms manage to reach their
objectives (Alvarez et al., 2006; McEvily & Zaheer, 1999). These firms find it easy to
identify and explore opportunities with partners who possess complementary resources
and capacities, so having an advantage over those that are not able to do so (Dyer &
Singh, 1998; McEvily & Zaheer, 1999). Zacharakis (1998) shows that entrepreneurial firms
use strategic alliances as a way of filling gaps in their resources. For these firms to have
the capacity to exploit new opportunities, they need to obtain resources beyond those
they already possess, and control them, and for that reason they are often subject to
greater risk (Teng, 2007).
As already mentioned, some investigators (e.g., Das & Teng, 2000) apply resource-based
theory to the development of strategic alliances in order to obtain desired resources. This is
also underlined by other authors (Ahuja, 2000; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996) who state
that the absence of strategic resources stimulates development of business cooperation
processes. Behind alliances there is the objective of attaining or sharing valuable resources
when these cannot be obtained through market exchanges or through fusions or
acquisitions. Strategic alliances emerge when firms in vulnerable strategic positions need
new resources, or when strong, very well-positioned firms capitalise on their resources to
create opportunities for cooperation (Montoro-Sánchez et al., 2009).
Other researchers (Eden & Ackermann, 2001; Hasty et al., 2006) give great relevance to
business-people’s experience in entrepreneurial activities, and also in establishing strategic
alliances, as these aspects can be decisive in decision-making. Firms that show
entrepreneurial behaviour have greater profitability and growth than those that do not
adopt entrepreneurial systems (Antoncic, 2007). For this scenario to be true, it is
fundamental that managers and all collaborators in a firm modify their attitudes and adopt
the characteristics of collaborative entrepreneurship (Wunderer, 2001). However, it is not
necessary for all collaborators to have entrepreneurial competences. It is just essential that
those individuals are detected so that they can be well orientated, as stated by Kenney and
Mujtaba (2007).
As to the definition of collaborative entrepreneurship, there is still no consensus. However,
for the purpose of this investigation, Pinchot’s definition, quoted by Thornberry (2003),will
be adopted, stating that collaborative entrepreneurship aims to implement in the firm
entrepreneurial behaviour coming from outside and introduce new habits within the
organisation. Collaborative entrepreneurial phenomena are found in the creation of new
business within the organisation, accompanied by internal innovative activities and
initiatives by internal entrepreneurs (intra-entrepreneurs) in the organisation, or they can
also occur through strategic changes (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990). This process allows increased
business performance, since new knowledge is received, new competences are created or
existing ones are reactivated (Hamel et al., 1989).
Constant innovation within organisations can be achieved with the collaboration of all
actors, leading to the conclusion that the team concept is important in processes of
innovation and entrepreneurship (Jassawalla & Sashittall, 1999; Stewart, 1989). Collaborative
entrepreneurship is present when a firm’s collaborators embrace opportunities without
there being a relationship with frequently used resources (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). This
form of entrepreneurship involves increased competences and the respective hypothesis of
creating new sets of resources (Burgelman, 1984).
Internal entrepreneurial behaviour is present in the organisation when there is innovation in
terms of something which did not exist previously, which may lead to establishing a new
business, service or product. During the creation and execution of these new aspects, new
capacities and competences emerge. These new acquisitions need extra resources or
modifications in the strategic positions of the organisation’s resources (Thornberry, 2003).
Finally, according to Kuratko and Goldsby (2004), collaborative entrepreneurship is adopted
by various firms so as to remain competitive, allowing growth. For this, the firm’s objectives
must include increased flexibility, innovation, collaborator initiative and risk acceptance.
Another justification found by the same authors is based on the fact that this form of
entrepreneurship allows firms to overcome barriers which may arise.
7. Concluding remarks and model of analysis

The present conceptual paper is a contribution to the scientific debate about the interface of
entrepreneurship and strategic management. According to the objective and theoretical
framework developed, Figure 1 outlines a research model, allowing analysis of the effect of
both tangible and intangible resources and capacities on the decision to establish strategic
alliances as a form of collaborative entrepreneurship.
Of course, the research model is of purely qualitative character. The prescriptive value of the
conceptual model lies in supporting entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship scholars to
understand the decision to establish interfirm alliances. To date, the several influences on
the alliance decision have scarcely been susceptible to scientific scrutiny. Empirical
verification, in particular taking a holistic perspective, is almost absent from the literature.
Hence, what remains is the empirical testing of the approach and the investigation of the
quantitative impact of defined variables. In terms of guidelines for future research, this topic
should be addressed by collecting information for expanding the conceptual model
presented here.
Fig. 1. Proposed Conceptual Model of Analysis
8. Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by a Research Unit (NECE), financed by the FCT – Science and
Technology Foundation of Portugal. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments that contributed to the development of this paper.
9. References
Aaker, D.A. (2000). Strategic Market Management, Wiley, New York.
Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the
formation of inter-firm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.
317-343.
Aldrich, H. (1990). Using an ecological perspective to study organizational-founding rates.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 7-24.
Alvarez, S.A., & Barney, J.B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions
of uncertainty? Journal of Management, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 776-793.
Alvarez, S.A., Ireland, R.D., & Reuer, J.J. (2006). Editorial: Entrepreneurship and strategic
alliances. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 401-404.
Amit, B., & Shoemaker, P. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Antoncic, B. (2007). Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation modeling study.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107, No. 3, pp. 309-325.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. (2003). Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 10, No. l, pp. 7-24.
Badaracco, J. (1991). The knowledge link: how firms compete through strategic alliances, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
Bamford, J., Gomes-Casseres, B., & Robinson, M. (2003). Mastering alliance strategy: a
comprehensive guide to design, management and organization, Jossey-Bass &
Management Series, New York.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J. (1995). Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage. The Academy of Management
Executive, V. 9, n. 4, Nov, pp. 49-61.
Barney, J. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management
research? Yes. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Bowen, F. (2007). Corporate social strategy: competing views from two theories of the firm.
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 97-113.
Bragge, J., Merisalo-Rentanen, H., Nurmi, A, & Tanner, L. (2007). A repeatable e-
collaboration process based on thinklets for multi-organization strategy
development. Group Decision Negotiation, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 363-379.
Brunaker, S., & Kurvinen, J. (2006). Intrapreneurship, local initiatives in organizational
change processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1/2,
pp. 118-132.
Buckley, P., & Casson, M. (2007). Edith Penrose’s theory of the growth of the firm and the
strategic management of multinational enterprises. Management International
Review, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 151-173.
Bucklin, L.P., & Sengupta, S. (1993). Organizing successful co- marketing alliances. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 32-46.
Burgelman, R. (1984). Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms, California
Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 154-166.
Chandler, G.N., & Hanks, S.H. (1994). Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities,
venture strategies, and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9,
No. 4, pp. 331-349.
Chaston, I., & Mangles, T. (1997). Core capabilities as predictors of growth potential in small
manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35, No.1, pp. 47-57.
Chathoth, K.P., & Olsen, M.D. (2003). Strategic alliances: a hospitality industry perspective.
Hospitality Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 419-434.
Chatterjee, S., & Singh, J. (1999). Are tradeoffs inherent in diversification moves? A
simultaneous model for type of diversification and mode of expansion decisions.
Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Collis, D. (1991). A resource-based analysis of global competitive: the case of the bearing
industry. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 (Summer Special Issue), pp. 49-68.
Contractor, F., & Lorange, P. (1988). Why should firms cooperate?, In: Cooperative strategies in
international business, F. Contractor, & P. Lorange (eds.), pp. 3-28, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Covin, J., & Miles, M. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 47-63.
Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship firm behaviour.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Das, S., Sen, P.K., & Sengupta, S. (1998). Impact of strategic alliances on firm valuation.
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No.1, pp. 27-41.
Das, T.K., & Teng, B.-S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of
Dussauge, P., & Garrette, B. (1999). Cooperative Strategy, Wiley, New York.
Dyer, J.H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23,
No. 4, pp. 660-679.
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group
Decision Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 119-140.
Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven C. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance
formation: strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science,
Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 136-150.
Exton, R. (2008). The entrepreneur: a new breed of health service leader? Journal of Health
Organization and Management, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 208-222.
Fillis, I., & McAuley, A. (2000). Modeling and measuring creativity at the interface. Journal of
Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 8-17.
Froehle, C.M., & Roth, A.V. (2007). A resource-process framework of new service
development. Production and Operations Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 169-188.
Furrer, O., Sudharshan D., Thomas H., & Alexandre M. (2008). Resource configurations,
generic strategies, and firm performance: exploring the parallels between resource-
based and competitive strategy theories in a new industry. Journal of Strategy and
Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms.
Organization Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 183-214.
Grant, R.M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for
strategy formulation. California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-134.
Grant, R. (2002). Contemporary strategy analysis: concepts, techniques, applications, Blackwell
Publishing, New York.
Greene, P., Brush, C., & Brown, T. (1997). Resources in small firms: an exploratory study.
Journal of Small Business Strategy, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 25-40.
Guth, W., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors introduction: corporate entrepreneurship.
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 5-15.
Hamel, G., Doz Y.L., & Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Collaborative with your competitors – and
win. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 133-139.
Harrigan K. (1985). Strategies for joint ventures, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Hart, S. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 986-1014.
Hasty, B., Massey A., & Brown S. (2006). Role-based experiences, media perceptions, and
knowledge transfer success in virtual dyads. Group Decision Negotiation, Vol. 15, No.
4, pp. 367-3S7.
Hill, C.W.L., & Kim W.C. (1988). Searching for a dynamic theory of the multinational
enterprise: a transaction cost model. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. S1,
pp. 93-104.
Hills, G. (1994). Marketing and entrepreneurship: research ideas and opportunities, Quorum
Books, Westport.
Hofer, C.W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: analytical concepts, West Publishing,
St. Paul.
Holmlund, M., & Tornroos, J. (1997). What are relationships in business networks?
Management Decision, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 304-309.
Hulsink, W., & Elfring, J. (2003). Networks in entrepreneurship: the case of high- technology
Firms. Small Business Economics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 409-422.
Jassawalla, A.R., & Sashittal, H.C. (1999). Building collaborative cross-functional new
product teams, Academy Management Executive, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 50-63.
Johannisson, B. (2002). Entrepreneurship as a collective phenomenon, Scandinavian Institute for
Research in Entrepreneurship (SIRE), Växjö University.
Johannisson, B., Ramírez-Pasillas, M., & Karlsson G. (2002). The institutional embeddedness
of local inter-firm networks: a leverage for business creation. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 297-315.
Kenney, M., & Mujtaba, B. (2007). Understanding Corporate Entrepreneurship and
Development: A Practitioner View of Organizational Intrapreneurship. Journal of
Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 73-88.
Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D., & Weaver, K.M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties
of the entrepreneurial orientations scale: a multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 71-94.
Kuratko, D.F., & Goldsby, M.G. (2004). Corporate entrepreneurs or rogue middle managers?
A framework for ethical corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
55, No. 1, pp. 13-30.
Lechner, C., Dowling, M., & Welpe, I. (2006). Firm networks and firm development: the role
of the relational mix. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 514-540.
Lewis, J.D. (1990). Partnerships for profit: structuring and managing strategic alliances, Free
Press, New York.
Lorente, J. (2001). Specificity and opacity as resource-based determinants of capital
structure: evidence for Spanish manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 157-177.
Lounsbury, M. (1998). Collective entrepreneurship: the mobilization of college and
university recycling coordinators. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.
11, No. 1, pp. 50-69.
Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 135–
172.
Mahoney, J., & Pandian, J. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 363-380.
Marino, L., Strandholma K., & Steensman H. (2002). The moderating effect of national
culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic
alliance portfolio extensiveness. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 26, No. 4,
pp. 135-172.
Mariti, P., & Smiley, R. (1983). Co-operative agreements and the organization of industry.
Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 437-451.
Mason, J.C. (1993). Strategic alliances: partnering for success. Management Review, Vol. 82,
No. 5, pp. 10-15.
McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities.
Middel, H. (2008). Collaborative Improvement: action learning in the extended manufacturing
enterprise. An action learning approach, PhD thesis, University of Enschede.
Miles, R., Miles, G., & Snow, C. (2005). Collaborative entrepreneurship: how communities of
networked firms use continuous innovation to create economic wealth, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.
Miles, R., Miles, G, & Snow, C. (2006). Collaborative entrepreneurship: a business model for
continuous innovation. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management
Science, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 770-791.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P.H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: the third link. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 221-235.
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments:
the Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
39, No. 3, pp. 519-543.
Montoro-Sánchez, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, A., & Romero-Martínez, A.M. (2009). The
decision to use alliances as corporate entrepreneurship: the role of resources and
skills. Group Decision Negotiation, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 431-448.
Naman, J.L., & Slevin, D.P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and
empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 137-153.
Neto, A. (2000). Redes de cooperação produtiva e clusters regionais – oportunidades para as
pequenas e médias empresas, Atlas, São Paulo.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizations knowledge creation. Organisation
Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nunamaker J., Romano N., & Briggs R. (2002). Increasing intellectual bandwidth: generating
value from intellectual capital with information technology. Group Decision
Negotiation, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 69-86.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource-
based views. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 9, pp. 697-713.
Pansiri, J. (2008). The effects of the characteristics of partners on strategic alliance
performance in the SME dominated travel sector. Tourism Management, Vol. 92, No.
1, pp. 101-115.
Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliances structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost
examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No.
4, pp. 794-829.
Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the growth of the firm, Oxford University Press, New York.
Esteve-Pérez, S., & Mañez-Castillejo, J.A. (2008). The resource-based theory of the firm and
firm survival. Small Business Economics, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 231-249.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. A resource dependence
perspective, Harper & Row, New York.
Pitelis, C. (2005). Edith Penrose, organisational economics and business strategy: an
assessment and extension. Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 67-
82.
Porter, M.E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 76, No. 6, pp. 77-90.
Preble, J.F., Reichel, A., & Hoffman, R.C. (2000). Strategic alliances for competitive
advantage: evidence from Israel´s hospitality and tourism industry. Hospitality
Priem, R., & Butler, J. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic
management research? Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 22-40.
Pucik, V. (1988). Strategic alliances, organizational learning, and competitive advantage: the
human resource management agenda. Human Resource Management, Vol. 27, No. 1,
pp. 77-93.
Reich, R.B. (1987). Entrepreneurship reconsidered: the team as hero. Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 77-83.
Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2009). Overview of collaborative entrepreneurship: an
integrated approach between business decisions and negotiations. Group Decision
and Negotiation, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 419-430.
Rossi, G., Póvoa A., Garcia, M., & Minciotti, S. (2009). Escassez de recursos: factor a
influenciar na formação de alianças estratégicas empresariais. RIAE – Revista Ibero-
Americana de Estratégia, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 85-99.
Saad, I., Rosenthal-Sabroux, C., & Grundstein, M. (2005). Improving the decision making
process in the design project by capitalizing on company's crucial knowledge.
Group Decision Negotiation, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 131-145.
Sachwald, F. (1998). Cooperative agreements and the theory of the Firm: focusing on
barriers to change. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.
203-225.
Sandberg, W.R. (1991). Strategic management’s potential contributions to a theory of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 73-90.
Sayles, L.R., & Stewart, A. (1995). Belated recognition for work-flow entrepreneurs: a case of
selective perception and amnesia in management thought. Entrepreneurship: Theory
& Practice, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 7-24.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Smart, D., & Conant, J. (1994). Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive marketing

competencies and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Business Research,
Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 28-40.
Stevenson, H.H., & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
management. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 17-27.
Stewart, A. (1989). Team entrepreneurship, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Styles, C., & Seymour, R. (2006). Opportunities for marketing researchers in international
entrepreneurship. International Marketing Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 126-145.
Tarabishy, A., Solomon, G., Fernald., L., & Saghkin, M. (2005). The entrepreneurial leader’s
impact on the organization’s performance in dynamic markets. Journal of Private
Equity, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 20-29.
Teng, B.-S. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: a
resource-based approach toward competitive advantage. Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 119-142.
Teng, B.-S., & Das, T.K. (2008). Governance structure choice in strategic alliances - the roles
of alliance objectives, alliance management experience, and international partners.
Management Decision, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 725-742.
Thornberry, N. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: teaching managers to be entrepreneurs.
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 329-344.
Tiessen, J. (1997). Individualism, collectivism, and entrepreneurship: A framework for
international comparative research. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.
367-384.
Timmons, J. (1994). New venture creation: entrepreneurship for the 21st century, 4th ed., Richard
D. Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL.
Urbano, D., & Yordanova, D. (2008). Determinants of the adoption of HRM practices in
tourism SMEs in Spain: an exploratory study. Service Business, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.
167-185.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research, In: Advances
in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, Vol. 3, J. Katz, & R. Brockhaus (eds.),
pp. 119-138, JAI Press, Greenwich.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategy Management Journal, Vol. 5,
No. 2, pp. 171-180.
Wheelen, T.L., & Hunger, J.D. (2000). Strategic management and business policy: entering 21st
century global society, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Wilson, J., & Hynes, N. (2008). Co-evolution of firms and strategic alliances: theory and
empirical evidence. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp. 620-
628.
Wunderer, R. (2001). Employees as co-intrapreneurs - a transformation concept. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 5/6, pp. 193-211.
Yan, J., & Sorenson, R.L. (2003). Collective entrepreneurship in family firms: the influence of
leader attitudes and behaviors. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 6, No.
2, pp. 37-51.
Zacharakis, A.L. (1998). Entrepreneurial entry into foreign markets: a transaction cost
perspective. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 23-39.
Zinn, J., Proença, J., & Rosko, M. (1997). Organizational and environmental factors in
hospital alliance membership and contract management: a resource-dependence
perspective. Hospital & Health Services Administration, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 67-86.
8
Attractiveness of European Higher

Education in Entrepreneurship:
A Strategic Marketing Framework
Angelo Riviezzo, Alessandro De Nisco and Maria Rosaria Napolitano
University of Sannio
Italy
1. Introduction
Major steps are currently being taken to make Europe an attractive destination for foreign
students willing to increase their competencies and skills. They include the creation of a
comparable structure of study courses; the mutual recognition of diplomas; the assessment
of academic institutions and programs based on common quality standards; the granting of
financial incentives for geographical mobility of students and staff; and, more recently, the
adoption of a strategic marketing approach. Significant efforts are in fact aimed to create a
clear European “identity” in higher education, by improving the availability and
accessibility of information on studying in Europe and by enhancing the attractiveness,
profile, visibility and image of European higher education worldwide. Coherently with the
Lisbon Strategy – whose aim was to make the European Union «the most competitive and
dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth
with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion» by 2010 – a great emphasis has been
given to the promotion of the European Union as an educational destination and a centre of
excellence at world level. In particular, within the Erasmus Mundus Programme1 several
projects have been financed with the aim of promoting and rising awareness of the
European higher education sector. Furthermore, within the Erasmus Mundus Global
Promotion Project (GPP), a European brand – “Study in Europe” – has been built upon
perceived strengths and with the aim to overcome negative perceptions; a web portal has
1 Erasmus Mundus is a cooperation and mobility programme in the field of higher education that aims
to enhance the quality of European higher education and to promote dialogue and understanding
between people and cultures through cooperation with extra-European countries. In addition, it
contributes to the promotion of the European Union as a centre of excellence in learning around the
world. The Erasmus Mundus programme provides support to: higher education institutions that wish
to implement joint programmes at postgraduate level (Action 1) or to set-up inter-institutional
cooperation partnerships between universities from Europe and targeted extra-European countries
(Action 2); individual students, researchers and university staff who wish to spend a
study/research/teaching period in the context of one of the above mentioned joint programmes or
cooperation partnerships (Action 1 and Action 2); any organization active in the field of higher
education that wishes to develop projects aimed at enhancing the attractiveness of European higher
education worldwide (Action 3).
been developed; many events to promote European higher education have been organised
around the world; a media campaign and information materials (brochure, flyer, posters,
DVD in seven languages) have been arranged.
Europe aspires to increase its share of the international students market, in which the
number of internationally mobile students is predicted to rise to 7.2 million by 2025 (EUA,
2007). The share of such market is, at the moment, quite low for Europe, above all because it
is in general too little-known as a study destination among non-European students. Among
the different educational fields that are emerging as most attractive to young and talented
students, Europe is investing heavily on entrepreneurship. In fact, there is nowadays wide
acceptance of the centrality of entrepreneurship education and, thus, there are important
efforts to support the development of entrepreneurship education at university level
through government initiatives in many countries. This is due to the recognition of the
possibility: on one side, to influence students’ aspiration towards entrepreneurship through
education – and particularly higher education; on the other side, to design policies and
programmes in order to raise intentions towards entrepreneurial action and impact upon
the conversion of these intentions into action (Clark, 2004; Gibb, 2005; Fayolle 2007;
Napolitano and Riviezzo, 2008). Entrepreneurship education aims to promote creativity,
innovation, problem-solving and self-employment, developing personal attributes and skills
that are at the heart of entrepreneurial mindset. In this way, the benefits of entrepreneurship
education are not just about start-ups and job creation but are extended to daily life, as
students become more confident in what they do. As noted by Gibb (2005),
entrepreneurship, viewed as a way to deal with a rising uncertainty and complexity, has
«major implications for the way in which education prepare individuals for a life involving
frequent occupational, job and contract status change, global mobility, adaptation to
different cultures and greater probability of self employment». This scenario translates into
a need to provide individuals with (Gibb, 2005) «personal entrepreneurial capacities but also
with the capability to design organisations of all kinds […] in order to support effective
entrepreneurial behaviour».
Promoting entrepreneurial spirit is therefore a key for universities, that, over the last decades,
have been clearly perceived as more than higher education and research institutions. A third
“mission”, contributing directly to social and economic development, has been recognised to
knowledge-producing organizations. University is nowadays required to operate as «an
economic actor on its own right» (Etzkowitz, 1998), through the capitalisation of its knowledge
and the encouragement of entrepreneurship. As noted in a recent European Commission
Communication (2006) «universities and technical institutes should integrate entrepreneurship
as an important part of the curriculum, spread across different subjects, and require or
encourage students to take entrepreneurship courses, combining entrepreneurial mindsets and
competence with excellence in scientific and technical studies». The need to support the
expansion of entrepreneurship education at university level is, in fact, particularly high in
Europe, where, as noted in many studies, the entrepreneurial activity is lacking behind when
compared with United States or Canada. As a consequence in most European countries today
there is a significant policy commitment towards entrepreneurship education. The European
Commission itself has taken a number of initiatives in this direction, starting from the Lisbon
Strategy in 2000, that emphasised the role of education as a policy instrument for economic
growth and helped strengthen a growing recognition within higher-education institutions in
Attractiveness of European Higher Education
in Entrepreneurship: A Strategic Marketing Framework 141
Europe that they can play a central part in promoting entrepreneurial mindsets and actual
entrepreneurship; it is also possible to remind the Green Paper “Entrepreneurship in Europe”,
published in 2003, and its follow-up the “Entrepreneurship Action Plan”, published in 2004,
that offer a strategic framework for strengthening entrepreneurship education; and, finally, the
“Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education in Europe”, published in 2006, that present
many proposals, from which stakeholders can pick actions at the appropriate level, and adapt
them to the local situation.
As a result of such policy commitment, the diffusion of entrepreneurship education among
Europe has been growing fast over the last years (Blais, 1997; Duke, 1996; Gartner and
Vesper, 1994; McMullan and Vesper, 1987; Vesper, 1985, 1993; Vesper and Gartner, 1997,
1999; Vesper and McMullan,1988; Klofsten and Jones Evans, 2000; Ranga, et al., 2003; Jacob
et al., 2003; Schulte; 2004; Guerrero Cano and Urbano Pulido, 2007; Wilson, 2006; Napolitano
and Riviezzo, 2008; Riviezzo and Napolitano, 2010) and entrepreneurship is supposed to
become a major academic discipline in Europe (Volkman, 2004). Entrepreneurship, as a
relative “recent” and potentially high attractive field of study, could therefore represent a
strategic subject to enhance the attractiveness of European higher education, especially
towards those students coming from countries where entrepreneurship education is less
developed and that could choose Europe instead of other countries with more tradition in
such field as, for example, United States or Canada.
Starting from the above considerations, the aim of this chapter is to present and to discuss a
strategic marketing framework to improve the European entrepreneurship higher education
offer and its share in the international students market. In this direction, a picture of
entrepreneurship higher education within Europe is firstly presented; the results of a survey
conducted among extra-European countries students to assess their real interest in coming
to study entrepreneurship in Europe are then discussed; a strategic marketing framework
aiming to match the actual state of the art of entrepreneurship education offer and emerging
needs coming from extra-European countries is finally proposed, as consequence of the
previous results. Recommendations and implications for strategic marketing planning are
therefore provided.
The results discussed in this chapter are a significant part of the research activity carried out
within the project “ENDEAVOUR: Entrepreneurial Development as a Vehicle to Promote
European Higher Education”, co-financed by the Erasmus Mundus Programme in 20062. The
ENDEAVOUR project aimed to increase the interest in the European Union universities as
an educational destination of choice, especially for academically talented students interested
in studying entrepreneurship. Secondary objective was to increase competitiveness and to
promote quality offer of the European entrepreneurship higher education through
2 The ENDEAVOUR project was selected and financed within the first phase of the Erasmus Mundus
Programme (2004-2008), under Action 4 (Enhancing Attractiveness). The new phase of the Erasmus
Mundus Programme (2009-2013) (Decision N° 1298/2008/EC) continues and extends the scope of the
activities already launched during the first phase. It now includes the Erasmus Mundus External
Cooperation Window scheme, which was launched in 2006 as a complement to the original Programme.
In addition, the Programme integrates cooperation activities with Industrialized Countries. The new
phase of the Erasmus Mundus Programme (2009-2013) consists of three actions instead of the four first
planned. The projects aiming at promoting European higher education worldwide are now financed
under Action 3.
improved accessibility and structured co-operation between the European and third-country
institutions, implemented by means of the creation of a suitable network. The three-years
project was leaded by the University of Sannio of Benevento (Italy) and involved 17 partners
Institutions – representing 7 different European countries and 6 extra-European countries –
with a comprehensive set of competencies, experiences and know-how3.
2. Objectives and methodology

This chapter aims: a) to present a picture of entrepreneurship higher education in Europe; b)
to analyse needs and intentions of potential target groups (i.e. students from extra-European
countries higher education institutions); c) to design a suitable marketing strategy to
enhance the attractiveness of European education offer in the field of entrepreneurship. To
this aims, two different surveys have been managed, with the involvement of all the
partners of the ENDEAVOUR project.
On one side, a structured questionnaire has been used to collect information about the
presence of entrepreneurship education activities – from the undergraduate to the post-
graduate courses – within the universities of all the 27 European Union Member States. This
analysis has been conducted according to a “work schedule” attributing each one of the
ENDEAVOUR project partners from Europe the responsibility for specific countries.
Primary data have been therefore collected through website search and/or telephone/mail
interviews using the same questionnaire in each country. In order to make up for some lack
of information (especially for some countries), secondary data have been considered as well.
Since the overall objective was to gain a realistic overview of the entrepreneurship education
offer, we focused our attention only on courses aiming to create and stimulate
entrepreneurial mindsets – that’s to say «the willingness and capacity to turn ideas into
practice, supported by the necessary skills» (European Commission, 2008). Therefore,
general economic or business courses that do not include this specific element have not been
considered in any country.
On the other side, a structured questionnaire has been used to assess the real interest in
pursuing some educational activities, especially related to entrepreneurship, in Europe
among students from extra-European institutions. In particular, the same questionnaire has
been submitted to a sample of students at higher education level in India, Singapore, China,
Russia, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey. Again, this analysis has been conducted according to a
“work schedule” attributing each one of the ENDEAVOUR project partners from non-
European countries the responsibility for their own country. Primary data have been
therefore collected through direct interviews using the same questionnaire in each country.
3 The consortium promoting the ENDEAVOUR project was composed by: Università del Sannio di
Benevento (Italy), project leader; Tartu Ülikool (Estonia); Universidad de Sevilla (Spain); Université
Paris Dauphine (France); National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece); Seconda Università
di Napoli (Italy); Università Carlo Cattaneo (Italy); Università di Salerno (Italy); Helsinki Business
School (Finland); University of Bedfordshire (UK); Marmara Üniversitesi (Turkey); Petrozavodsk State
University (Russia); Lobachevski State University of Nizhni Novgorod (Russia); Universidad de
Congreso de Mendoza (Argentina); Facultade de Tecnologia Ciéncia e Educacào (Brasil); Indian
Institute of Management Bangalore (India); School of Economics and Management - Tsinghua
University (China); Kunming University of Science and Technology (China).
Finally, as a result of the two surveys, a strategic marketing framework has been developed
through the definition of products and segments (i.e. “product portfolio” of the European
education offer and “emerging segments” in third countries) and the identification of
market opportunities in order to define attractive educational products.
In the following sections the results and the implication of the research are discussed.
3. Entrepreneurship education in Europe

As written before, in most European countries today there is a policy commitment to
promote entrepreneurship education. However, it has until now been unclear whether this
commitment has resulted in making entrepreneurship a widespread subject in higher-
education systems, as no clear statistical picture of entrepreneurship in higher-education
institutions across European countries existed. Important figures and data have been
provided above all by European Commission through specific surveys and especially in
recent years (European Commission, 2002, 2006, 2008). The few available studies suggest
that entrepreneurship education has seen a dramatic increase in the number of students
taking entrepreneurship related courses and this number is expected to continue to grow
(Volkman, 2004). As a reaction to the positive social and economic effects of
entrepreneurship, in fact, many universities are trying to advance entrepreneurial thinking
and behaviour.
Despite these growing numbers, still there is a long way to run. Based on a recent survey
(European Commission, 2008), it is in fact estimated that more than half of Europe’s
students at the higher educational level do not even have access to entrepreneurial
education: this means that about 11 million students have no opportunity to engage in in- or
extra-curricular activities that can stimulate their entrepreneurial spirit. Furthermore, the
same survey shows that in the institutions engaged in entrepreneurial education around
half of the students are effectively engaged in some kind of entrepreneurial educational
activity. This implies that just «five million of the approximately 21 million students in
Europe are currently engaged in entrepreneurship education» (European Commission,
2008).
Coherently with such and previous surveys, our findings show that, even if in all European
countries more and more higher education institutions are offering entrepreneurship
courses, significant barriers to the widespread diffusion of entrepreneurship education still
persist. In particular, even considering the limitations of our findings due to the shortage of
data for some countries, it emerge that:
 the diffusion of entrepreneurial education vary significantly from one country to

another within Europe;
 entrepreneurship education is significantly concentrated within business and economic
schools/faculties;
 undergraduate courses are widely diffused, while the overall offer of Masters and Ph.D.
programs so far seems till too tight.
Our survey highlights a significant variation in the diffusion of entrepreneurship education
among European countries (Figure 1). In general, students in the Western Europe have
better access to entrepreneurial education than students in the countries that have recently
joined the European Union. For example, while in Finland all the higher education
institutions and in Spain about 90% of them offer at least one course in entrepreneurship,
such percentages descend to 5% in the case of Romania and 2% in the case of Lithuania.
At the same time, European students are more likely to obtain access to entrepreneurial
education if they attend either a business school or a multidisciplinary institution with a
business school department. For example, in the UK 60% of entrepreneurship courses are
taught in business or management schools; in Spain such percentage is 55%; in Italy it is
49%. We know from the literature (e.g. Etzkowitz, 1998; Gibb, 2005) that entrepreneurship
should be spread horizontally in the curriculum, across different fields of study. However,
our survey indicates that specialised institutions/faculties within the technical area are still
lagging behind with reference to entrepreneurship education.
100
100
90
90
80
70
59
60
50 49 50
%
50
40
30 25 24.7 24 27 27 25
30
21 14
20
8 5 7
10
0 0 2
0
Germany
UK
Portugal
Ireland
Malta
Estonia
Netherlands
Cyprus
Spain
Lithuania
Austria
Romania
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
Finland
Italy
Hungary
Latvia
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Countries
Fig. 1. Percentage of universities offering a course in entrepreneurship in EU
Finally, our survey shows that the extent to which entrepreneurship is being taught in
Europe varies. In some institutions it is offered at all levels of study, but the results show
that bachelor students have access to a larger number of entrepreneurial courses compared
to both master’s students and Ph.D. students. Spain, Slovenia and Italy are the countries that
provide the wider range of opportunities at undergraduate level (49% and more of
universities offer entrepreneurship undergraduate course) (Figure 2).
Slovenia and France with 50% of the universities and then the UK with 37% are the
countries with the strongest offer at postgraduate level (Figure 3). Concerning the post
graduate offer, it must be noted that the diffusion of Ph.D. programs focused on
entrepreneurship is very tight and it is highly concentrated in the UK, in Ireland and in
Finland, while, for example, in Italy it has been detached just one Ph.D. program.
Undergraduate Course
100
90 80
80
67
70
60
49
50
%
32 35
40
29 23.5
30
15 15 18 21
20 10 7 8 3
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Ireland
Malta
Spain
Austria
Estonia
Lithuania
Portugal
UK
Germany
Netherlands
Cyprus
Latvia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Italy
Romania
Bulgaria
Poland
Finland
Czech Republic
Hungary
Countries
Fig. 2. Percentage of universities offering undergraduate courses in entrepreneurship in EU
Taught Postgraduate Courses
100
90
80
%of postgraduate courses
70
60
50 50
50
40 37
30 30
30 25
18 18 18
20 13 13
7,1 9 8 5
9 8
10 2
0 0 0
0
UK
France
Italy
The Netherlands
Germany
Hungary
Czech Republic
Ireland
Malta
Romania
Portugal
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Austria
Spain
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Countries
Fig. 3. Percentage of universities offering postgraduate courses in entrepreneurship in EU

However, as noted also in previous studies (European Commission, 2008), courses at Ph.D.
level are very important as Ph.D. students in their research activities (particularly in the
technical disciplines) can take advantage of an entrepreneurial mindset as well as skills.
Furthermore, there are currently too few professors of entrepreneurship (European
Commission, 2008), and many of them have not been trained from the start in that field. As
a consequence, they may be unaware of the right approach to entrepreneurship teaching.
There is a need to graduate enough Ph.D. students in entrepreneurship, to build up teaching
resources. Institutions should therefore focus their attention on more than the early study
levels in entrepreneurial education.
4. The demand for European entrepreneurship education

In order to analyse the attractiveness of European higher education offer in the field of
entrepreneurship and to asses the interest of extra-European countries students to come to
study in Europe, a survey has been realized in seven countries: three from Asia, two from
South America, one from Eurasia and one from Europe outside the European Union. The
sample for the survey, drawn among the students of the partner institutions in the different
countries, resulted of approximately 900 students, divided as it follows: India, 126;
Singapore, 30; China, 132; Russia, 400; Argentina, 88; Brazil, 60; Turkey, 50.
In general, our findings show that students in third countries are fairly interested in
pursuing studies abroad and that European Union is perceived as an attractive
destination. Interest in pursuing studies abroad ranged from 61% to 93% (the highest
being Singapore, Brazil and Turkey). Regarding the preferred destination for study
abroad, there is a clear divide between the Asian countries and the rest – the former
(India, China and Singapore) having the highest preference for the United States, and the
latter (Russia, Argentina, Brazil and Turkey) for the European Union. It should also be
noted that Europe has to compete for students with other English-speaking countries like
Canada and Australia, for which also the respondents in various countries have indicated
relatively high preferences.
Among the European Union countries, the UK is the most preferred destination for all
countries except Russia, where the preference was distributed among France, the UK, Italy,
Germany and Spain in that order. One of the unexpected results in this regard was that even
for Brazil, where they are more comfortable with other European languages than English,
the topmost preference is for the UK, while the students of Argentina preferred Spain and as
a second option UK. In general, it might imply that the choice may be more a function of the
reputation of the institutions rather than the language used as the medium of instruction.
An alternative hypothesis could be that the potential participants see greater benefits in
learning English.
As for the programme of study, the maximum preference is for the Masters Programme
(except for Brazil where 80% preferred the Degree Programme) and the preferred duration
of study abroad is 2 years (except for Argentina where 38% preferred 1 year). It may be
noted that the highest preferences for the 2-year duration are shown by the Chinese (82.5%)
and the Brazilians (82.3%).
The same concrete interest is shown with reference to the entrepreneurship courses. In
particular, even considering the limitations of our findings due to the size of the sample in
each country, it emerges that:
 interest in pursuing entrepreneurship courses abroad is fairly high in all the countries,
ranging from 64% to 80% (the highest being Turkey, China and Russia);
 as in the case of destination preferences for foreign studies in general, there is a divide
between Asia and the rest of countries in terms of their preference for destinations
for entrepreneurship studies – India, China and Singapore preferring the United States;
and Russia, Argentina, Brazil and Turkey preferring the European Union
(Table 1). Again, it emerges the “UK factor” among the European countries as well
as the competition from the other English-speaking countries like Canada and
Australia.
India Singapore China Russia Argentina Brazil Turkey

% % % % % % %
EU 40.47 83.33 42.50 65.00 89.29 41.70 78.00
Other
European 24.60 53.33 3.00 32.14 40.00 10.00
countries
USA 45.23 86.66 76.60 18.00 71.43 39.40 60.00
Japan 10.31 26.66 8.60 4.00 28.57 <1 10.00
Canada 26.19 46.66 34.60 6.00 58.33 <1 12.00
New Zealand 19.84 20.00 2.80 2.00 52.38 <1 2.00
Australia 30.15 30.00 23.80 2.00 47.62 6.70 12.00
Singapore 23.01 26.66 3.50 0.00 32.14 <1 2.00
Table 1. Preferred destinations for entrepreneurship study abroad
 concerning the reasons for going to study entrepreneurship in Europe, two reasons
emerge as most important: 1) the relatively high quality of European entrepreneurship
education, for which India, China, Brazil and Turkey have their highest numbers; 2) the
possibility of collaborating with European Union companies, for which Singapore,
Russia and Argentina have their highest numbers. In addition, there are also fairly high
scores for “understanding European traditions in entrepreneurship” and “learning
European business practices and business laws” (Table 2).
The overall implication of the commented results is that the respondents desire some
“immersion” into European business, not just the participation into an academic
programme. The objectives of understanding European business traditions, practices and
laws and collaboration with European businesses cannot be achieved unless the participants
are also given a chance to work in European firms, at least for a short period.
Other significant results of the surveys show that the major constraints against pursuing
studies abroad (in general and particularly in entrepreneurship) are: 1) shortage of funds; 2)
lack of proficiency in language; 3) compatibility problems with the home-country’s
education system. Respondents from Argentina and India have mentioned the additional
constraint of Visa problems (46% and 38% respectively). Any attempt to enhance the
attractiveness of European higher education offer should necessarily consider such

problems that are perceived as barriers towards international mobility of students.

% % % % % % %
High quality of
entrepreneurial
35.71 70.00 62.50 65.00 76.19 50.00 50.00
education in
Europe
Understanding
entrepreneurial
31.74 73.33 32.60 43.00 67.86 27.30 32.00
tradition in
Europe
Learning
European
31.74 73.33 31.60 50.00 65.48 14.90 34.00
business and
business law
No good offer of
entrepreneurial
12.69 36.66 12.80 30.00 19.05 48.80 12.00
education in your
own country
Possibility of
collaboration
32.53 76.66 25.40 78.00 84.52 16.90 40.00
with European
companies
Table 2. Reasons for taking up entrepreneurship study in Europe
5. The developed strategic marketing framework

A strategic marketing framework is proposed with the main aim of matching the actual state
of art of entrepreneurship higher education within Europe and emerging needs coming
from extra-European countries. Such framework has been developed through the following
steps: 1) Definition of European “product portfolio” of entrepreneurship higher education;
2) Definition of emerging segments in third country demand for European entrepreneurship
higher education; 3) Identification of market opportunities in order to develop attractive
educational products.
5.1 Definition of European “product portfolio” of entrepreneurship higher education

The European “product portfolio” of entrepreneurship higher education can be defined
through the following categories: a) Undergraduate courses; b) Post-Graduate Programs.
The Post-Graduate Programs can be in turn split in the following categories: b.1) Master
Courses aim to enable students and practitioners to operate effectively at a high level of
executive responsibility in creating and managing new businesses; b.2) Ph.D. Programs that
provide skills and competencies for academic research in entrepreneurship; b.3) Professional
Courses aim to support business start-up and to develop leadership skills.
In Figure 4, the European product portfolio of higher education in entrepreneurship is

categorized through a 2x2 portfolio matrix, which classifies each product according to the
following criteria:
 Complexity: it represent the effort needed to create and manage the product offering and
can be categorized as low (course) and high (program);
 Orientation: it represent the main focus of content and purposes in the product offering
and can be defined as research-oriented and practice-oriented.
Fig. 4. The European “product portfolio” of higher education in entrepreneurship
Figure 4 shows the actual portfolio of European higher education offering in

entrepreneurship; the size of the circle in each cell of the matrix represent the size and
strength of the offering for each product category. According to results, European offering
seems to be well positioned mostly on practice-oriented programs (Master, Executive
education), while research-oriented initiatives (Ph.D.) still need more effort and investments
for growth.
5.2 Definition of emerging segments in third countries demand

The analysis of target group needs and potential interests toward European
entrepreneurship education put in evidence that it is possible to detect specific needs and
attitudes among the different countries involved in the survey, as well as common patterns
in them. As consequence, a marketing strategy designed to support innovative educational
planning and promote the actual opportunities offered by European academic institutions
must use segmentation procedures in order to meet emerging needs and allocate resources
more efficiently.
Arising from results of the survey, different groups of prospective students from third
countries are identified according to the following segmentation variables:
 Orientation: this variable involves segmenting third countries students by orientation
toward the entrepreneurship education (research vs. practice);
 Geography: this variable involves segmenting students by their area of origin.
Figure 5 shows the segmentation map; colors express the size of each segment and thus its
relevance for the development of higher education programs in entrepreneurship.
Practice
Executive
Master
Degree
Research
PhD
Fig. 5. Size and relevance of Third Countries student segments for entrepreneurship offering
According to Figure 5, practice-oriented students (especially for Master programs) emerge

as the most substantial and attractive segment for higher education offering across all the
countries investigated. As well, students interested in pursuing studies at doctorate level
emerge as a high-potential segment for the development of high quality educational
programs in entrepreneurship.
As reported in the analysis of target group needs it is possible to identify common patterns
across all the segments: in particular, the need of financial resources, the proficiency in
English and the favorable perceived image of European institutions emerge as significant
inputs for a successful marketing strategy.
5.3 Identification of market opportunities

In order to allocate resources with efficiency across all the products offered, educational
institutions must identify and evaluate market opportunities and analyze their own
resources and competencies. An helpful tool aiming to support the identification and
selection of marketing strategies is the “Market Attractiveness/Organization Strength
Matrix”. In such matrix, each product of the organization’s portfolio is allocated on the basis
of how attractive the actual/prospective market is and how well the organization is
positioned to take advantage. The grid is divided into four quadrant summarized as the
following:
 high strengths in high attractive markets represent opportunities for gaining or
maintaining a competitive advantage (“Keep up the good work” quadrant);
 low strengths in high attractive markets indicate high priority in intervention for
product improvement (“Improve the product” quadrant);
 relevant skills in slightly attractive markets suggest that it may be convenient to invest
in market development (“Develop the market” quadrant);
 finally, low organization strengths in slightly attractive markets indicate the needs to
select initiatives in order to better allocate resources (“Select” quadrant).
Figure 6 presents a market attractiveness/organization strength matrix for European offer of
higher education in entrepreneurship.
Fig. 6. The market attractiveness/organization strength matrix for European higher

education in entrepreneurship
According to results reported in the matrix, there are no products that completely fall in the
“Keep up the good work quadrant”; both Masters and Ph.D. are located in the area of
product improvement, while undergraduate and executive courses are located in the
“Develop the Market” and “Select” quadrant. As consequence, in order to properly allocate
resources within the actual “product portfolio” and achieve the goal of increasing its share
of the international students market, European Union can explore the following options:
 Product development: primary attention should be devoted to the improvement of both
Master and Ph.D. offering, as they both fall in the high attractiveness quadrant.
However, the different consistency of the actual offering (represented by the different
size of the circles) underlines the need to develop different strategies for them. As
regard to Masters, results of our survey emphasize that a fair number of academic
programs are already offered by European universities and departments; as a
consequence, European Union could allocate resources mostly in the direction of the
improvement of collaboration and integration among existing experiences and
competencies, in order to increase the overall quality and attractiveness of product
offering and create significant opportunities for knowledge sharing. On the contrary,
results from the analysis of the state of art of Ph.D. initiatives show that the number of
programs offered by European university is still too tight: thus, priority in resource
allocation should be devoted to the creation of new and high quality programs, both by
leveraging the skills and competencies of existing institutions and by supporting the
creation of new departments and research centers devoted to the analysis and research
in entrepreneurship.
 Market Development: it aims to attract new customers and to stimulate market growth.
Such strategy could be of interest for undergraduate courses. As the actual offering of
European university is already consistent and quickly growing, the main priority for
European Union should be in the direction to increase promotion in order create
knowledge and attract new consumers to existing products.
 Selection: it involves to devote less attention in the short term and to select a limited
number of products. Such strategy could be of interest for executive education, as both
the actual offer and the market potential seems to be still slight; as consequence
resource in the next future could be allocated in a selective way.
These results provide significant support for the strategic and marketing planning of higher
education initiatives in entrepreneurship.
6. Conclusion and marketing implications

This chapter seeks to provide practical support for the strategic and marketing planning of
European higher education initiatives in entrepreneurship. Results from the analysis of
European offer and third countries demand put in evidence the existence of significant
market opportunities. Actual offering of European institutions is positioned mostly on
practice-oriented programs (Master, Executive education) and in such sense it seems able to
detect needs and preferences of prospective students from third countries. However, in
order to boost its potential, the main priority for European Union should be to allocate
resources in the direction of improving the “product strategy” through the integration of
existing competencies and experiences and the support to the creation of new and high
quality research programs. Moreover, in order to increase the interest of students from third
countries, “pricing” plays a significant role: as the need of financial resources emerges as the
major constraint for pursuing studies abroad, European Union should create and promote
significant opportunities for scholarship and grants – as it is already doing within the
Erasmus Mundus Programme. As regard to “promotion”, the main direction of resource
allocation should be increasing awareness and developing interest in European educational
offering. Given the wide range of countries involved in such activity, public relation (i.e.
participation in international fairs and events), web-marketing as well as publicity seems the
most appropriate instruments for integrated marketing communication. Finally, a unique
“distribution” strategy should be developed in order to facilitate the application procedure
by international students. A potential high-value solution could be the creation of a
prospective-student web-portal with a standard and centralized application procedure,
strengthening efforts recently undertaken by the European Union within the Erasmus
Mundus Global Promotion Project.
7. Acknowledgement
We wish to express our gratitude to all the colleagues involved in the three-years
ENDEAVOUR project. Their contribute to the results on which this chapter is based has
been needful and valuable. We are grateful to: Eugenio Corti; Paula Kyro; Spyros Vliamos;
Mohammad Roomi and Carmel McGowan; Catherine Leger-Jarniou and Georges Kaloussis;
Tonis Metz; Francisco Linan, Josè Fernandez and Juan Antonio Martinez; Roberto Parente
and Rosangela Feola; Davide Dell’Anno; Francesco Bollazzi and Anna Gervasoni; Mathew
Manimala and Tripti Singh; Wen Shuhui, Duan Wanchun and Deng Gang; Fernando
Pinciroli; Oksana Prokhorova and Alexander Gorylev; Monica Valeria Marquezini; Bahar
Sennaroglu and Ismail Peker.
8. References
Blais, R. A. (1997), Technological Entrepreneurship and Engineering in Canada, Canadian
Academy of Engineering, Ottawa.
Bok D. (2003), Universities in the marketplace. The commercialization of higher education,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Clark B.R. (2004), Sustaining Change in Universities, Society for Research into Higher
Education, Open University Press, London.
Duke, C. R. (1996) “Exploring student interest in entrepreneurship courses”, Journal of
Marketing Education, 18 (3), 35-46.
Etzkowits H. (1998), “The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new
university–industry linkages”, Reseach Policy, 27.
Etzkowitz H., Webster A., Healey P. (1998), Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of
Industry and Academia, State University of New York, Albany.
EUA (2007), Trends in European Higher Education, European University Association, Brussels.
European Commission (2002), Final Report of the Expert Group “Best Procedure” Project on
Education and Training for Entrepreneurship, Enterprise Directorate General, Brussels.
European Commission (2006), “Fostering Entrepreneurial Mindsets through Education and
Learning”, Commission Communication, n. 33, Brussels.
European Commission (2008), Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe,

Enterprise Directorate General, Brussels.
Fayolle A. (Ed.) (2007), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1,
Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Gartner, W. B., Vesper, K. H. (1994) “Experiments in Entrepreneurship education successes
and failures”, Journal of Business Venturing, 9 (3), 179-189.
Geuna A. (1998), The internationalisation of the European university: A return to medieval
roots, Minerva, 36, 253–270.
Gibb A.A. (2005), “Towards the Entrepreneurial University. Entrepreneurship Education as
a lever for change”, NCGE Policy paper series, n. 15.
Guerrero Cano M., Urbano Pulido D., (2007), Entrepreneurial University: the case of
Autonomous University of Bercelona, UAB Research Paper.
Jacob M., Lundqvist M., Hellsmark H. (2003), Entrepreneurial transformations in the
Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology,
Research Policy, 32(9): 1555-1569.
Klofsten M., Jones-Evans D. (2000), Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe-The
Case of Sweden and Ireland, Small Business Economics, 14(4): 299-310.
McMullan, W. E., Vesper, K. H. (1987) Universities and Community Venture Development’,
Napolitano M.R., Riviezzo A. (2008), The Institutional Education and Training for
Entrepreneurship Development in the Italian Universities, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8 (6), 665-685.
Ranga L.M., Debackere K., Von-Tunzelmann N. (2003), Entrepreneurial universities and the
dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied
research in Belgium, Scientometrics, 58(2): 301-320.
Riviezzo, A., Napolitano, M.R. (2010), Italian Universities and their third mission: A
longitudinal analysis of the organization and education renewal towards the
”entrepreneurial university” model, Industry & Higher Education, vol. n. 3 - June; p.
227-236.
Schulte P. (2004), The Entrepreneurial University: A Strategy for Institutional Development,
Higher Education in Europe, 29(2): 187-191.
Vesper, K. H. (1985), Entrepreneurship Education Babson College Centre for entrepreneurial
Studies, Wellesley MA.
Vesper, K. H. (1993), Entrepreneurship education Los Angeles Centre for entrepreneurial studies,
University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Vesper, K. H., Gartner, W. B. (1997), “Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 12 (5), 403-421.
Vesper, K. H., Gartner, W. B. (1999), University Entrepreneurship programmes Lloyed Greif
Centre for Entrepreneurial studies, University of Southern California.
Vesper, K. H., McMullan, W. E. (1988), “Entrepreneurship today courses, tomorrow
degrees?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13 (1), 7-13.
Volkman, C. (2004), “Entrepreneurship studies – An ascending academic discipline in the
twenty-first century”, Higher Education in Europe, 29 (2), 177-185.
Wilson, K. (2006), Entrepreneurship Education at European Universities and Business Schools,
European Foundation for Entrepreneurship Research (EFER).
9
From Traditional Service to E-Service

Market Change in Poland During
Transformation 1989-2010
Anna Śliz and Marek S. Szczepański
Univeristy of Opole,
Poland
1. Introduction
It has been thirty years of transition in Poland, the transition from the idea of real socialism1
to democracy and from centrally planned economy to a free market. Today's
transformations continue to run in the atmosphere of a global economic crisis, which has
been the largest for the last seventy years. Poland is one of the few countries which have not
suffered its strong effects, though has been incorporated into a global crisis through
participation in a global economic exchange. This is one of the effects of the implementation
of the principles of democracy and free market economy.
An analysis of the contemporary social changes includes identification of the phenomena
and processes associated with the operation of the third economic sector, namely services.
The starting point for our considerations is the concept of the three sectors of the economy
developed in the thirties of the twentieth century by Colin Clark Grant and Allan G.B.
Fisher. In this paper we are trying to show the evolution of societies from traditional to
modern ones and metamorphosis of their economies. Our empirical reference system are
transformations of the service sector in Poland, while referring to certain aspects of the
transformation of the third sector of the economy in the megastructural context.
Contemporary Poland has been in the transition phase from the dominance of agriculture
and extractive industries to expansion of the sphere of services, both traditional and
modern ones, including E-service. This process has been accompanied by transformation
of farmers, and especially working class into the class providing services, which we call
the new middle class. These are people of high civilizational competence, creative, flexible
and professional.
1 Real socialism, also associated with the term communism, is the name of a political and economic
system in Poland in 1944 - 1990. The starting date is connected with domination of the USSR after the
Second World War, a country that established its sphere of influence in Middle-East Europe. Poland
was one of the countries in that sphere. The closing date is the year of first democratic elections, after
which Lech Wałęsa became the president of Poland. Real socialism was characterised not only by
political domination of the USSR in the region, but also limited civil liberties, central government held
by a single party – the Communist Party, and central economic planning.
The key elements of Polish economic transformation have been the dynamics of the
economic crisis in some countries of the European Union and the United States or Japan,
and changes within the state, including those related to political dominance in the sphere of
power. An important problem still remains the situation in the oil-rich Arab countries,
especially in Libya. The increase in fuel prices triggers the rise in prices of almost all goods
and services. And consequently Poland is being influenced by all these trends.
The process of transformation in Poland is still continuing, and Polish people associate with
this process two main groups of issues. Firstly, the profits resulting from the marketization
of the economy: improving the supply of shops, a general rise in living standards, the
introduction of a free market. Secondly, the benefits coming from possession of certain
freedoms: freedom to travel, freedom – in general, civil liberties and freedom of speech as
well as political freedom. Polish people appreciate, above all, economic freedom, free
market, restoration of private property, implementation of capitalism, privatization, the
opportunity to develop their own businesses. The issues of freedom and marketization of
Polish economy still seem to prevail in the evaluation of Polish transformation.
The main aim of this paper is an attempt to analyse Polish transformation in terms of
economy, through an initial presentation of the identification of the phenomena and
processes associated with the operation of the third economic sector, namely services.
Reaching by the state the advantage of services especially modern ones, over other sectors,
means reaching maturity in terms of economic development. We are going to connect the
expanding sphere of services in Poland with the principles of a free market but also with
Poland's place and its role in the creation of a network of contemporary connections
between global centres of innovation. We are also going to show both Poland's
informatization level as well as associated with it the level of development of the sector of
modern services.
2. The sector of services: Metamorphoses

Since the mid-nineteenth century, when Auguste Comte defined the object of sociological
research, some attempts have been made to understand the fundamental transformation of
society from traditional to modern one and related processes of urbanization,
industrialization and the spread of capitalism. Thus, among others, Claude Henri de Saint-
Simon and Auguste Comte developed the idea called the law of three stages, which states
how society (civilization) develops. According to this law, human beings develop through
the theological stage, the metaphysical stage and the positive stage2. But it was primarily in
the early twenty-first century when people felt a strong need to understand social changes
taking place because never before in human history changes had occurred as rapidly as
today, and had not covered all spheres of life, such as: art, science, religion, morality,
education, politics, economics and family life3.
2 A. Comte, Rozprawa o duchu filozofii pozytywnej, [The Course in Positive Philosophy] tłum. J.K.,
Wydawnictwo ANTYK: Kęty 2001; C.H. de Saint-Simone, O systemie industrialnym [w] Pisma wybrane,
tłum. Stanisław Antoszczyk, t.2, Książka i Wiedza: Warszawa 1968
3 P. Sztompka, Socjologia zmian społecznych. [Sociology of social changes] Wydawnictwo Znak: Kraków
2005, s. 13
From Traditional Service to E-Service Market Change in Poland During Transformation 1989-2010 157
The scheme of imperative stages of social development, namely the traditional society
(preindustrial), modern (industrial) and postmodern (post-industrial), and today also the
information society (postmodern) was determined by reference to the level of economic
development4. One of the earliest models of development was formed by identifying the
third sector of the economy – the sector of services, and distinguishing it from agriculture
and industry. Previously it was thought that industry and services were interdependent.
Already mentioned Colin Clark Grant, together with Allan G.B. Fisher were the authors of
the model of economic development which took into account the three sectors of the
economy. Clark-Fisher's model refers to three stages of development:
1. Domination of agricultural production, fisheries, forestry and mining of natural
resources - at this stage there are low-income countries.
2. Production concentrated in industry and construction - at this stage there are countries
with an average income.
3. Domination of services (including education), and this stage includes high-income
countries. The advantage of the third sector means reaching maturity by the country in
terms of economic development5. Taking into consideration the abovementioned model
we can distinguish three key sectors in economic development: agriculture and
extractive industries (sector I), processing industry (sector II) and services (sector III).
Each of them dominates at different times of development of specific societies.
In a traditional society whose economy was based on farm work, dominated labour-
intensive technology, and manwork was directed mainly at harnessing mother nature. In
modern society dominated manufacturing, capital-intensive technology and human
competition with machines. Postmodern society relied on information, processing,
technology and competition between people. One of the features of postmodern society
became domination of services. However, these are the highly qualified services. The very
understanding of the concept of 'service' is not unambiguous. American sociologist Daniel
Bell wrote: “the word 'services' automatically can be associated with low-paid work in fast
food restaurants, but this is misleading. By the idea of main sectors of service we mean
banking services, designing, professional services, and existential (health, education, social
services), and only at the very bottom of this list can be found services addressed to an
individual customer.”6 Characteristic for postmodern society are specialized and technical
services. This means that services can be divided into traditional and modern ones, which
come primarily for the production, collection and distribution of information. States with
such services constitute the backbone of the global economy, culture and politics.
Traditional services have existed since the beginning of sedentary civilizations, and
commerce and craft services had already accompanied the oldest Greek polis and Roman
urban centres, civitas.
4 K. Krzysztofek, M.S. Szczepański, Zrozumieć rozwój. Od społeczeństw tradycyjnych do informacyjnych. [To
understand progress. From traditional to information societies] Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego:

Katowice 2005, s. 36
5 http://www.dolnyslask-innowacje.eu/pages/files/File/biuletyn/311207/ISKRA_KrzysztofPiech.pdf
6 D. Bell, The World in Year 2013. “Deaedalus. Journal of The American Academy of Arts and Sciences”
1987, vol. 116, no 3. (quotation translated by the author)

The modern world has created a new sector – modern services, or E-service, which
characterizes information societies, that have not been clearly defined by the researchers.
Some of them, like a Japanese sociologist and computer scientist Masuda Yoneji7 or an
American writer Alvin Toffler8, treated information society as the next, necessary stage in
the evolution of post-industrial society. Y. Masuda, for example, spoke directly about post-
industrial information technology society. Others, especially Majid Tehranian9, recognized
information society as an entirely new stage in the process of universal modernization. They
also argued that in this stage there are only a few countries of rich West, though the
development of modern services sector is being shared by a growing number of countries
on different continents.
In the process of building the information society, the access to knowledge and information
and the ability to use them in everyday life is becoming the most important for the citizens.
A key element of economically, environmentally and socially sustainable world are
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) – and the level of readiness of countries
to use ICT is determined by the Networked Readiness Index (NRI). The ICT level
determines the level of development and competitiveness of single countries. Network-
readiness indicator (NRI) is a state of preparation for the effective use of ICT in three
dimensions: general business, legal and environment infrastructure in ICT; readiness of
three key social actors: individuals, businesses and governments; actual use of ICT10.
According to 2010-2011 NRI ranking, the most outstanding country was Sweden, which
remained the leader like in 2009. Equally high in this ranking are other Scandinavian
countries, as well as Switzerland, the United States of America and Canada. The sixth place
went to Taiwan, the first country not belonging to the rich West. A hundred and thirty eight
countries were scheduled in this ranking. Poland was in the 62nd position, which means
slight advance having compared to the 2009-2010 report, by three positions and an increase
in total grade from 3.74 to 3.84. The maximum note is 6.0. Last in the ranking, for many
years, have been African countries. In the 2010-2011 ranking it was Chad, which received a
note of 2.5911. Poland was placed in the mid-ranking list, which means the average
willingness to the network (NRI), and the same level of preparedness to use ICT. And these
techniques with the level of public access to the Internet are necessary for the development
of E-service.
According to NetTrack study in 2010, 52% of the population in Poland benefited from the
Internet comparing to 49.5% in 2009. Among Internet users in 2010, 72.0% did so on daily
basis or almost every day, and 19.1% several times a week. Most Polish people use the
Internet at home (93.8%) and at work (21.2%). The largest group are Polish Internet users
with secondary education (41%) and university education (26%). More than 44% have been
7 Y. Masuda, Modernization and the Structure of Societies. University Press: Princeton 1986
8 A. Toffler, Trzecia fala, [The Third Wave] tłum. Ewa Woydyłło, Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy:
Warszawa 1997; A. Toffler, Szok przyszłości, [Future Shock] tłum. Wiktor Osiatyński i in. Wydawnictwo
Zysk i S-ka: Poznań 1998
9 M. Tehranin, The Course of Modernity: The Dialectics of Communication and Modernization, “International
Social Science Journal”, 1988, vol. 32, no 2

10 www.weforum.org/issues/global-information-technology
11 “The Global Information Technology Report 2010-2011”:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR_Report_2011.pdf
using the Internet for more than five years, and the most often visited pages among Polish
internet users are: GOOGLE (89.5%), ALLEGRO (68.3%) and ONET (57.6%)12. The access
to the Internet of almost a third of municipalities in Poland is still less than 30% of the
dwellings. High (above 50%) or very high (above 70%) level of access to the Internet was
recorded in only 19.5% of communes in Poland. Very high access (70%-100%) can be
found in the largest cities in Poland and their surroundings: Warszawa, Wrocław,
Kraków, Poznań, Gdańsk or Metropolis Silesia13. With comparison to the computerized
European Union, situation in Poland is not satisfactory. Among the EU residents, 24.8%
owned fixed broadband. In Poland only 13.5%, which placed the country in the last three
EU countries. On the other hand, 58% of entrepreneurs in Poland legitimize broadband
Internet access, while the EU average is 83%. These results rank Poland at the end of the
European Union countries when it comes to the level of computerization and Internet
usage by its residents14. According to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
at the end of 2009 the access to the Network had 26% of the world's population. This
number doubled between 2003 and 2009. However, there is a huge disparity in Internet
access between developed and developing countries. In countries with the highest level of
civilization development, 60% of households have access to the network, while in
developing countries, this is only 12%. In recent years, the largest increase in the access to
the Internet has taken place in China and India15.
Innovative activity, which is the core of modern development and offers access to the
most modern services needs spatial concentration – restructured industrial regions,
university areas, technopolis, and most of all metropolitan areas. These are metropolises
that offer easy access to a variety of businesses, universities, research centres – the ideal
background for innovation16. A limited number of major metropolitan centres like New
York, Tokyo, London or Frankfurt, not only dominated the economy of nation-states to
which they belong, but also created a worldwide network of coordination centres for
major financial resources of the world17. These metropolitan areas are characterized by
service excellence, institutions and facilities, uniqueness and specificity of place, as well as
multi-faceted innovation capacity in technical, economic, social, political and cultural
terms. But metropolitan areas are, above all, a high level of human capital, intensive
research activity, the accumulation of innovative companies and public institutions. This
is a gathering of inventors network-affiliated with all the metropolitan spaces of the
world18. An interesting theme in the discourse on contemporary cities is, what Richard
Florida called, a creative class, whose representatives are open to the new phenomena,
12 http://www.gospodarka.pl
13 ‘Silesia’ Metropolis is the name of 14 cities – Bytom, Chorzów, Gliwice, Katowice, Mysłowice, Piekary
Śląskie, Ruda Śląska, Siemianowice Śląskie, Świętochłowice, Tychy, Zabrze, Dąbrowa Górnicza,
Sosnowiec, Jaworzno. The constituent cities united in the Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia
14 http://www.gospodarka.pl/tematy/Internet-w-Polsce
15 www.vista.pl
16 A. Olechnicka, A. Płoszaj, Metropolie a innowacyjność [Metropolises and innovation] [w] B. Jałowiecki
(red.) [Is a metropolis a city?] Czy metropolia jest miastem? Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar: Warszawa
2009, s. 137-138.
17 P. Kubicki, Miasto w sieci znaczeń. Kraków i jego tożsamości. [The city in the network of meanings.
Kraków and its identities] Księgarnia Akademicka: Kraków 2010, s. 154.

18 A. Olechnicka, A. Płoszaj, Metropolie a innowacyjność, [Metropolises and innovation] op.cit. s. 138.
tolerant and introduce cultural and viewpoint diversity. According to an American

sociologist, these are metropolises which provide coexistence of the three Ts, namely
talent, tolerance and technology, which attract top class professionals, generating
innovative, modern services and stimulating economic development19. Metropolises are
also spaces of the largest concentration of scientific potential, which is manifested in the
number of network connections with research centres in the state and abroad,
expenditures on research and development (Research and Development), employment in
science and research sector and number of publications. In the ranking based on such
criteria excel metropolitan centres in the United States, Japan and Western Europe. The
largest, modern cities form a network of global cities, in which Warsaw, as the only Polish
city, held 19th position20.
In Poland we can also observe a strong concentration of research activities in major cities,
domestic metropolises where is the highest expenditure on R&D, the highest level of
employment in the field of research, and the number of scientific publications. For example,
the concentration of employment in R&D in the urban centres in Poland ranges between
93% and 99%. Having considered the above criteria Warsaw region with Warsaw playing
the major role is in the first position but also other centres of Warsaw metropolitan area. The
same applies to other Polish regions and subregions in which research activity is focused,
primarily, in the capitals of regions (cities), but also in the larger centres co-creating the
region. Along with the Warsaw region the greatest potential for research in Poland is
concentrated in Gdańsk, Kraków, Łódź, Poznań, Wrocław and Katowice, more precisely
Silesian metropolitan area. In the region of Upper Silesia, for example, the research potential
is not only restricted to Katowice, but also Gliwice, Chorzów and Zabrze play an important
role. In regions with the highest research potential there is also the largest number of
scientific publications, mainly with the regional metropolis affiliation. Larger dispersion can
be observed in the region of Katowice, where only in Katowice the affiliation is 49.6% of
scientific publications, when, for example, in Wrocław it is 99.9%, and in Warsaw 96.1%.
Research teams from eight Polish regions and subregions with the highest research potential
provide 85% of the number of scientific publications and 90% of the teams participating in
the 6th EU Framework Programme21.
Therefore, it is very important to encourage development in many Polish regions,
subregions, and urban centres in the direction of increase both in research and development,
as well as the number of workers employed in this sector. Urban spaces have always had
access to the highest technologies relevant to the stage of social development. Today, the
most important is the development of knowledge and inventiveness. So you need to create
centres of research, based, with all the proportions kept, on the Silicon Valley, which is the
space consolidating creative ideas, capital, labour and raw materials. The priority is
knowledge of strategically important areas of application, produced by the innovation
centres such as Stanford University, California Institute of Technology (CalTech), or the
engineering teams of the Technology University in Massachusetts (MIT) and their networks.
19 R. Florida, The Rise of The Creative Class…and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, & everyday
life. Basic Books: New York 2004

20 A. Olechnicka, A. Płoszaj, Metropolie a innowacyjność, [Metropolises and innovation] op.cit, s. 141.
21 A. Olechnicka, A. Płoszaj, Metropolie a innowacyjność, [Metropolises and innovation] op.cit., s. 142-
144.
The abovementioned pattern originating in the United States of America is a long

perspective for Polish regions, but without such a perspective it is not possible to build
modern urban spaces included in the global network of innovation. For example, the region
of Silesia has many universities, whose participation in the development of the region and
its innovation should dramatically increase. The key point to the emergence of the
metropolises of global or even European status is technological progress and innovation,
which are inextricably connected. Simultaneously, global cities are spaces terrain hatching
new ideas, which to the highest degree contribute to global development. In order to
achieve it you need the right climate associated with the level of investment attractiveness,
and level of resources and labour costs.
Regions in Poland are characterized by different levels of investment attractiveness, which is
constituted by transport availability, employment resources, market capacity, economic and
social infrastructure, the level of economic development, environment condition, public
safety and the level of activity of the regions to the investor22. In the context of the issues
presented, the most important is the attractiveness of regions for service activities. Thus, the
most attractive regions are: Warsaw, Łódź, Katowice, Kraków and Poznań. The strengths of
these regions are the high number of skilled workers and college graduates, high levels of
social activity, high absorbency of the market, good transport accessibility, well-developed
business sector, high productivity and a large number of companies with foreign capital. On
the other hand, high labour costs, crime rate and low detectability are some of the
drawbacks.23 Attractiveness of regions for the service activity is often accompanied by
attractiveness for high-tech activities. If we take into consideration the level of
attractiveness, the following would be the top ranked regions: Warsaw, Kraków, Poznań,
Łódź and Wrocław. This attractiveness results from the high level of resources, most
important of which is the level of education and competence of the people, the high
economic and social activity, developed transport hubs, including airports, market capacity,
institutional density, high development of cultural infrastructure and high productivity. The
weakest side is the low level of public safety.24 The above analysis shows that the most
attractive spaces for modern services and advanced technology are the biggest cities, which
are characterized by the perfection of services, institutions and facilities, uniqueness and
specificity of a place, as well as multi-dimensional potential for technical, economic, social,
political and cultural innovation.
3. E-service today
Urban spaces that had always focused on the modern technologies and services relevant
to the stage of social development, underwent a profound transformation. Gideon
Sjöberg, basing on development and modernization of cities, created two types of cities
characteristic for traditional and modern society.25 Both traditional and modern cities
22 M. Nowicki (red.), Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna województw i podregionów Polski 2010: www.IBnGR.pl

[Investment attractiveness of Polish voivodeships and subregions]
23 Ibidem, s. 28-30
24 Ibidem, s. 35-38.
25 G. Sjőberg, The Preindustrial City. Past and Present. Free Press: Glencoe 1960, passim. Por. też K.
Krzysztofek, M.S. Szczepański, Zrozumieć rozwój. Od społeczeństw tradycyjnych do informacyjnych. [To

were characterized by visible differentiation, which to some extent went along with
ecological division. In fact, this meant that classes and social strata and occupational
groups in the urban space occupied certain territories. All divisions resulted from social
differentiation of inhabitants of the traditional cities that by adopting almost a caste
system, comprised of elite status groups, the vast masses of the urban population and the
unclassified population. Each group occupied a separate piece of space performing
specific actions and taking the appropriate style and way of life (endogenous groups). We
must also remember that the level of urbanization in traditional society was low, which
changed substantially during the industrial period, which brought people with different
cultural capital within the boundaries of the urban space. This fostered focusing on one
area of the representatives of many cultures, generating distances between people
forming subsequent classes and social groups. Cities that were most often set up around
the great centres of industry, commerce and banking system differentiated its inhabitants
on the basis of the level of education, professionalism, property, style and standard of
living and place of arrival in the urban area. And it is not only about a classic division the
city versus the countryside, but division resulting from the religious, ethnic or national
diversity.
In the second decade of the twenty-first century some part of urban world was
transformed into metropolises – global cities, and there is a question whether they are still
cities or a new form of spatial concentration of people and accompanying infrastructure.
Several thousand years of cities’ existence had produced different models for the
urbanized area of Europe and North America. The model of cities of the Old Continent
was described by Max Weber. He argued that “a city creating a community of residents
must have the following characteristics: fortification, the main square, its own court of
law, at least partially separate, associations, and partial autonomy and authorities elected
with the participation of citizens.”26 Discussion about American cities emerged in the
minds, first of all, representatives of the Chicago School, including Robert Ezra Park who
believed that the modern American city “[…] is largely created by the simple process of
mother nature and develops so that it is difficult to recognize its institutional character.
[...] the plan of most American cities is a typical chessboard. The block is a distance unit.
This structure may suggest that the city is an artificial construction, which can be
accurately made and spread.” Moreover, Robert E. Park publishes the claim, which has
become a classic in the sociology of the city: “[…] it is a fact, however, that the roots of the
city lie in the habits and customs of the people who inhabit them. As a result, the city has
both moral (social) and physical organization, which includes characteristic interactions to
mutual formation and modification.”27 The city is organized by people in terms of space,
which in the past, surrounded by walls, now is becoming a space without borders. These
are contemporary global cities, or areas of the world's largest economic development and
understand progress. From traditional to information societies] Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego:

Katowice 2005, s. 59-61.
26 B. Jałowiecki, Fragmentacja i prywatyzacja przestrzeni [Fragmentation and privatization] [w:] B.
Jałowiecki, W. Łukowski (red.) Gettoizacja polskiej przestrzeni miejskiej. [Ghettoization of Polish urban
area] Academica SWPS: Warszawa i Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar: Warszawa 2007, s. 11. (quotation
translated by the author)
27 K. Czekaj, Socjologia Szkoły Chicagowskiej i jej recepcja w Polsce. [Chicago School Sociology and its
reception in Poland] Wydawnictwo GWSH: Katowice 2007, s. 74. (quotation translated by the author)
market of the world's highest rates of consumption, and their power extends not only the
regional or national boundaries but also continental28. The walls, which used to have a
defensive function, symbolic as well as separating people from foreigners, disappeared
from the picture of today's cities and metropolitan areas are characterized by the
contemporary space of flows29. Lack of physical boundaries means unlimited range of
global cities, and their expansion through online tools and the territory.
The modern metropolises are not only a space of flows, but most of all the information
centres of the world. These are information cities, the structures collecting and analysing
the greatest good of the modern world – information. Metropolitan centres accumulate
the world's newest generation of services (highest category), making a dislocation – in the
semi-peripheral or peripheral countries – the world's next steps in the manufacturing of
products. A new industrial space is being created. The space involving the separation of
the production process to different locations, while ensuring their reintegration through
the network. This separation of production is consistent with the resources of the
workforce at the site. In the centre of a metropolis an innovative idea is emerging, which
is becoming a product in the semi-peripheral space or periphery of the world. Supervision
of the whole – until the final product – comes from the metropolises, which are also the
centre of power.
In the cities, also in European regional Polish cities – Warsaw, Kraków, Wrocław, Poznań
and Metropolis Silesia – the infostructural networks are becoming more and more
important, though much more is still to be done in the area of infrastructure. Network of
highways, roads and rail links remain a key challenge for successive governments and
Polish regional governments.
Essential developmental deficits of Polish cities are primarily due to insufficient
infrastructure, inadequate supply of educated manpower and delays in the development of
E-service, which is the most modern sector of services. They should be complimented with
traditional services, also requiring appropriate infostructure. The gap between E-service in
Poland and the European Union (EU average) can be illustrated by some of the selected
indicators listed below. In 2009, 21% of Polish people benefited from Internet banking (EU
average 32%), about 9% of Polish citizens looked for a job online (EU average 15%), 18% of
the population in Poland read online editions of newspapers and magazines (EU average
31%), 23% ordered goods and services online (EU average 37%), and 2% of the population
conducted a transaction with an entity from other EU countries.30 The market of credit cards
in Poland has been growing relatively fast over the last eight years; in the last eight years the
number of issued credit cards has increased twenty times; four times the number of card
transactions, and five times their total value. Therefore, the number of ATMs has doubled
and the number of businesses accepting payment by credit cards has increased by half31. The
rate of E-service development in Poland is rather average. It refers to services which deal
28 S. Sassen, The global city. New York, London, Tokyo. Second Edition. Princeton University Press:
Princeton and Oxford 2001.
29 M. Castells, Społeczeństwo sieci. [The Rise of the Network Society] Tłum. M. Marody i in.
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa 2007, s. 381-429.

31 http://www.pentor.pl/56460.xml?doc_id=11278
primarily with banking services, including also non-cash transactions. In addition, E-service
is a service and IT software, which is related to software sales, service equipment,
computers repair, networks, LAN, WLAN, Internet, Web sites. Among these services E-
government also has an important role, namely electronic governance and management,
particularly at the local level. It can be defined as the way in which public administration
uses new technologies in order to provide citizens with tailored services and information,
and presenting them in a more practical, useful and easier to use way. In addition, E-
government is a representation of the traditional services provided by public authorities at
different levels in their electronic counterparts, which ensure their usage 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. Electronic government is the overall actions that use information technology
and telecommunications to create better and more efficient administration in a changing
world and ultimately to improve the quality of governance or even management of the
state.32 However, in the development of E-government there can be seen a certain inequality:
when the level of services aimed at business is relatively high, the availability for ordinary
citizens in Poland remains low. The percentage of basic public services fully available for
citizens online is 27% and 88% for entrepreneurs, while the percentage of Polish people
using E-administration is 18%, while the EU average is 30%. The percentage of Polish
companies benefiting from E-administration is accelerating (61%) and lessening the distance
to the EU average (71%).33
Despite some changes in the field of E-service in Poland, there is still a distinct distance from
other European countries in terms of computerization. The condition of public E-services in
Poland may not be satisfactory. Although 99.4% of Polish institutions use the Internet, and
89.7% have their own websites, the webpages provide access only to some information, and
it is difficult or even impossible to download certain forms and make electronic transfers.34
Nevertheless, the evidence of progress is the ability to make a tax return through the
Internet, fill in the census form, register at university or apply for a job. You can also make
any payments. Today, there is also a vivid discussion on the possibility of the Internet
voting in parliamentary elections or presidential elections.
Polish cities (metropolitan areas), because of civilizational backwardness and peripheral
location, for a long time had remained outside the network of the largest global
metropolitan areas. The situation began to change in 1989, but especially after Poland’s
accession to the European Union. As a result, a global network of major metropolitan areas
began to open to the Polish cities. The scale of flow of capital, services and people increased
substantially, and Polish airports are recording the second in the world (after China)
percentage increase in the number of passengers. The cities attract huge number of foreign
tourists and foreign investment is going mainly to the major urban centres.35 Along with
these changes goes a change in the cultural sphere, which is increasingly willing to accept
diversity understood as the notion of innovation and creativity which guarantee the value of
social development.
32 H. Krynicka, Rozwój E-usług publicznych w Polsce; [Development of public E-services in Poland]
http://www.bibliotekacyfrowa.pl/Content/34608/008.pdf
34 H. Krynicka, Rozwój E-usług publicznych w Polsce, [Development of public E-services in Poland] op.cit.
35 P. Kubicki, Miasto w sieci znaczeń, [The city in the network of meanings] op.cit., s. 156-157.
Modern cities are not only centres of technology, knowledge, information and power, but
also migration, which has two opposing faces. On the one hand, it is the inflow of highly
skilled, professionals and financial elite, who can easily decide on the change of place of
residence and work. On the other hand, the migration of people with lower qualifications,
because global cities need workers doing less prestigious and less paid job.36 Metropolitan
community can be divided, in a simplified way, into the metropolitan elite who is
sometimes identified with the new middle class, metropolitan proletariat and redundant
people. The former, perform management functions, supervise the flow of information, form
the creative class, using the terminology of Richard Florida. The latter perform
reconstructive work, though necessary for normal functioning of the city and the
metropolis. And finally, the third ones, have already ceased to be needed for a metropolis,
or have never served in the most important functions, becoming over time fragmented
people, as Zygmunt Bauman would define them, using very elegant language though.
4. Conclusion: From craft to E-service

In the long history of urban development, the location of various kinds of services in the city
has been a very important issue. The services have affected the character of cities and the
standard of living of their inhabitants. In ancient societies these were traditional services,
mainly handicrafts, provided mostly to a single man. Today’s services are focused,
primarily, in the spaces of global cities, which became a place of modern services, due to
bringing together individuals within its borders with the highest level of civilizational
competence and creativity. Modern services, professional and creative individuals occupy
the centre of the world’s metropolises, which is defined as a rare good. Metropolitan centre
is marked by a double stigma, as the most expensive area of the city in an economic sense –
the most expensive flats, office and commercial space, as well as the space associated with
the prestige and social status. Work and residence in the heart of a metropolis are the desire
of many people, but available for a scarce number of them. It is a space separated from the
outside world by a symbolic wall of wealth, competence, and above all prestige. Meanwhile,
traditional services are no longer filling the city centre, because their position had been
changing and became more marginal and gave way to E-service. Transformation of
economic sphere of metropolitan area have also affected the change in population, and
urban architecture. “Truly great cities, are the ones in which great people live” as Walt
Whitman, a great American novelist and poet wrote many years ago. Today’s world’s
metropolises are centres of knowledge, information, decision, power and modern services,
but also these are their inhabitants, who are screenwriters and directors of the presence.
World cities have also become hubs of the network connections. These are the global centres
of decision-making and control – where innovations spread from and there the network of
the largest transnational companies is focused. Knowledge is produced there and flow of
information is focused. Advanced services are concentrated there – services of higher
quality. This concentration of advanced services requiring power and skills has been
recorded in several cities around the world, such as New York, Tokyo or London. In Poland,
this is Warsaw, Metropolis Silesia, Poznań, Wrocław and Kraków. Advanced services and
markets are being connected in the global network, which does not constitute a permanent
36 P. Kubicki, Miasto w sieci znaczeń, [The city in the network of meanings] op.cit., s. 155.
hierarchy of cities that create it, but it requires constant competition. These are networks of
production and management that offer opportunities to raise the personal situation by
changing social position. Modern cities are not the concentration of capital, but processing
and information management. These are the places of concentration of economic forces and
centres of power and decision-making concerning global economy.37
Such concentration of IT tools which can be used to obtain information, select, analyze,
process, manage and communicate it to people enhances, among others, redeployment
phenomenon. This phenomenon is related to the relocation of traditional industries - dirty
industries to areas with low level of social development and, above all, low
environmental awareness of their residents. Developed countries are heading toward
clean, green technologies, and the largest cities of the modern world accumulate
information, not the industry. So we can say that underdeveloped societies are based on
the traditional branches of industry, which mostly come from the rich centres and
developed countries on E-services. Simultaneously, the development of E-services makes
it possible to manage the factories that have been located thousands of miles from the
place of strategic decision-making - the car industry is a good example. It is also about
low-educated workforce, which is the greatest in the poor regions of the world. These are
people who are able to perform only simple work, and do not have powers that would
give them the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the world of IT. The high
correlation between the level of social development and the level of IT can be seen for
example in China or India, where the growth of economic importance of these countries
on a global scale is closely connected with the development of the world’s fastest Internet
in these countries.
Contemporary Poland is facing the challenges of the modern service sector development –
E-service, development of the metropolitan area, which could be included in a network of
global cities. The economic transformation, which started in 1989, introduced Poland to a
group of countries forming a strong structure of the modern world. Polish people are
fully aware that every effort should be made to enhance Poland’s political and above all
economic position in the world. The state can anticipate economic success if it focuses its
attention on the development and application of modern technologies in everyday life.
5. References
Bell D. The World in Year 2013. “Deaedalus. Journal of The American Academy of Arts and
Sciences” 1987, vol. 116, no 3.
Castells M. Społeczeństwo sieci. [The Rise of the Network Society] Tłum. M. Marody i in.
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa 2007
Comte A. Rozprawa o duchu filozofii pozytywnej, [The Course in Positive Philosophy] tłum.
J.K., Wydawnictwo ANTYK: Kęty 2001
Czekaj K. Socjologia Szkoły Chicagowskiej i jej recepcja w Polsce. [Chicago School Sociology and
its Perception in Poland] Wydawnictwo GWSH: Katowice 2007
37 S. Sassen, A New Geography and Marginality: http://www.people.cornell.edu

De Saint-Simone C.H. O systemie industrialnym [w] Pisma wybrane, [On Industrial System]
[in] [Selected Essays] tłum. Stanisław Antoszczyk, t.2, Książka i Wiedza: Warszawa
1968
Florida R. The Rise of The Creative Class…and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, &
everyday life. Basic Books: New York 2004
Jałowiecki B. Fragmentacja i prywatyzacja przestrzeni [w:] B. Jałowiecki, W. Łukowski (red.)
Gettoizacja polskiej przestrzeni miejskiej. [Fragmentation and Privatization] [in]
[Ghettoization of Polish urban area] Academica SWPS: Warszawa i Wydawnictwo
Naukowe Scholar: Warszawa 2007
Krzysztofek K., Szczepański M.S. Zrozumieć rozwój. Od społeczeństw tradycyjnych do
informacyjnych. [To understand progress. From traditional to information societies]
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego: Katowice 2005
Kubicki P. Miasto w sieci znaczeń. Kraków i jego tożsamości. [The city in the network of
meanings. Karków and its identities] Księgarnia Akademicka: Kraków 2010
Masuda Y. Modernization and the Structure of Societies. University Press: Princeton 1986
Nowicki M. (red.), Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna województw i podregionów Polski 2010:
www.IBnGR.pl [Investment attractiveness of Polish voivodships and subregions in
2010]
Olechnicka A., Płoszaj A. Metropolie a innowacyjność [Metropolises and innovation] [w] B.
Jałowiecki (red.) [in] Czy metropolia jest miastem? [Is a metropolis a city?]
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar: Warszawa 2009
Sassen S. The global city. New York, London, Tokyo. Second Edition. Princeton University Press:
Princeton and Oxford 2001.
Sjőberg G. The Preindustrial City. Past and Present. Free Press: Glencoe 1960, passim.
Sztompka P. Socjologia zmian społecznych. [Sociology of social changes] Wydawnictwo Znak:
Kraków 2005
Tehranin M. The Course of Modernity: The Dialectics of Communication and Modernization,
“International Social Science Journal”, 1988, vol. 32, no 2
Toffler A. Szok przyszłości, [Future Shock] tłum. Wiktor Osiatyński i in. Wydawnictwo Zysk i
S-ka: Poznań 1998
Toffler A. Trzecia fala, [The Third Wave] tłum. Ewa Woydyłło, Państwowy Instytut
Wydawniczy: Warszawa 1997
“The Global Information Technology Report 2010-2011”:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR_Report_2011.pdf
Krynicka H. Rozwój E-usług publicznych w Polsce; [Development of public E-services in
Poland] http://www.bibliotekacyfrowa.pl/Content/34608/008.pdf
Sassen S. A New Geography and Marginality: http://www.people.cornell.edu
Online resources
http://www.dolnyslask-innowacje.eu/pages/files/File/biuletyn/311207/ISKRA_Krzyszto
fPiech.pdf
http://www.gospodarka.pl
http://www.gospodarka.pl/tematy/Internet-w-Polsce
http://www.pentor.pl/56460.xml?doc_id=11278
www.vista.pl
www.weforum.org/issues/global-information-technology
10
Creative Business Model

Innovation for Globalizing SMEs
Tõnis Mets
University of Tartu
Estonia
1. Introduction
Internationalization of its activities and business model cannot be assumed as a habitual
process in small entrepreneurial company’s growth. Very many small businesses of big
country origin do not need to internationalize themselves at all because of huge home
market. Internationalization becomes topical for hi-tech small and medium sized enterprises
(HSME) of small country origin because the need to cover R&D expenses (“push” factor)
which is not realistic in own domestic market and attractiveness of bigger international
markets (“pull” factor) (Luostarinen & Gabrielsson, 2004). The traditional model of
internationalization is a slow, incremental and resource-intensive process known as the
Uppsala model (U-model) of internationalization (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Andersen,
1993). The innovation related I-model links the gradual internationalization of an HSME to
internal and external actors, and to factors carrying “push” and “pull” mechanisms
(Andersen, 1993). The barriers derived from usually slow and resource-consuming
processes of internationalization have been overcome by the new category HSMEs called
“born global” company (BG). However, the phenomenon of BG-s is not fully explained by
the more gradual U- and I-models, also known as the process models (McNaughton, 2003).
BGs do not need to start in or focus for a long time success in home market; they may start
globally, i.e. on other continents, from the very beginning. Although the definition of “hi-
tech” is differently defined by many authors, the main characteristics are related to novelty
of the product, R&D intensity of production/service, qualification of employees or
belonging of the company to some research intensive industry sectors (Shearmur, Doloreux,
2000). Here, besides mentioned characteristic features, HSMEs are defined as the companies
which are contributing to creation of high-technology new knowledge themselves, this
knowledge is unique and creates competitive advantage on the market. Usually business
model supports implementation of concrete advantages; it describes the way how a firm is
creating value to all its stakeholders. From the company’s position – the business model is
mediating technical inputs into economic output (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002).
Some companies operate for a long time in domestic market, but then after some event (a
critical incident) globalize themselves; these companies are called “born-again global”
(BAG) firms (Bell, McNaughton & Young, 2001) and their behavior is defined as reactive
(Bell et al, 2003). Into this category of firms belong partly also “globalizing international”
firms, which have started their business within home continent after the domestic market
period (Gabrielsson & Gabrielsson, 2004). Then they start to globalize their activities outside
home continent (ibid).
But the concept of born global or its modifications do not explain why and how some hi-
tech small and medium sized enterprises (HSME) become global, while others do not. The
shortcoming of the BG and BAG approach can be seen, as they do not expose the creative
entrepreneurial processes which take place during internationalization/globalization. The
entrepreneurial process includes (experiential) learning at both levels: individual
(entrepreneur) and organizational (Corbett, 2005). Based on a concrete case study of
knowledge-based small company leveraging its technological knowledge and reaching
global market, a “learned global” concept is suggested (Mets, 2008). That involves the need
to derive knowledge about the markets as well as creation of new technological knowledge
and development of product(s) responding to higher market value, but also right
positioning in the value chain of the concrete product or business (Vadi & Türk, 2009). This
cannot happen accidentally, these processes need creativity, learning and accumulation of
knowledge, and experience before becoming global.
Leverage of intangible resources was first seen as competitive advantage of multinational
companies (MNC) by Hamel and Prahalad (1993). This phenomenon creates advantage
potential for global corporation before local company, if implemented, disproportionately
strongly exceeding their size ratio especially in knowledge-intensive spheres regarded as
“new economy” (Mets, 2003). That points out that HSMEs of small and open economies
(SMOPEC) (abbreviation from Luostarinen & Gabrielsson, 2006) are competing with global
competitors not only in international markets, but also in home market. Of course, it is
easier to enter psychically and culturally closer neighboring target markets than to become
global from inception.
As can be concluded from the short overview above, in the core of business
internationalization lies knowledge (push factor) as resource enabling HSMEs to respond to
global market needs (pull factor) and real globalization process happens under the certain
circumstances depending on knowledge-related processes and business model chosen for
reaching to global market.
The chapter aims to conceptualise the business models and general factors of becoming
global by technology- and knowledge-intensive SMEs of small open economy country
origin.
To fulfill the aim the following research tasks are set up:
1. Examining main factors enabling global breakthrough by HSMEs.
2. Analyzing “knowledge-market” conceptual framework of globalizing business model
for HSMEs.
3. Disclosing small transition country context of globalization of HSME.
4. Mapping empirically knowledge-market business model development trajectories for
HSMEs of different technology sectors.
The results of the study provide better understanding of strategic options that “new
economy” companies may follow in their internationalization process. To open theoretical
background of the topic the next section clarifies the main trajectories and processes of
global breakthrough of HSME in “born global” context. The following sections create
Creative Business Model Innovation for Globalizing SMEs 171
“knowledge-market” framework of HSMEs’ globalization process and systematize some

leveraging business models. After that, methodology and short description of a case study
sample companies are given. Empirical findings and discussion of results, and conclusion
end the paper.
2. Global breakthrough trajectories of HSMEs

Generalizing globalization process of HSMEs one can find three main ways differing from
each other in terms of speed and extent of internationalization: gradual, born global (BG)
and born-again global (BAG) trajectories (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Andersen, 1993; Bell,
McNaughton & Young, 2001) as presented in Figure 1.
Market
extent
Global
Product’
Born global
HSME:
Entrepreneur’
& Team’
Operation’ Market’
Environment’
Gradual
Product
HSME:
Entrepreneur
& Team
Operation Market
Born-again global
Local
Environment
Time
Fig. 1. Trajectories of HSME internationalization (Mets, 2009)
Luostarinen (1979) first introduced globalization strategy including three sub-strategies (or
fields): the product (P), the operation mode (O) and the market (M), and altogether – POM-
strategy. POM-strategy itself leads to global marketing strategy, which consists of pricing,
distribution and customer strategy (Luostarinen & Gabrielsson, 2004). The POM-strategy as
a model covers and partly overlaps the components of business model – the way how a firm
is creating value to all its stakeholders. Researchers of Helsinki School Luostarinen and
Gabrielsson (2004, 2006) have demonstrated that the BG may exist in any field of product
categories of HSME: (1) high-tech, (2) high-design, (3) high-services, (4) high-know-how,
and (5) high-system businesses. The authors argue also that one product category
compliments another, for example: high tech companies offer services for their innovative
goods, or, high-service companies package their product and manuals into diskettes, which
presents physical goods (ibid). Characteristic to BGs is that they differ from product and
operation mainstream patterns of internationalization of conventional (non-born-global)
companies; the same is valid for their POM-strategy (ibid). Becoming global depends quite
frequently on HSME’s capability to attract venture capital (VC) companies to invest into BG.
VC investors affect the management of HSME, even employing professional managers into
company, which accelerates globalization process. Some founders of HSMEs are more
experienced and better skilled in global business, which speeds up the process (Luostarinen
& Gabrielsson, 2006). This points out the importance of market learning in realization of
own opportunities.
Effective recognition of opportunities is considered one the most important outcomes of
entrepreneurial learning as an experiential process (see Politis, 2005; Corbett, 2005). The
learning can be organizational; the “learning organization” is the concept used to describe
an organization’s ability to manage change (see for example Senge, 1990). From the
perspective of entrepreneurial learning described by Politis (2005), it is more or less an
individual process. This viewpoint is only partly supported by research among Italian
technology entrepreneurs, where networking capability and the creation of technological
competence with limited resources play a key role (Ravasi & Turati, 2005). Organizational
learning of SME’s in terms of an entrepreneur’s capacity to learn and to integrate the
working team remains the leading factor; and entrepreneurial learning is mostly an action-
learning process (Deakins et al, 2000).
Three different internationalization routes/trajectories (shown in Figure 1) contain creative
learning, which is more or less intensive in some period. The main result of learning is
inventing and reaching business model corresponding to own product. Frequently the
product contains intellectual property (IP) – invention protected by patent. That is the factor
strongly attracting funding by VC. The main difference between BG and BAG is the timing
and a moment of globalization.
BG means going global from inception. That means that not only the business idea, but also
all other factors (Product, Operation, Market & Management) must be appropriate for the
strategy of rapid globalization. Lack of just one of the factors can lead HSME to failure. BAG
keeps the local business model for a long period, and may even involve some exports and
other internationalization activities. Favorable events, or the accumulation of a success
factor or resource, possibly gradually, can trigger the globalization process.
Although several authors have tried to define BG company via share of sales on
international/global markets or period of becoming international/global, there is no
agreement about the concrete value of criteria (Luostarinen & Gabrielsson, 2006; Svensson,
2006; Rialp, Rialp, Urbano & Vaillant, 2005). It seems that strategy (POM-model) and
management behavioral patterns and ambition to achieve competitive advantage match
better to general understanding of rapid globalization process than formal criteria. This
position is supported also by the authors mentioned above. Hereby arises also another
crucial aspect: not only global market breakthrough, but also protecting and deepening
competitive advantage in global position has high strategic importance for HSME. That
means the need to better understand the content of core competence(s) in creating long-run
competitive advantage hard to copy by competitors on the market.
3. Knowledge-market grid – the field of creative actions for global HSMEs

The POM-strategy model is less explicit about the organizational mechanisms which besides
entrepreneurial learning may release the potential for such behavior, or about what makes
this mode of operation possible. The competence and knowledge of organization acquire
more power in organizational structures which use the mechanism of leverage. Leverage is
defined as “the extent to which profits can be increased when revenues and capacity
utilization rise” (Crainer, 1999). Often the concept of leverage is linked to the idea of
stretching financial as well as non-financial resources (Hamel & Prahalad, 1993).
Leveraging intangible resources at the human level is achieved as a result of the multiple
duplication of the working process, creating higher skills and performance along a learning
curve, but it also means the initial creation and development of such skills and related
competences. At company level, this means extending knowledge, skills, competence and
performance over all parts of the organization, reaching every person engaged in the
process. In knowledge business, leverage means invention, permanent improvement, and
the acquisition of new “soft” and “hard” processes, and spreading of new technology in
conjunction with what already exists. The leverage mechanism is a part of the mode of
operation as explained in the matrix in Figure 2.
Single/initial domain
technology Integrated technologies High system product
Diversification across Diversification across
High
Diversification across
the markets globally the markets globally markets globally
Single/initial domain
Market extent
Integrated techno-
High system product
Medium
technology logies
Duplication across Duplication across Duplication across
familier markets familier markets
familier markets
Single/initial domain Integrated technologies Multi domain technolo-

Low
knowledge and = combination of high- gies = high system

inventions tech & service product
Single/home market Single/home market Single/home market
Low Medium High

Complexity of knowledge
Fig. 2. Knowledge-market leverage grid for technology business internationalization (based
on Mets, 2009)
The matrix describes the strategic options of an HSME in terms of the leverage of technology
and knowledge, and of markets. Leverage means combining several single domains of
knowledge or technology with each other in order to gain more complex results. Hereby it
should be mentioned that the complexity can be related to “product” as well to “operation”
aspect of POM-model. That can mean growing complexity of technology knowledge in
production process and can but must not necessarily reflect in product itself. Meaning of
growing complexity contains here first of all growing multiplicity of (interdisciplinary)
knowledge domains from high-tech, -design or –services to high-know-how, and high-
system businesses as mentioned above (Luostarinen & Gabrielsson, 2004). Of course,
complexity can vary between domains of single products, therefore complexity has relative
meaning if implementing for comparison of concrete objects. Knowledge or technology
domain is characteristic to one concrete product/service with its modifications. Labeling

quadrants with two axes (Market extent, Complexity of knowledge) in three-scale measure
(L-low; M-medium; H-high) we can describe different ways of leverage of knowledge
according to the globalization concept of HSME. The BG company is ready to move into the
quadrants LH-MH-HH or even to start from there leveraging its business model at the
inception. BAG company can follow more mazy trajectory, for example: LL-ML-LM-LH-
MH-HH. This process could be understood as experiential learning, creating new
knowledge in the company about product as well as about market (see similar approach:
Casillas et al., 2009). As a result, unique high level products and services are created on the
basis of the multiplication of new and existing knowledge and competences (for example, in
quadrant LM). As the creation of high level competences is a path-dependent, usually the
result of interdisciplinary (learning) process, it is a competitive advantage that is hard for
competitors to replicate. The market can be expanded gradually by selling to neighboring
and culturally close countries, or related markets, whereas if expansion into different
markets in different continents is made in a very limited timeframe it is a global player. The
more reachable and relevant to customer needs and use the company is the more chances it
has of becoming a global player. Customer reach becomes critical for an HSME. Typically
the Business to Business (B2B) model is prevailing before Business to Consumer (B2C) sales
model among BGs (Luostarinen & Gabrielsson, 2006). Very often it can be difficult for a
global business and networking model to reach every individual, for example peer-to-peer
(P2P), like that of Skype (Yovanof & Hazapis, 2008). In that case, globalization is simply a
global replication of the business model globally, or the business model itself is global. The
uniqueness defends the company’s position as global.
Nummela, Saarenketo and Puumalainen (2004) have found that companies with narrowly
defined core competence started their international operations on average two years earlier
than companies with broad competence. As could be understood from the grid (Figure 2)
this means capability of HSME to go global with single domain knowledge. Does this
contradict to learning and knowledge leverage processes in B(A)Gs? Obviously not, first, the
company has its history which starts not just the moment of legal registration of its
founding, but starts far before with the learning, experience and knowledge accumulation
by founders and managers (Casillas et al., 2008). Second, (new) opportunity recognition by
company leaders can happen in any period of company’s existence, which can trigger
absolutely new developments in/by the company like it happened with NOKIA moving
into new technology and business field, which changed also the business model and
behavior categorized as “globalizing international” (Gabrielsson & Gabrielsson, 2004). That
means “pre-history” period of B(A)G is important, may-be crucial point of the globalization
concept.
4. Leverage over business model

The basic for the business model are questions about the customer and the value for
customer, and also the way firm makes money from that (Magretta, 2002). It is also
generally agreed that business model is not a strategy as practically confirmed by many
authors (Hedman, Kalling, 2001; Magretta, 2002; Shafer, Smith, Linder, 2005). Although in
some cases authors state strategy being a part of business model (for example, Jansen et al,
2007), the concepts really have intersection and there is hard to “draw sharp boundaries
around abstract terms” (Magretta, 2002). Main issue is the fit between strategy and business
model aspects (Zott, Amit, 2008). To define business model and its elements we can find
tens of definitions (for example, Alt, Zimmermann, 2001; Shafer, Smith & Linder, 2005), and
several categorizations for business model typology (Weill et al, 2005; Jansen, Steenbakkers
& Jägers, 2007). Generalizing the concept in this article business model describes how the
company is transferring its inputs (and own resources) into the value and provides the
value for/to the customer, and earns the revenue. In that general framework of business
model and strategic capabilities of HSMEs raises the question about globalization: which are
elements supporting and enabling globalization of some businesses, and which – the
barriers to that process.
Mechanism for leverage of resources, incl. intangible resources was first seen as
competitive advantage of multinational companies (MNC) (Hamel & Prahalad, 1993),
which could be very effectively implemented by replicating knowledge and competences
based on their business models (Winter & Szulanski, 2001). This phenomenon sometimes
known also as “McDonalds approach” (ibid) creates advantage potential for global
corporation before local company. Therefore SMEs of “new economy” are seeking
leverage mechanism to go global, some of them linking their business into networks of
global players (MNCs), some – seeking their own independent business model using
more world-wide network – the Internet.
Hereby we describe three different business models for globalizing of SMEs based on that
criterion: first, being subcontractor – a part of value chain of MNC in all its locations (Fig 3),
second, having own sales-revenue channel in the Internet or mobile environment, and third,
based on that – so called “freemium” business model.
Example of the first case is Regio – provider of location based services (LBS) creating a part
of value chain for Ericsson, global cellular (mobile telecom) network supplier, since 2004
(Mets, 2009).
The business model (Fig 3) is replicated on different markets, because every market
(country, region) has own legal regulation of telecommunication. Besides, LBS are
depending on mobile operator, local infrastructure, language and culture. These are
elements requiring product to be customized for every concrete market. Therefore product
mix (1...N) in concrete cellular value chain (1...N) can be different. But generally, as
Ericsson’s networks established by operators worldwide, Regio reaches the same local
markets customizing and replicating its main business model globally. Although, company
can offer some free product samples in special marketing campaigns, LBS revenue is mainly
covered by users up to 100 %.
Usually there are no remarkable infrastructure, culture or language limitations for such a
business, or these barriers are easily overcome. These companies can sell their hi-tech or
knowledge-intensive products or services via Internet, which serves as service environment
also or only the environment to reach contact to customers. Because of universal character of
such a product the Internet enables leverage of product over global market. Usually, the
question about ensuring trust is the question. On the example, Asper Biotech owes its fast
market launch in genotyping to scientific reputation of the founder, well-known professor in
the field (Mets, 2009).
Users/Revenue 0…100 % 0…100 %
Market 1 Market 2 Market 3… Market N
Offering
Value for the customer
Activity
………………………………
Product (mix 1)
Product (mix 2)
Product (mix N)
Product (mix 3)
Value Chain 1
Value Chain 2
Value Chain N
Value Chain 3
Resources
Factor Markets Resources Production input
Fig. 3. Replication model: global replication of local business model = business model
leveraged over market(s) globally (author’s drawing)
Another type of business model is representing companies implementing the Internet

environment for global sales (Fig. 4).
Users/Revenue 0…100 % 0…100 %

Global (Product) Market
Offering
Activity
……………………………….
Product (1)
Product (N)
Product (2)
Product (3)
Resources
Fig. 4. Leverage model: global leveraging business model = leveraging market globally
(author’s drawing)
“Freemium” business model is represented by Skype (Fig 5) offering its VoIP service
independently worldwide. Skype represents development trajectory, where globalization
starts from one concrete worldwide free product and after global breakthrough it is
leveraged with wide range of improvements and additional premium (paid) functions
(1,...,N). This is known as Freemium Business Model (Katzan, 2009) using the principle:
“you give away 99% to sell 1%”. Of course, regular delivery costs of Free Product (0) must
be minimal, if not –company can hardly cover these costs from premium products. In real
numbers, as of June 30, 2010, Skype had 560 million registered users [of free product mostly]
with 8.1 million paying customers. “For the six month period ended June 30, Skype reported
earnings of $13.1 million on revenue of $406.2 million” (Knowledge@Wharton, 2011). Partly,
“premium product” of many Internet companies can be positioned among global leveraging
models in Fig 4.
Global (Product) Market
Users/Revenue 99 % 0% 1% 0…100 %
Offering
Activity
Premium Product (1)
……………………………….
Premium Product (N)

Premium Product (2)
Free Product (0)
Resources
Fig. 5. Freemium model: global leveraging “freemium” business model = leveraging market
globally (author’s drawing)
Generalizing the models above, differentiation of replication and leverage models is not
always explicit. Quite frequently, company can create its own service web-page in different
languages meeting similarly local market expectations. Main feature to identify is that wider
used languages, like English, enable spreading of market practically into any region and
there does not exist, for example, physical or legal barriers to that process, especially on
markets of R&D-intensive products. That means also implementation of similar marketing
mix targeted to similar customers of different continents.
In replication (business) model (Fig 3) product-mix means complexity of products and
relevant complexity of knowledge duplicated on every concrete Market 1...N. In other
models (Fig 4 and 5) the product is related to one concrete relevant knowledge domain,
from which part can be offered for free (Fig 5). Complexity of products and relevant
knowledge is growing with widening their mix over the global market.
5. Empirical research and methodology

Empirical research is based on the process theory and general knowledge-market
framework of globalization of HSMEs as discussed in the first sections of the chapter. The
approach is especially, focusing on the role of knowledge (sometimes results of research and
development – R&D), which is the basis for product as well as operations development in
reaching global market. Globalization is understood not simply as internationalization, it is
reaching other continents. Mapping the trajectory of knowledge-market development in
internationalization of HSMEs can give basic understanding for further strategy creation by
businesses as well as for actors of public sector in forming entrepreneurship policy. That
means also the need to analyze changes of complexity of knowledge in that process – is
movement from “high product” towards high-system business/product the rule for BGs
and what is happening with complexity of (product) knowledge in globalization? What is
the timing of accumulation of necessary competences for globalization and how it is related
to internationalization process - is there so called “pre-history”? Can we identify
entrepreneurial learning in globalization process? How has entrepreneurship environment
influenced financing of HSMEs? And what are the consequences of competitive advantage,
business model and strategy?
Case studies were used for mapping the main factors affecting internationalization of
technology intensive SMEs in the “knowledge-market” framework. Main criteria for
selection of a company for case study were the following:
 Estonian origin of the company or/and tight relations to Estonia;
 The company should be relevant to a success story, i.e. it should be already global;
 The main development track of the company could be observed;
 Main part of knowledge and technology is created in Estonia;
 The companies represent technologies of different fields.
It was not possible to find many Estonian companies that met the described characteristics,
therefore more well-known of them were selected for the study. The sample contains five ICT,
mainly Internet and software companies, and three HSMEs represent biotechnology field.
Current case studies are based on secondary data and personal interviews. First of all, search
for research publications was carried out using Google Scholar®. That gave possibility to learn
the aspects researchers already covered with regard to case companies. Then historical facts
and general overviews were collected from previous researches (Mets, 2008, 2009) and media
(for example Tänavsuu, 2009). After that web-pages and annual reports of the companies were
studied. The facts collected during the previous studies as well as current research were
evaluated in the context of research questions. The aspects not covered before and newer
trends were mapped, also some interpretations were checked in interviews.
6. Globalization cases of eight technology companies

Cases in the current chapter are presented in the Tables 1, 2 and 3 structured according to
the raised research questions, aspects for mapping business model and globalization process
of the HSME, and important factors in that process. The facts in tables are presented very
shortly on the level of notes, partly disclosed more in the section of findings and discussion.
Business models were categorized according to p. 4.
Company name, founders, Regio, 3 geographers, 1988

Mobi Solutions, IT &
founding data business students, Oct. 2000
Product/service, launched:
Estonian road-map, 1989; GIS, SMS voting, 2001; SMS ticket,
date 1994; LBS, 1999 2002; M-business/services...
Domestic period Until 2001 Until 2002
Lessons learned before Modern GIS technology in USA, Testing products/services on
globalization 1994; business development – the local and neighbouring
risk capital, 1998-2000 markets
Globalization 2004, LBS with Ericsson Associated companies and
network subsidiaries: Canada, 2006;
China, 2008
Production development ISO 9001:2000, since 2006 >100 services
Number of clients >100 million 53385 service providers,
25.03.2011
Countries In all continents with Ericsson 50 (covered by subsidiaries)
Details about BM B2B; part of Ericsson’s value B2B; partnering with
chain Ericsson; clients: Skype,
Paymentwall, TravianGames,
Barn Buddy, etc
Competitive edge Latecomer effect in GIS, Easy to use; no fees (from
leverage of different technology concrete service only)
domains
Strategy & IP “Piggybacking”, IP protected by Leverage via subsidiaries
business model
Customer involvement in Several tests of LBS, LBS Tracking customers’ reactions
BM development development – via business in SMS voting and other
partners: mobile network market tests
operator (EMT) and Ericsson
Source: Author’s compilation based on Mets, 2008, 2009; Mobi Solutions, 2011; Raime, 2011; Rannu, 2004;
Reach-U, 2011; Fortumo, 2011.
Table 1. HSMEs of replication business model.
Company name, Solis Biodyne, 1995, Asper Biotech, Icosagen

founders, founding university background 1999, university (until March 2009,
data of 2 founders professor Quattromed),
& CEO of clinics 1999; university
spin-off,
4 researchers
leaded by
prof. Mart Ustav
Product/service, DNA polymerases, Genotyping medical molecular
launched: date dNTPs, PCR Master equipment & diagnostics,
Mixes and other service of human main customers:
reagents disease: DNA tests, Estonian hospitals, 1999
2001

spin-off,
4 researchers
leaded by
prof. Mart Ustav
Domestic period Starting from university Practically did not Small share of
research needs exist export; active
growth on
Estonian and
neighbouring markets
Lessons learned Selling only Hi-tech NPD is highly
before/after services, change of expensive; hardly
globalization BM, moving manageable
equipment sales combination of wide
into associate product/service
portfolio
Globalization 1998, USA, Germany, 2001-2002, Japan, 2008, ASTM intern.
Finland USA, Norway, Italy standard D7247 on
FITkit®; 2009,
QMCF tech-gy licences
to global pharmacies
Production ISO 9001:2000, since ISO 9001:2000, since ISO 15189, 2004; ISO
development 2007 2000 9001: 2000, 2007
Number of clients >300 1000...10000
Countries >30 >40, in 2009
Details about BM B2B2C, distributers in B2C, direct sales of B2B
25 countries services over
Internet
Competitive edge High quality DNA Recognized R&D-based service
enzymes - stable at methodology, low methodology; low cost
room temperature cost R&D intensive service;
strong growth-
orientation
Strategy & IP Patenting; distribution Patent, IP Patenting; Standard-
network development partnering with creator; widening local
Stanford University; business via merger in
focus on end users 2006,
sold to financial
investor in 2008;
transition from service
to global
IP business

spin-off,
4 researchers
leaded by
prof. Mart Ustav
Customer Low, practically Changes of BM B2B; Local &
involvement in BM following classical from B2B2C to B2C, neighbouring market
development business model distributors’ service B2B has
network replaced transferred into R&D
with direct sales and IP business mainly
over Internet to final
customer
Source: Author’s compilation based on Solis Biodyne, 2011; Mets, 2009; Mets et al, 2010; Tänavsuu, 2009; Parts,
2011.
Table 2. HSMEs of leverage business model.
Company name, Skype Technologies Fraktal, 2007, Sportlyzer – start-up,

founders, founding S.A., 2002, Skype-team 2009,
data Swedish-Danish- Estonian members karate Champion
Estonian team & web consultant
Product/service, VoIP phone, Web design Virtual personal
launched: date launched Aug. 2003 & service Edicy, coach,
Aug. 2009 22/03/2011
Domestic period Did not exist Practically did Start up phase
not exist
Lessons learned P2P file sharing Experience of BM from Following BM of
before/after technology KaZaa Skype Skype
globalization
Globalization Aug. 2003-Jan. 2004: Ongoing process Start up phase
users from 200
countries
Production Intensive expansion of Customer involvement Free product for
development complexity of product customer-driven
development
Number of clients, 560 / 8,1 0,23 / NA Start up phase, NA
free/payable,
million
Countries >200 >20 World-wide
Details about BM P2P, freemium B2C, freemium B2C, freemium
Competitive edge Free VoIP phone Free web-host & Virtual multi-domain
supported market design-based market intelligence; free
expansion expansion service-based market
expansion
Company name, Skype Technologies Fraktal, 2007, Sportlyzer – start-up,

founders, founding S.A., 2002, Skype-team 2009,
data Swedish-Danish- Estonian members karate Champion
Estonian team & web consultant
Strategy & IP Patented product; Basic product – free ad Basic product – free
collaborating & for the web ad for the web
competing with
telecoms
Customer Customer feedback for Customer involvement Customer
involvement in BM product development mainly via product involvement via
development development product development
Source: Author’s compilation based on Mets, 2009; Fraktal, 2011; Sportlyzer, 2011; Puus, 2011; Edicy, 2011;
Knowledge@Wharton, 2011.
Table 3. HSMEs of freemium business model.
7. Findings about globalization and business models of HSMEs

Following general understanding from former researches, Estonia corresponds to the
environments of small open economies’ (SMOPEC) context of BG HSMEs being even
remarkably smaller than Finland or Sweden covered by several authors earlier (Luostarinen
& Gabrielsson, 2006). Since 1992 the Estonian government has practiced a liberal economic
policy, and has opened the Estonian market to foreign goods and capital. That policy has
helped to attract foreign investments which fostered to overcome backwardness inherited
from Soviet occupation. As liberal but also comparatively poor economy Estonia has not
supported neither technology-based nor any start-ups as strongly as neighboring Western
countries could do. Therefore the main survival condition for companies has been the
balance between costs and revenues which did not give the chance to invest enough into
new technology development.
Case 1. Pour business environment at starting company is a part of explanation of “long
journey” of Regio, founded in 1988 (Table 1), to global market as presented in Figure 6.
Before internationalization Regio had already quite a wide range of products of different
technology domains (design, cartography, GIS and software). Because the lack of resources
product development was hindered for several years in the mid of the 1990s. Later, in 1998
the Baltic Small Equity Fund (BSEF) became risk capital partner for Regio, but even that was
not enough. More possibilities were created through the merger with DONE for additional
investment in 2000. In February 2002, the parent company of Regio went bankrupt, which
gave a chance for by management buy-out a year and a half after the merger. Global
breakthrough succeeded first with one product only – location based services (LBS)
provided as a part of value chain of global player Ericsson since 2004. Spreading worldwide
LBS service afterward has enabled to compliment global product with the elements of its
traditional and new products leveraging complex knowledge across global markets. The
process in “knowledge-market” framework is described with S-shape curve.
Case 2. The journey to its own product mix and business model by the founders of Mobi
Solutions, students of business and IT, was much smoother based on a good example
provided by the invention of mobile payment and launching mobile parking system in
Estonia by Estonian Mobile Telephone just on the 1st of July 2000 (Rajasalu and Laur, 2003).
But even then Mobi Solutions reached its own model leading to global market after several
years of local and regional testing of their own services. Now, Mobi offers the specific “easy
to use”, “pay after receiving money” and “pay only as much as you use” business model to
its clients. By creating the business model “ready for use” for their clients, Mobi has created
its own business model to rent out the business model to customers. In this way the
customers are co-creating their own businesses with Mobi.
Skype & Fraktal & Solis Biodyne

High
Asper
Biotech
Market extent
Medium
Icosagen
Regio & Mobi

Low
Low Medium High

Complexity of knowledge
Fig. 6. Product knowledge-market trajectories of globalizing HSMEs (the author’s drawing)
Mobi seems to be also “learned global” company with one big difference, although
implementation of its services needs mediation of local mobile operator and network
provider (frequently Ericsson), spreading of Mobi’s services is quite free. And the Internet
serves for offering and revenue of service – market and value chain of Mobi is quite
independent compared to Regio. The involvement of customers in new product
development process of Mobi, implementing of Living Lab features were unique. But now,
having already global experience, Mobi team was involved into cluster initiatives of
Enterprise Estonia developing Living Lab experience in Estonian ICT sector (Varblane and
Lepik, 2010). Mobi’s case is interesting because the lack of external funding in early
development phase – main investment was founders’ own work and spending money; even
earnings then went for salaries of employees, but not to owners. In that stage VC providers
did not agree to fund them, but later if offered, Mobi did not need VC investment any more.
Case 3. Solis BioDyne (Table 2), founded in 1995, started like Regio in still poor economic
conditions with a good academic business idea originating from a university. It took only
three years to reach the US market with its main product of DNA enzymes and reagents.
The company has built up its own network of distributors. This is quite a classical
distribution system, only because of the international nature of science and worldwide
courier services, sales are developed according to the same model globally as shown in Fig.
6. The company became famous for offering technical solution to the problem of the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation in HIV DNA transport in the so-called “jungle conditions”
(Tänavsuu, 2009).
Case 4. The case of Asper Biotech is an example of contrary development of product on the
market (Table 2). The beginning was also quite classical stage of knowledge accumulation.
Professor initiating the HSME was very active also in business development and finding the
funding. Using already improved entrepreneurship environment in Estonia in the beginning
of 21st century the founders succeeded to involve remarkable resources for product
development from different risk funds and European Union framework program.
Complexity of the product range at the beginning was quite high. Asper Biotech started
global offering from inception. It was supported by advertising, research publications and
personal contacts of prof. Metspalu. Learning in the process of market development it
became clearer that in the specific business with very small shipments and mediation of
genotyping services “business-to-business” (B2B) model with local partners could not be
efficient. As a result direct sales (“business-to-client” – B2C model) to final customers were
implemented. The most complicated part of product range – technology platform with
complementary methodology and software needed another commercialization approach,
therefore it was moved into another business Genorama with its specific strategy. As a
result, a complex system-offer was replaced with less complex product/service for the client
in the global niche market. In the “knowledge-market” axis the process could be described
with the rotated L-curve (Fig. 6). Besides that the company has found that they still may be
at the very beginning of customary market creation for gene test and diagnostics which
market need should be facilitated.
Case 5. Somewhat similar is the development pattern of another biotech company Icosagen,
which started as a university spin-off, but its trajectory is influenced much by high-level
competence-base, local service business-oriented growth with smaller share of international
transactions during several years. Intensive product development, license deals and
patenting ensured the real breakthrough with standardizing their FITkit® technology in
specific field globally. Selling local market oriented medical diagnostics subsidiary with the
wide product range in 2008 to VC created a new situation for the company – now R&D and
services could be more focused on the development of highly efficient QMCF technology
and IP trade as well on services implementing the FITkit® technology. This is not clear yet
about leverage potential of global breakthrough with other related technology/knowledge
domains, therefore the development trajectory is described with lower half of S-curve.
Icosagen has heavily utilised IP protection. Icosagen has patented and protected trademarks
of their solutions FITkit®, E2Tag, and QMCF. Even more, Icosagen has invested their funds
and efforts in standardizing their technology. In 2008 ASTM International (www.astm.org)
adopted a new standard for test method that bases on Icosagen’s FITkit® technology.
Case 6. Skype represents another development trajectory, where globalization starts from
one concrete product and after global breakthrough it is leveraged with wide range of
improvements and additional functions growing knowledge complexity of the product. The
trajectory (see Figure 6) seems to be very relevant to classical process of moving from “high
product” to “high system” business, which could be described with the Γ-curve. The
knowledge accumulation for VoIP-company was strongly supported by “pre-history” of
technology and business competences developed in KaZaA project. The same important
was also an international team, its visionary ideas, technological skills and capability to
attract VC at the very early stage. Although some experts guess that in technological
meaning Skype did not change too much in ICT world (Landler, 2005), main was clever way
for “putting together bits and pieces”. The “peer-to-peer” (P2P) technology concept and
business model of the Skype has found being disruptive innovation (Yovanof & Hazapis,
2008) completely changing global market of telecommunication. The case confirms again
that the most effective innovations do not need hard basic research any more, just new ideas
how basic knowledge could be used (Mets, 2006).
Case 7. Fraktal – the company developing web-design concept and environment Edicy has
its roots in Skype as the founders came from the Skype team, but also the business model
and internationalization trajectory have a very similar (but not completely configured) yet
pattern (Fig. 6). However, it includes a very specific aspect – involvement of customers in its
product development phase.
Case 8. From that idea the next step can be seen at Sportlyzer (Table 3), which besides
“freemium” business model and customer involvement in product development has
gathered together an inter- and multidisciplinary team for creating virtual intelligent
consultant in sports coaching for active people around the world. The initiator of the idea
Tõnis Saag (32) has personal long-term experience in sports, after receiving a bachelor
degree in public governance he started master program in entrepreneurship. One of his first
study tasks – his business plan has been realized in a new business now. The concept of
virtual personal trainer was just launched in March 2011. Its globalization trajectory is
expected to follow the Skype, but as it is still in embryonic phase, no track in Fig. 6 yet. Start-
point could be expected somewhere at higher complexity service then.
As seen from the mapping of knowledge-market trajectories of eight hi-tech companies
there exist three main patterns for reaching global market: rotated L-curve and Γ-curve
describing born global companies, and S-curve belonging to learned (sometimes “born
again”) global company. All these patterns can be combined for description of some longer
period of development processes. The type/pattern of trajectory seems not to be depending
on technology field of company – ICT or biotech. Besides, in biotech business on the
example of three companies patenting of own inventions seems more compulsory than for
ICT field where Skype has been more active in patenting, others less. Partly that can be
related to observation that product ideas of biotech companies are more based on university
R&D, ICT businesses have weaker linkages to basic research.
8. Main results and conclusion

Analyzing globalization processes and trajectories, and reaching real functioning business
model configuration by eight completely or partly Estonian-origin case companies above
allows us to make some generalizations.
First, striving to globalize own business is very natural for hi-tech SMEs of small country
origin, which confirms so called push factor of need to cover R&D expenses and pull factor
of demand by huge global markets.
Second, although “born global” concept of such type of HSME has widely spread among
researchers, understanding real mechanisms and business models enabling to implement
these mechanisms for born global businesses remain behind the screen until somebody
discovers opportunity and invents business model to implement that opportunity. Usually
this creative process can be not synchronized with creation of formal business body
(company). Therefore not depending on “born” or “born again” concept real creative
“learned global” process for business model invention takes a place.
Third, appearance of the “born global” phenomenon in company’s behavior presumes
knowledge and experience accumulation – i.e. entrepreneurial learning period, which is
leading to (global) business (breakthrough) opportunity recognition. This competence
accumulation period can take place before formal company founding as well as in the
framework of already functioning businesses.
Fourth, although the global breakthrough in narrow niche market and product domain
seems to be dominant among HSMEs, this is not the absolute rule as demonstrated by Asper
Biotech going global with new technology platform and service based on that in the same
timing. Later they reshaped their business model raising the question about rationality not
possibility of offering some product combination.
Fifth, sectorial differences between HSMEs partly influence the business model to be used.
We have no example of biotech companies using freemium business model spreading wider
in ICT business. In that context biotech companies combine Internet with more traditional
business logistics although globalization knowledge-market trajectories can be similar as
demonstrate the cases of Solis Biodyne and Skype or Icosagen and Mobi. That means just
global breakthrough from inception with Г-shape trajectory or journey of learning according
to S-shape trajectory can characterize the companies in both sectors.
Sixth, business model, especially “freemium” type of that in ICT field seems to be the
instrument to overcome cultural, legal and other barriers of traditional businesses like these
appear according to Uppsala model. Another approach is business in global communities
with similar culture and values like “scientist to scientist” model as demonstrate biotech
HSMEs.
Seventh, as shown by cases of Regio, Mobi and Sportlyzers there is growing importance of
multi-disciplinary teams in development of HSMEs.
Eighth, the last trend seems to be involvement of customers into product as well business
model development process as demonstrate the followers of Skype – Fraktal and Sportlyzer.
Usually BG HSMEs focus on global niche market, but they can also challenge the whole
industry. It seems that partly the aspect depends on the maturity of the industry and the
linkages to basic research. Skype is a good example of going wide market from inception.
But Asper Biotech could refer to the potential/chance to turn new technology niche
product/service into wide customer market need as a result of growing awareness of
potential clients in genome testing.
BGs of small (transition) country origin have usually relatively low resources for marketing,
but not only, there is lack of resources for anything. But this could be not disturbing to
global breakthrough as seen on the example of Skype. Clever business model and free of
charge basic service with freemium business model can create absolutely new approach in
the industry. Technology innovation that means also innovation in the market and human
behavior, can finally lead to social innovation. Moving from single product/knowledge
domain to “high system” products is not the absolute rule. Market can cause the contrary
processes, i.e. simplifying complexity of the product as well as change of the business
model. That happens in the learning process the company can experience on the market.
The experience with the eight Estonian-related case study companies demonstrate that the
HSMEs of small country origin can be very successful, but even success stories have their
“critical” points, learning from which creates better basis for knowledge economy of the
country. From lessons experienced by case companies can learn entrepreneurs and
managers of technology and knowledge-intensive businesses as well as relevant public
sector. These are lessons for educators of future engineers and scientists-technologists – how
to integrate technology competences with entrepreneurial skills. The schools the engineers
and researchers of case companies graduated from are still giving too little knowledge, skills
and attitude towards creative behavior in entrepreneurship. Creative entrepreneurship is
the challenge not only for higher education institutions of Estonia but also for the whole
national innovation system.
9. Acknowledgment
The author acknowledges the support offered by the Estonian Ministry of Education’s
project SF 0180037s08.
10. References
Alt, R. & Zimmermann, H.-D. (2001). Preface: Introduction to special section – business
models. Electronic Markets, Vol.11, No.1, pp. 3-9, ISSN 1422-8890
Andersen, O. (1993). On the Internationalization Process of Firms: A Critical Analysis.
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.24, No.2, pp. 209-231, ISSN 0047-2506
Asper Biotech (2009). Company profile, 24.02.2009, Available from
http://www.asperbio.com/company.htm
Bell, J., McNaughton, R., Young, S. & Crick, D. (2003). Towards an Integrative Model of
Small Firm Internationalization. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol.1, No.
4, pp. 339-362, ISSN 1573-7349
Bell, J., McNaughton, R. & Young, S. (2001). ’Born-again Global’ Firms. An Extension to the
‘Born Global’ phenomenon. Journal of International Management, Vol.7, No.3, pp.
173-189, ISSN 1075-4253.
Casillas, J.C, et al. (2009). An integrative model of the role of knowledge in the
internationalization process. Journal of World Business, Vol.44, No.3, ISSN 1090-9516
Chesbrough, H. & Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing
value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off
companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.11, No.3, pp. 529-555, ISSN 1464-
3650
Corbett, A.C. (2005). Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification
and exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.29, No.4, pp. 473-491,
ISSN 1540-6520
Crainer, S. (1999). Handbook of Management, Financial Times, ISBN 0 273 63943 9, London, UK
Deakins, D., O'Neill, E. & Mileham, P. (2000). Executive learning in entrepreneurial firms
and the role of external directors. Education + Training, Vol. 42, No.4/5, pp. 317-325,
ISSN 0040-0912
Edicy (2011). A better way to create websites. 25.03.2011, Available from
http://www.edicy.com/en
Fortumo (2011). Mobile Payments in 5 minutes! 25.03.2011, Available from http://fortumo.ee/
Fraktal (2011). A design and software studio, Learn about Edicy—our super simple solution for
building good-looking websites online in minutes. 25.03.2011, Available from
http://www.fraktal.ee/en
Gabrielsson, P. & Gabrielsson, M. (2004). Globalizing internationals: business portfolio and
marketing strategies in the ICT field. International Business Review, Vol.13, No.6, pp.
661–684, ISSN 0969-5931
Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1993). Strategy as Stretch and Leverage. Harvard Business
Review, March-April, 75-84, ISSN 0017-8012
Hedman, J. & Kalling, T., (2003). The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and
empirical illustrations. European Journal of Information Systems, No. 12, pp. 49–59,
ISSN: 0960-085X
Jansen, W., Steenbakkers, W. & Jägers, H. (2007). New business models for the knowledge
economy, Gover/Ashgate, ISBN 978-0-566-08788-2, Aldershot, UK
Johanson, J. & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The Internationalization Process of the Firm – A Model of
Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol.8, No.1, pp. 23-32, ISSN 0047-2506
Katzan, H. (2009). Computing services in the cloud, Proceedings of the Southern Association for
Information Systems Conference, pp. 11-17, SC, Charleston, USA, March 12th-14th
Knowledge@Wharton (2011). Can Skype Go Corporate? Available at:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2717
Luostarinen, R. (1979). Internationalisation of the Firm, Helsinki School of Economics,
doctoral dissertation – Reference via (Luostarinen & Gabrielsson 2004).
Luostarinen, R. & Gabrielsson, M. (2006). Globalization and marketing strategies of Born
Globals in SMOPECs. Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol.48, No.6, pp.
773-801, ISSN 1520-6874
Luostarinen, R. & Gabrielsson, M. (2004). Finnish perspectives of international
entrepreneurship, In: Handbook of Research on International Entrepreneurship, L.-P.
Dana, (Ed.), 383-403, Edward Elgar, ISBN 1 84376 069 X, Cheltenham, UK
Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Models Matter. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, May, pp.
86–92, ISSN: 1572-834X
McNauthon, R.B. (2003). The Number of Export Markets that a Firm Serves: Process Models
versus the Born-Global Phenomenon. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, No.1,
pp. 297-311, ISSN: 1573-7349
Mets, T., Kaarna, K. & Kelli, A. (2010). Intellectual property – lever or barrier for the
globalization of knowledge-intensive SMEs of small country origin. Engineering
Economics, Vol.21, No.4, pp. 387-398, ISSN 1392-2785
Mets, T. (2009). Creating global business model for knowledge-intensive SMEs: the small
transition country cases. Economics and Management, No. 14, pp. 466-475, ISSN 1822-
6515
Mets, T. (2008). Regio – a learned global knowledge company: Case from Estonia. In: The
Cutting Edge: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in New Europe. (Ed-s)Ruta Aidis
and Friederike Welter, Edward Elgar, pp. 54-73, ISBN 978 1 84542 974 4,
Cheltenham, UK
Mets, T. (2006). Developing the sectorial innovation system of Estonian biotechnology.
Engineering Economics, No. 50(5), pp. 73-79, ISSN 1392-2785
Mets, T. (2003). Leverage of knowledge and competence – success factor of global
corporation: Mathematical model and some empirical findings in Estonia.
Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, No.28, pp. 111-124, ISSN 1392-
1142
Mobi Solutions (2011). Mobi Solutions. 25.03.2011, Available from
http://www.mobisolutions.com/about
Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S. & Puumalainen, K. (2004). Rapidly with the rifle or more
slowly with a shortgun? Stretching the company boundaries of internationalising
ICT firms. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, No.2, pp. 275-288, ISSN: 1573-
7349
Parts, S. (2011). Interview, by T.Mets, March 25
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Vol.29, No.4, pp. 399-424, ISSN 1540-6520
Puus, U. (2011). Interview, 25 March, by T.Mets
Raime, V. (2011). Interview, 04 October, by T.Mets
Rajasalu, T. & Laur, A. (2003). Contribution of the New Economy to Estonia’s Economic
Growth and Convergence with the European Economy, TIGER Working Paper
Series, No. 41, Warsaw, Poland, 12.10.2011, Available from
http://www.tiger.edu.pl/publikacje/TWPNo41.pdf
Rannu, R. (2004). M-Governance: From Vision to Reality. Baltic IT&T Review, No. 35, pp. 35-
40, ISSN 1691-4694
Ravasi, D. & Turati, C. (2005). Exploring entrepreneurial learning: a comparative study of
technology development projects. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.20, No.1, pp.
137-164, ISSN 0883-9026
Reach-U (2011). About Reach-U. 25.03.2011, Available from
http://www.reach-u.com/?op=body&id=29
Rialp, A., Rialp, J., Urbano, D. & Vaillant, Y. (2005). The born-global phenomenon: a
comparative case study research. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, No.3, pp.
133-171, ISSN 1573-7349
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Random House, ISBN 978-0385260954, Sydney
Shafer, S., Smith, H. & Linder, J. (2005). The power of business models. Business Horizons,
Vol.48, No.3, pp. 199-207, ISSN 0007-6813
Shearmur, R. & Doloreux, D. (2000). Science parks: actors or reactors? Canadian science
parks in their urban context. Environment and Planning, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 1065-
1082, ISSN 1472-3409.
Solis Biodyne (2011). Solis Biodyne. 25.03.2011, Available from http://www.sbd.ee/
Sportlyzer (2010). The Next Generation Private Trainer. 25.03.2011, Available from
http://www.sportlyzer.com/
Svensson, G. (2006). A quest for a common terminology: the concept of born glocals.
Management Decision, Vol.44, No.9, pp. 1311-1317, ISSN 0025-1747
Tänavsuu, T. (2009). Estonian biotech solved the “cold chain” problem of Bill Gates’ HIV
mission in Africa. 25.03.2011, Available from http://www.testmarket.eu/tag/solis-
biodyne/
Vadi, M. & Türk, K. (2009). Behaviour patterns in Estonian enterprises from the perspective
of the value. Baltic Journal of Management, Vol.4. No.1, pp. 34-50, ISSN 1746-5265
Varblane, U. & Lepik, A. (2010). How to speak the same language with European
innovation-policy in terms of living labs? Discussions on Estonian Economic Policy,
No. 18, pp. 215-232, ISSN 1736-5600
Weill, P., Malone, T., D’Urso, V., Herman, G. & Woerner, S. (2005). Do some business
models perform better than others? A study of the 1000 largest US firms. Working
Paper No. 226, MIT Sloan School of Management, Available from
http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/pdf/wp226.pdf
Winter, S. & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as Strategy. Organization Science, Vol.12, No.6,
pp. 730-743, ISSN 1526-5455
Zott, C. & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model:
implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, No.29, No.1, pp.
1–26.
Yovanof, G. & Hazapis, G. (2008). Disruptive technologies, services, or business models.
Wireless Personal Communications, No. 45, pp. 569-583, ISSN 1572-834X
View publication stats

Entrepreneurship - Creativity and Innovative Business Models PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Entrepreneurship - Creativity and Innovative Business Models PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Entrepreneurship - Creativity and Innovative Business Models PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP – CREATIVITY AND INNOVATIVE

Book · January 2012

Vesa Johannes Puhakka Thierry Burger-Helmchen

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Antonio Carrizo Moreira Ondrej Zizlavsky

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Heritage Marketing Strategies within Long-lived Firms View project

Lean Healthcare View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

Copyright © 2012 InTech

Publishing Process Manager Marina Jozipovic

First published February, 2012

A free online edition of this book is available at www.intechopen.com

Entrepreneurship – Creativity and Innovative Business Models, Edited by Thierry Burger-

Part 1 Ideas, Creativity & Entrepreneurship 1

Chapter 1 Entrepreneurial Creativity as Discovery and

Chapter 2 Inside the Entrepreneurial Event:

Part 2 New Business Models 39

Chapter 3 Incubation of New Ideas:

Chapter 4 The Development and Implementation of Marketing

Chapter 5 Brazilian Entrepreneurship Reality:

Chapter 6 New Service Ventures – Struggling for Survival 99

Chapter 7 Interfirm Alliances:

Chapter 8 Attractiveness of European Higher Education in

Chapter 9 From Traditional Service to E-Service Market

Chapter 10 Creative Business Model

Economic, sociological, and managerial academics began to devise a detailed and

The economics of entrepreneurship

Many authors tried to define Entrepreneurship:

“Entrepreneurship is a process by which individuals pursue and exploit opportunities

“Entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations, the process by which new organizations

“Entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, reasoning, and acting that is opportunity drive,

From these definitions, we can see that the academic understanding of

The following table summarizes these three divisions of research in entrepreneurship.

The last volume “Entrepreneurship - Ideas, Creativity and Innovative Business

Entrepreneurship – Creativity and innovative Business Models

This book on entrepreneurship is composed of two sections. Section I: Ideas,

Ideas, Creativity & Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial Creativity as Discovery and

2. Theoretical background — entrepreneurship as the creation

3. Processing of business opportunity — a creative or rational undertaking

4. Creativity as a research topic

Social psychological school of creativity. Creativity is the product of environmental

5. Entrepreneurial creativity – entrepreneur's capacity to generate novel

Burrell G. and G. Morgan (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.

Fromm, E. (1989). The Art of Being. New York: Continuum.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Woodman, R. (1981). Creativity as a construct in personality theory. Journal of Creative

Inside the Entrepreneurial Event:

2. What then is entrepreneurship – a definition for a common foundation

that the activity creating entrepreneurship is constructive. In entrepreneurship initial

3. The core of an entrepreneurial opportunity

entrepreneurial opportunity can also be a collective cognition. A cognition of an

4. Creativity – an individual talent at creating something new

of arguments for hundreds of years. Or is creativity returnable back into a biological,

A creative environment comprises of three partial environments: social, contextual and

5. Developing the frame of reference

5.1 The environment ignites the personality