Davidsson 2018

Academy of Management Perspectives
External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A

Framework
Journal: Academy of Management Perspectives
Manuscript ID AMP-2017-0163.R2
Document Type: Symposium
Entrepreneurship (General) < Entrepreneurship < Topic Areas, Technology

and Innovation Management < Topic Areas, Environmental components
Keywords: (conceptualizing and assessing) < Organization and Management Theory <
Topic Areas, Adaptation/Change < Organization and Management Theory <
Topic Areas, New venture strategies < Entrepreneurship < Topic Areas
Page 1 of 59 Academy of Management Perspectives
1
2
3 External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework
4
5
6
7
8 Per Davidsson
9
10 Queensland University of Technology and Jönköping International Business School
11
12
13
per.davidsson@qut.edu.au
14
15
16
17 Jan Recker
18
19
University of Cologne and Queensland University of Technology
20
21
22 jan.recker@wiso.uni-koeln.de
23
24
25
26 Frederik von Briel
27
28
29 Queensland University of Technology
30
31 frederik.vonbriel@qut.edu.au
32
33
34
35
36 Acknowledgement: We would like to acknowledge the constructive feedback received on
37
38
earlier versions of this manuscript from the editor, Mike Wright, and two anonymous AMP
39
40
41 reviewers as well as from participants at presentations of this research at the 2017 Academy of
42
43 Management Annual Meeting; the 2016 Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research (ACE)
44
45 paper development boot camp, and at research seminars at University of Adelaide, Jönköping
46
47
48 International Business School, QUT Business School, University of Stavanger, and University of
49
50 Sydney. We thank the Institute for Future Environments (IFE) at QUT for financial support of
51
52 the project that triggered the writing of this paper.
53
54
55
56
57
58 1
59
60
Academy of Management Perspectives Page 2 of 59
1
2
3 External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework
4
5
6
7
8
9 ABSTRACT
10
11 In searching for conceptualizations that offer an alternative perspective to “entrepreneurial
12
13 opportunities”, the notion of external enablers has recently been suggested for capturing the
14
15
16
influence on entrepreneurial action and outcomes exerted by external conditions like new
17
18 technologies, regulatory or demographic shifts, and changes to the socio-cultural, economic,
19
20 political, or natural environments. We take the external enabler perspective several steps further.
21
22 We develop a new framework that conceptualizes external enablers in terms of their
23
24
25 characteristics, roles, and mechanisms and detail their implications for entrepreneurial action
26
27 and outcomes. We argue that this framework provides a more productive perspective for
28
29 theorizing about the influence of external, actor-independent factors on venture creation
30
31
32 processes than Discovery Theory’s notion of objective, pre-existing opportunities. At the same
33
34 time, it is compatible with the dynamic-agentic view of new venture creation proposed by
35
36 varieties of Creation Theory. For researchers who are interested in instances of societal change
37
38
from a sociological or historical vantage point, the framework facilitates theorizing across such
39
40
41 instances and about the microfoundations of aggregate-level changes. Additional domains that
42
43 can benefit from our new framework include design- and strategy-oriented research and practice.
44
45
46
47
48 Keywords: Creation Theory, Digital Technology, Discovery Theory, Entrepreneurship,
49
50
51 Environmental Change, External Enabler, Framework, Institution, Jolt, Mechanism, New
52
53 Venture Creation, Opportunity, Process
54
55
56
57
58 2
59
60
1
2
3 INTRODUCTION
4
5
6 There is broad agreement that technological advances, regulatory changes, demographic
7
8 trends, and changes to the socio-cultural, economic, political, and natural environments are
9
10 disequilibrating forces with important influence on entrepreneurial action and outcomes (Alvarez
11
12
13
& Barney, 2013; Bradley, 2015; Dimov, 2011; Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016; Shane, 2012). Yet,
14
15 existing frameworks about new venture creation do not offer theoretical concepts that apply
16
17 across different types of change such as those above, nor do they detail their possible effects on
18
19
individual, emerging ventures. We take this step. We develop a new framework for the study of
20
21
22 external enablement of new venture creation.
23
24 We develop this framework not because the study of external enablement has not been
25
26 attempted before but rather because previous attempts have had limited success. In developing
27
28
29 what is now widely known as Discovery Theory, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) intended to
30
31 give external conditions the same weight as the entrepreneurial agent. However, while this
32
33 paradigm has made progress on how agent characteristics contribute to perception and evaluation
34
35
36
of situations as representing opportunities (e.g., Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012; McMullen &
37
38 Shepherd, 2006; Wood & Williams, 2014) it has largely failed to generate theoretical language
39
40 and generalizations regarding how external elements of change enable individual cases of
41
42
venture creation (Arend, 2014; Kitching & Rouse, 2016; Shane, 2012). Part of the reason for this
43
44
45 failure might be the portrayal of external factors in the philosophically, conceptually and
46
47 empirically challenging form of complete, objectively pre-existing and actor-independent
48
49 opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2013; Korsgaard, 2013; Sarason et al., 2010; Dimov, 2011;
50
51
52 Davidsson, 2015).
53
54
55
56
57
58 3
59
60
1
2
3 Likewise, by emphasizing process, dynamism, learning, social interaction and creative
4
5
6 agency, Effectuation Theory (Sarasvathy, 2001; 2008), Creation Theory (Alvarez & Barney,
7
8 2007; Alvarez, Barney & Anderson, 2013) and a range of other contributions (e.g., Dimov, 2007;
9
10 Wood & McKinley, 2010) have added elements that are relatively neglected in Discovery
11
12
13
Theory. Yet, with regard to external circumstances to which entrepreneurs can apply their
14
15 creative agency they, too, have little to offer. The theorists behind Creation Theory even
16
17 conclude that “the term ‘search’ has little or no meaning” (Alvarez & Barney, 2007: 15) in their
18
19
theory, thereby denying the possibility of search for and use of any facilitating circumstances in
20
21
22 the external environment.
23
24 Finally, literatures on environmental jolts and other individual instances of external
25
26 change as related to entrepreneurial activity also acknowledge the important role of such
27
28
29 disequilibrating events (Bradley, 2015; Eberhart, Easley & Eisenhardt, 2017; Hiatt, Sine, &
30
31 Tolbert 2009). However, this stream is rather small and scattered, with each study focusing on a
32
33 single instance of change, leading to limited potential for more abstract theorizing across
34
35
36
instances and types of change.
37
38 As a result, research on new venture creation currently lacks a strong conceptual platform
39
40 for theorizing about how external disequilibrating forces influence individual venture creation
41
42
processes. We hold this to be a significant deficiency. We develop a new perspective for the
43
44
45 venture-level study of how new technologies, regulatory changes, demographic trends, and
46
47 changes to the socio-cultural, macroeconomic, political, and natural environments enable the
48
49 creation of individual new ventures. Continuing from Davidsson (2015) we denote these and
50
51
52 other changes as external enablers, which we conceptualize in terms of their characteristics,
53
54 mechanisms and roles to develop a framework that captures communality and variance in
55
56
57
58 4
59
60
1
2
3 multiple ways within and across various types of environmental change for the benefit of
4
5
6 venture-level analysis. Our new framework offers structure, language, and theoretical logic to
7
8 guide further theorizing and empirical investigation of new venture creation.
9
10 For those who have a strong belief and interest in the importance of objective, external
11
12
13
influences to emerging new ventures (as per Discovery Theory), our framework bypasses
14
15 dichotomization into opportunities versus non-opportunities by instead focusing on partial
16
17 enablement. It clearly distinguishes between what a particular venture is trying to realize (their
18
19
new venture idea) and the external factors they and other ventures may benefit from in so doing
20
21
22 (the external enablers)1. Further, it facilitates research into issues of process and outcomes and
23
24 offers a more inclusive and liberal view of entrepreneurial agents and agency, for example, by
25
26 recognizing that agency can be dispersed (Nambisan, 2017).
27
28
29 For those favoring a more agentic view of new venture creation (as per Effectuation and
30
31 Creation theories) the framework makes it possible to add systematic attention to the external
32
33 “raw material” at entrepreneurs’ disposal without sacrificing current emphases on process,
34
35
36
creativity, and agency. It allows incorporation of both socially constructed and more material
37
38 external circumstances in theorizing of the context that imbues action and outcomes in
39
40 processual analysis (Pettigrew, 1997).
41
42 1
43 This levels issue has always been problematic in research focusing on entrepreneurial opportunities. For example,
44
new technologies are sometimes described as opportunities in themselves whereas in other instances that label is
45
46
used for specific applications of these technologies (Eckhardt & Shane, 2010: 49 vs. 61; Shane, 2003: 34 vs. 24).
47
48 Ramoglou and Tsang (2016), while insisting that objective opportunities only (pre-) exist in abstracto nevertheless
49
50 discuss concrete cases like selling Je Suis Charlie t-shirts in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack as an opportunity
51
52 (Davidsson, 2017). In Creation Theory accounts it is often unclear whether what the agent creates is simply a viable
53
54 business or a set of circumstances that other agents can also exploit.
55
56
57
58 5
59
60
1
2
3 Researchers with a more macro-oriented interest in external change as trigger and
4
5
6 facilitator of entrepreneurial activity might find the framework helpful as a new and more
7
8 effective way to theorize across such instances of seemingly different nature. It also facilitates
9
10 examination of microfoundations, that is, the venture-level processes that are triggered by and
11
12
13
give specific shape to aggregate-level changes, as per Coleman’s (1990) bathtub model (cf.
14
15 Bjørnskov & Foss, 2016; Kim, Wennberg & Croidieu, 2016). Outside of entrepreneurship, some
16
17 of our concepts and ideas may be possible to integrate productively for revitalization of existing
18
19
frameworks addressing how incumbent organizations deal with environmental change, such as
20
21
22 the literature on strategic issues (Jackson & Dutton, 1988; Miller & Lin, 2015).
23
24
25
26 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
27
28
29 Because our framework develops a radically new perspective on how to incorporate the
30
31 influence of external, actor-independent factors into venture creation research, it is important to
32
33 explicitly articulate underlying assumptions and sources of inspiration before introducing the
34
35
36
framework itself. Although our framework is novel, it was not developed in a vacuum; many of
37
38 its underlying assumptions are based on and aligned with prior work. In this section, we outline
39
40 these assumptions and their main sources.
41
42
First, we embrace the view that the core of entrepreneurship is the creation of new
43
44
45 ventures (or of “new economic activity” as Wiklund, Davidsson, Audretsch, & Karlsson, 2011,
46
47 put it). Our framework aims to facilitate theory development and empirical study of new venture
48
49 creation that does not stop at the means (the enabler) as opportunity research has often done. We
50
51
52 apply the emerging venture itself—rather than founder(s), a well-developed venture, or a stable
53
54 founder-venture dyad—as the focal unit of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Although we
55
56
57
58 6
59
60
1
2
3 recognize that new venture creation can occur in different organizational contexts (Shane &
4
5
6 Venkataraman, 2000), our framework’s focus is primarily on independent start-ups rather than
7
8 corporate entrepreneurship activities.
9
10 Second, we adopt Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) core idea that external conditions
11
12
13
can be as important as the agent. The disciplines underpinning most entrepreneurship research –
14
15 psychology, sociology and economics – have an abundance of concepts and theories to describe
16
17 and explain the characteristics and behavior of human individuals and collectives. The same
18
19
cannot be said for the emerging artifacts that entrepreneurs create and the non-person factors that
20
21
22 feed into that process. Therefore, we focus our theory development on the more underdeveloped
23
24 topic of external enablers that entrepreneurial agents creatively or serendipitously benefit from.
25
26 We assume that actor-independent circumstances, sometimes with and sometimes without the
27
28
29 entrepreneurial agent’s perception and action, can affect entrepreneurial outcomes (Bunge, 1993;
30
31 Godfrey-Smith, 2003). Such circumstances include natural and artificial as well as physical and
32
33 socially constructed changes. We also assume that entrepreneurial agents lack full foresight and
34
35
36
rationality, that is, they have only a partial and fallible view of reality.
37
38 Third, in response to an emerging consensus and a major criticism of the Discovery
39
40 stream, our framework considers venture creation as a process (McMullen & Dimov, 2013;
41
42
Zahra & Wright, 2011). It does so primarily by distinguishing different roles external enablers
43
44
45 can have at different points throughout the venture creation process. Further, our framework
46
47 allows viewing the emerging venture as an evolving, malleable entity (Cornelissen & Clarke,
48
49 2010; Dimov, 2007; Furr, Cavarretta, & Garg, 2012).
50
51
52 Fourth, we adopt from Davidsson (2015: 683) the definition of external enablers as
53
54 “distinct, external circumstance[s]” that have “the potential of playing an essential role in
55
56
57
58 7
59
60
1
2
3 eliciting and/or enabling a variety of entrepreneurial endeavors by several (potential) actors”. He
4
5
6 introduced this notion as an invitation to develop theory across technological, regulatory,
7
8 demographic, socio-cultural, macroeconomic, political, and natural-environmental changes.
9
10 External enabler is one of three constructs Davidsson (2015) suggests to jointly capture what
11
12
13
prior literature has mixed in a complex notion of “opportunity”. The other two are new venture
14
15 idea—the content of the “imagined future ventures” that entrepreneurs try to create—and
16
17 opportunity confidence—entrepreneurs’ subjective assessment of the extent to which an external
18
19
enabler or a new venture idea is a good basis creating a new venture. All three aspects—external
20
21
22 enabler, opportunity confidence and new venture idea—are important foci in studies of new
23
24 venture creation, but because our interest is in the comparatively neglected role of external
25
26 change in influencing venture creation, we focus on the external enabler construct.
27
28
29 According to Davidsson’s definition, external enablers are aggregate-level phenomena
30
31 from which multiple emerging ventures can benefit. Importantly, external enablers are not
32
33 favorable by definition for all ventures or for society overall. Rather, it is a theoretical
34
35
36
assumption that any change to the business environment is disequilibrating and therefore
37
38 favorable to some (potential) new ventures2. The fact that the status as enabler is based on a
39
40 theoretical assumption also means that they exist, and can be identified, without being acted
41
42
upon. However, ex ante their favorability for individual cases is “selective, interdependent,
43
44
45 subjective, uncertain, and only revealed through empirical analysis” (Davidsson, 2015: 683). In
46
47
48 2
Although seemingly stable external circumstances may also harbor unused potentials, we (more clearly than
49
50 Davidsson, 2015) delimit our focus to disequilibrating, environmental change. We argue that this—and historical
51
52 experience—makes the assumption of “enabler” status without action relatively unproblematic; for every change to
53
54 the business environment there are some conceivable ventures that could benefit from it to some degree.
55
56
57
58 8
59
60
1
2
3 cases where an external enabler has potential for positive influence, this influence is neither
4
5
6 exhaustive nor deterministic. Reaping the benefit usually requires action, and making use of an
7
8 enabler is never a complete recipe for venture creation success.
9
10 While Davidsson (2015) defined the external enabler concept and argued its advantages
11
12
13
over the notion of objective, pre-existing and actor-independent opportunity, he left it to others to
14
15 act on the “need for conceptual development that classifies External Enablers theoretically” (p.
16
17 689). We continue where Davidsson stopped by developing the notions of characteristics,
18
19
mechanisms, and roles of external enablers.
20
21
22 Finally, the development or our framework has benefitted from analyzing both present
23
24 and absent aspects of theorizing in prior studies that address venture creation in response to
25
26 individual instances of external enablers without using that notion. Table A1 (Appendix)
27
28
29 summarizes our interpretations of a core selection of such studies through the lens of our new
30
31 framework. Although they may not have served as explicit sources of fundamental assumptions,
32
33 these studies provided inspiration by outlining a fruitful way of addressing the role of external
34
35
36
change for new venture creation without getting entangled in the conceptual and empirical
37
38 problems associated with the idea of complete, objectively pre-existing and actor-independent
39
40 opportunities. At the same time, their focus on a particular type of change—and usually also
41
42
single instance thereof—served as a stimulus to try to overcome this limitation by responding to
43
44
45 Davidsson’s (2015) call to theorize across seemingly different types of external change.
46
47 One of the studies (von Briel et al., 2018) explicitly applies Davidsson’s (2015) external
48
49 enabler construct and became our inspiration for the delineation of mechanisms. We extend their
50
51
52 work by moving beyond technological enablers alone and by discussing a broader set of
53
54 mechanisms, some of which were identified within the studies listed in Table A1. We also
55
56
57
58 9
59
60
1
2
3 introduce characteristics of external enablers as an entirely novel dimension, and roles of
4
5
6 external enablers as a means to acknowledge the process dimension and to account for the
7
8 interplay between enabler and agent.
9
10
11
12
13 CHARACTERISTICS, MECHANISMS, AND ROLES OF EXTERNAL ENABLERS
14
15
16
Below we explain and discuss each element of our new framework, guided by the
17
18 graphical representation in Figure 1. The leftmost column lists types of external enablers.
19
20 Whereas prior research rarely reaches beyond mentioning types, we go further by developing
21
22 what we see as theoretically more promising notions of characteristics, mechanisms, and roles to
23
24
25 construct a framework that describes external enablers’ form, function, and influence on venture
26
27 creation. Before turning to these novel parts of the framework we briefly discuss the important
28
29 aspects of agency and context.
30
31
32 ============================
33
34 Insert Fig. 1 about here
35
36 ============================
37
38
39
Agency and Context
40
41 As indicated by the top panel in Figure 1, our framework fully acknowledges the widely
42
43 shared notion that entrepreneurship requires agency (e.g., Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Shane,
44
45 2003). Without agents’ initiative, external enablers cannot affect entrepreneurial action and
46
47
48 outcomes (Reynolds, 2005). Even serendipitous influence on outcomes (cf. below) requires that
49
50 the unaware agent initiated a venture creation attempt in the first place.
51
52 However, entrepreneurs cannot literally “create something from nothing” (cf. Baker &
53
54
55 Nelson, 2005; Ramoglou & Zyglidopoulos, 2015). We believe that our understanding of new
56
57
58 10
59
60
1
2
3 venture creation benefits from attention to the “external raw material” that allows entrepreneurs
4
5
6 to do what they do, and expect users of our framework to apply existing theories and concepts
7
8 pertaining to agents when they apply it. Although our framework in its current form does not
9
10 introduce any genuine novelty on the agent side of the nexus, it arguably provides more room for
11
12
13
creativity than does Discovery Theory and greater acknowledgement of dispersed agency
14
15 (Dimov, 2007; Nambisan, 2017) than most other frameworks do. It also provides more room for
16
17 luck and serendipity by highlighting that external enablers sometimes exert influence without the
18
19
agent’s awareness (Denrell, Fang & Liu, 2014). We thereby allow for a less heroic view of the
20
21
22 agent than what is often implied in research using Discovery or Creation theories.
23
24 The bottom panel in Figure 1 acknowledges the importance of context (Johns, 2006;
25
26 Welter, 2011; Zahra, Wright, & Abdelgawad, 2014). External enablers occur and operate in a
27
28
29 context of existing circumstances, which we analytically construe as stable to give contrast to the
30
31 change represented by the enabler. In this sense, external enablers are relational. For example,
32
33 the enabling potential of a globally available new technology will vary across spatial contexts
34
35
36
depending on, for example, the status of human capital, macroeconomic conditions, and
37
38 regulatory environments in the contexts in question.
39
40 Some of the challenges and research opportunities offered by our framework thus
41
42
concern how entrepreneurial agents strategically or fortuitously make use of the potential
43
44
45 provided by external enablers, and how enablers and their effects interact with contextual factors.
46
47 Leaving deeper exploration of these important questions to future research, we now turn to this
48
49 paper’s main focus, namely the grey-shaded areas in Figure 1.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 11
59
60
1
2
3 Characteristics of External Enablers
4
5
6 Characteristics refer to the basic nature of an enabler—the salient properties that describe
7
8 its structure and form. We construe such characteristics of enablers as intrinsic to them; they do
9
10 not vary across the agents who might benefit from them. However, perceptions of them may
11
12
13
vary, as does their potential influence on particular attempts to create ventures (i.e., a given
14
15 characteristic may be differentially beneficial). As intrinsic properties of external enablers,
16
17 characteristics are aggregate-level constructs; however, variations in these dimensions are
18
19
relevant on the level of individual ventures because agents’ alertness, knowledge, luck, and effort
20
21
22 in relation to them can be important to particular new ventures’ development and success. We
23
24 discuss two characteristics—scope and onset—along which external enablers’ actionability and
25
26 market potential may vary. We identified these characteristics through our own analysis of
27
28
29 how—across types of external change—instances of change are similar or different, and how this
30
31 might matter to emerging new ventures.
32
33 The Scope of External Enablers. Scope is a theoretically important characteristic of
34
35
36
external enablers primarily because it affects the market potential of the ventures created in their
37
38 wake3. Scope has important implications for the strategic ambitions, timing and scaling
39
40 decisions, and eventual outcomes of emerging new ventures.
41
42
Within and across the types of enablers there is variation in sectoral, spatial, temporal,
43
44
45 and socio-demographic scope. Sectoral scope concerns the range of industries that an external
46
47
48 3
Prior literature occasionally discusses the importance of scope of the new venture idea (Davidsson, Hunter, &
49
50 Klofsten, 2006) or of patents (Shane, 2001) but not at the level or with the sub-dimensions developed here. The
51
52 notions of “scope” and “magnitude of impact” were listed independently (but not discussed in depth) by Dutton and
53
54 Walton (1989: 383) in a compilation of dimensions of what they call “strategic issues”.
55
56
57
58 12
59
60
1
2
3 enabler may affect. Spatial scope refers to the geographic area the enabler affects. Figure 2
4
5
6 illustrates variance in scope by locating several external enablers according to these two
7
8 dimensions. For example, the deregulation that made possible satellite radio in the US (Navis &
9
10 Glynn, 2010) has limited scope on both dimensions. Legalization of marijuana in individual US
11
12
13
states (March, Martin, & Redford, 2015) has even less spatial scope (although customers and
14
15 goods may find their way across borders). Lesser still is the spatial scope of Shepherd and
16
17 Williams’ (2014) wildfire disaster, although it may have enabled start-ups beyond social
18
19
ventures related to disaster relief (e.g., products and services oriented toward future fire safety).
20
21
22 The Bayh-Dole Act (Shane, 2004) was country-specific and restricted to industries that can
23
24 benefit from intellectual property protection.
25
26 ============================
27
28
30
31 ============================
32
33 Temporal scope refers to the duration of enablement, that is, for how long the change has
34
35
36
significant effects. For example, global warming is predicted to affect economic life for
37
38 generations, whereas the influence of El Niño/La Niña is cyclical. The temporal scope of new
39
40 technologies can vary dramatically and may be difficult to assess because technological progress
41
42
cycles tend to make incumbent technologies obsolete (Tushman & Anderson, 1986) or at least
43
44
45 alter the identity of technology fundamentally over time (Ekbia, 2009; Faulkner & Runde, 2009).
46
47 Regulatory changes can also have an uncertain temporal scope. For example, variance in the
48
49 anticipated temporal scope of regulatory changes like tax cuts has important effects on consumer
50
51
52 behavior (Katona, 1975), and such variance is therefore likely to have effects on entrepreneurial
53
54 activity as well. Finally, socio-demographic scope pertains to the range of individuals whose
55
56
57
58 13
59
60
1
2
3 circumstances are potentially affected by the enabler, from “all human beings” to niche groups
4
5
6 like schoolchildren of a particular age or people with a particular disability.
7
8 In sum, the scope of external enablers varies across at least four dimensions: spatial,
9
10 temporal, sectoral and socio-demographic. This variance matters to individual ventures because
11
12
13
the scope of enablers can affect the market potential for ventures that try to benefit from them.
14
15 Scope also matters to policy-makers and their efforts to leverage enablers because the scope
16
17 affects the amount of entrepreneurial activity that an external change can facilitate.
18
19
The Onset of External Enablers. Existence of an enabler does not equate perception or
20
21
22 recognition, so alertness (Tang, Kacmar, & Busenitz, 2012), knowledge (Shane, 2000), or even
23
24 luck (Denrell et al., 2014) related to the identification of the onset of external enablers have
25
26 strong implications for their timely adoption into new venture ideas and for these ventures’
27
28
29 eventual outcomes. For example, how enablers first come into being influences the feasibility of
30
31 proactive behavior and the attainment of first- (or later-) mover advantages (Lieberman &
32
33 Montgomery, 1998). This makes two dimensions of onset—suddenness and predictability—
34
35
36
conceptually useful in theorizing about external enablers and their recognition by agents of new
37
38 venture creation.
39
40 Not all enablers qualify as sudden environmental jolts (Bradley, 2015) or other
41
42
punctuated events; some, like climate change and most social movements, develop in a slow and
43
44
45 measured manner. Hence, suddenness is one strategically relevant dimension of variance. Onset
46
47 can also vary according to its predictability, that is, the extent to which an enabler’s presence and
48
49 influence can be anticipated (Miller & Lin, 2015). For example, the expiration of key patents is
50
51
52 known well in advance, whereas most natural disasters are unpredictable. Recurring events like
53
54 business cycles and weather systems are more predictable than changes that do not follow a
55
56
57
58 14
59
60
1
2
3 cyclical pattern, even if the exact turning points may be hard to predict. Figure 3 positions a
4
5
6 selection of external enablers according to suddenness and predictability.
7
8 ============================
9
11
12
13
============================
14
15 Demographic shifts like an ageing population are examples of changes that are both
16
17 gradual and predictable. Terrorist attacks and political upheavals (in otherwise stable
18
19
environments) are the opposite. It is difficult to prepare for these latter kinds of event in detail,
20
21
22 but they can be exploited by entrepreneurs who swiftly introduce products that appeal to
23
24 associated fears and sentiments (Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). Thus, an unpredictable onset may
25
26 favor agile start-ups over more slow-moving incumbents (Bradley, 2015). The example of
27
28
29 marijuana legalization as predictable but sudden assumes a stable political environment and an
30
31 overt, publicly discussed process leading to the decision. However, the formal introduction is
32
33 sudden, as what is illegal one day is legal the next. Our depiction of social movements as gradual
34
35
36
and unpredictable assumes uncertain development paths and uncertain effects in particular
37
38 environments (Hiatt et al., 2009). For example, the drift of veganism into the mainstream would
39
40 have been difficult to predict two decades ago and its status may still be uncertain in the long
41
42
term (Castricano & Simonsen, 2016).
43
44
45 In sum, the onset of external enablers varies in suddenness and predictability. This
46
47 matters to individual ventures because readiness to benefit from their appearance has
48
49 implications for the design of organizational strategy and structure, and variance in onset has
50
51
52 implications for new ventures’ likelihood of being able to compete successfully against
53
54 incumbent firms (cf. Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Jennings and Seaman, 1990).
55
56
57
58 15
59
60
1
2
3 Mechanisms of External Enablers
4
5
6 Characteristics are useful for capturing the nature of external enablers, but they describe
7
8 form, not function. That is, they do not detail the influence enablers have on entrepreneurial
9
10 action and outcomes. We suggest theorizing the detailed influence as mechanisms, based on our
11
12
13
belief that it is more fruitful to apply the idea of real but unactualized potentials to mechanisms
14
15 that provide partial enablement than to complete but empirically non-tractable “opportunities”
16
17 that are defined dichotomously by their potential for generating profit or not (Ramoglou &
18
19
Tsang, 2016).
20
21
22 The mechanisms of external enablers explicate how they can facilitate the initiation,
23
24 ongoing development, and success of new business ventures. How mechanisms work often but
25
26 not always requires premeditated action; occasionally, emerging ventures benefit from enablers
27
28
29 and their mechanisms without the entrepreneurial agents’ full awareness. Further, unlike
30
31 characteristics, mechanism is a relational construct, providing a means to connect external
32
33 elements and the entrepreneurial agent in the spirit of Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) original
34
35
36
nexus idea.
37
38 Enablers afford potential for eliciting certain mechanisms and not others, but these action
39
40 potentials can only be actualized in particular (categories of) ventures. Thus, whether an enabler
41
42
in fact provides a particular mechanism depends both on the enabler and the venture. Depending
43
44
45 on what they are and what they are trying to achieve, some ventures can and some cannot benefit
46
47 from a mechanisms that an enabler is inherently capable of providing. Conversely, no ventures
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 16
59
60
1
2
3 can derive a particular mechanism from an enabler that does not have the inherent capacity to
4
5
6 provide that mechanism4.
7
8 Moreover, mechanisms can produce secondary effects by interacting with other
9
10 mechanisms. This is important because external enabler is a composite-level aggregate construct
11
12
13
in its own right. Further, in accordance with our assumption that enablers are favorable to some
14
15 but not all new ventures, mechanisms influence the likelihood of an effect but are not necessarily
16
17 sufficient for it to materialize (Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010). As we explain in the discussion of
18
19
roles below, the mechanisms of external enablers can also operate at various stages of venture
20
21
22 creation.
23
24 A collection of enabling mechanisms in venture creation is displayed in Table 1. The first
25
26 six mechanisms in the table were first suggested by von Briel et al. (2018), while the remaining
27
28
29 mechanisms and their definitions, as well as other elaborations, were compiled and/or developed
30
31 specifically for this paper, in some cases inspired by the research summarized in Table A1
32
33 (Appendix). From top to bottom, the list largely runs from mainly supply-related mechanisms to
34
35
36
mainly demand-related mechanisms, with the Enclosing mechanism adding the issue of value
37
38 appropriation. None of the mechanisms reflect ideas that cannot be found in existing literatures.
39
40 However, compiling them and discussing them jointly as enabling mechanisms can enhance the
41
42
value of these ideas.
43
44
45
46 4
We use the language of mechanisms in much the same way as do scholars who research the microfoundations of
47
48 strategic change and action (Davis & Marquis, 2005; Felin & Foss, 2005) as a way to describe underlying cause-
49
50 effect relationships (Gross, 2009). Mechanisms are not necessarily directly observable but can be identified through
51
52 their primary effects (Gross, 2009; Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010). By assuming that mechanisms are empirically
53
54 tractable, we take a more rigorous stance on mechanisms than does critical realism (Berglund & Korsgaard, 2017).
55
56
57
58 17
59
60
1
2
3 ============================
4
5
6 Insert Table 1 about here
7
8 ============================
9
10 The distinction between characteristics and mechanisms of external enablers is important
11
12
13
because it increases the potential for flexible and nuanced theorizing. It allows incorporating
14
15 dynamism and relationality rather than static determinism into explanation or analysis:
16
17 seemingly different types of changes to the objective business environment can provide
18
19
conceptually similar mechanisms. For example, compression mechanisms can be derived not
20
21
22 only from time-saving technologies with particular characteristics (e.g., 3D printers for rapid
23
24 prototyping) but also from regulatory reforms that cut “red tape” (e.g., quick approvals of
25
26 venture creation initiatives). Likewise, the same two types of enabler also have the potential to
27
28
29 provide enclosing mechanisms, enhancing the venture’s repeat sales, market share, and/or profit
30
31 margins (cf. Amit & Zott, 2001).
32
33 The combination mechanism combines and arranges multiple elements. Von Briel et al.
34
35
36
(2018) mention the example of how hardware start-ups can leverage smartphones, tablets, and
37
38 portable devices to extend their own market offerings’ functionality. Amit and Zott (2001) report
39
40 other technology-related examples such as chat rooms offered by online auction platforms (as
41
42
“complementarities”). A natural disaster enhancing local human (volunteer) resources as well as
43
44
45 inflow of external resources which combine to produce effects (Shepherd & Williams, 2014) can
46
47 be seen as a non-technological example of this mechanism. Uncertainty and legitimacy are core
48
49 concerns in new venture development (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Navis & Glynn, 2010), so
50
51
52 reducing the former and increasing the latter can be important mechanisms provided by external
53
54 enablers (cf. Hiatt et al., 2009; Sine & Lee, 2009).
55
56
57
58 18
59
60
1
2
3 Across the examples in Table 1, it is important to realize that all mechanisms,
4
5
6 independent of effect, share several general characteristics. First, enablers need not be socially
7
8 beneficial in general in order to provide mechanisms that are favorable to individual ventures
9
10 (Davidsson, 2015). Hiatt et al. (2009) illustrated this with the temperance movements’
11
12
13
unintended effect on increasing the number of producers of (sugary) soft-drinks. Likewise, social
14
15 networking platforms offer unparalleled connectivity and expand access to knowledge, social
16
17 and financial resources especially during initial stages of venture creation (Bruton et al., 2015),
18
19
but their information quality, privacy, and security are widely debated (Turban et al., 2011). In a
20
21
22 similar vein, economic downturns can shift demand patterns to benefit emerging ventures that
23
24 offer little treats (e.g., drugs, snacks, candy, and local pastimes) when consumers feel that
25
26 substantial treats like home improvements, a new car, and international travel are out of reach.
27
28
29 Second, the beneficial mechanisms an enabler can provide for specific purposes are in
30
31 some cases rather obvious whereas in other instances only individuals with specialized
32
33 knowledge and/or extraordinary imagination can foresee the benefits. We refer to this as the
34
35
36
opacity of the mechanism. Third, in some situations enabling mechanisms can enhance outcomes
37
38 without premeditated action, as when man-made calamities like 9/11 or the Fukushima nuclear
39
40 disaster boost demand for tough-environment robots5. Conversely, the potential of some enablers
41
42
for particular purposes may not only be hard to identify; it may also require considerable
43
44
45 ingenuity, tenacity and willingness to bear the risk to embark on a time- and resource-consuming
46
47 process of actualizing that potential. We refer to this as the agency-intensity of a mechanism,
48
49
50
51
52 5
This example was inspired by an address by robotics professor and entrepreneur Rodney Brooks, March 29, 2017,
53
54 which also illustrated technological, demographic and socio-economic enablement of robotics ventures.
55
56
57
58 19
59
60
1
2
3 adapting a term used by Ramoglou & Tsang (2016) as a dimension along which they argue that
4
5
6 “objective opportunities” vary (cf. Davidsson, 2017).
7
8 In our framework, opacity and agency-intensity are relational qualities of mechanisms. In
9
10 every situation, some agents would be better than others at identifying an enabler’s potential
11
12
13
mechanisms and/or require less time, effort and resources to make the enabling effect
14
15 materialize. But it is also the case that across enablers and their mechanisms some are more
16
17 difficult to conceive and/or realize than others even for the most apt agents. Hence, with respect
18
19
to specific use for specific ventures, some enabling mechanisms are more opaque and/or have
20
21
22 higher agency-intensity than others. Moreover, these dimensions may be orthogonal: obvious but
23
24 hard to realize and hard to see but easy to implement are both possible situations.6
25
26 Variance in opacity and agency-intensity is strategically important. Exploiting opaque
27
28
29 mechanisms with high agency-intensity may be associated with high risk but also high potential
30
31 reward due to absence or slowness of competitive response, whereas somewhat opaque
32
33 mechanisms of low agency-intensity can benefit unaware but lucky agents just as much as those
34
35
36
who cleverly foresaw the beneficial mechanisms.
37
38 In summary, mechanisms of external enablers specify the benefits derived from them.
39
40 The delineation of specific mechanisms in this context allows pursuing questions like “What
41
42
type of benefits can enabler X offer to different types of emerging ventures?” and “What
43
44
45
46
47
48 6
A similar logic is also evident when examining the action potentials that technological objects can afford –
49
50 enactment of an affordance requires realization of the action potential plus some rational, goal-directed decision to
51
52 actualize it (Strong et al. 2014). Opacity and agency-intensity refer to the same logics but are not bound to
53
54 mechanisms provided by technological or other material objects only.
55
56
57
58 20
59
60
1
2
3 enablers can offer mechanism Y, which venture Z needs?”. This makes the notion highly useful
4
5
6 for both researchers and practitioners.
7
8 Roles of External Enablers
9
10 Our portrayal of characteristics and mechanisms does not specify when in the process
11
12
13
external enablers influence particular ventures. Therefore, we introduce the notion of roles to
14
15 conceptualize external enablers’ higher-order functions at different stages of new venture
16
17 development. Derived from lower-order mechanisms, roles are also inherently relational and
18
19
encapsulate both the type and the scope of enablers. We discuss three prominent roles that are
20
21
22 particularly illustrative of the gestalts of influence: triggering, shaping, and outcome-enhancing.
23
24 The Triggering Role. One major function of external enablers is to entice prospective
25
26 entrepreneurs to initiate the creation of a new venture because they more or less correctly
27
28
29 anticipate some (but not necessarily all) of the mechanisms those enablers can provide. This
30
31 triggering role is probably the most thoroughly examined in prior research due to the Discovery
32
33 Theory stream’s emphasis on recognition and evaluation of pre-existing entrepreneurial
34
35
36
opportunities (e.g., Baron, 2006; Grégoire et al., 2010; Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012; McMullen &
37
38 Shepherd, 2006; Shane, 2000; Wood & Williams, 2014). This research has firmly established the
39
40 importance of agents’ prior knowledge but offers less in terms of non-obvious and generalizable
41
42
insights about how qualities of “opportunities” themselves influence triggering (Davidsson,
43
44
45 2015). Therefore, the triggering role is well worth revisiting through the lens of external enablers
46
47 and their mechanisms. Our theorizing suggests a focus on anticipation of partial enablement
48
49 associated with the identification of specific mechanisms rather than assessments of the profit
50
51
52 potential of complete, pre-existing “opportunities”.
53
54
55
56
57
58 21
59
60
1
2
3 The Outcome-Enhancing Role. One key premise of our framework is that, when
4
5
6 successfully activated, the mechanisms in Table 1 contribute to better outcomes than the
7
8 emerging venture would experience had it not benefitted from the mechanisms in question7.
9
10 However, successful activation of enabling mechanisms is sometimes fortuitous rather than
11
12
13
strategic. A sole focus on anticipated mechanisms leads to neglect of other effective mechanisms
14
15 that nonetheless contribute to a better outcome. Therefore, the distinction between the triggering
16
17 role and the outcome-enhancing role allows scholars to develop answers to some of the
18
19
theoretically and practically most important questions in entrepreneurship: “What ‘opportunities’
20
21
22 tend to go undetected?” and “When and to what extent can entrepreneurs identify the reasons for
23
24 their own success?”
25
26 The distinction we offer helps in separating necessary from sufficient conditions and in
27
28
29 accounting for success and failure and any dynamic shifts between them. For example, analyzing
30
31 the dialectics between existence and activation of external enablers—as in the enablement of
32
33 prospecting to identify market needs and the later enablement of development and production of
34
35
36
offerings that fulfill these needs—may provide a new lens to theorize about the “valley of death”
37
38 phenomenon that surrounds this transition in many sectors (Barr et al., 2009).
39
40 Table A1 (Appendix) demonstrates that prior research rarely distinguishes between
41
42
triggering and outcome-enhancing roles. Yet doing so would draw attention to the possibility of
43
44
45
46 7
We speak generally of ‘outcomes’ because, under the view that entrepreneurship is about new venture creation, the
47
48 most relevant outcome is whether or not the process leads to a viable new venture, not its financial performance
49
50 beyond that point. However, we refrain from specifying a narrowly defined outcome variable as the only right
51
52 alternative and encourage viewing outcome as a continuous or even aggregate variable when applying our
53
54 framework.
55
56
57
58 22
59
60
1
2
3 systematic overweighting and underweighting of enabling mechanisms in triggering (and
4
5
6 shaping, see below) relative to their effects on outcomes. The progress psychology has made on
7
8 cognitive biases (Kahneman, 2011) suggests that such a bias is highly likely in entrepreneurial
9
10 decision-making. Our framework allows for domain-specific theorizing about this possibility,
11
12
13
rather than just application within the domain.
14
15 The Shaping Role. Between initial triggering and eventual venture creation outcomes,
16
17 creative agents can use available external enablers to their emerging ventures’ benefit in any
18
19
number of ways at different points during the venture creation journey (McMullen & Dimov,
20
21
22 2013). We conceptualize this influence as the shaping role, which has three different
23
24 manifestations. Although these three facets of shaping often appear together in empirical cases, it
25
26 facilitates theoretical precision to separate them conceptually.
27
28
29 First, enablers can help shape the emerging venture’s product or main market offering, as
30
31 when new technology allows adding entirely new functionality (von Briel et al, 2018), a social
32
33 movement inadvertently stimulates start-ups around an alternative product category by reducing
34
35
36
the social legitimacy of an existing one (Hiatt et al, 2009), or a natural disaster defines the very
37
38 purpose of the venture and its services (Shepherd & Williams, 2014). Second, enablers can help
39
40 shape the venture itself, as when technologies, regulations or the evolving start-up culture and its
41
42
institutions (a type of social movement) influence how the venture is resourced, how boundaries
43
44
45 are set, where agency is located, and how exchange is organized (e.g., Amit & Zott, 2001).
46
47 Third, external enablers can shape the venture creation process without leaving visible traces on
48
49 the venture or the market offering that eventuates. For example, technologies and regulatory
50
51
52 changes can make the creation process faster and cheaper (von Briel et al., 2018). Seemingly
53
54 negative shocks like natural disasters, war, terrorism, and political upheaval can delay the
55
56
57
58 23
59
60
1
2
3 venture, occasionally leading to pure cases of process-only enablement by fortuitously improving
4
5
6 the timing of the introduction of a product.
7
8 The conceptualization of a shaping role by external enablers is an important step forward
9
10 in entrepreneurship research. By portraying salient external conditions as complete, pre-existing
11
12
13
packages (opportunities) that are either discovered or not at the outset of the process, Discovery
14
15 Theory almost completely neglects the shaping role (cf. Dimov, 2007; Korsgaard, 2013). Our
16
17 framework highlights that all relevant enablers do not necessarily exist at the outset of the
18
19
process and that, if they do, the agent may not realize their potential and make strategic use of
20
21
22 them until later in the process (e.g., when opacity or agency-intensity decreases for some reason).
23
24 This also extends interest on the agent side from prior knowledge to process-specific learning
25
26 and potential knowledge contributions by several individuals (Dimov, 2007).
27
28
29 The more agentic-dynamic alternatives (e.g., Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Ardichvili et al.,
30
31 2003; Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010; Dimov, 2007; Sarasvathy, 2001; Wood & McKinley, 2010)
32
33 pay attention to dynamism but with only scant attention to the influence of external factors. By
34
35
36
emphasizing the shaping role, our framework allows such approaches to expand the analysis of
37
38 how entrepreneurs creatively identify and realize possible mechanisms of external enablers in a
39
40 variety of ways throughout the venture creation process, thereby counteracting a main criticism
41
42
against this line of research (Ramoglou & Zyglidopoulos, 2015).
43
44
45 In sum, paying attention to roles of external enablers emphasizes the process nature of
46
47 new venture creation as well as the imperfect relationship between strategic action (as revealed
48
49 in triggering and shaping) on the one hand, and outcomes on the other. It thereby offers a less
50
51
52 overstatedly heroic view of the actor than either of the currently dominating alternatives. At the
53
54 same time, it opens up for more detailed theorizing about the interplay between agency and
55
56
57
58 24
59
60
1
2
3 external circumstances than the coarse-grained notions of “discovery” and “exploitation” of
4
5
6 (already complete) “opportunities”.
7
8
9
10 DISCUSSION
11
12
13
Existing frameworks do not easily accommodate a focus on external elements’ influence
14
15 on venture creation. Lacking the appropriate conceptualizations for such a mission, research has
16
17 left considerable gaps in our theoretical understanding of important phenomena as well as in the
18
19
theoretical toolbox that is available for use in the conception and design of empirical research
20
21
22 projects.
23
24 In this paper we develop a framework to help fill this gap by fully developing the
25
26 perspective offered by the external enabler construct introduced by Davidsson (2015). Starting
27
28
29 with the characteristics of external enablers, we develop conceptualizations that highlight that
30
31 different types of enablers can have similar scope and onset, whereas enablers of the same type
32
33 can differ markedly in these respects. Variance along these dimensions and their sub-dimensions
34
35
36
has implications for entrepreneurs’ prospects for strategically using enablers in advantageous
37
38 ways and for their ventures’ market potential. These strategic implications make those concepts
39
40 and dimensions useful for both theoretical and practical purposes. To the best of our knowledge,
41
42
this perspective is entirely novel. We have not found any similar attempts at identifying and
43
44
45 describing strategically salient dimensions of variance in enablement-potential for new venture
46
47 creation across different types of changes to the economic environment.
48
49 Analysis of the possible effects of external enablers led us to delineate a set of
50
51
52 mechanisms by which these enablers can facilitate venture creation. Successful activation of
53
54 mechanisms—whether strategic or fortuitous—will affect venture outcomes, making the
55
56
57
58 25
59
60
1
2
3 conceptualizations both theoretically and practically valuable. This part of our framework
4
5
6 consists mainly of a compilation and framing of existing ideas for the purpose of facilitating
7
8 more productive approaches to theorizing the impact of external factors in new venture
9
10 development. Analysis on the mechanism level can arguably yield much deeper and precise
11
12
13
insights than a discussion on the coarse-grained level of types of enablers. Our mechanism-based
14
15 approach offers theoretical flexibility, as different types of enablers can provide similar
16
17 mechanisms while enablers of the same type can offer different mechanisms. It is also possible
18
19
that the same enabler can offer several mechanisms to a given venture or different mechanisms
20
21
22 to different ventures (as is demonstrated, for examples, in the idea of “innovation wakes” that
23
24 were enabled through the emergence of 3D printing technology, Boland et al. 2007),
25
26 emphasizing the theoretical importance of looking beyond the mere presence of particular
27
28
29 enablers or indeed beyond the single venture. Further, we discussed how the opacity and agency-
30
31 intensity of particular mechanisms for particular ventures influence the strategic action potential
32
33 associated with their use.
34
35
36
In terms of roles, external enablers can affect the triggering (initiation) and the outcomes
37
38 of venture creation attempts differently. This distinction is not new to social theory (e.g.,
39
40 Hammond & Stewart, 2001) but important and previously overlooked in the Discovery Theory
41
42
stream. We believe this distinction holds considerable promise of unveiling non-obvious but
43
44
45 teach- and learnable insights. Therefore, the distinction between triggering and outcome-
46
47 enhancement should have high priority in future research agendas. Between triggering and
48
49 outcomes, our framework also draws attention to external enablers’ shaping of a venture’s
50
51
52 market offerings, the structure and operations of the venture itself, and the process of its creation.
53
54 Situating the effects of mechanisms over time through attention to the shaping dimension can
55
56
57
58 26
59
60
1
2
3 add dynamism and agency-dependency that has been lacking in research on the influence of
4
5
6 external circumstances. To the best of our knowledge, our delineation of shaping roles is also a
7
8 new perspective.
9
10 In discussing the perspectives on new venture creation proffered by our external enabler
11
12
13
framework, it is helpful to describe some key boundary conditions of our theorizing – why focus
14
15 solely on the enabling side of external change, what is not an external enabler, and what are the
16
17 relationships between several external enablers?
18
19
The notion of external enablers, at face value, may suggest that objective, external
20
21
22 factors—sometimes the same factors in relation to other ventures (see Hiatt et al. 2009)—may
23
24 also work as “disablers”. Yet, our conceptualization of external enablers is not tied to a
25
26 qualification into “positive” or “negative” changes. It merely states that any disequilibrating
27
28
29 change can enable some entrepreneurial initiatives. Moreover, while “negative” and “positive”
30
31 changes can be regarded as symmetrical for incumbent firms and their current products and
32
33 markets, not-yet-existing ventures are not committed to particular products and markets, making
34
35
36
disablers irrelevant rather than negative in relation to the course of action they choose. This
37
38 justifies an unbalanced focus on enablement. In effect, the notion of external enablers negates the
39
40 possibility of disablement as a general characteristic of an external change. It is both a realistic
41
42
and pragmatic perspective that any change may elicit entrepreneurial action while nothing (short
43
44
45 of a large enough asteroid hitting the Earth) renders entrepreneurial action impossible by
46
47 definition. Whether the proportion of the universe of not-yet-existing ventures that could benefit
48
49 from a particular external change is 1% or 99%, this is the part of the population to which our
50
51
52 framework applies. A different framework would be needed for analyzing external obstacles to
53
54 the same set of (emerging; potential) ventures.
55
56
57
58 27
59
60
1
2
3 Regarding what is and is not an external enabler we limit our use to instances of external
4
5
6 change, because this is where the assumption of enablement for some entrepreneurial purpose is
7
8 easily defended. This also delimits a theoretically and practically more useful domain for the
9
10 enabler construct. Having identified a significant external change, theorists or practitioners
11
12
13
equipped with our notions of characteristics, mechanisms, and roles have something useful to
14
15 look for. Staring into a grey wall of non-change they might not, as there is no contrast. However,
16
17 issues of magnitude and time admittedly raise definitional issues. In reality no dimension of the
18
19
environment is ever entirely stable, so how much change is needed in order to qualify? Further,
20
21
22 how long time can elapse after the change has occurred before it is no longer change but
23
24 stability? There can be no unambiguous cut-offs. However, this element of fuzzy boundaries is
25
26 something the enabler construct shares with many other highly useful constructs. For example,
27
28
29 careful analysis would show that it may be difficult to exclude today’s edition of a newspaper as
30
31 an instance of “innovation” based on a literal reading of many attempts at formal definitions of
32
33 that construct. We would argue that the fuzzy boundaries of what is an “entrepreneurial enabler”
34
35
36
have limited implications for the construct’s usefulness for research and business practice. This
37
38 conceptual imperfection is not even remotely close to matching the conceptual problems
39
40 pertaining to “entrepreneurial opportunity” (Davidsson, 2015).
41
42
Further, because we focus on partial enablement—potential for better outcomes than in
43
44
45 the absence of the enabler—the distinction between enablers and “non-enablers” is less critical
46
47 than the corresponding distinction for “objective opportunities” which relies on ex ante presence
48
49 or absence of potential for profit (Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). Enablement is a matter of degree;
50
51
52 our framework takes an interest in change with impact of varying magnitude; that it theoretically
53
54 allows for external changes of extremely limited scope is hardly a problem because neither
55
56
57
58 28
59
60
1
2
3 researchers nor practitioners are likely to spend much energy on these instances. It should be
4
5
6 noted, however, that reserving the label “external enabler” for instances of change does not
7
8 eliminate the possibility that seemingly stable conditions also harbor unused potential for venture
9
10 creation enablement, or that entrepreneurial agents may find them. But we do not have
11
12
13
theoretical justification to label such instances “external enablers.” External enablers earn their
14
15 status as such ex ante by constituting indisputable instances of external change and by the
16
17 theoretical assumption that such changes always have the potential of benefitting some ventures
18
19
to some degree, not ex post based on evidence of actual influence on particular cases.
20
21
22 Another point of discussion relates to the relationships of enablers to each other. For
23
24 clarity of exposition, we have discussed characteristics, mechanism, and roles—and various
25
26 attributes of these—largely one by one. In reality, there are many potential relationships within
27
28
29 and across these conceptual categories. Although a comprehensive treatment of this is beyond
30
31 the scope of this paper, a few remarks and observations may serve as inspiration and guidance
32
33 for future refinement and elaboration. First, a given enabler can offer several mechanisms and
34
35
36
play multiple roles with respect to a single venture. It can also provide different mechanisms and
37
38 roles across different ventures. However, we hold that there are objective limits to the versatility;
39
40 not all enablers can provide a given mechanism, and (the agent of) a given venture cannot make
41
42
any enabler play a particular, desired role.
43
44
45 Second, although we maintain that theorizing across types of enablers is valuable, Figure
46
47 2 suggests that an external enabler’s scope is often linked to its type. For example, technology
48
49 enablers often have broad scope along both sectoral and spatial dimensions, whereas regulatory
50
51
52 changes typically remain relatively restricted spatially and often sectorally as well. Such type-
53
54 characteristic relationships may deserve attention in future work.
55
56
57
58 29
59
60
1
2
3 Third, one enabler can cause another to occur, as when social movements trigger changed
4
5
6 legislation (Hiatt et al., 2009; Sine & David, 2009). Alternatively, different enablers may have to
7
8 interact in order to produce effects. Von Briel et al. (2018) suggest this was the case with a
9
10 number of digital technologies co-eliciting a surge in IT hardware start-ups. Across types,
11
12
13
regulatory change may be triggered by the appearance of new technology, and the two changes
14
15 in combination can provide enablement to a much greater extent than either one of them could do
16
17 without the other. Engaging the whole framework at once, we might imagine the broad scope of
18
19
a demographic shift enticing an entrepreneurial agent (triggering role) to search for technological
20
21
22 enablers that can play product- and process-shaping roles through compression, conservation,
23
24 and generation mechanisms (saving time and money in development of products that offer new
25
26 functionality; i.e., product- and process-shaping roles) applied to a range of products targeted at
27
28
29 senior citizens and their particular needs—and eventually be awarded with a better outcome than
30
31 what would have been possible without these enablers (outcome-enhancing role). Again, these
32
33 are merely a few examples to serve as guidance and inspirations for future research.
34
35
36
37
38 IMPLICATIONS
39
40 Our work was motivated by the desire to develop a comprehensive, alternative
41
42
perspective to opportunity-focused discovery and creation views of entrepreneurship that lends
43
44
45 itself more readily to further theory development and empirical research. We believe our
46
47 framework of external enablers, their characteristics, mechanisms and roles achieves this purpose
48
49 and in so doing mitigates some of the well-documented criticisms associated with the existing
50
51
52 perspectives. We discuss these in turn.
53
54
55
56
57
58 30
59
60
1
2
3 Generating knowledge about how external, actor-independent factors enable
4
5
6 venture creation. The originators’ descriptions of Discovery Theory (Eckhardt & Shane, 2010;
7
8 2013; Shane, 2003; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) assume or strongly imply a range of
9
10 problematic notions, such as: (1) all conditions that are important to the venture’s success
11
12
13
chances exist at the outset of the process rather than emerging during it; (2) entrepreneurs’
14
15 success is due to correct identification of these conditions at the outset (rather than to later
16
17 insights or the luck of benefitting from unperceived factors); and (3) the difference between an
18
19
infinitesimal profit and an infinitesimal loss is somehow more important and interesting than
20
21
22 outcome differences along other dimensions and at other points of the outcome spectrum (cf.
23
24 Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). The notion of pre-existing, objective opportunities has been found to
25
26 be conceptually debatable and empirically elusive, leading to limited theoretical development
27
28
29 and an empirical stream developing knowledge about what underlies conjectures about
30
31 opportunities rather than about characteristics of opportunities as defined within the theory, that
32
33 is, conditions that facilitate a profitable outcome (Eckhardt & Shane, 2013).
34
35
36
For researchers with a strong belief in the importance of external, actor-independent
37
38 factors our framework demonstrates the advantages of disconnecting that interest from the notion
39
40 of “objective entrepreneurial opportunity”. Doing so circumvents problematic assumptions and
41
42
converts the diffuse notion of favorability of opportunities into more concrete and workable
43
44
45 characteristics and mechanisms of external enablers, situated in the venture creation process by
46
47 the roles they take or are assigned. This, we argue, provides theorists with more workable
48
49 assumptions and empirically fertile concepts than previously offered. The only assumptions
50
51
52 made are that disequilibrating external changes have the potential of facilitating some new
53
54 ventures and that when particular ventures benefit from one or more enabling mechanisms, this
55
56
57
58 31
59
60
1
2
3 improves their outcomes and therefore probabilistically increases their chances of success. These
4
5
6 assumptions are weak and comparatively unproblematic.
7
8 Our framework also demonstrates that a theoretical interest in external factors is fully
9
10 compatible with a dynamic, relational and evolutional view of how new ventures come into
11
12
13
being. In our framework, the presence of one or more external enablers does not guarantee that a
14
15 particular venture will enjoy any enabling mechanisms from them, and if enabling mechanisms
16
17 are present, there is no guarantee that they will suffice to bring the venture creation process all
18
19
the way to a successful conclusion. This perspective suggests a reasonable role for objective,
20
21
22 environmental conditions and forces a deep analysis of how they contribute to venture
23
24 development.
25
26 Attuning to dynamism, process and change. The Discovery Theory research paradigm
27
28
29 has become almost entirely focused on the earliest stage of venture creation, that is, the
30
31 recognition, identification, discovery and/or evaluation of researcher-generated descriptions of
32
33 potential opportunities in laboratory/experimental settings (e.g., Grégoire, Barr, & Shepherd,
34
35
36
2010; Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012; Wood & Williams, 2014). Although this research stream has
37
38 been successful, it blinds the analysis to the possibility of significant external conditions that
39
40 emerge and/or are identified and brought to use only at a later stage of the venture development
41
42
process. By assuming that entrepreneurial agents correctly perceive the external reasons for their
43
44
45 eventual success ex ante, the theory disregards the possibility of unanticipated and fortuitous
46
47 influences on outcomes, i.e., luck (cf. Denrell et al., 2014).
48
49 Our framework triggers no need to sample or create (in laboratory research) entities that
50
51
52 satisfy a definition of “opportunity”. Research using the framework can start from identification
53
54 of one or more enablers and use these as study context and/or for sampling/case selection, but
55
56
57
58 32
59
60
1
2
3 this is not the only conceivable approach (Davidsson, 2015). Using any set of emerging ventures,
4
5
6 studies can inquire into the presence and intensity of mechanisms of external enablers (with or
7
8 without tracing what the specific enablers were) at various stages of venture development, either
9
10 in retrospective or (preferably) prospective designs. In experimental conditions, researchers
11
12
13
could probe whether enabling artefacts inserted at particular stages of venture creation indeed
14
15 provide particular mechanisms we expect from them. For example, consider new venture teams
16
17 that are given “free access” to crowdfunding platforms whilst they develop a financing plan.
18
19
Researchers could study whether they pivot from their originally planned financing strategy to
20
21
22 understand whether crowdfunding platforms providing expansion mechanisms indeed take on a
23
24 (venture) shaping role. Along similar lines, the research can probe into triggering and additional
25
26 shaping roles of external enablers at different points of the process. These data can then be
27
28
29 related to over-arching outcomes at a later point in time, and results compared to theoretical
30
31 predictions.
32
33 On the agent’s side, a shift from objective, pre-existing opportunities to partial
34
35
36
enablement at various points of the venture creation journey encourages a corresponding
37
38 broadening from the productive but narrow interest in a single individual’s prior knowledge (see,
39
40 e.g., Grégoire et al., 2010; Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012; Wood & Williams, 2014) to encompass
41
42
consideration of process-specific learning and knowledge contributions from multiple
43
44
45 stakeholders at multiple points in time (cf. Dimov, 2007). One such example would be the
46
47 identification of when and how entrepreneurial agents realize the action potential of somewhat
48
49 opaque enabling mechanisms, and when and how a ‘tipping point’ in agency-intensity for
50
51
52 mechanism activation might be reached or surpassed. Both are ultimately empirical questions.
53
54
55
56
57
58 33
59
60
1
2
3 As a counterpoint to exaggerated subjectivism and possibilism, discovery theorists have
4
5
6 been justified in their insistence on the importance of objective, external factors (Eckhardt &
7
8 Shane, 2013; Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016; Shane, 2012). For subscribers to more dynamic and
9
10 agentic theories like Effectuation Theory and varieties of Creation Theory (e.g., Alvarez et al.,
11
12
13
2013; Sarasvathy, 2001; Wood & McKinley, 2010), our framework avoids the conclusion that
14
15 absence of ready-to-use opportunities means that search has little meaning (Alvarez & Barney,
16
17 2007). Our framework provides tools for incorporating systematic attention to external factors
18
19
without sacrificing emphases on dynamism and agency.
20
21
22 In fact, our framework marries these ideas by highlighting the theoretically
23
24 underdeveloped topic of external enablement while recognizing that—apart from the special case
25
26 of fortuitously benefitting from unobserved enabling mechanisms—the agent’s perception and
27
28
29 action is still needed for any enabling potential to be realized. For the most part, mechanism are
30
31 not activated or assigned to roles without an agent’s creativity and deliberate action. Our
32
33 framework thus provides Creation Theory-inspired research with material for analyzing how
34
35
36
entrepreneurs—perhaps “expert entrepreneurs” in particular—identify enablers and their
37
38 mechanisms and use them throughout the venture creation process. Although our framework is
39
40 not construed specifically as “process theory” in a narrow sense (Langley et al., 2013; McMullen
41
42
& Dimov, 2013), its elements are action-centric rather than agent-centric and should be useful
43
44
45 also for process-theorizing purposes (Pentland et al. 2017).
46
47 Providing a generalizable language capable of theoretical integration. Our
48
49 framework is intended as an invitation to theorize across different types of environmental
50
51
52 change, and to link changes at this level to the development of individual ventures. Looking
53
54 beyond Discovery and Creation literatures, there are existing conceptualizations with some
55
56
57
58 34
59
60
1
2
3 capacity for such a purpose, notably the notions environmental jolt (Bradley, 2015) and
4
5
6 institution[al change] (Meyer, 2008). Although research around these notions mostly focuses on
7
8 external changes as threats to inert incumbents, there are some interesting applications to new
9
10 venture creation research (see Table A1, Appendix).
11
12
13
We argue that for venture creation research, our framework has several advantages over
14
15 these notions. First, research in these streams tends to be geared toward aggregate-level analyses
16
17 (see Table A1) rather than developing knowledge applicable to the level of individual ventures.
18
19
Our notions of mechanisms and roles address the venture level. Our framework thus offers
20
21
22 avenues to link aggregate-level, disequilibrating changes to venture-level activity and back to the
23
24 aggregate-level outcomes of the change (cf. Coleman, 1990; Kim et al., 2016). Institutional
25
26 Theory has some capacity for the same (cf. Hiatt & Sine, 2009; Weber et al., 2008) but there is a
27
28
29 strong tendency for the interpretations to end up in arguments about legitimacy, and like Aldrich
30
31 (2010: 330) we question whether a theory “originally used to explain the constraining influence
32
33 of institutional structures on human behavior” can provide all the right tools for micro-level
34
35
36
insights into new venture creation.
37
38 Second, such research typically focuses on single instances of a particular type of change,
39
40 leading to limited theoretical abstraction and generalizability8. Our framework invites research
41
42
comparing multiple changes of various types. Such studies could probe further into variance in
43
44
45 scope and onset as well as whether the particular mechanisms and roles provided are closely
46
47 related to the type of enabler or apply more generally. We also encourage such designs to include
48
49 enablers other than those that can comfortably be characterized as “jolts” or “institutional”. This
50
51
52 8
An illustrative example is Eberhart et al. (2017) whose hypotheses have the form “A lenient bankruptcy reform
53
54 will lead to X.”
55
56
57
58 35
59
60
1
2
3 creates a less constrained theoretical domain and an impetus for finding broader generalities. We
4
5
6 therefore believe our framework can help join these somewhat scattered literatures and provide
7
8 researchers who are interested in instances of environmental change with improved structure and
9
10 language for theorizing across such instances. To demonstrate this potential, we have in Table
11
12
13
A1 re-conceptualized a variety of exemplary studies with a focus on the role of external change
14
15 using the language of our framework, demonstrating its potential for theoretical integration and
16
17 generalization.
18
19
Beyond entrepreneurship, strategy research streams on strategic issues and environmental
20
21
22 scanning took some early steps toward theorizing across categories of external change (e.g.,
23
24 Dutton et al., 1989; Hambrick, 1982; Jackson & Dutton, 1988). These streams currently seem to
25
26 be dormant or drifting toward an interest in the agent rather than the external changes themselves
27
28
29 (e.g., Miller & Lin, 2015). However, external changes are obviously as relevant to established
30
31 firms as they are to entrepreneurship, and exaggerated agent-focus may be as delimiting for
32
33 practically useful, theoretical progress. Therefore, we believe our framework can stimulate
34
35
36
renewed interest in external change also in strategy research, and provide conceptual tools that
37
38 are useful for theorizing about growth- and renewal-oriented strategies of established businesses.
39
40 Inviting a more diverse spectrum of empirical methods. One of the consequences of
41
42
the traditional, agent-focused perspectives on new venture creation has been an adherence to
43
44
45 methods and measures associated with social units of analysis – individuals, groups, and firms.
46
47 Our framework shifts the attention away from the actor by acknowledging that external
48
49 conditions can be as important as the agent, thereby giving more prominence to modes of inquiry
50
51
52 situated within the context of entrepreneurial action rather than focused on the attributes of the
53
54 agent as an actor. The notion of external enablement as a relational concept emphasizes patterns
55
56
57
58 36
59
60
1
2
3 of action within venture creation: the role of external enablers can only be identified by
4
5
6 examining the mechanisms they exert at the various stages of venture creation. These actions are
7
8 bounded by the specifics of the context in which they occur (e.g., when, where, and who)
9
10 (Pentland et al, 2017). Thus, empirical methods with an emphasis on contextuality, action and
11
12
13
emergence – such as case research, ethnography or even action research – can receive more
14
15 prominence than to date (Suddaby & Bruton, 2015).
16
17 Moreover, the construal of our framework is empirically inclusive rather than restrictive.
18
19
Apart from inductive field research, it continues to support deductive, theory-testing methods. It
20
21
22 offers testable predictions about certain mechanisms and roles of particular types of external
23
24 enablers that lend themselves to operationalization and testing in experimental or survey-based
25
26 research. Importantly, such research does not need to start from researcher-identified external
27
28
29 enablers (as Davidsson, 2015, implies) but can proceed directly to stipulating (in experiments) or
30
31 asking about (in surveys) the presence of specific enabling mechanisms provided by some
32
33 external enabler. Attention to the shaping role invites such research to create multi-period
34
35
36
experiments and to design approaches to probing into how agents identify enabling potential in
37
38 external changes as well as for what purpose and when in the process they apply them. Large
39
40 data sets derived from government business statistics and the like are unlikely to provide direct
41
42
information on mechanisms and agency but can be used for testing, for example, how enablers
43
44
45 with varying scope and onset differentially affect start-up rates across sectors and regions. In
46
47 turn, our framework accommodates both the traditional modus operandi on theory-testing in
48
49 entrepreneurship studies and also invites design stimulating further theory development. As we
50
51
52 noted throughout, neither our description of characteristics nor mechanisms nor roles is likely
53
54
55
56
57
58 37
59
60
1
2
3 complete, which invites in particular qualitative and longitudinal designs to probe, extend, refine
4
5
6 and evaluate the ideas presented in this paper.
7
8 Stimulating design and intervention
9
10 Lastly, our framework, while theoretical in nature, also proffers interesting practical
11
12
13
implications. The notion of external enablers joins several types of external change and gears the
14
15 focus of attention to their potential for venture creation, rather than their nature or type. Our set
16
17 of mechanisms along with their opacity and agency-intensity, as well as the specification of
18
19
roles, provide language that can guide identification and realization of the benefits a particular
20
21
22 enabler can offer for particular types of venture, for what purpose, at what stage of development,
23
24 and with what amount of effort, resource investment, and risk-taking. Starting from a particular
25
26 emerging venture, specification of desirable mechanisms can assist the search and identification
27
28
29 of the enablers that might provide them.
30
31 These features have interesting design implications, suggesting that our framework can
32
33 also be useful for the emerging interest in design-oriented entrepreneurship research (Sarasvathy
34
35
36
et al., 2008; van Burg & Romme, 2014), an approach whose practical allure has been
37
38 demonstrated by the widespread adoption of Osterwalder and Pigneur’s (2010) “business model
39
40 canvas.” For policy designers, the framework provides analytical tools to use in assessing the
41
42
likely consequences of societal changes on new venturing activity. More importantly, the
43
44
45 characteristics, mechanisms, and roles we discuss can be used to stimulate and evaluate the
46
47 design of regulatory changes that target sectors, regions, or stages of development. In education,
48
49 the framework can be used to identify enablers, assess their potential for entrepreneurial activity,
50
51
52 and discuss the actions needed to unleash that potential.
53
54
55
56
57
58 38
59
60
1
2
3 CONCLUSION
4
5
6 In this paper, we fleshed out the perspective of external enablers into a well-developed
7
8 framework to offer a new vantage point for research into venture creation as an alternative to
9
10 established theories. Our framework is neither complete nor free of shortcomings. However,
11
12
13
because our framework connects previously disconnected elements into a holistic picture of
14
15 external enablers, it can stimulate further theorizing. For example, while our list of mechanisms
16
17 provides theorists with a first step in deepening the analysis of functional communalities across
18
19
various types of external enablers and the functions of any particular enabler, our selection of
20
21
22 specific mechanisms is tentative rather than definitive. In order to reach deeper in theorizing, we
23
24 also need additional insights into how enablers relate to one another and to agents in deriving
25
26 enabling mechanisms, and how enabling mechanisms combine in contributing to venture
27
28
29 creation success. Grégoire and Shepherd’s (2012) theorizing about the distinction between
30
31 structural and superficial alignment of elements of supply and demand is an example of a
32
33 promising type of theoretical development. We leave the elaboration of such possibilities to
34
35
36
future work, hoping it will gradually converge on a set of abstracted and powerful concepts with
37
38 well-known properties and interrelationships.
39
40 Limitations aside, to the best of our knowledge, no unified framework about external
41
42
enablers adapted to the purpose of venture-level theorizing has existed until now. We hope that
43
44
45 colleagues will find this new foundation useful in their venture creation research, based on its
46
47 conceptual advantages.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 39
59
60
1
2
3 REFERENCES
4
5
6 Aldrich, H. E. (2010). Beam me up, Scott(ie)! Institutional theorists’ struggles with the emergent
7
8 nature of entrepreneurship. In W. D. Sine & J. D. Robert (Eds.) Institutions and
9
10 entrepreneurship (pp. 329-364). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
11
12
13
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of
14
15 entrepreneurial creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 11-26.
16
17 Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2013). Epistemology, opportunities, and entrepreneurship:
18
19
Comments on Venkataraman et al. (2012) and Shane (2012). Academy of Management
20
21
22 Review, 38(1), 154-157.
23
24 Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: The
25
26 implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational
27
28
29 research. Organization Science, 24(1), 301-317.
30
31 Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value drivers in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-
32
33 7), 493-520.
34
35
36
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
37
38 identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
39
40 Arend, R. J. (2014). Promises, premises... An alternative view on the effects of the Shane and
41
42
Venkataraman 2000 AMR Note. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(1), 38-50.
43
44
45 Austin, R. D., Wareham, J., & Busquets, J. (2008). Specialisterne: Sense and details. Harvard
46
47 Business Case 9-608-1109.
48
49 Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction
50
51
52 through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
53
54
55
56
57
58 40
59
60
1
2
3 Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs
4
5
6 "connect the dots" to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management
7
8 Perspectives, 20(1), 104-119.
9
10 Barr, S., Baker, T., Markham, S., & Kingon, A. (2009). Bridging the valley of death: Lessons
11
12
13
learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education. Academy of
14
15 Management Learning and Education, 8(3), 370–388.
16
17 Berglund, H., & Korsgaard, S. (2017). Opportunities, time, and mechanisms in entrepreneurship:
18
19
On the practical irrelevance of propensities. Academy of Management Review,
20
21
22 doi:10.5465/amr.2016.0168.
23
24 Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What
25
26 do we know and what do we still need to know? Academy of Management Perspectives,
27
28
29 30(3), 292-315.
30
31 Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The
32
33 Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction,
34
35
36
Organization Science, 18(4), 631-647.
37
38 Bradley, S. W. (2015). Environmental jolts. In D. Kuratko & M. Morris (Eds.) The Wiley
39
40 encyclopedia of management (3rd Ed), Volume III: Entrepreneurship (pp. 135-138).
41
42
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
43
44
45 Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding
46
47 entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations,
48
49 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 9-26.
50
51
52 Bunge, M. A. (1993). Realism and antirealism in social science. Theory and Decision (35)3,
53
54 207-235.
55
56
57
58 41
59
60
1
2
3 Castricano, J., & Simonsen, R. R. (Eds.) (2016). Critical perspectives on veganism. London,
4
5
6 UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
7
8 Coleman, J. S., (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
9
10 Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. (2010). Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: inductive
11
12
13
reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management
14
15 Review, 35(4), 539-557.
16
17 Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-
18
19
conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.
20
21
22 Davidsson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial opportunities as propensities: Do Ramoglou & Tsang
23
24 move the field forward? Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 82-85.
25
26 Davidsson, P., Hunter, E., & Klofsten, M. (2006). Institutional forces: The invisible hand that
27
28
29 shapes venture ideas? International Small Business Journal, 24(2), 115-131.
30
31 Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current
32
33 practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4), 81-
34
35
36
99.
37
38 Davis, G., & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first
39
40 century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4), 332–343.
41
42
Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Liu, C. (2014). Chance explanations in the management sciences.
43
44
45 Organization Science, 26(3), 923-940.
46
47 Dimov, D. (2007). Beyond the single‐person, single‐insight attribution in understanding
48
49 entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 713-731.
50
51
52 Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities.
53
55
56
57
58 42
59
60
1
2
3 Dutton, J. E., Walton, E. J., & Abrahamson, E. (1989). Important dimensions of strategic issues:
4
5
6 Separating the wheat from the chaff. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 379-396.
7
8 Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of
9
10 Management, 29(3), 333-349.
11
12
13
Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2010). An update to the individual-opportunity nexus. In Z. Acs
14
15 & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 47-76). New
16
17 York, NY: Springer.
18
19
Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2013). Response to the commentaries: The individual-
20
21
22 opportunity (IO) nexus integrates objective and subjective aspects of entrepreneurship.
23
24 Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 160-163.
25
26 Eberhart, R. N., Eesley, C. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017). Failure is an option: Institutional
27
28
29 change, entrepreneurial risk, and new firm growth. Organization Science, 28(1), 93-112.
30
31 Ekbia, H.R. (2009). Digital artifacts as quasi-objects: Qualification, mediation, and materiality.
32
33 Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12),
34
35
36
2554-2566.
37
38 Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2009). On the identity of technological objects and user innovations in
39
40 function. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 442-462.
41
42
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations.
43
44
45 Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441-455
46
47 Furr, N. R., Cavarretta, F., & Garg, S. (2012). Who changes course? The role of domain
48
49 knowledge and novel framing in making technology changes. Strategic
50
51
52 Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 236-256.
53
54
55
56
57
58 43
59
60
1
2
3 Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science,
4
5
6 Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
7
8 Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Cognitive processes of opportunity
9
10 recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21(2), 413-431.
11
12
13
Grégoire, D. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2012). Technology-market combinations and the
14
15 identification of entrepreneurial opportunities: An investigation of the opportunity-
16
17 individual nexus. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 753-785.
18
19
Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review,
20
21
22 74(3), 358–379.
23
24 Hambrick, D. C. (1982). Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strategic
25
26 Management Journal, 3(2), 159-174.
27
28
29 Hammond, K. R., & Stewart, T. R. (Eds.) (2001). The essential Brunswik: Beginnings,
30
31 explications, applications. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32
33 Hedström, P., & Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review
34
35
36
of Sociology, 36(1), 49–67.
37
38 Hiatt, S. R., Sine, W. D., & Tolbert, P. S. (2009). From Pabst to Pepsi: The deinstitutionalization
39
40 of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Administrative
41
42
Science Quarterly, 54(4), 635-667.
43
44
45 Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative
46
47 Science Quarterly, 33(3), 370-387.
48
49 Jennings, D. F., & Seaman, S. L. (1990). Aggressiveness of response to new business
50
51
52 opportunities following deregulation: an empirical study of established financial firms.
53
54 Journal of Business Venturing, 5(3), 177-189.
55
56
57
58 44
59
60
1
2
3 Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
4
5
6 Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.
7
8 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
9
10 Katona, G. (1975). Psychological economics. New York, NY: Elsevier.
11
12
13
Kim, P. H., Wennberg, K., & Croidieu, G. (2016). Untapped riches of meso-level applications in
14
15 multilevel entrepreneurship mechanisms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3),
16
17 273-291.
18
19
Korsgaard, S. (2013). It's really out there: A review of the critique of the discovery view of
20
21
22 opportunities. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(2),
23
24 130-148.
25
26 Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change
27
28
29 in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of
30
31 Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13.
32
33 Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, C. A. (1998). First mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and
34
35
36
link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1111-1125.
37
38 March, R. J., Martin, A. G., & Redford, A. (2015). The substance of entrepreneurship and the
39
40 entrepreneurship of substances. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 5(2),
41
42
201-220.
43
44
45 McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and
46
47 promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies,
48
49 50(8), 1481–1512.
50
51
52 McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the
53
54 theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132-152.
55
56
57
58 45
59
60
1
2
3 Meyer, J. W. (2008). Reflections on institutional theories of organizations. In: R. Greenwood, C.
4
5
6 Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational
7
8 institutionalism (pp. 790–811). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
9
10 Miller, K. D., & Lin, S. J. (2015). Analogical reasoning for diagnosing strategic issues in
11
12
13
dynamic and complex environments. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13), 2000-
14
15 2020.
16
17 Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of
18
19
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029-1055.
20
21
22 Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of
23
24 legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative
25
26 Science Quarterly, 55(3), 439-471.
27
28
29 Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries,
30
31 game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
32
33
34 Pentland, B. T., Pentland, A. P., & Calantone, R. J. (2017). Bracketing off the actors: Towards an
35
36 action-centric research agenda. Information and Organization, 27(3), 137-143.
37
38
39 Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
40
41
13(4): 337-348.
42
43
44 Reynolds, P. D. (2005). Understanding business creation: Serendipity and scope in two decades
45
46 of business creation studies. Small Business Economics, 24(4), 359-364.
47
48 Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. (2016). A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as
49
50
51 propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410-434.
52
53 Ramoglou, S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2015). The constructivist view of entrepreneurial
54
55 opportunities: a critical analysis. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 71-78.
56
57
58 46
59
60
1
2
3 Sarason, Y., Dillard, J. F., & Dean, T. (2010). How can we know the dancer from the dance?
4
5
6 Reply to "Entrepreneurship as the structuration of individual and opportunity: A response
7
8 using a critical realist perspective" (Mole and Mole, 2008). Journal of Business
9
10 Venturing, 25(2), 238-243.
11
12
13
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic
14
15 inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2),
16
17 243-263.
18
19
Sarasvathy, S. (2008). Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham, UK
20
21
22 and Northampton, MA: Elgar.
23
24 Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Read, S., & Wiltbank, R. (2008). Designing organizations that
25
26 design environments: Lessons from entrepreneurial expertise. Organization Studies,
27
28
29 29(3), 331-350.
30
31
32 Shane, S. A. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities.
33
34 Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469.
35
36 Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science,
37
38
47(2), 205-220.
39
40
41 Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus.
42
43 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
44
45 Shane, S. A. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act
46
47
48 on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127-
49
50 151.
51
52 Shane, S. A. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the promise of
53
54
55 entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10-20.
56
57
58 47
59
60
1
2
3 Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
4
5
6 Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
7
8 Shepherd, D. A., & Williams, T. A. (2014). Local venturing as compassion organizing in the
9
10 aftermath of a natural disaster: The role of localness and community in reducing
11
12
13
suffering. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 952-994.
14
15 Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the
16
17 emergence of the US wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 123-
18
19
155.
20
21
22 Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens:
23
24 Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of
25
26 Business Venturing, 30(1), 1-10.
27
28
29 Strong, D.M., Volkoff, O., Johnson, S.A., Pelletier, L.R., Bar-On, I., Tulu, B., Kashya, N.,
30
31
32 Trudel, J., & Garber, L. (2014). A Theory of Clinic-EHR Affordance Actualization.
33
34 Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(2), 53-85.
35
36 Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M. M., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of
37
38
new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 77-94.
39
40
41 Turban, E., Bolloju, N., and Liang, T.-P. (2011). Enterprise social networking: Opportunities,
42
43 adoption, and risk mitigation. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
44
45 Commerce 21(3), 202-220.
46
47
48 Tushman, M.L., and Anderson, P. 1986. Technological Discontinuities and Organizational
49
50 Environments, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439-465.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 48
59
60
1
2
3 van Burg, E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2014). Creating the future together: Toward a framework for
4
5
6 research synthesis in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2),
7
8 369-397
9
10
11 von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2018). Digital technologies as external enablers of
12
13 new venture creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
14
15
16
42(1), 47-69.
17
18 Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward.
19
21
22 Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Karlsson, C. (2011). The future of
23
24
25 entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 1-9.
26
27 Wood, M. S., & McKinley, W. (2010). The production of entrepreneurial opportunity: a
28
29 constructivist perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(1), 66-84.
30
31
32 Wood, M. S., & Williams, D. W. (2014). Opportunity evaluation as rule‐based decision making.
33
34 Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 573-602.
35
36 Yoo, Y., Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the
37
38
39
digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.
40
41 Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship's next act. The Academy of Management
42
43 Perspectives, 25(4), 67-83.
44
45
46 Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. (2014). Contextualization and the advancement
47
48 of entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal, 32(5), 479-500.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 49
59
60
1
2
3 APPENDIX
4
5
6
TABLE A1
7
8
9
10 Exemplary relevant background literature reinterpreted within our external enabler framework
11
12
13 Paper1 Study description Enabler type(s) Characteristics2 Mechanisms3 Roles
14
15 Eberhart Deductive, hypothesis-testing within an Regulatory Gradual and predictable Uncertainty/risk Triggering/outcome-
16
17 et al. institutional theory framework addressing effects change (more onset (implemented reduction (eased enhancing (no
18
19 (2017, of a change in bankruptcy laws on the likelihood lenient from 2000-2003) with exit process, distinction)
20
21 OS) that a) individuals file for bankruptcy, b) ‘elite bankruptcy law) limited spatial (Japan) reduced exit costs, Shaping (more
22
23 individuals’ found new firms, and c) these new but high temporal reduced loss of growth-oriented)
24
25 firms are “high growth”. Archival data. (effective from 2003 legitimacy);
26
Aggregate level cause and effect (Japanese on) scope. resource expansion
27
28
population rate of (high-growth) start-ups). (from other
29
30 bankruptcies)
31
32 Grégoire Deductive, hypothesis-testing based on cognitive Technological and N/A (experimental Mechanisms of Triggering
33
34 & theory, addressing how combinations of supply- demographic/ setting with individual enablers (“opportunity”
35
36 Shepherd and demand-related enablers influence formation composite manipulation of the not discussed perception/
37
38 (2012, of “opportunity beliefs” with person-factors as change4 agent’s perceptions). evaluation)
39
40 AMJ) moderators. Experimental. Causes on aggregate
41
42
43 50
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 (the technology and the need) and micro level
4
5 (agent characteristics). Effects on individual level
6
7 (opportunity belief).
8
9 Hiatt et Deductive, hypothesis-testing within an Socio-cultural Gradual onset with Legitimation* (incl. Triggering/outcome-
10
11 al. (2009, institutional theory framework addressing how change increasing via regulation); enhancing (no
12
13 ASQ) the temperance movement affected aggregate (temperance predictability (public codification; distinction)
14
15 rates of brewery failures and founding of soft movement) and movement gained demand Shaping (beer soft
16
17 drink manufacturers. Multiple sources of archival related substantial substitution drinks [possibly
18
19 data. Causes and effects on aggregate (state) regulatory momentum) and selection])
20
21 level. change increasing spatial
22
23 (from local to country
24
wide) and socio-
25
26
demographic (ended
27
28 with a population-wide
29
30 alcohol ban) scope.
31
32 Shane Theory-building within a multi-pronged Technological Gradual and relatively None – explanations Triggering
33
34 (2000, framework based on qualitative investigation of (3D printing) predictable onset (the are agent-based (“discovery”)
35
36 OS) the (then) full population of eight ventures development took
37
38 licensing a specific technology, addressing “who place over a longer
39
40 will pursue what “opportunity”, and” how?”. period); high spatial
41
42
43 51
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 Interviews and archival data. Causes and effects temporal, and sectoral
4
5 on micro level (individual new venture idea), scope (applicable in
6
7 given the technology. various global
8
9 industries).
10
11 Shepherd Theory-building within positive psychology Natural– Onset of high suddenness Demand expansion Triggering/shaping/
12
13 & perspective on compassion organizing. Uses environmental and low predictability (victim suffering); outcome-enhancing
14
15 Williams archival data to examine how ventures emerge to (disastrous (natural disaster) with resource expansion (implied,
16
17 (2014, relieve suffering in disaster aftermath. Causes wildfire) highly limited (donations) distinctions not
18
JMS) and effects on aggregate level (local community). temporal and spatial discussed)
19
20
(specific local
21
22 community after one
23
24 wildfire) but broad
25
26 socio-demographic
27
28 (the entire population)
29
30 scope.
31
32 Sine & Deductive, hypothesis-testing within a multi- Socio-cultural Gradual onset (active Legitimation*, Triggering (empirics
33
34 Lee pronged framework addressing how the size of a (environmental social movement, codification, cover entry into the
35
36 (2009, social movement directly and indirectly movement) and ongoing lobbying); demand process, not
37
38 ASQ) influenced entrepreneurial activity in the wind related broad temporal but substitution. completion)
39
40 energy sector on the state level. Multiple sources regulatory limited spatial (more
41
42
43 52
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 of archival data. Causes and effects on aggregate change active in specific
4
5 (state) level. states) and sectoral
6
7 scope (focused on
8
9 renewable energy).
10
11 von Briel Theoretical analysis generating technology- and Technological Varying (based on the Combination*, Triggering
12
13 et al. sector-level propositions about properties of (different specific technology). compression*, (enablement of early
14
15 (2018, technologies and the mechanisms by which they digital conservation*, stage prospecting)
16
17 ETP) enable different stages of the new venture technologies) (resource) Shaping (product,
18
creation process. Cross-level (technology expansion*, process, perhaps
19
20
characteristics are related to their mechanisms; generation*, venture)
21
22 mechanisms provided within and across ventures (resource) Outcome-enhancing
23
24 affect venture and sector outcomes) substitution* (of exploiting stage)
25
26
1) AMJ = Academy of Management Journal; ASQ = Administrative Science Quarterly; ETP = Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice; JMS = Journal of
27
28 Management Studies; OS = Organization Science
29
30 2) Some identified characteristics appear too relational or too specific to a particular (type of) enabler to deserve inclusion in our framework;
31
32 3) Those marked with an asterisk (*) were used explicitly in the work in question. Codification as used in social movement studies within an Institutional
33
34 Theory framework can be seen as a subcategory of the broader legitimation mechanism, which is why we do not include it separately in Table 1.
35
36 4) The increased number of children diagnosed with ADHD can be regarded a demographic enabler arising from multi-pronged scientific progress enhancing
37
38 identification of these children as well as the understanding of their pedagogical needs.
39
40
41
42
43 53
44
45
46
47
1
2
3 TABLES AND FIGURES
4
5
6
TABLE 1
7
8
9
10 Examples of Mechanisms of External Enablers in Venture Creation (Non-exhaustive)
11
12
13 Label Definition Example
14
15 Reduction in the amount of time required to 3D-printing, which considerably shortens
16 Compression
17 perform an activity development times
18
19 Changes to the natural environment that
20 Reduction in the amount of resources
21 Conservation reduce the need for cooling, heating,
22 required to perform an activity
23 irrigation
24
25 Crowdfunding platforms that make
26 (Resource) Increase in the amount of a resource that is
27 external finance and effective market
28 Expansion accessible
29 research available to more start-ups
30
Changing social mores and progress in
31
32
(Resource) medical science that trigger shift to
33 Replacement of one resource with another
34 using autistic software developers
Substitution
35
36 (Austin et al., 2008)
37
38 Leveraging technology platforms; a
39
40 Coupling with external resources or artifacts natural disaster that triggers an inflow
41 Combination
42 to provide functionality of external resources (Shepherd &
43
44 Williams, 2014)
45
46 Allowing the creation of new artifacts New technology that makes entirely new
47 Generation
48 (devices, functionality, business models) functionality possible (Yoo et al. 2012)
49
50 Uncertainty Reduction in the perceived uncertainty of Bipartisan agreement that creates an
51
52 reduction any business decisions of buyers or sellers expectation of long-term stability
53
Legitimation Increase in the legality or psychological/ Formal legalization; socio-cultural or
54
55
56
57
58 54
59
60
1
2
3 socio-cultural acceptability of the venture or demographic trends that change values
4
5 its offerings in favor of a product category (Hiatt et
6
7 al., 2009; Weber et al., 2008)
8
9 (Demand) Increase in demand at a given price and Macroeconomic income growth;
10
11 Expansion given functionality population growth
12
13 Increase in demand that is due to making a Terrorist attack, natural disaster or
14
15 focal venture’s market offerings demographic shift that fuels demand
16
17 (Demand) [perceived as] more needed/attractive for associated products; socio-cultural
18
Substitution (positive substitution) or to making trends and/or legislation that ban or
19
20
competitive offerings perceived as less disadvantage competitors’ market
21
22 needed or attractive (negative substitution) offerings
23
24 IP legislation; technology that facilitates
25
26 Increase in a venture’s ability to capture the customer “lock-in” (Amit & Zott,
27 Enclosing
28 loyalty of buyers and the value it creates 2001); shortages and limited
29
30 competition due to outbreak of war
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 55
59
60
1
2
3 FIGURE 1
4
5
6 External Enablers Framework (focused areas shaded in grey)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 56
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6 FIGURE 2
7
8 Sectoral and Spatial Scope of External Enablers
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 57
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 FIGURE 3
9
10 Varying Onset of External Enablers
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 58
59
60
1
2
3 BIOGRAPHIES
4
5
6 Per Davidsson (per.davidsson@qut.edu.au) is Professor in Entrepreneurship at QUT Business
7
School (Australia) and the Jönköping International Business School (Sweden). He has served as
8
9 Chair of the AoM Entrepreneurship Division and as associate editor for leading entrepreneurship
10 journals. Per’s research focuses on new venture creation, small firm growth, and research
11 methods.
12
13 Jan Recker (jan.recker@wiso.uni-koeln.de) is Chaired Professor for Information Systems and
14 Systems Development at the Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences,
15
16
University of Cologne, and Adjunct Professor at QUT Business School. He researches digital
17 entrepreneurship, sustainability of information systems and systems analysis and design.
18
19 Frederik von Briel (frederik.vonbriel@qut.edu.au) is a Senior Research Fellow in the School of
20 Management at QUT Business School. Most of his current research focuses on digital
21 entrepreneurship, digital innovation, and the ecosystems surrounding both phenomena.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 59
59
60

Davidsson 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Davidsson 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Perspectives

External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A

Journal: Academy of Management Perspectives

Document Type: Symposium

Entrepreneurship (General) < Entrepreneurship < Topic Areas, Technology

You might also like