Professional Documents
Culture Documents
From Venture Idea To Venture Opportunity PDF
From Venture Idea To Venture Opportunity PDF
Opportunities are a core construct in the field of entrepreneurship. Despite recent advan-
ces suggesting the separation of ideas from opportunities, the field still suffers from con-
ceptual deficiencies. This article builds on this distinction and leverages insights from
creativity and innovation management literature to propose a framework that allows trac-
ing the evolution of a venture from first insight to exploitation. It discusses real-time/longi-
tudinal and retrospective measurement techniques from the fields of entrepreneurship,
creativity, and innovation management to empirically capture the framework. Several
research questions for future studies are provided, concluding with a discussion of impli-
cations for research and practice.
Introduction
As emphasized in recent publications (e.g., Short, Ketchen, Shook, & Ireland, 2010),
the field of entrepreneurship has experienced a rapid increase in scholarly research exam-
ining the role of opportunities in new venture creation. Against the backdrop of mostly
individual-level explanations of entrepreneurial phenomena, it was the work of Venka-
taraman (1997) and Shane and Venkataraman (2000) which suggested that an improved
understanding of processes and outcomes in new venture creation can be attained once
both the individual and the opportunity are taken into consideration. Undoubtedly, the
field would not be where it is today if it were not for the focused analysis of what the
enterprising individuals are actually acting upon—that is, the opportunity (Dencker,
Gruber, & Shah, 2009a, 2009b; Venkataraman, Sarasvathy, Dew, & Forster, 2012).
Yet, despite the fact that opportunities are a core concept within the field of entrepre-
neurship, research on opportunities is still in a developmental stage (Dimov, 2007b; Hill
& Birkinshaw, 2010), as evidenced in a number of recent publications (e.g., Alvarez &
Barney, 2013; Eckhardt & Shane, 2013; Garud & Giuliani, 2013; Shane, 2012; Venka-
taraman et al., 2012), requiring further theorizing before key advances in our understand-
ing of opportunities and, more broadly, the early stages of the entrepreneurial process can
be achieved (e.g., Davidsson, 2012; Hill & Birkinshaw).
More specifically, scholars have observed that the field still lacks construct clarity
(Suddaby, 2010) and an appropriate unit of analysis for empirical studies, causing a
“serious disconnect between theory and empirical examinations” (Hansen, Shrader, &
Monllor, 2011, p. 7) thus preventing scholars from advancing in a constructive and collab-
orative manner (Hill & Birkinshaw, 2010). In addition, critics have observed that scholars
Please send correspondence to: Peter Vogel, tel.: 141 71 224 72 06; e-mail: peter.vogel@unisg.ch.
Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray (2003) Refinement of “opportunity recognition” into (a) perception of need,
(b) discovery of possible fit, and (c) creation of fit through establish-
ment of concept.
Key influencers: alertness, prior knowledge, opportunity discovery,
social network, and personality.
Does not consider venture ideas.
Lumpkin, Hills, and Based on the five-phase framework of the creative process by Csiks-
Shrader (2004) zentmihalyi (1996), the authors present a two-stage model of dis-
covery and elaboration as part of opportunity recognition.
Serves as a basis for the proposed framework.
Smith, Matthews, and Schenkel (2005) 2 3 2 model based on type of opportunities (either tacit or codified)
as well as the existence of prior knowledge on an individual level.
Four avenues identified.
No temporality in the model.
Venture ideas not part of the model.
McMullen and Shepherd (2006) A model of entrepreneurial action that describes how an individual devel-
ops a third-person opportunity (an opportunity for everyone) to a first-
person opportunity (an opportunity for me).
Evaluation stage consists of feasibility and desirability assessment.
Serves as a basis for the proposed framework.
Davidsson (2012) Three constructs to describe the opportunity process: opportunity con-
ditions, perception of opportunities, and venture ideas.
Three links to describe how (1) opportunity conditions and individual
characteristics influence the perception of opportunities; (2) character-
istics of venture ideas and individual characteristics influence entre-
preneurial action; and (3) characteristics of venture ideas, individual
characteristics, and entrepreneurial action influence outcomes.
By drawing inspiration from innovation and creativity research (e.g., Amabile et al.,
1996; Afuah, 2003; Kornish & Ulrich, 2014; Schilling, 2013) and by building on both
Conceptual Framework
1. Individual-level factors take into account both single founders as well as founding teams.
Venture Idea. Building on the above, I define a venture idea as a preliminary and mostly
incomplete mental representation of the concept for a potential future venture. This initial
mental representation of the venture concept typically represents a vague insight with
respect to some potential for value creation (Kornish & Ulrich, 2014). Following the three
dimensions of the venture concept discussed above, such insights may relate to, for
instance, an unmet customer need (e.g., long battery life in smart phones), a particular
customer segment (e.g., senior citizens), a resource or capability (e.g., new type of water-
absorbing material), or a combination of these elements. However, the individual has yet
to understand how value can be created and how the commercial potential of the initial
idea can be exploited. With reference to the creativity and innovation literature (e.g.,
Girotra, Terwiesch, & Ulrich, 2010), I will later discuss different characteristics of ideas
(e.g., quantity, quality and diversity, cf. Table 3) and relate different stages of the frame-
work to these characteristics.
Venture Opportunity. At some point, the individual will evaluate whether it is worth-
while to move to exploitation. The degree of elaboration of the venture concept, at the
point where the entrepreneur evaluates it as being a desirable and feasible opportunity for
a new venture, may vary considerably from case to case. Some of the most interesting and
path-breaking venture opportunities may have come into being because they were not or
could not be understood well enough to be specified during venture concept incubation
(George & Bock, 2012).
The proposed definition of a venture opportunity emphasizes that prospective entre-
preneurs will act based on their beliefs of what can be accomplished in the future
(McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Sarasvathy, Dew, Velamuri, & Venkataraman, 2010).
This is a notion that is also common to innovation literature (Afuah, 2003; Jolly, 1997), as
it is the expectations of the future and not the objective facts that determine a firm’s
behavior (Penrose, 1959). However, given that an entrepreneur does not act in isolation
but instead within a given market environment, certain objective and external elements
must be considered when talking about venture opportunities. Thus, by drawing on this
work and work of McMullen and Shepherd and Short et al. (2010), I define a venture
opportunity as a favorable combination of endogenously shaped and exogenously given
circumstances that make it both desirable and feasible for the entrepreneur to exploit a
venture concept and to introduce a potentially value-adding offering into the
marketplace.
Having introduced definitions of the core constructs, I will next discuss the different
stages of the framework, beginning with the triggers of idea generation.
Intentional Idea Generation. This approach represents cases where the individual is
actively engaged in venture idea generation as a result of one or more specific triggers:
searching for an idea because of the desire to start a new venture, searching for an idea on
how a given resource could be commercialized, or searching for an idea on how an unful-
filled customer need could be addressed (Jolly, 1997). While some scholars have dis-
cussed this general approach in the field of entrepreneurship (e.g., DeTienne & Chandler,
2004; Marvel, 2013), intentional idea generation has received the strongest interest from
creativity researchers, who have developed an armamentarium of techniques that can be
used to assist in this process (Smith, 1998). This includes brainstorming, where one starts
2. Resource push may also include the stock of already available ideas that may trigger the generation of
new ideas.
3. These triggers are not mutually exclusive. There may be conditions where more than one trigger exist.
off by freely generating ideas (Osborn, 1942); wishful thinking, where one starts off at the
ideal outcome and tries to figure out how to get there (e.g., commercial space flight)
(Ward, 2004); or design thinking, where one starts with a problem and uses design and
creativity techniques, and convergent/divergent thinking to come up with the best solu-
tion (Brown, 2008).
The founders of excite.com offer a good example for choosing this path as they first
had the desire to become entrepreneurs and only then looked for potential ideas. Or, con-
sider the case of Stratasys, one of the first 3D printing companies, who proactively sought
out specific market needs for their novel and innovative technology (Pederson, 2005).
Legacy. In early research on the origins of ideas, Koller (1988) found that while half the
entrepreneurs generated their ideas themselves, the other half received their initial idea
from someone else. Building on Murphy (2011), I label this mechanism “legacy” and
define it as receiving a venture idea from someone else. Two forms of legacy can be dis-
tinguished, depending on whether or not the individual deliberately involved others.
The external search for ideas has received most attention from innovation scholars.
For instance, open innovation and crowdsourcing have been suggested as systematic
Summary. These different examples illustrate the three paths of venture idea genera-
tion—intentional idea generation, accidental discovery, and legacy. Once an idea has
been generated, the entrepreneur must take further actions to understand whether there is
an opportunity to launch a successful venture based on the idea. In the following, I will
elaborate on these steps.
Incubation. Just as processes of innovation often occur “in nested and repeated cycles of
variation, selection and retention” (Zbaracki, 1998: 612), the initial idea mostly forms a
starting point from which different business-related aspects are fleshed out, evaluated,
and refined until the entrepreneur possesses sufficient confidence in the creative potential
of the venture.
Evaluation. The evaluation of the venture concept forms an essential part of the incuba-
tion cycle and entails an assessment of “what will be,” assuming one were to exploit the
concept (Haynie, Shepherd, & McMullen, 2009). While such an assessment is often based
on thorough analysis (Ardichvili et al., 2003), the entrepreneur’s confidence in the poten-
tial may be based on partial information only and as such, relies to a significant extent on
intuition and the entrepreneur’s wish to continue on the path taken (Sarasvathy et al.,
2010). As Corbett (2005, p. 485) puts it: “The evaluation period is where the rubber meets
the road. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) suggests that this stage is the most challenging because
it requires entrepreneurs to be brutally honest with themselves: they must assess whether
they have just a good idea or a truly viable business opportunity.” Judging desirability
and feasibility leads to what McMullen and Shepherd (2006) call a first-person opportu-
nity—“an opportunity for me.”
Real-time/longitudinal Retrospective
Construct measurement measurement
Real-time/longitudinal Retrospective
Construct measurement measurement
constructs, such as between venture idea generation and venture concept incubation, or
between venture opportunity development and the exploitation stage.
On the other hand, scholars may embrace the aforementioned longitudinal study design
and trace the evolution of an initial venture idea into a more complete venture concept over
time. This is in line with several recent calls for more longitudinal studies (McMullen &
Dimov, 2013; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). Researchers can, for example, assess the learning
process of the entrepreneurs that collect missing pieces of information about the venture
Summary
Overall, these selected research questions illustrate how the main concepts discussed
in the framework may be linked to generate novel insights about the early stages of new
venture creation. Table 4 provides an overview of several potential research questions.
Note, however, that by no means do these research questions exhaust the space of poten-
tially important, hitherto unaddressed research questions which scholars may deduce
from the proposed framework.
The concept of “opportunities” has been widely studied in the field of entrepreneur-
ship, leading to several alternative and, in part, conflicting perspectives. This article
REFERENCES
Abell, D.F. (1980). Defining the business: The starting point of strategic planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Afuah, A. & Tucci, C.L. (2000). Internet business models and strategies: Text and cases. New York:
MacGraw-Hill.
Aguinis, H. & Edwards, J.R. (2014). Methodological wishes for the next decade and how to make wishes
come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 143–174.
Alsos, G. & Kaikkonen, V. (2004). Opportunity recognition and prior knowledge: A study of experienced
entrepreneurs. Paper presented at the NCSB Conference, Tromso, Norway.
Alvarez, S. & Barney, J. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 11–26.
Alvarez, S. & Barney, J. (2013). Epistemology, opportunities, and entrepreneurship: Comments on Ven-
kataraman et al. (2012) and Shane (2012). Academy of Management Review, 38, 154–157.
Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: The implica-
tions of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization
Science, 24, 301–317.
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School, 5, 396–239.
Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S., & Staw, B.M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment
for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and
development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 105–123.
Baer, J., Kaufman, J.C., & Gentile, C.A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to
nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113–117.
Baker, T. & Nelson, R. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entre-
preneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.
Baron, R. & Ensley, M. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evi-
dence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52, 1331–1334.
Bhave, M.P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing,
9, 223–242.
Blank, S.G. (2013). Four steps to the epiphany (2nd ed.). Somerset, TX: K&S Ranch.
Blank, S. & Dorf, B. (2012). The startup owner’s manual: The step-by-step guide for building a great
company. Pescadero, CA: K&S Ranch, Inc.
Bock, A.J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D.M. (2012). The effects of culture and structure on strate-
gic flexibility during business model innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 279–305.
Boeker, W. (1988). Organizational origins: Entrepreneurial and environmental imprinting at the time of
founding. In G. Carroll (Ed.), Ecological models of organizations (pp. 33–51). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger
Publishing.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review
of Psychology, 54, 579–616.
Chandler, G., Dahlqvist, J., & Davidsson, P. (2002). Opportunity recognition processes: A taxonomy and
outcome implications. In W.D. Bygrave, C.G. Brush, P. Davidsson, J. Fiet, P.G. Greene, R.T. Harrison,
M. Lerner, G.D. Meyer, J. Sohl, & A. Zacharakis (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 38–
48). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Chandler, G., DeTienne, D., & Lyon, D. (2003). Outcome implications of opportunity creation/discovery
processes. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Available at http://fusionmx.babson.edu/entrep/fer/
BABSON2003/XVI/XVI-P1/XVI-P1.html, accessed 17 June 2016.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technol-
ogy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H.W. & Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002). The role of business models in capturing value from
innovation: Evidence from Xerox’s corporation technological spin-off companies. Industrial and Corpo-
rate Change, 11, 529–555.
Choi, Y.R., Levesque, M., & Shepherd, D.A. (2008). When should entrepreneurs expedite or delay
opportunity exploitation? Journal of Business Venturing, 23(3), 333–355.
Choi, Y.R. & Shepherd, D.A. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ decisions to exploit opportunities. Journal of Man-
agement, 30, 377–395.
Churchill, N. & Lewis, V. (1983). The five stages of business growth. Harvard Business Review, 61,
30–50.
Clarysse, B. & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a
research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79.
Corbett, A. (2005). Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 473–491.
Crook, T.R., Shook, C.L., Morris, M.L., & Madden, T.M. (2010). Are we there yet? An assessment of
research design and construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research. Organizational
Research Methods, 13, 192–206.
Cropley, A.J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review,
23, 72–79.
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new
theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 37–57.
Davidsson, P. & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research
practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 81–100.
Dencker, J.C., Gruber, M., & Shah, S.K. (2009a). Individual and opportunity factors influencing job crea-
tion in new firms. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1125–1147.
DeTienne, D.R. & Chandler, G.N. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial
classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning and Educa-
tion, 3(3), 242–257.
Dimov, D. (2007a). From opportunity insight to opportunity intention: The importance of person-
situation learning match. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 561–583.
Dimov, D. (2007b). Beyond the single person, single insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial
opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 713–731.
Eckhardt, J. & Shane, S. (2013). Response to the commentaries: The individual-opportunity (IO) nexus
integrates objective and subjective aspects of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38,
160–163.
Fitzsimmons, J.R. & Douglas, E.J. (2011). Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the forma-
tion of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 431–440.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358.
Friedel, R.D., Israel, P., & Finn, B.S. (1986). Edison’s electric light: Biography of an invention. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Gaglio, C. & Katz, J. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alert-
ness. Small Business Economics, 16, 95–111.
Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Carter, N.M., & Reynolds, P.D. (2004). The handbook of entrepreneurial
dynamics: The process of business creation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Garud, R. & Giuliani, A.P. (2013). A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of
Management Review, 38, 157–160.
George, G. & Bock, A.J. (2012). Models of opportunity: How entrepreneurs design firms to achieve the
unexpected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K.T. (2010). Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Man-
agement Science, 56, 591–605.
Golden, B.R. (1992). Research notes. The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as
indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 848–860.
Gruber, M., MacMillan, I.C., & Thompson, J.D. (2013). Escaping the prior knowledge corridor: What
shapes the number and variety of market opportunities identified before market entry of technology start-
ups? Organization Science, 24, 280–300.
Hansen, D.J., Shrader, R., & Monllor, J. (2011). Defragmenting definitions of entrepreneurial opportunity.
Journal of Small Business Management, 49, 283–304.
Haynie, J.M., Shepherd, D.A., & McMullen, J.S. (2009). An opportunity for me? The role of resources in
opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 337–361.
Hill, S.A. & Birkinshaw, J.M. (2010). Idea sets: Conceptualizing and measuring a new unit of analysis in
entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 131, 85–113.
Hills, G., Lumpkin, G., & Singh, R. (1997). Opportunity recognition: Perceptions and behaviors of entre-
preneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 17, 168–182.
Hougaard, S. (2005). The business idea: The early stages of entrepreneurship. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Jolly, V.K. (1997). Commercializing new technologies. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Jones, C.F. (2011). Accidents may happen. New York: Delacorte Press.
Kaish, S. & Gilad, B. (1991). Characteristics of opportunities search of entrepreneurs versus executives:
Sources, interests, general alertness. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 45–61.
Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach.
Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60–85.
Koller, R. (1988). On the source of entrepreneurial ideas. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Available
at http://fusionmx.babson.edu/entrep/fer/front_88.html, accessed 17 June 2016.
Kornish, L. & Ulrich, K.T. (2014). “The importance of the raw idea in innovation: Testing the sow’s ear
hypothesis.” Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 14–26.
Krueger, N.F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasi-
bility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21.
Krueger, N. & Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 18, 91–91.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and chal-
lenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 577–598.
Lohrke, F.T., Holloway, B.B., & Woolley, T.W. (2010). Conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research a
review and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 16–30.
Lumpkin, G.T., Hills, G., & Shrader, R. (2004). Opportunity recognition. In H.P. Welsch (Ed.), Entrepre-
neurship: The way ahead (pp. 86–103). New York: Routledge.
Marvel, M.R. (2013). Human capital and search-based discovery. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
37, 403–419.
McGrath, R.G. & MacMillan, I.C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creat-
ing opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
McMullen, J.S. & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise
of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512.
McMullen, J. & Shepherd, A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of
the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31, 132–152.
Murphy, P. (2011). A 2x2 conceptual foundation for entrepreneurial discovery theory. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 35, 359–374.
Murphy, G.B., Trailer, J.W., & Hill, R.C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research.
Journal of Business Research, 36, 15–23.
Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation—A handbook for visionaires, game
changers, and challengers. New York: Wiley.
Ozgen, E. & Baron, R. (2007). Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of men-
tors, industry networks, and professional forums. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 174–192.
Pederson, J.P. (2005). International directory of company histories (Vol. 67). Farmington Hills, MI: St.
James Press.
Penrose, E.T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ployhart, R.E. & Vandenberg, R.J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of
change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.
Poole, M.S., Van de Ven, A.H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. (2000). Organization change and innovation
processes: Theory and methods for research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ries, E. 2011. The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically
successful businesses. New York: Crown Business, Random House.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability
to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26, 243–263.
Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S.R., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). Three views of entrepreneurial
opportunity. In Z.J. Acs & D.B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 77–98).
New York: Springer.
Schilling, M.A. (2013). Strategic management of technological innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sch€uck, H. & Sohlman, R. (1929). The life of Alfred Nobel. London: Heinemann.
Schwartz, R.G. & Teach, R.D. (2000). A model of opportunity recognition and exploitation: An empirical
study of incubator firms. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 2, 93–107.
Scollon, C.N., Kim-Prieto, C., & Diener, E. (2003). Experience sampling: Promises and pitfalls, strengths
and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 5–34.
Selden, P.D. & Fletcher, D.E. (2015). The entrepreneurial journey as an emergent hierarchical system of
artifact-creating processes. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 603–615.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for
resource-constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 211–230.
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepre-
neurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37, 10–20.
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy
of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J., Shook, C.L., & Ireland, R.D. (2010). The concept of “opportunity” in entrepre-
neurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36, 40–65.
Singh, R. (2000). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition through social networks. New York: Routledge.
Smith, G.F. (1998). Idea-generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 32, 107–134.
Smith, B., Matthews, C.H., & Schenkel, M.T. 2005. The search for and discovery of different types of
entrepreneurial opportunities: The effects of tacitness and codification. Paper presented at the Babson
College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC), Boston College.
Sternberg, R. & O’Hara, L. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of crea-
tivity) pp. 251–273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization.
Academy of Management Review, 35, 346–357.
Uy, M.A., Foo, M.D., & Aguinis, H. (2010). Using experience sampling methodology to advance entre-
preneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 31–54.
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., & Forster, W.R. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR
decade award: Whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial.
Academy of Management Review, 37, 21–33.
Ward, T.B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 173–188.
Weick, K.E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review,
14, 516–531.
Zahra, S.A. & Covin, J.G. (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 14, 451–478.
Zbaracki, M.J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43, 602–636.
Dr. Peter Vogel is the assistant professor for technology entrepreneurship and managing director Cen-
ter for Entrepreneurship, Institute of Technology Management, University of St. Gallen, Dufourstrasse
40a, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland.
I gratefully acknowledge the help of my former PhD supervisor, Prof. Marc Gruber (EPFL). He has
helped me tremendously in the process of shaping and advancing this paper. I also want to thank my
other PhD committee members, Prof. Christopher Tucci (EPFL), Prof. John Dencker (Northeastern),
and Prof. J€orn Block (University of Trier) for their insightful comments. Last but not least, I would
like to thank my sister, Susanna Vogel, for having helped me with the design work of the figures.