The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-1403.htm

IMP
12,2 Discovering the collective
entrepreneurial opportunities
through spatial relationships
276 Chiara Cantù
Department of Management, Cattolica University,
Received 28 May 2017
Revised 7 January 2018 Milan, Italy
12 March 2018
6 April 2018
Accepted 7 April 2018 Abstract
Purpose – Even if in a traditional perspective the discovery and the exploitation of opportunities are
associated to the entrepreneur’s capabilities, a relational perspective is required to better analyze the
phenomenon of starting up a new venture. The growing attention to interaction with the external
environment has been emerging as a precondition of the entrepreneurial processes as it creates the knowledge
and the experience necessary to perceive the opportunity. The entrepreneurial opportunities are created
through joint acts with others through social relationships. Shifting the attention from social to business
relationships, the main aim of this paper is to investigate the discovery and the exploitation of collective
entrepreneurial opportunities in starting up new business. In particular, the purpose of this paper is to
analyze the role of relational proximity in the entrepreneurial journey considered as an emergent process of
transforming potentiality into actuality.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper applied a qualitative methodology (Dubois and Araujo, 2004)
and a case study approach (Barrat et al., 2011). The case concerns the dyadic spin-off relationship between the
innovative start up, ShapeMode (the generated firm), and the Milan FabLab (the generating firm) located in
Lombardy Region (Italy).
Findings – The emerging of collective entrepreneurial opportunities could be analyzed at two levels: the first
one concerns the dyadic spin-off relationship, while the second one is founded on the business relationships
that the start-up can activate with the business partners of the generating firm. The collective entrepreneurial
opportunities are positive influenced by jointness of the actors and their co-evolution, founded on the shared
values and goals.
Research limitations/implications – Although the case study approach allowed the researcher to gain
detailed information about the spin-off relationship, this effort does not measure the performance outcomes of
the relationships and actions that were taken to improve the competitiveness of the start-up. Future studies
would benefit from a large-scale questionnaire given to the members of the start-up and to the actors of its
Entrepreneurial Network, so to analyze all of its performance implications for the start-up and the network as
a whole. In addition, it could be of interest for future research to investigate the effects of collective
entrepreneurial opportunities in order to examine this topic more deeply.
Practical implications – From a managerial point of view, even if the growing number of start-ups has
been associated to a temporary phenomenon, the development of new ventures is now consolidated. A new
managerial approach is required to promote the birth and the growth of the start-ups. The development of
a new venture requires to shift the attention from the collection of financial resources to the exploitation of
entrepreneurial opportunities generated by interconnected business relationships. In this way a relevant
attention should be recognized to the new role of organizations that can be considered as facilitators of
business relationships, such as the FabLab. This paper sheds light on the relevance of the strategic
networking that sustains the generation of collective entrepreneurial opportunities. The networking
involves actors that belong to different geographic area and different countries but that are focused
on the same business dream related to the exploitation of potentialities of digital fabrication. The
policymakers should recognize the role of the FabLab as facilitator of knowledge diffusion concerning
digital fabrication.
Originality/value – The entrepreneurial opportunities such as the starting up of a new business and its
evolution, are enacted, discovered and exploited through interconnected business relationships. In particular
the main entrepreneurial opportunities are generated by the activation of business relationships with new
business actors. Focusing on the dyadic spin-off relationship, the exploitation of collective entrepreneurial
opportunities depends on the sharing of third actors. The business partners of the generating actor (FabLab)
IMP Journal
Vol. 12 No. 2, 2018 became business partners of the generated actor (start-up). The evolution of the generating firm (FabLab)
pp. 276-295 influenced the birth and the evolution of the generated firms (start-up). The dyadic relationship allows the
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-1403
generated firm to discover entrepreneurial opportunities and to exploit them, accessing to the business
DOI 10.1108/IMP-05-2017-0033 partners of the generating firm. The effectiveness of the spin-off relationship sustains the replication of the
model of new firm generation, that could benefit from the relationships of the two actors of the dyad. Collective
Moreover the strong relationships are founded on relational proximity that is characterized by the sharing of
values, vision and business dreams. entrepreneurial
Keywords Relational proximity, Collective entrepreneurial opportunities, Digital fabrication, opportunities
Entrepreneurial network, Spatial relationships
Paper type Research paper

277
1. Introduction
The field of entrepreneurship is considered by Shane and Venkataraman (2000) as the
“scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities that create
future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited” (p. 219). The opportunities
are regarded as discovered (Alvarez and Barney, 2007) or created (Baker and Nelson, 2005).
In both cases a key role has been recognized to the entrepreneur who constructs the means,
the ends or both of them: the opportunities become real when combined with the qualities of
the entrepreneur (Vaghely and Julien, 2010).
Differently, adopting a systemic perspective, the entrepreneurial opportunities are
influenced by external forces. In this context, the entrepreneurship discovery and the
exploitation is a nonlinear process of enacting workable interfaces between external resources
owned by several actors. Entrepreneurship can be conceptualized as the discovery of
opportunities and the subsequent creation of new economic activity, often via the creation of a
new organization (Reynolds, 2005). This perspective emphasizes the emerging of collective
entrepreneurial opportunities that are created through interaction via social relationships and
joint acts with others (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Vaghely and Julien, 2010). As stated by
Shepherd, the collective perspective could add additional value to entrepreneurship research
as it sheds light on the interactive view of opportunity identification and refinement:
the notion of potential opportunity is not solely in the mind of its initial creator but is also
grounded in a community (Shepherd, 2015). Opportunity development is a social and
culturally embedded process in which opportunities are created through a continuous
dialogue (Fletcher, 2007) that involves different external actors. As stated by Aldrich and
Zimmer (1986) the entrepreneur is embedded in a social network that plays a critical role in the
entrepreneurial process. Several studies documented that entrepreneurs consistently use
social relationships to get ideas and gather information to recognize entrepreneurial
opportunities (Hoang and Young, 2000; Tamásy, 2006).
The entrepreneurial activities and the creation of the firm are influenced by geographically
localized social contacts (Sorenson and Audia, 2000). The co-evolutionary theory has
demonstrated that firm birth and death are highly dependent on regional characteristics and
entrepreneurial environments, including habitat. The knowledge transmission channels are
founded on epidemiological contacts among local organizations (Caragliu and Nijkamp, 2012;
Basile et al., 2012) allowing the exchange of information within a pure gravity type logic. But
other kind of proximities should be considered in order to investigate the travel of knowledge
that sustains the development of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Shifting the attention from social to business relationships, in which way relational
proximity can influence the development of the collective entrepreneurial opportunities? As
outlined by the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group (IMP), the interconnected business
relationships create a value network founded on collaboration (Håkansson et al., 2009).
Focusing on business relationships, the main aim of this paper is to investigate the discovery
and the exploitation of the collective etrepreneurial opportunities in starting up new business.
In particular, the paper analyzes the role of relational proximity in this entrepreneurial journey
considered as an emergent process of transforming potentiality into actuality.
In Section 2 the paper presents the discovery and the exploitation of collective entrepreneurial
opportunities related to the starting up of a new business. The paper investigates the role of
IMP geographic proximity in social relationships and the role of relational proximity in business
12,2 relationships. The Section 3 describes the emerging of collective entrepreneurial opportunities
considering the IMP perspective.
In Section 4 the methodology outlines the research context and the case study. In the
following sections the paper analyses the empirical evidences, the discussion and the conclusions.
The paper applied a qualitative method (Dubois and Araujo, 2004) and a case study
278 approach (Barratt et al., 2011). The case concerns the dyadic spin-off relationship between
the innovative start up, ShapeMode (generated firm), and the Milan FabLab (generating
firm) located in Lombardy Region (Italy).
As depicted by the case, the emerging of collective entrepreneurial opportunities is
founded on interconnected relationships within the business partners of the generating firm,
this latter and the generated firm. These business interactions outline the relational space
that overcomes the geographical borders and is founded on a common business dream: the
diffusion of knowledge related to the digital transformation and the growth of the makers
community. The business dream is depicted by the vision and the values of a company.
The vision is the picture of the future the company seeks to create, while the mission is the
purpose (the organization’s answer to why company exists) and values are how company
act to achieve the vision. The business dream related to a new venture is the entrepreneurial
idea that could be combined together with the mission and the values (Mirvis et al., 2010).

2. The emerging of the collective entrepreneurial opportunities in the

starting up process
The entrepreneurial process of the new business creation starts when a business opportunity
is discovered or created by nascent entrepreneurs. The series of the entrepreneurs’ actions
throughout the entrepreneurial process will consist the entrepreneurial journey. This
interacting journey of entrepreneur is for transforming potentiality of opportunity into actual
value in new business.
In a traditional perspective, the concept of the entrepreneurial opportunities is central for
the entrepreneurship studies. A key question that all would-be entrepreneurs face is finding
the business opportunity that is right for them. As defined by Venkataraman (1997),
entrepreneurship is “the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of future goods and services.”
As follows, the act of entrepreneurship is based on two fundamental premises: the opportunity
recognition and the formation of intentions to respond actively to the discovered opportunities
(Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
The generation process of entrepreneurial opportunities has been investigated in the
discovery and in the creation perspectives. In the discovery theory “the opportunities, like
mountains, exist as a real and objective phenomena, independent of the actions or perceptions
of the entrepreneurs, just waiting to be discovered and exploited” (Alvarez and Barney, 2007,
p. 13). The opportunity creation theory, on the other hand, assumes opportunities to be
created, endogenously by the actions, reactions and enactments of entrepreneurs, exploring
ways to produce new goods or services. The opportunity creation theory states that either
the entrepreneurial means or the market application do not exist independent of the
entrepreneur’s actions (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Sarasvathy et al., 2003; Maine et al., 2015).
The entrepreneurs are the source of the opportunities (Lundberg and Andresen, 2012).
In both approaches a relavant role has been recognized to the entrepreneur. A key
research question in the opportunity recognition perspective involves why, when and how
some people and not others discover entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000). Entrepreneurship literature addresses this issue by considering
several individual differences such as the social networks of the entrepreneur.
The growing attention to external dimensions sheds light on the opportunities generated
by the interaction between the entrepreneur and different stakeholders. In contrast to
opportunities existing and recognized in markets by alert entrepreneurs, the collective Collective
opportunities are created through interaction and joint acts with others (Alvarez and entrepreneurial
Barney, 2007; Vaghely and Julien, 2010). The term collective entrepreneurship appears only opportunities
recently in economics, management, and entrepreneurship. Crouch and Marquand (1995)
advanced the potential of collective entrepreneurship as a “social coalition,” combining
business risk and capital investment with the social values of collective action. Although all
ideas originate in some individuals mind, entrepreneurship becomes collective when 279
opportunities are acted upon because new venture creation requires joint collective action.

3. The role of geographic proximity in social network

In the research field of entrepreneurship, there has been increasing attention to the external
social relationships of the entrepreneur and to the role of networking in starting up a
business (Fayolle et al., 2016; Hoang and Antoncic, 2003; Hoang and Yi, 2015; Jack, 2010).
Researches shown that social relationships of the entrepreneur are resources that can
leverage in the starting up process.
Social networks are often mentioned (Ardichvili et al., 2003), typically on a personal level,
as a source of information for the entrepreneurial individual. Dutta and Crossan (2005) discuss
how personal network connections affect the opportunity recognition as they provide
feedback to entrepreneurs on early business plans, at the same time entrepreneurial actions
lead to diffusion of new information (Dahlqvist and Wiklund, 2012). In the broadest terms,
social networks are defined by a set of actors (individuals or organizations) and a set of
linkages between the actors.
Conceptually, the opportunity recognition can be attributed to the size and diversity of
existing social networks. It has been found that informal contacts, including businesses,
family, and personal friends, are the main sources of information and help in assembling the
elements of a new business (Birley, 1986). It can be expected that most of the people involved
tend to reside and work in close geographical proximity to the entrepreneur (Zander, 2004).
Entrepreneurs were seen as tied, through their social relationships, to a broader network of
actors. On the basis of the phenomenon of “geographical inertia,” an entrepreneur stay in the
region where the firm was first established, due to the established or the utilized resources.
The phenomenon highlights the importance of geographically localized networks of
contacts for entrepreneurial activities (Sorenson and Audia, 2000; Tamásy, 2006).
Geographical proximity refers to the spatial vicinity of the organizations’ physical
locations but it is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for learning and interactive
innovation to take place (Boschma, 2005). Accordingly, Boschma (2005) depicts fivefold
classifications of geographical, cognitive, social, institutional and organizational proximity
(Tamásy, 2006; Torre ́ and Rallet, 2005; Granovetter, 1985). The proximity influences
learning, knowledge creation and innovation (Amin and Wilkinson, 1999), and the creation
of value (Øiestad and Bugge, 2014).

4. The role of relational proximity in business network

A business ecosystem is a theoretical construct closely linked to the broader area of
interorganizational networks (Powell et al., 1996) or alliance portfolios (Ozcan and
Eisenhardt, 2009). The ecosystem construct is often used to depict a network aiming
specifically for joint value creation (Adner, 2006; Nambisan and Baron, 2012), in order to
highlight the structure of interdependence and resource flows in the network (Adner and
Kapoor, 2010; Adner et al., 2012).
Entrepreneurial networking, regarded in terms of collective entrepreneurship, considers
that innovative business ideas often need to undergo a process of differentiation, resource
mobilization and legitimacy (Hambrick and Chen, 2008). The preconditions for the
IMP entrepreneurial assume that the actors, in the collective, possess entrepreneurial capability
12,2 and attitude (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
The business relationships are viewed as the media through which actors gain access to
a variety of resources held by other actors. Several studies document that entrepreneurs
consistently use business networks to get ideas and gather information, to recognize
entrepreneurial opportunities (Hoang and Young, 2000; Tamásy, 2006).
280 Considering that these ecosystems are brought together by their actors’ shared vision of
value creation (Moore, 1996), the relational proximity accounts for the ways in which
economic organization potentially interact and for the ways in which this interaction
influences learning processes (Capello and Faggian, 2005; Camagni, 1991).
This kind of proximity sustains the development of a wider network horizon. The space,
considered as atmosphere, is not related only to geographical proximity but different kind of
proximity can be considered. The relational proximity is founded on commitment,
engagement and trust (relationship DNA), and the strength of relationship (shared vision
and shared destiny) (Cantù, 2010). Relating between business counterparts is future-oriented
and, therefore, requires the development of at least some mutual trust and commitment.
Relationships in industrial markets are characterized by adaptation (Brennan and
McGovan, 2006) and commitment. The mutuality is a result of the relationship process
where the firms make relationship-specific resource investments and integrate their
activities to each other. The discovery of network opportunity depends on the management
of the relationships that are founded on relational capital that impacts on the knowledge
acquisition through the development of trust and the interactive process of exchange
(Yli-Renko et al., 2001). Moreover, these close interconnections (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998) lead
to a congruence of goals (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), that improve the commitment of the
actors and generate better business performance (Kohtamäki et al., 2006). The borders
of the network thereby are founded on the sharing of the network culture (Håkansson and
Snehota, 1995).

5. The collective opportunities in starting up new business: the IMP perspective

Starting up is primarily a relational act (Aaboen et al., 2017). From this perspective, the
initial phases of the start-up journey are about relating to an existing landscape of business
organizations, customers, suppliers and other institutions in order to become a node in the
business network (Aaboen et al., 2017).
Starting up is a process of embedding the new business venture in a business landscape
characterized by existing resource constellations, activity patterns and actors’
interdependencies. Several studies proposed that connecting to an existing business
network and acquiring a position in the network is a necessary condition for the survival,
development and ultimate success of a business (Aaboen et al., 2011, 2013, 2016; La Rocca
and Perna, 2014; La Rocca and Snehota, 2014; Snehota, 2011) .
Ciabuschi et al. (2012) emphasize that new business formation is a process of combining
resources in relationships. The new venture reflects how it relates to and interacts with
others and the availability of others to act jointly in the venture. A new business always
builds a new collection of specific resources that are combined to form a meaningful
whole of value to certain actors. Relative resources for new business formation are, thus,
relational and emergent. They have a meaning only in relation to a specific action that
connects and uses resource elements derived from several actors outside the focal venture
(Baraldi and Strömsten, 2006).
Consequently, the primary task facing management in a new venture is to relate
the venture to the evolving business network by developing the initial business
relationships of the venture. Relating is a managerial activity that connects the
pre-existing resources, activities and individual actors of a supplier with those of a
particular subset of potential counterparts. Embedding the new business venture implies Collective
that it has to develop the initial business relationships to customers and suppliers entrepreneurial
through which it can access and obtain the resources necessary to sustain its operations opportunities
(Aaboen et al., 2011). In this way the entrepreneur can exploit the opportunities.
In the IMP perspective, the opportunity is related to the variety within business
landscape. The actors, in order to benefit from a relationship, have to relate to
each other over time and in a number of dimensions. Adaptation made in relation to each 281
other is relevant and it can be carried out to decrease or to increase variety
(Håkansson et al., 2009). Variety can be natural, or man made, and both forms can be used
as business opportunities. Each business actor is involved with others in exploiting the
heterogeneity of resources by combining them in new ways. Each business actor is
also changing due to the shifts in resources and activities. The actors co-evolve,
resources move along particular path and activities become more specialized in one or
more directions.
The creation of collective opportunities for new business is an emergent process
requiring extensive interaction to recombine resources owned and controlled by several
actors in a relational space perspective. The collective opportunity process is characterized
by the evolution of interconnected relationships and by the building of the meaning in
relationship networks (Kauppinen and Puhakka, 2010).
The emerging opportunities had also emerging network and required activating the
passive network, or the network with the new relationships (Ciabuschi et al., 2012). That
caused the network, change as the emerging opportunity had different types of needs and
requirements for the network. A firm’s ability to gain new knowledge is dependent on its
network structure, in terms of closure, as well as on the characteristics of its relationships, in
terms of embeddedness.
Firm’s business development is an outcome of cyclical process of entrepreneur’s networking
behavior in opportunity development ( Juho and Mainela, 2012). Business development
happens through four states of opportunity, namely through emerging opportunity, stable
opportunity, technological opportunity and business opportunity. The opportunities
development acts in networks at two levels. The emerging and stable opportunities are
developing at individual level of entrepreneur’s perception of opportunity, while the
technological and business opportunity development are changing the network and happens
at network level.
The discovery and exploitation of opportunities is emerging through network crossing
borders. The efficiency and the effectiveness in opportunity management can be reached
by the entrepreneur with close contacts with the existing network structure and special
knowledge around activities and resources structure. New actors are considered as
outcome of previous interactions within existing relationships, or within the combining of
resources and activities, as stated by the Actors Resources and Activities (ARA) model
(Håkansson et al., 2009). In a space perspective, the ARA (Håkansson et al., 2009),
focused on business interaction, involves the outlining of activity patterns, resource
constellations and actor webs. In particular, in a space approach, the activity patterns
concern interdependency, the resource constellation the heterogeneity and the actor webs
the jointness.

6. Methodology
Research approach
In order to better understand the phenomenon of collective entrepreneurial opportunities, and
the role of relational proximity, the paper applied a qualitative research (Dubois and Gadde,
2002; Dubois and Araujo, 2004) and a case study approach (Beverland and Lindgreen, 2010;
Harrison and Easton, 2004; Barratt et al., 2011; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
IMP The analysis used an abduction process that enables data-driven theory generation
12,2 ( Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010): choices related to the theoretical framework influenced the
empirical investigation. The research involved a systematic combination of the continuous
interaction between theory and the empirical world (Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Dubois and
Araujo, 2004; Piekkari et al., 2010).
The qualitative approach allows the analysis of the phenomenon. As stated by
282 some authors, while the use of quantitative methods has produced considerable
knowledge accumulation, the field of entrepreneurship research has largely failed to
develop an indigenous theory and is often seen as a subset of strategic management
theory (Suddaby, 2014).
The research investigates a case of an innovative spin-off relationship in which we can
observe a new managerial approach for collective entrepreneurial opportunities related to
networking with heterogeneous business partners. The case was selected as it relates to a
start-up (ShapeMode, generated firm) and the first FabLab founded in Milan (generating
firm), characterized by an innovative relational business model oriented to the generation
of a new organization. In a spin-off process, Milan FabLab generated ShapeMode
(start-up); the two organizations founded together the Numen Institute ( focused on digital
transformation).
During the last few years, several researchers have recognized the need for more
research into how start-ups, or new business ventures, initiate new relationships.
The case, belonging to a wider research focused on new actors of entrepreneurial
network, is founded on ten interviews (Table I).
The seven interviews were developed with the founder of ShapeMode (innovative start
up), who is a manager of the Milan FabLab, and the key referents of innovative projects.
Three interviews were developed with the key referents of entrepreneurial network such
as chamber of commerce, incubators and co-working centers. The interview guidelines
were based on previous domain specific knowledge and furthermore were adapted
to the theoretical framework. The first stage of the research involved ShapeMode and the
Milan FabLab. The second stage of the research involved the key referents of innovative
projects and some business partners. The main semi-structured interviews lasted from
60 to 120 min.
Considering that the main aim of this paper is to investigate the discovery and the
exploitation of the collective entrepreneurial opportunities in starting up new business, and
to analyze the role of relational proximity in this entrepreneurial journey, the main topics
investigated concern (Table II) the entrepreneurial journey, the collective entrepreneurial
opportunities and the relational proximity.
Taking into consideration the main innovative projects, the attention was focused on the
main actors involved, the resources shared and the activities realized (ARA Model,
Håkansson et al., 2009). The main questions involved the actors, the resources shared and
combined and the activities as output of the interaction.

Actors Number of interviews Main topics investigated

Shape mode 4 Entrepreneurial journey

Fab lab Collective entrepreneurial opportunities
Relational proximity
Key referents of innovative projects 3 Entrepreneurial journey
Table I. Collective entrepreneurial opportunities
The collection of Relational proximity
primary data Key referents of digital fabrication context 3 The perspective of digital fabrication
The primary data were combined with secondary data gathered from the firm’s website, Collective
reports, trade press and other company documents. The holistic description of the network entrepreneurial
generated by multiple sources of evidence ( Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010) has been opportunities
required to analyze in greater depth the interconnected relationships.

Research context
Digital fabrication is commonly referred to as the third industrial revolution. From the
beginning, this revolution has not been limited to large firms.
283
Digital fabrication combines 3D printing technologies, additive manufacturing and
printed electronics to depict product prototype. 3D printing can be described as a radical
innovation, as it will disrupt the current manufacturing industry.
Progressively, over the past 30 years, new digital technologies have enabled to turn an
increasing number of physical products into intangible digital content. Yet, while such
objects necessarily have to be “made” in order to be used, digital technologies have taken an
increasingly important part in their production.
As the technology improved, it became possible to use the 3D printers not only to
prototype, but also to manufacture tools and moulds used for traditional manufacturing.
In this context the FabLab (Fabrication Laboratories) is an International laboratory
network that offers all necessary tools to implement digital projects fabrication.
People can use the lab to build any object, the philosophy is: “you must learn to do it yourself,
and you have to share the use of the lab with other users.” Training in the lab is acquired
through projects.
FabLab is the educational outreach component of MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms,
an extension of its research into digital fabrication and computation. A Fab Lab is a
technical prototyping platform for innovation and invention, providing stimulus for local
entrepreneurship (Fab Foundation).

The case study

The dyadic spin-off relationship. To wrap up ShapeMode is a start-up design studio that
provides 3D printing services, 3D modeling and fast prototyping.
The start-up adopts innovative tools, hardware and software (2D, 3D, CAD, CAM), to
customize, prototype and realize the creative ideas of artisans, designers, architects,
engineers and companies. The studio realizes the aesthetic prototypes by employing
different 3D printing techniques (FDM, SLA, SLS, etc.).
The ShapeMode’s system characterized by high-quality services. Using a hand-sketched
model or 3D CAD project provided by the customers, ShapeMode anticipates the technical
problems of production and creates a CAD model ready for 3D printing or rendering. It can
polish, paint, or even heat-treat 3D printed pieces to achieve greater rigidity for functional,
design, or simply aesthetic reasons. The studio provides sanding, and galvanic treatment
services for printed objects.

Topics Main questions

Entrepreneurial journey What are strategic steps of your evolution? What are the main innovative projects?
Collective What are the key stakeholders that helped you in developing the business idea?
entrepreneurial Why are they important?
opportunities What are the resources provided by different actors?
What were the main activities that you developed thanks to the resources provided? Table II.
Relational proximity What is your business dream? The topics
What are your values? investigated/main
What is your vision? questions
IMP ShapeMode’s entrepreneurial team “explained that the goal is to facilitate the business as a
12,2 creative and productive path using innovative tools. Our experience allows us to interact with
different professionals: design studios, designers, production managers, engineers, and CEOs”.
ShapeMode was founded in 2016 by a member of the managerial team of Milan
FabLab, the first FabLab founded in Milan. Founded in 2013 thanks to the support
provided by Mike Bongiorno Foundation, the Milan FabLab is an innovative laboratory of
284 digital fabrication where advanced machinery and technologies are available to give
shape to the innovative ideas.
Makers, app developers, video editors, and artisans can use the FabLab spaces.
The key pillars of the FabLab are to share, learn and make. The founders paticularly
focused on innovative technology consisting of:
• Laser cutter: the laser machine cuts cardboard laser paper, wood, various plastics,
Plexiglass, etc.
• 3D printer: a computer can be used to draw a 3D design to be built, which can be used
for the creation of prototypes or for design and architecture applications.
• Cutting plotter: this machine cuts vinyl materials, paperboard and cardboards.
• Screen printing press: the press is employed for printing on fabrics and paper.
• Milling machine: users can carve and sculpt wood and other types of material
through a computer input.

7. Empirical evidences
Birth and transformation of the Milan FabLab (2013-2015)
In 2013 Milan FabLab was founded as an association sustained by the Bongiorno
Foundation to promote digital fabrication.
Initially, the main aim of Milan FabLab was to provide a space where cutting-edge
machinery and latest-generation technologies were available to shape innovative ideas
and projects. The attention was focused on digital fabrication technologies that enabled
users to create a prototype. People could access a vinyl cutter, 3D printer, sewing machines,
and electronics laboratory.
Given to its the close location to Milan Polytecnics in the Bovisa area, Milan FabLab
introduced a co-working space. To offer a space to share knowledge among makers, students,
and researchers. The digital fabrication center represents a place dedicated to the aggregation
and sharing of knowledge. Skills and competences can be acquired through a “learning by
doing” approach: technicians and creatives guide the public in the use of equipment for
realizing digital fabrication projects, that is transforming digital data into real objects.
In 2014, the primary task of the Milan FabLab became diffusing knowledge about the
revolutionary digital fabrication while injecting in to its business portfolio innovative
additional services, such as courses dedicated to students and organizations to sustain the
diffusion of digital fabrication knowledge. The educational activity has involved projects
devoted to primary and secondary schools as well as higher education courses for students
and teachers. Other courses are dedicated to designers, architects and creative experts. The
courses are founded on instruments available to Digital Fabrication (3D printers, Arduino
and electronic software, Rhino 3D modeling software). For a more generalist target, the
courses with multidisciplinary activities are provided to explore the fields of application of
digital fabrication (jewelry and 3D modeling, home automation, robotics and drones,
fashion, health and 3D printing).
In 2015 Milan FabLab introduced workshops and mentoring sessions dedicated to the
development of new ventures. In particular, Milan FabLab supported the development of
new products and new ventures, such as Skiddi. A mini-trolley for sky ideated by a young Collective
engineer who decided to ask for a specific FabLab service-namely partnership in the entrepreneurial
realization of the crowdfunding campaign as well as the 3D printing and prototyping. The opportunities
key referent from FabLab involved in this innovative project, decided to starting up a new
business: ShapeMode.
In addition, thanks to the relevant cooperation within experts in heterogeneous area, and
thanks to the partnerships with local organizations, the members of the FabLab association 285
decided to transform the Milan FabLab into a private organization.

Birth of ShapeMode through the spin-off relationship (2016)

In 2016 ShapeMode was founded as a spin-off of Milan FabLab. ShapeMode was created
thanks to the cooperation between a key referent of FabLab and his external colleague, who
presented different competences.
ShapeMode created heterogeneous teams specialized in different areas. The first team
focused on jewellery design, a team characterized by creativity and expertise in 3D CAD.
In addition, technicians studied the new product development processes.
A second team has been focused on product design. The team consists of experts from
different background, from designers to software developers, from architects to engineers.
Key referents working in media and legal channels complete this team offering support to
the patent registration, the Kickstarter campaign, crowdfunding and marketing programs.
Moreover a Model Team is made up by experts who consider the modeling as an art.
In the second part of the year, ShapeMode has introduced the prototyping service and
mechanical design. The team is made up by experts who cooperate for the development of
prototypes and mechanical design. The last team introduced the Biomedical and dental
industry; it involved biomedical engineers and it cooperates with experts in order to develop
innovative products.

Evolution of the dyadic relationship (2017)

In 2017 thanks to the previous experience in Milan FabLab, the founder of ShapeMode was
involved in an innovative project by the founder of Skiddi. Together with D-factory and the
D-namic accelerator.
In addition, the heterogeneous competences related to the business partners of the
FabLab supported ShapeMode in providing training services. Although the Milan
FabLab’s attention was initially focused on an innovative laboratory, nowadays the
organization provides innovative services to start ups. Milan FabLab promotes
networking between new ventures and other specialized actors in the entrepreneurial
context (e.g. universities, laboratories, specialists, consultants, etc.). Based on this
experience, ShapeMode Academy was founded with the goal of creating an educational
area on technological innovation founded on the expertise and the experience in the field
of prototyping, design, 3D printing and, more generally, digital fabrication.
In 2017 ShapeMode became involved by Milan FabLab in an European Project. FabLab
decided to attend the European Projects focused on digital fabrication to improve the
knowledge related to this topic. Milan FabLab is one of the two Italian referents involved in
Phablabs 4.0 which includes the organization of 33 photonics workshops, 11 photonics
challenger projects and a photonics toolkit (a package of tools for photonics) geared toward
different age: the “young minds” (10-14 years), students (15-18 years) and young technicians
or professionals (over 18 years). Participants will be able to develop and implement new
ideas, with Key Enabling Technologies (KET), the technologies identified by the European
Commission as being key sustain development. In particular Milan FabLab, creating
entrepreneurial opportunities also for ShapeMode, realized different innovative workshops.
IMP Generation of a new spin-off: Numen Institute (2018)
12,2 In February 2018, the strong cooperation between Milan FabLab and ShapeMode allowed
the generation of the Numen Institute which followed the educational perspective adopted
by the two generators (FabLab and ShapeMode). The Numen Institute’s main purpose is to
provide courses focused on digital fabrication characterized by a “learning by doing”
approach. The experts are key referents in the digital fabrication context and business
286 partners of FabLab and ShapeMode.
The institute’s main purpose is to create, experiment, learn and improve the skills,
providing theoretical and practical tools, integrating traditional and innovative techniques,
and ensuring knowledge sharing and professionalism. The institute uses innovative
methods, with the aid of advanced tools and software, in a digital manufacturing laboratory
fully equipped with resin and wire 3D printers, CNC milling machines, plotters, laser cutters,
electronic workbenches and various types of instruments.

8. Discussion
From a traditional perspective, the discovery of an entrepreneurial opportunity and its
exploitation are related to the entrepreneur and his or her own capabilities.
However, as depicted in the case study, the recognition of the entrepreneurial
opportunities and their exploitation, when starting up a new business, are positively
influenced by the interconnected business relationships. These relationships concern, at the
first level, the dyadic spin-off relationship between the FabLab (generating firm) and
ShapeMode (start-up). The second level focuses on the generated firm (ShapeMode) and the
generating firm’s business partners, which become the start up business partners. The first
dyadic relationship mainly sustains the start up in the discovering of entrepreneurial
business opportunities, while the second relationship mainly support the exploitation of the
opportunities.
Through the interconnected business relationships, the start-up can access resources
provided by the generating firm’s different business partners in particular to their
innovative projects that sustain the growth of the new venture.
The birth of the start-up and its business portfolio were influenced by the strategies and
activities of the FabLab.
Thanks to the cooperation with the experts in heterogeneous area of digital fabrication,
and thanks to partnerships with local organizations (such as local University and accelerator,
local incubator, co-working area, SME), the managerial team transformed the Milan Fablab
association into a private organization, thereby improving its core activity. Based the basis of
the business relationships activated by the FabLab, a manager of this innovative laboratory
discovered the potentialities of digital fabrication and founded ShapeMode.
In order to starting up a new business the founder of ShapeMode, with a specialization in
product integrated design and communication design activated an entrepreneurial team
with a second founder who is specialized in product development and automotive
engineering. After few months, the entrepreneurial team involved a third colleague who
provided competences in integrated design and communication. These social relationships,
combined with the business relationships with the business partners of the FabLab,
sustained the growth of the start-up and its specialization.
In fact, the heterogeneous competences related to Milan FabLab and its business
partners characterized the evolution of the business portfolio of ShapeMode. Initially,
ShapeMode focused its attention on jewellery design. The new business relationships that
have involved the business partners of FabLab allowed ShapeMode to discover the new
applications of digital fabrication and in depicting its new business with a biomedical and
dental specialization. In addition, the heterogeneous competences related to FabLab’s
business partners supported ShapeMode in providing training services.
 Thus it follows that: Collective
P1. The discovery and the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, such as the entrepreneurial
starting up of a new business and its evolution, are co-created in an interactive opportunities
process within heterogeneous business partners.
P1.1. In particular the main entrepreneurial opportunities are generated by the
activation of new business relationships with new business actors. 287
The evolution of the FabLab (the generating firm) influenced the evolution of ShapeMode
(the generated firm).
The students and researchers of Polytecnics made up the first target of Milan FabLab.
The geographic proximity to research centers, architecture studios, industrial design offices,
and engineering universities outlined the strategic location of the FabLab and its support
for intercepting and engaging students, teachers and specialists in the activities of digital
fabrication activities. During that time, the FabLab identified a new target made up of
new ventures, and further recognized that geographic proximity was not sufficient to
improve the long term business relationships.
Taking into consideration this new target the FabLab cooperated with D-namic and
D-factory, located in Brescia, supporting the Kickstarter campaign, as well as the designing
and prototyping of Skiddi (Table III). This project generated the foundation of ShapeMode.
Through the interconnected business relationships, each actor provided specific
resources and developed particular activities.
Milan FabLab provided into the project with main competences related to product
design, prototype and mechanical projects whereas the external competences brought in
through relationships concerned research, market study, strategic planning, and specific
industry competences.
Kickstarter helps artists, musicians, filmmakers, and designers to find the resources and
to make their ideas a reality.
The main activities of D-namic include incubation, open innovation, consultancy
services, crowdfunding, seed capital investments, technology transfer and training. D-namic
developed a special program that allowed creative, inventors and entrepreneurs to
accelerate the development of their business ideas, mainly through crowdfunding. D-factory
is an innovative startup founded with the launch of Skiddi.
From the prototyping of some accessories made in the FabLab, the production
taking charge by guests of the social cooperative (located in Brescia), took charge of the
production; these guests were engaged in social and labor reintegration of people

Geographic
Actors Resources Activities location Business dream

Milan FabLab ( founder Innovative 3D printing services Milan The growth of

of ShapeMode) technologies and prototyping makers’ community
Team competences Crowdfunding
Network competences campaign
Potential relationships
D-factory Business idea Business plan Brescia Innovation in
product design
Kickstarter Platform Exposure USA To make idea reality Table III.
D-namic Consultancy services Acceleration Brescia Creative thinking Actors, resources and
Cooperative Human resources Assembly Lombardy Social values activities in Skiddi
Association region development
IMP with physical and mental discomforts on a daily basis. Skiddi is considered as an
12,2 ethical project.
Within a few weeks Skiddi reached its crowdfunding campaign goal for the official launch of
the micro-trolley ski. The matching campaign on Kickstarter.com gathered $10,000 in just over
72 hours. The final development of the prototype took place a couple of years later, following the
purchase of a 3d printer that allowed to define the lines and the distinctive design of the product.
288 Based on this innovative project, the key referent of the FabLab, who worked on
prototyping activities and the crowdfunding campaign, decided to starting up a new
business: ShapeMode.
The relationships developed by Milan FabLab (the generating firm) created
entrepreneurial opportunities for ShapeMode (the generated firm) thereby overcoming the
local context. These potential opportunities were realized by the interaction between the
start-up and the business partners of the FabLab. The cooperation between Milan FabLab
and the founder of Skiddi, led to ShapeMode being involved in a new innovative project
together with the D-namic accelerator. In this way the innovative project of Skiddi, started at
beginning between FabLab and D-factory, allowed ShapeMode to activate business
relationships with a new actors (D-factory and D-namic) that became new business partners
providing new connections into the network.
In the wider international context, ShapeMode has been involved by Milan FabLab in an
European Project, Phablab 4.0 that is founded on the cooperation within 11 European
photonics institutions and 14 FabLab pilots in the 10 participating countries.
As depicted in Table III the main actors share resources to develop their activities; the
organizations are located in different countries but are characterized by similar business
dreams, vision, and values. Milan FabLab is connected to a global community of learners,
educators, technologists, researchers, makers and innovators – a knowledge sharing
network that sustains international entrepreneurship. The innovative project is founded on
cooperation among actors belonging to different countries that share the same vision: the
FabLab is oriented to the constant attempt to stimulate creativity and innovation, providing
spaces to support the realization of ideas and projects.
The Milan Fablab and the Muse FabLab (Trento) are the Italian referents for the project.
The Muse FabLab is part of the Muse, the Science Museum of Trento.
Attending the project ShapeMode has the possibility to activate business relationships
with the business partner of the FabLab. The project also involved other international
actors: ViNN Lab (Wildau), Tinkerers Fab Lab (Castelldefels), Science Centre Delft (Delft),
OpenFactory (Saint-Etienne), Maker Space of NUI Galway (Galway), M-LAB (Vilnius),
FabLab Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe), FabLab Erpe-Mere (Erpe-Mere), FabLab Brussels (Brussels),
Fab lab London (London), Fab Lab Graz (Graz), and the Fab Lab Barcelona (Barcelona).
The Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) takes up the role as coordinator of PHABLABS 4.0.
The VUB is represented by the Brussels Photonics Team that is an international center of
excellence in the domain of optics and photonics. FabLab Factory is coordinator for the
FabLabs. FabLab Factory is a company that offers services and equipment to schools,
organizations and companies that want to start a makerspace.
This cooperation allows the sharing of different resources own by specific actors.
Pilot Fab Labs will organize the field tests of the “Photonics Workshops” and “Photonics
Challenger Projects” in their Fab Lab.
The networking promotes the development of different activities. The activities of the
European projects stimulate the participatory design, testing and construction of innovative
systems using photonics and promote online skills and abilities based on the evolution of
the market. The discovery of makerspaces, collaborative design and the use of emerging
technologies such as 3D printing and Arduino can better prepare participants to the new
industrial revolution. These activities, developed in PHABLABS 4.0, will be tested in
14 existing Fab Labs in order to share them and extend them to the growing network of Collective
European laboratories. entrepreneurial
The FabLab business partners become business partner of ShapeMode; the dyadic spin-
off relationship allows the sharing of actors and their competences. The relationship
opportunities
between ShapeMode and the FabLab allowed ShapeMode to interact with different national
and international actors. The workshops organized by Milan FabLab with the participation
of ShapeMode aim to share knowledge related to the potentialities of digital transformation
in the photonics area.
289
Therefore it follows that:
P2. Focusing on the spin-off dyadic relationship, the exploitation of collective
entrepreneurial opportunities depends on the sharing of third actors. The business
partners of the generating actor (FabLab) become business partners of the generated
actor (the start-up).
The business relationships developed by ShapeMode and by Milan FabLab in the Phablabs 4.0
activity allowed the two organizations to establish the Numen Institute. The two organizations
involved different business partners as key experts in the digital fabrication context. The vision
of the Institute is to invest in talents considering the growing technology complexity. Teachers
encourage students (classes with a maximum of ten students) to explore creative and
entrepreneurial ideas and make their visions real, guiding them through the development process.
Thus it follows that:
P3. The effectiveness of the spin-off relationship allows for the replicaiton of the model of new
firm generation, which could benefit from the relationships of the two actors in the dyad.
The values and the business dream of the FabLab (the generating firm) have influenced the
values and the business dream of ShapeMode (the generated firm). These values influenced
the values of Numen Institute (new generated firm). The goal of the FabLab is to create a
global network, namely a distributed laboratory for research and invention. Knowledge and
best practices are disseminated throughout the FabLab network, making it a cutting edge
R&D laboratory. Moreover, the services provided by the FabLab can influence the growing of
the makers community; which is the aim of both ShapeMode and the Numen Institute also.
As depicted in Table III, the main actors involved in the project are located in the
Lombardy Region. These organizations are characterized by similar business dreams, similar
vision and values: the knowledge diffusion of digital fabrication and the growth of makers
community. These features depict the relational proximity. The community of FabLab and
ShapeMode is founded on the sharing of the same vision and values that influence the
relational proximity. As stated in the Fab Charter, FabLabs are a global network of local labs,
enabling invention by providing access to tools for digital fabrication: “It is about learning
together a new alphabet, a different way of designing and communicating, what will help us to
then give life to our relationships and our projects.” This orientation has improved the
relational proximity perspective. The community is founded on trust and commitment related
to the digital fabrication evolution (Tables III and IV). The Photonics Projects Challenger
launches a series of challenges with real problems to deal with creativity and inventiveness.
In a similar perspective, the Numen Institute aims to create a community of makers.
Based on this concept it follows that:
P4. The discovery and the exploitation of collective opportunity are developed in a
relational space founded on jointness and the commitment of actors that characterize
the relational proximity.
The collective entrepreneurial opportunities are influenced in a positive way by relational
proximity. In a wider perspective, the process of start-up evolution consists of three interrelated
processes (Mainela et al., 2011): business opportunity-centered processes (the start-up becomes
IMP Geographic
12,2 Actors Resources Activities location Business dream

Milan Innovative technologies Workshop Milan The growth of makers’

FabLab Team competences community
Network competences
Potential relationships
290 ShapeMode Design competences Workshop Milan Diffusion of digital
3D printing services and Challenges fabrication
prototyping competences
Muse Scientific Competences Workshop Trento Development of science and
FabLab innovation
CNR Photonics competences Innovative workshop Milan Development of science
Table IV. VUB Optics and photonics Coordination of Brussels Photonics development
Actors, resources and competences Phablabs 4.0 projects
activities in FabLab Service and equipment to Coordination of the Innovative education
Phablab 4.0 Factory school FabLabs dedicated to space of makers

embedded in a social network); technology-centered processes (the start-up becomes embedded

in a technological network); and internationalization-centered processes (the start-up becomes
embedded in an inter-firm network).
Taking into consideration the previous model, ShapeMode developed:
• the first opportunity centered process considering the social network activated by the
founders through the previous relationships of FabLab;
• the second technology centered process considering the involvement in new project
with the Skiddi start up; and
• the third internationalization centered process focusing on the Photonics international
project of FabLab, which involved the founder of ShapeMode and other specialists.
The third level of evolution, involves the first and the second processes, emphasizing the key
role of a relational proximity founded on the same business dream the same business values.

9. Conclusions and managerial implications

Theoretical implications
The entrepreneurial opportunities were defined as: “situations in which new goods, services, raw
materials, markets and organizing methods can be introduced through the formation of new
means, ends or ends-means relationships […]” (Casson, 1982; Eckhardt and Shane, 2003, p. 336).
According to this traditional perspective, the discovery of opportunity is related to the
entrepreneur: entrepreneurial opportunity emerges at individual aspirations with economic
and social conditions perceived as favorable to create a new product or service, either in an
existing market or a new one. With this traditional perspective, new business formation is
founded on a one-way process, from opportunity discovery to opportunity exploitation by
individual entrepreneurs. In the discovery theory the opportunities are considered to be
objective phenomena not known to all parties at all times (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000)
and the opportunity recognition assumes that entrepreneurs recognize and exploit existing
market imperfections (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
In contrast to opportunities existing and recognized in markets by alert entrepreneurs,
collective opportunities are created through interaction and joint acts with others, mainly
through social relationships (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Vaghely and Julien, 2010).
Opportunity development is a social and culturally embedded process in which
opportunities are created through a continuous dialogue (Fletcher, 2007) that involves
different actors. The founder of a new venture should combine its own competences Collective
with the competences of other co-founders in an entrepreneurial team perspective entrepreneurial
(social relationships). In addition, a systemic approach is required in order to manage the opportunities
opportunities related to the dynamics of an entrepreneurial network.
Shifting the attention from social to business relationships, as depicted in the case study,
entrepreneurial opportunities such as the starting up of a new business and its evolution, are
enacted, discovered and exploited through interconnected business relationships. 291
In particular the main entrepreneurial opportunities are generated by the activation of
business relationships with new business actors.
Going more in depth, focusing on the dyadic spin-off relationship, the exploitation of
collective entrepreneurial opportunities depends on the sharing of third actors. The business
partners of the generating actor (FabLab) become business partners of the generated actor
(the start-up). The evolution of the generating firm (FabLab) influenced the birth and the
evolution of the generated firms (the start-up).
The dyadic relationship allows the generated firm to discover entrepreneurial
opportunities and to exploit them, accessing to the business partners of the generating
firm. Through these second relationships the start up has access to business partners’
knowledge and competences. In particular, the sharing of “actors” allows the new venture to
participate in innovative projects promoted by the business partners of the generating firm.
The effectiveness of the spin-off relationship allows to replicate the model of new firm
generation, that could benefit from the relationships of the two actors of the dyad.
The strong relationship developed by generating (FabLab) and generated (start-up) firms
allows them to generate a new organization (e.g. Numen Institute) that is characterized by
the same business dream.
Moreover the strong relationships are founded on relational proximity that is
characterized by the sharing of values, vision and business dreams. The actors involved in
innovative projects are characterized by the same main aim: the knowledge diffusion related
to digital transformation and the growth of the makers community.

Managerial and policy implications

From a managerial point of view, even if a growing number of start-ups has been associated
with temporary phenomenon, the development of new ventures is now consolidated. A new
managerial approach is required to promote the birth and the growth of the start-ups.
The development of a new venture requires shifting the attention from the collection of
financial resources to the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities generated by
interconnected business relationships. In this way a relevant attention should be given to the
new role of organizations that can be considered to be facilitators of business relationships,
such as the FabLab. In the entrepreneurial network, the role of FabLab has shifted from the
provider of technology to the provider of networking to sustain starting up process.
This paper has shed light on the relevance of the strategic networking that supports the
generation of collective entrepreneurial opportunities. Going more in depth the relational
perspective that characterizes the networking is influenced by a relational proximity. The
networking involves actors that belong from different geographic area and different
countries while being focused on the same business dream related to the exploitation of
potentialities of digital fabrication.
With reference to the policy implications the growing number of new ventures requires new
programs that could improve their development. In particular the evolution of the new ventures
is related not only to financial resources access but also specialized knowledge that could
involve partnership between public and private actors. The policymakers should recognize the
role of FabLab as a facilitator of knowledge diffusion concerning digital fabrication and thus a
public-private cooperation could improve the implementation of the guidelines of Industry 4.0.
IMP Limitations and future research
12,2 Although the case study approach allowed the researcher to gain detailed information about
the spin-off relationship, this effort does not measure the performance outcomes of the
relationships. The extent to which the findings of the current study may be generalized is
limited by the nature of the qualitative research methods employed.
The limitations of the study offer several future research avenues to explore. Future
292 studies would benefit administering a large-scale questionnaire given to the members of
the start-up and to the actors of its Entrepreneurial Network, in order to analyze all the
performance implications for the start-up and the network as a whole. Moreover, future
research should explore the emblematic cases of spin-off relationships developed by
international start-ups and FabLabs in greater depth.
In addition, it could be of interest for future research to investigate the effects of
collective entrepreneurial opportunities in order to examine this topic more deeply. Such
future step of this research could investigate the entrepreneurial opportunities as a resource,
from the IMP perspective (Håkansson et al., 2009), that the actors involved in business
network can share and combine. By adopting the Industrial Network Approach (Håkansson
et al., 2009) the entrepreneurial opportunities can overcome the borders of products and
markets, and thus should be investigated by focusing on business relationships that allow
the starting up of a venture and its evolution.

References
Aaboen, L., Dubois, A. and Lind, F. (2011), “Start-ups starting up – firms looking for a network”,
IMP Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Aaboen, L., Dubois, A. and Lind, F. (2013), “Strategizing as networking for new ventures”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 1022-1041.
Aaboen, L., Laage-Hellman, J., Lind, F., Öberg, C. and Shih, T. (2016), “Exploring the roles of university
spin-offs in business networks”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 59, pp. 157-166.
Aaboen, L., La Rocca, A., Lind, F., Perna, A. and Shih (2017), Starting Up in Business Networks. Why
Relationships Matter in Entrepreneurship, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Adner, R. (2006), “Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 98-107.
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010), “Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of
technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 306-333.
Adner, R., Oxley, J. and Silverman, B. (2012), Call for Papers – Collaboration and Competition in
Business Ecosystems, Emerald Books News, Emerald, Bingley.
Aldrich, H. and Zimmer, C. (1986), “Entrepreneurship through social networks”, in Sexton, D. and
Smiler, R. (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, New York, NY, pp. 3-23.
Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2007), “Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial
action”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 11-26.
Amin, A. and Wilkinson, F. (Eds) (1999), “Learning, proximity and industrial performance”, Cambridge
Journal of Economics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 121-125.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003), “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification
and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 105-123.
Baker, T. and Nelson, R.E. (2005), “Creating something from nothing: resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 329-366.
Baraldi, E. and Strömsten, T. (2006), “Embedding and utilizing low weight: value creation and resource
configurations in the networks around IKEA’s Lack table and Holmen’s newsprint”, IMP
Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39-70.
Barratt, M., Choi, T.Y. and Li, M. (2011), “Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends, Collective
research outcomes, and future research implications”, Journal of Operations Management, entrepreneurial
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 329-342.
opportunities
Basile, R., Capello, R. and Caragliu, A. (2012), “Technological interdependence and regional growth in
Europe: proximity and synergy in knowledge spillovers”, Regional Science, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 697-722.
Beverland, M. and Lindgreen, A. (2010), “What makes a good case study? A positivist review of
qualitative case research published in Industrial Marketing Management, 1971-2006”, Industrial 293
Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 56-63.
Birley, S. (1986), “The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 107-117.
Boschma, R. (2005), “Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment”, Regional Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 61-74.
Brennan, M.C. and McGovan, P. (2006), “Academic entrepreneurship: an exploratory case study”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 144-164.
Camagni, R. (1991), “Local milieu, uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a new dynamic
theory of economic space”, in Camagni, R. (Ed.), Innovation Networks, Spatial Perspectives,
Belhaven Press, London and New York, NY, pp. 121-144.
Cantù, C. (2010), “Exploring the role of spatial relationships to transform knowledge in a business idea
– beyond a geographic proximity”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 887-897.
Capello, R. and Faggian, A. (2005), “Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation
processes”, Regional Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Caragliu, A. and Nijkamp, P. (2012), “The impact of regional absorptive capacity on spatial knowledge
spillovers: the Cohen and Levinthal model revisited”, Applied Economics, Vol. 44 No. 11, pp. 1363-1374.
Casson, Mark C. (1982), The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, 2nd ed., Martin Robertson, Edward
Elgar, Oxford.
Ciabuschi, F., Perna, A. and Snehota, I. (2012), “Assembling resources when forming a new business”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 220-229.
Crouch, C. and Marquand, D. (1995), Reinventing Collective Action: From the Global to the Local,
Blackwell Publishers, Oxford and Cambridge, MA.
Dahlqvist, J. and Wiklund, J. (2012), “Measuring the market newness of new ventures”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-196.
Dubois, A. and Araujo, L. (2004), “Research methods in industrial marketing studies”, in Håkansson, H.,
Harrison, D. and Waluszewski, A. (Eds), Rethinking Marketing: Developing a New Understanding
of Markets, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 207-227.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L. (2002), “Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 553-560.
Dutta, D.K. and Crossan, M.M. (2005), “The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: understanding the
process using the 4i organizational learning framework”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 425-449.
Eckhardt, J.T. and Shane, S.A. (2003), “Opportunities and entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 333-349.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Fayolle, A., Jack, S.L., Lamine, W. and Chabaud, D. (2016), Entrepreneurial Process and Social Networks:
A Dynamic Perspective, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Fletcher, D.E. (2007), “Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity.
entrepreneurship & regional development”, An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 421-440.
Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-501.
IMP Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge, London.
12,2 Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L., Snehota, I. and Waluszewski, A. (2009), Business in Networks,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Hambrick, D.C. and Chen, M.-J. (2008), “New academic fields as admittance- seeking movements: the
case of strategic management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Harrison, D. and Easton, G. (2004), “Temporally embedded case comparison in industrial marketing
294 research”, Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management Studies, Routledge,
London and New York, NY, pp. 194-210.
Hoang, H. and Antoncic, B. (2003), “Network-based research in entrepreneurship a critical review”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 165-187.
Hoang, H. and Yi, A. (2015), “Network-based research in entrepreneurship: a decade in review”,
Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-54.
Hoang, H. and Young, N. (2000), “Social embeddedness and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition:
(more) evidence of embeddedness”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College,
Wellesley, MA.
Jack, S.L. (2010), “Approaches to studying networks: implications and outcomes”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 120-137.
Järvensivu, T. and Törnroos, J.-A..̊ (2010), “Case study research with moderate constructionism:
conceptualization and practical illustration”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 100-108.
Juho, A. and Mainela, T. (2012), “Entrepreneurial networking in INV’s opportunity development”, IMP
Conference, Rome, 12-15 September.
Kauppinen, A. and Puhakka, V. (2010), “Entrepreneurial archetypes in making sense of the structural
holes”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 30 No. 5.
Kohtamäki, M., Vesalainen, J., Varamäki, E. and Vuorinen, T. (2006), “The governance of partnerships
and a strategic network: supplier actors’ experiences in the governance by the customer”,
Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 1031-1051.
Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2003), “Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model
of its formation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 306-324.
La Rocca, A. and Perna, A. (2014), “New venture acquiring position in an existing network”, The IMP
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 28-37.
La Rocca, A. and Snehota, I. (2014), “Relating in business networks: innovation in practice”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 441-447.
Lundberg, H. and Andresen, E. (2012), “Cooperation among companies, universities and local
government in a Swedish context”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 428-437.
Maine, E., Soh, P.-H. and Dos Santos, N. (2015), “The role of entrepreneurial decision-making in
opportunity creation and recognition”, Technovation, Vols 39-40, May-June, pp. 53-72.
Mainela, T., Pernu, E. and Puhakka, V. (2011), “The development of a high‐tech international new
venture as a process of acting: a study of the lifespan of a venture in software business”, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 430-456.
Mirvis, P., Googins, B. and Kinnicutt, S. (2010), “Vision, mission, values: guideposts to sustainability”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 316-324.
Moore, J.F. (1996), The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business
Ecosystems, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal., S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2012), “Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: entrepreneurs’
self-regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1-27.
Øiestad, S. and Bugge, M.M. (2014), “Digitisation of publishing: exploration based on existing business Collective
models”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 83, March, pp. 54-65. entrepreneurial
Ozcan, P. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2009), “Origin of alliance portfolios: entrepreneurs, network strategies, opportunities
and firm performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 246-279.
Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Welch, C. (2010), “ ‘Good’ case research in industrial marketing:
insights from research practice”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 109-117.
Powell, W., Koput, K. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), “Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of 295
innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 116-214.
Reynolds, P.D. (2005), “Understanding business creation: serendipity and scope in two decades of
business creation studies”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 359-364.
Sarasvathy, S.D., Nocholas Dew, S.R.V. and Sankaran, V. (2003), “Three views of entrepreneurial
opportunity”, in Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research,
Kluwer, New York, NY, pp. 141-160.
Shane, S.A. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Shepherd, D.A. (2015), “Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity
based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 489-507.
Snehota, I. (2011), “New business formation in business networks”, IMP Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Sorenson, O. and Audia, P.G. (2000), “The social structure of entrepreneurial activity: geographic
concentration of footwear production in the United States, 1940-1989”, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 424-462.
Suddaby, R. (2014), “Why Theory? Acad”, Management Review Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 407-411.
Tamásy, C. (2006), “Determinants of regional entrepreneurship dynamics in contemporary Germany: a
conceptual and empirical analysis”, Regional Studies, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 364-384.
Torre, A. and Rallet, A. (2005), “Proximity and localization”, Regional Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 47-59.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-478.
Vaghely, I.P. and Julien, P.-A. (2010), “Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information
perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 73-86.
Venkataraman, S. (1997), “The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s perspective”,
in Katz, J. and Brockhaus, R. (Eds), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth,
Edward Elgar Press, Vol. 3, pp. 119-138.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. and Sapienza, H.J. (2001), “Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge
exploitation in young technology-based firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 Nos 6/7,
pp. 587-613.
Zander, I. (2004), “The microfoundations of cluster stickiness – walking in the shoes of the
entrepreneur”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 151-175.

Corresponding author
Chiara Cantù can be contacted at: chiara.cantu@unicatt.it

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com