THE DESIGN VENTURE CREATION PROCESS:

From Theoretical Conceptualization to Empirical Indication

Henrik Tötterman

Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration

P.O.Box 479, 00101 HELSINKI, Finland

Tel. +358 0 431 33 304, Fax. +358 0 431 33 275

E-mail: henrik.totterman@hanken.fi

ABSTRACT

This paper is set out to study design entrepreneurship in Finland. The general purpose of

this study is to describe and analyze how entrepreneurial processes may emerge among

designers, and evaluate, why design ventures are created as they are. Consequently, the

purpose and the aim are accomplished through the following steps: First, by presenting

earlier theoretical findings related to new venture creation and entrepreneurial processes.

Secondly, a case study is carried out to obtain an empirical perspective of the specific

phenomena. Thirdly, the selected design venture’s creation process is presented and

analyzed in depth. Finally, theoretical and managerial implications are presented.

Key Words: Entrepreneurial Process, Initiating Exploitation, New Emerging Ventures, Design Entrepreneurship and Creative Industries.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years the entrepreneurial process has increasingly become the focus of

entrepreneurship research (e.g. Bhave, 1994; Venkataraman, 1997; Shane and

Venkataraman, 2000; McKelvie & Wiklund, 2004; Johannisson, 2005). As pointed out by

previous researchers, exploitation is a mandatory step in creating new business ventures.

Nevertheless, there has only been a limited conceptual and empirical development of this

particular issue in the literature (Choi & Shephard, 2004). Instead, previous researchers

have consumed a lot of energy on debating the emergence of venture ideas, either by

recognition or discovery made by an entrepreneur. Another debating issue is the level of

innovation concerning the venture idea. In this light, it is important to point out that perhaps

not all entrepreneurial opportunities are alike, which in turn should diminish the urging

need to debate this issue. From an empirical point, it seems relevant to discuss those more

common opportunities that require a number of stakeholders (along with the founding

entrepreneurs) to create or nurture them into being (Sarasvathy et al., 2003). Furthermore,

several different models capturing the initiation of exploitation have been developed, but

many of these conflict with empirical results from a limited number of studies (e.g. Choi &

Shephard, 2004; McKelvie & Wiklund, 2004). In fact, it is rather fair to state that hitherto

research has only limitedly considered the initiation of exploitation processes, especially

from an empirical perspective.

Design entrepreneurship offers for various reasons important grounds for entrepreneurship

research, especially concerning the creation of new business ventures. Hence,

entrepreneurship is repeatedly considered in hitherto research as a creative activity, and the

entrepreneur as a creative individual with the occasional comparable abilities to an artist

(e.g. Johannisson, 2005). Although, artists do not always see themselves as particularly

entrepreneurial, their activities often resemble entrepreneurial processes. For instance,

before an artist may put artwork for sale there is a preceding progression starting from the

breakthrough of initial idea(s), which develop(s) more or less logically into completed

artwork. Similarly, the majority of entrepreneurial processes involve a random mixture of

exploration and exploitation (March, 1991).

It is assumed that design entrepreneurship is a valid choice for extant conceptual

frameworks on entrepreneurial processes (e.g. Bhave, 1994; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000;

Sarasvathy, 2001; Shane, 2003). However, some of these frameworks (e.g. Shane &

Venkataraman, 2000; Shane, 2003) are increasingly criticised for not being able to explain

entrepreneurial activity, for example, in some particular industrial contexts. In fact, some

critical literature sources argue that some of these models are so theoretical that their

validity is uncertain in the majority of practical cases (e.g. Gartner, 2001; Davidsson,

2004). Consequently, cultural and industry specific circumstances, among other issues,

present a need to develop extant frameworks further. Only then are entrepreneurship

researchers capable to increase theoretical validity and explanatory capacity, particularly in

specific empirical contexts. As a result, studying entrepreneurial processes among design

entrepreneurs is assumed to increase the limited academic understanding, especially related

to the initiation of venture creation processes within Finnish design industries.

There are two major considerations with regard to the research problem. First, a

consideration of importance is that the entrepreneurial process view is a frequently and

increasingly discussed topic within recent entrepreneurship research. The theoretical

knowledge regarding the entrepreneurial process is increasing gradually, but extant

empirical understanding continues to remain rather incomplete. Secondly, the initiation of

design venture processes requires the motivation and capability of professional designers.

Hence, in order to create business ventures, designers have to distinguish and transform

both individual and external resources into the emerging venture. Furthermore, various

industry specific factors suggest genuine characteristics for entrepreneurial processes

within creative industries. However, existing theoretical frameworks are eagerly

generalising individual, industrial and institutional factors in order to progress a general

theory of entrepreneurship (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Gartner, 2001; Davidsson,

2004).

On the basis of the above argumentation, the general purpose of this study is to describe

and analyze how entrepreneurial processes emerge among designers, and evaluate, why

design ventures are created as they are. The aim of the study is to increase the

understanding and knowledge concerning design entrepreneurs’ relation to business

initiation and early advancement processes. In addition, the aim is to clarify the distinction

of entrepreneurship within design industries. Consequently, the main research questions is:

how designers grow to become entrepreneurs that create design related ventures?

Consequently, the purpose and the aim are accomplished through the following steps: First,

by presenting earlier theoretical findings related to the entrepreneurial process. Secondly, a

case study is carried out to obtain an empirical perspective of the specific phenomena.

Thirdly, the selected design venture’s creation process is presented and analyzed in depth.

Finally, theoretical and managerial implications are presented.

THE PROCESS TOWARDS ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The process based entrepreneurship research derives mainly from the societal perspective

of entrepreneurship. Consequently, a considerable amount of existing literature sources

assume, especially in theory, a causal, rational and linear process view of initiating

exploitation. More recently, researchers have developed expanded models that admit the

possibility of less rationality in the empirical process, arguing that discovery and

exploitation tend to be at least partially overlapping activities (e.g. Herron & Sapienza,

1992; Bhave, 1994; Davidsson, 2003, 2004, McKelvie & Wiklund, 2004). Furthermore,

some researchers assume that entrepreneurship is a creative process of human interaction

that brings together and organizes thoughts, resources and people (e.g. Sarasvathy et al.,

2003; Johannisson; 2005). The creative process view has its origins in the philosophy of

pragmatism professed in the early 1900s by James and Dewey (cf. Sarasvathy et al., 2003).

It is evident that fundamental differences exist in the way extant literature explains the

initiation and progress of exploitation processes. Nonetheless, most descriptions

incorporate similar components in order to explain the phenomena.

Venture Ideas

Recent literature debates regarding the conceptual definition of venture ideas and

moreover, whether only the introduction of new-means-end frameworks or also imitation

constitutes as venture ideas (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Shane, 2003; Davidsson, 2003,

2004). Importantly, the degree of innovativeness influences the likelihood of initiating

exploitation, whereas path-breaking venture ideas entail substantial uncertainty, because it

is impossible to know the chances of success (Wiklund, 2005). Another ongoing debate in

process related research is the emergence of venture ideas. Hence, previous researchers

seem to find it challenging to agree if venture ideas are recognized by entrepreneurs

(Schumpeter, 1934); they exist in the environment and are discovered by alert individuals

(Kirzner, 1997); or they are created along the process by resourceful individuals

(Sarasvathy, 2001; Johannisson, 2005). In line with this, Sarasvathy (2001) suggests that

each of these may be correct, depending on the specific venture idea and exploitation

process at hand.

Individual Aspects

Previous research indicates that individual behaviour plays a central role for initiating the

exploitation of venture ideas (Casson, 1982). Extant literature describes several underlying

reasons for the materialization of venture ideas by certain individuals, but not by others

(Shane, 2003). For example, Hills, Lumpkin and Singh (1997) highlight the influence of

individual attributes, social forces and the business environment. Other significant aspects

are access to information deriving from life experience: employment (e.g. Von Hippel,

1986; Aldrich, 1999) and also the disparity of individuals’ life experience (Evans &

Leighton, 1989; Dolton & Makepeace, 1990; Blanchflower & Oswald, 1998; Delmar &

Davidsson, 2000). More specifically, research on demographic characteristics (e.g. Borjas

& Bronars, 1989; Evans & Leighton, 1989; Casson, 1995; Bates & Servon, 2000) have

hitherto comprised studies primarily on how the educational level, age, career experience,

opportunity cost and social factors effects entrepreneurs’ decision to exploit venture ideas.

Whereas, most of these research areas have been covered in present literature, surprisingly

few studies have studied social factors more in detail. Consequently, only a few studies

have focused on the social status of entrepreneurs (e.g. Evans, 1989; Dolton & Makepeace,

1990; Stuart et al, 1999) and on the social ties (Hansen & Allen, 1992; Bruderl &

Presendorfer, 1998; Aldrich, 1999). Similarly, research, for example, on the social position

is still widely missing. On the other hand, research on psychological characteristics (e.g.

Knight, 1921; Evans & Leighton, 1989; Busenitz & Barney, 1997; Amit et al, 2001) have

primarily focused on personal motivation, core evaluation and cognition as explanatory

factors for why entrepreneurs decide to exploit venture ideas.

Moreover, extant literature suggests that resource availability will influence individuals’

decision to exploit venture ideas (Aldrich, 1999). Resources refer to all assets, abilities,

processes, attributes, knowledge etc. controlled by the individual. More specifically,

resources can be characterized as “all tangible and intangible assets that are committed to

or available for the discovery and exploitation of a new venture idea” (Davidsson,

2004:115). For example, Johannisson (2000a) divides these assets into human, social and

financial capital. There exists naturally other ways to segregate and define assets (e.g.

Penrose, 1959; McGee & Dowling, 1994; Liebeskind, 1996; Miller & Shamsie, 1996;

Powell et al., 1996; Nahapiet & Ghosal, 1998; Davidsson & Honig, 2003). However, here

the division put forth by for example, Coleman (1990) and Johannisson (2000a; 2000b) are

accepted and utilized. Hence, resources contain: financial capital (e.g. Greene, Brush &

Hart, 1999), human capital (e.g. Chandler & Hanks, 1994; Busenitz, 1996; Chen et al.

1998) and social capital (Burt, 1997; Reynolds, Storey, Westhead, 1994; Putnam, 1995;

Nahapiet & Goshal, 1998; Temple & Johnson, 1998; Yli-Renko, 1999; Baron & Markman,

2000; Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Puhakka, 2002; Davidsson & Honig, 2003). The underlying

assumption is that there exist relations and partial substitutability between these different

forms of capital (Coleman, 1990). For example, human capital and social capital can be

used to compensate the need for and/or increase the access to financial capital

(Johannisson, 2000b). However, essential parts of human and social capital can not be

acquired with financial capital, e.g. trust or experience (Coleman, 1990).

Mode of Exploitation

In extant literature, the initiation of exploiting viable new business ventures is often

characterized by various challenges, coincidences and several junctures (e.g. Katz &

Gartner, 1988). Previous researchers show interest in the mode of exploitation, hence, the

form in which the exploitation of venture ideas takes place (Schumpeter, 1942; Acs &

Audretsch, 1989; Shane, 2002). Commonly the theme is company creation and the

company is the unit of analysis (Gartner, 2001). In addition, several studies have

emphasized the vehicle by which exploitation will occur: start a new company, license,

franchise, organising existing companys around new venture ideas etc. (Shane, 2003).

Regarding the organizational design, some researchers argue that entrepreneurship is

always bound to new company creation (e.g. Gartner, 1985, 2001; Low and MacMillan,

1988), whereas other are much more relaxed on this point (e.g. Casson, 1982; Amit,

Glosten and Mueller, 1993; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Davidsson, 2003, 2004;

Johannisson, 2005).

Furthermore, previous strategic research suggests that resources are the foundation for

organizational strategy and that unique bundles of resources generate the competitive

advantage of the venture (e.g. Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Collis & Montgomery,

1995; Venkataraman, 1997). Apart from their effort, the debate generally ignores the

origins of resource strengths, and the influence of these on value-creating activities within

the emerging venture (Brush et al., 2001). This evident lack in extant research is

particularly crucial for entrepreneurship research that focuses on the interplay between the

processes of discovery and exploitation (Bruno & Tyebjee, 1982; Vesper, 1990; Shane &

Venkataraman, 2000). Hence, it is sensible to argue that entrepreneur(s) bring individual

and external resources together to establish new ventures. Instead, for example, Gartner

(1985, 2001) is not very specific of how resources end up in the new business venture.

After the initial execution of the venture, the entrepreneur attempts to transform resources,

mainly through organizational learning, into more unique and valuable organizational

resources (Brush et al. 2001). However, initially each entrepreneur has a unique resource

endowment and therefore, resource assembling is bound to take different trails. In that

sense, an entrepreneur is faced with a multitude of decisions when assembling resources.

The entrepreneurial decisions range from choices related to the acquisition of essential

resources, to the combination and further refinement of these. These choices are bound to

occur simultaneously and in short order rather than sequentially (Brush et al., 2001).

RESEARCH METHODS

The study applied an exploratory approach and aimed on unfolding the creation and

development process of one carefully selected case. The utilized approach implied that

secondary sources, expert interviews and previous experiences of the researcher were used

(Arbnor and Bjerke, 1994). The existing structure of the design industry in Finland had a

number of implications for how research related to the entrepreneurial process could be

performed. Consequently, the distinguishing feature of the study design was qualitative.

The choice of research design was justified on the basis of the limited and fragmented

notion of design entrepreneurship. Therefore, it was believed that a quantitative study

would not enable differentiation between the various types of design entrepreneurs, and

thus, the outcome might not give trustworthy results (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill,

2003). Similarly, Gartner and Birley (2002) suggest that many substantive issues in

entrepreneurship are rarely addressed, and that many of the important questions in

entrepreneurship can only be asked through qualitative methods and approaches.

Data Collection and Case Characteristics

The study relied on a case study method and data were collected from multiple sources of

evidence, including written sources, participant observation, and an in-depth interview. The

written sources included information captured from various company documents (e.g.

related to the products, the patent and trademark etc.), official registries (e.g. The Finnish

Business Information System) and information from the case company internet-pages. The

researcher also participated in a working seminar (Design Business Network) for design

entrepreneurs in December 2005, and observed among other participants, the case

entrepreneur.

Data were also collected by interviewing the case design entrepreneur. The interview was

based on themes considered as relevant by the researcher. More specifically, the researcher

was prepared with a couple of general questions, which requested the designer to tell about

her profession and her relation to entrepreneurship. These questions were followed up with

specifying questions. At the end, a set of check up questions were asked, which focused

especially on the entrepreneurial process, and moreover, the essence of resources and

motivation. The interview was conducted in January 2005 and lasted for approximately

three hours, including a short break.

In selecting the most appropriate case, the researcher relied on previous empirical

experience from researching design entrepreneurs (cf. Tötterman & Sten, 2005). In

addition, the researcher collected data from eight additional entrepreneurial processes, as

part of the doctoral dissertation. Consequently, the specific case selection was believed to

be representative and demonstrate that an entrepreneurial process is a complex

phenomenon. The case selection was based on several criteria: First, to find an

entrepreneurial process within the design industries that demonstrates the extensiveness of

the process, from becoming self employed to the initiation of exploiting the venture idea.

The selected case was believed to demonstrate in an exemplifying fashion, the slow sliding

from self employment into design entrepreneurship. Secondly, to find an entrepreneurial

process that is driven by a designer that strives to create a business venture. This criterion

was particularly central, whereas designers in general are faced with the challenge of

turning their individual resources (e.g. experience and competence) into organizational

ones. Thirdly, to find a process that shows development over a longer time period. This

aloud to study in retro perspective, how the business activities and need for resources

changed over time. Following these boundaries the study was limited to cover one

entrepreneurial process. The case entrepreneur, found her first company in 1986. The

business idea was to provide furrier services (repair and maintenance of fur coats) to

private consumers in the local town. In 2000, the entrepreneur found her second company.

The company was found to put less emphasis on the furrier services and more emphasis on

her own venture idea. The washable, fur-trimmed shawl has gradually become the main

product of the company. It is nowadays sold all over the world by international agents. So

far, the company employs directly one person, whereas most production and administrative

tasks are outsourced. Moreover, additional staff is hired during busy periods. At last,

according to the newest available data, the turnover of the second company was in 2004

254.000€ (292.000€ in 2003) and the result -2000€ (17.000€ in 2003), (Suomen

Asiakastieto, 2006).

Quality assessment

In order, to ensure the credibility of research findings, extra attention was paid on the

reliability and validity of the applied research design (Yin, 1989; Saunders, Lewis and

Thornhill, 2003). Regarding construct validity, every effort was made to reach investigator

objectivity. In addition, the study was set out to study the progress of the entrepreneurial

process, by focusing on: changes regarding the venture idea; and the transformation of

individual resources into organizational ones. The challenge was to demonstrate that the

selected measures did indeed reflect the specific types of change that were selected (Yin,

1989). In addition, multiple sources of evidence were used to establish a chain of evidence.

Furthermore, regarding reliability, every attempt was taken to enable that a later researcher

could reach the exact same findings and conclusions if replicating the study. Hence, to

minimize errors and biases, as many steps as possible were made as operational as possible.

Furthermore, recorded data were typed word by word, to make sure that all relevant

information was available for analysis. Special attention was paid on the way data were

collected and on the fact that collected data were as unbiased as possible, taking into

account the limited sample. Furthermore, the data were interpreted and compared against

the theoretical framework. Although a study of only one interviewee was too narrow to

support wide going generalizations, the selected entrepreneurial process was still

considered as a representative choice for the research. Therefore, it is believed that the

analysis and conclusions can stand up to the closest inspection (Saunders, Lewis and

Thornhill, 2003).

FROM WAGE WORK TO ESTABLISHING A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

In the mid 1980s, the entrepreneur to become (hereinafter the pseudonym “Mrs. Furrier”

will be used) was faced with a tough and provoking truth. The previously flourishing textile

industry in the surrounding metropolitan area of Helsinki was about to dry out. Mrs. Furrier

had worked for almost twenty years with textile and fur fabrics. In order to continue her

profession, self-employment was left to be the only alternative. Her previous degree in

pattern design had supported her carrier development so far, but she had no knowledge or

experience of starting a business.

Therefore, in 1986 she attended a special business course for fur trade entrepreneurs, and

found the first company later that year. The initial idea to become a furrier started to

develop, after listening on the same needs from several different people in the local

community. The company exploited her furrier craftsmanship and was operated during the

first years from their family home. In that way she could work and look after her three

small children at the same time. Consequently, the step to become self-employed was made

easier due to the increased time she was able to spend with her children. In addition, the

decision involved some immediate cost reductions from previous work related travel

expenses and childcare costs. Life became more human and becoming an entrepreneur was

not straight, but more a conscious and sliding process.

From consumers focus into small time trading with professional purchasers

In 1990, Mrs. Furrier’s youngest child started school. Consequently, after working for

several years at home, Mrs. Furrier decided to move her furrier business into a separate

workspace. Now with some extra private time, Mrs. Furrier became keen to learn more

about the field. She decided to study product design at the University of Art and Design in

Helsinki. The program lasted for two years and she received professional competence in

business conceptualization and product design. Participation in the programme would turn

out to be a major turning point for the business on the long run. Mrs. Furrier was asked as

part of the course to think of what skills she possessed, and how these could be turned into

a product. As we know, she had a degree and several years of work experience from the

clothing industry and was skilled in processing fur. It occurred to her that combining these

capabilities would result in a rather uncommon skills mixture. Thereafter, the task was to

find from a vast raw-material variety the specific materials that should be brought together.

However, it was first after discussing with customers that the initial product idea started to

emerge. She had come up with the idea of combining died fur and hand printed silk-cotton

in an exclusive shawl. However, it would take some years and a lot of development before

the final product would reach the markets.

Introducing the own product

In 1992, Finland was in the midst of the worst depression, since the 2nd World War. The

trade of the company was also strongly influenced and entered a constraining position, with

almost no customer demand for its services. At this point, Mrs. Furrier faced a hard

decision, whether to close down the company or to find means for survival. As a result, she

decided to test the new product innovation on the market. That turned out to be a significant

step towards a slow change in the business focus. Consequently, she participated for the

first time in the Helsinki International Fashion Fair, to test the product on the home market.

Surprisingly enough, it was the foreign customers who actually made the orders. This was

the beginning for small time sales of the new product, which peculiarly turned out as export

business. This was, however, a rather big issue for Mrs. Furrier personally, whereas she

lacked all kind of experience from foreign trade, and even more crucially, still today speaks

no other languages than Finnish.

Although, the shawl was introduced already in 1992, the initial company continued

primarily as a local furrier for many years. The livelihood kept bringing a basic salary,

which in turn enabled a small scale development of product related ideas. However,

servicing old ladies furs was not always so pleasant; it was more about making a living on

something that customers paid for. Making art was very far away from that. That was

something to accept, whereas otherwise it would not have worked. However, the shawl

remained as a minor side business, although, it was evident that there existed a motivation

to develop the business further. Despite motivation, the constraining challenges were both

of a financial and human kind. Besides lacking money to commercialize, she experienced

various concerns in dealing with international purchasers. As pointed out by Mrs. Furrier:

“thinking of these years and these concerns, if I would not have had such a strong belief in

my own thing, and if I would have known all the things that I was faced with, then I would

not have had the courage to cross the line. In that sense, it was good that I had less

knowledge than the other way around.” Slowly, but steadily she increased her capacity and

eventually started to consider how to reach her customers more efficiently, both product

and business wise. After talking with her domestic retailers, she realized that it was mostly

Japanese and Russian tourists who purchased the shawl. Consequently, in 1995 the product

was introduced for the first time on an international fashion exhibition in Japan. The

exhibition ignited the sales to Japan and started to provide a small, but steady stream of

orders.

THE CREATION OF A DESIGN VENTURE

Although, the idea to change business focus was distinguished already in the late nineties, it

was just a few years ago that it has taken place. As Mrs. Furrier puts it, “it was only very

recently that I have been able to clean away this consumer based furrier business and focus

completely on my own products”. An important and conscious step towards this change

was taken already in year 2000, when a new company was established.

The original business idea, to focus on a combination of the specific materials proved to be

good. The basic idea of a triangle shaped shawl has stayed in production ever since it was

launched. It is today the product that brings the major share of the turnover for the

company. Nonetheless, Mrs. Furrier is constantly doing a lot of work in updating and

maintaining the product line. Accordingly, to survive on the international markets, the

quality must be cutting edge from all perspectives. One must be the peak performer in the

small thing that is produced, it must be the best. Then it is possible to receive such a price

that the production becomes sensible. So the product quality must be excellent, but quality

includes also much more. It is not only the physical material and work quality, but more

specifically delivery assurance, time schedules, contracts and keeping the operation

together. Mrs. Furrier has learned what is important, little by little along the years, through

“the business school of trial and error”.

Individual resources in creating the business

According to Mrs. Furrier, the movement from being a designer into becoming a design

entrepreneur has followed a certain growth process. The process has been an internal

development process, and to stimulate it, she has constantly educated herself. All these

years she has been involved in various education programs, either related to business or

then professional knowledge. In addition, a solid professional background has been a

central resource in creating the business, in addition, to an adequate and broad basic field

specific education. One concrete proof for her interest in increasing her knowledge is the

international patent she filed in 2001, after inventing a chemical process for treating furs.

Participation in various education programs has also enabled networking with other people

experiencing similar situations. This in turn has naturally given strength for carrying on

with the own business. Positively, the current business enables participation for an

otherwise busy entrepreneur, whereas the work can be done at any hour of the day. More

generally, Mrs. Furrier is eager to develop, expand and maintain business related

relationships. Personal cooperation and trust seems to be important along with the creation

of a joint vision. So far, she has experienced the strongest ties with one of her contact

persons in the raw-material chain and with another collegial entrepreneur (“sole mate”).

Naturally, she also has family, including a self-employed husband, and friends, but the

private social network is somewhat limited due to the average 65 hours working weeks.

In the beginning when the first company was started, no financial capital existed to invest

in the business, which anyway was not so capital intensive. When the own product came

into the picture it became important to consider how to finance the business. During the

years, there have been occasions of balancing and the business has grown step by step.

Along the road, various smaller external loans have been used, but the lack of capital has

limited the business expansion. Hitherto, the problem has not been so much the lack of

money for promotion, as the lack of resources in the production and back office functions.

In general, Mrs. Furrier claims that most financiers are not interested to invest in the

company, because it operates in a disappearing industry and is managed by a single

entrepreneur. Due to the lack of capital she believes it has been harder to make the business

international, and moreover, she has been forced to abandon some additional product ideas.

The transformation of individual resources into organizational ones

Mrs. Furrier always strives to organize, so that she has “peaceful working time”, and thus,

a normal working day is mainly production oriented. In addition to office duties, she spends

some time with making raw-material orders and communicating with her subcontractors.

The most important ones are the sewer in Estonia; the textile manufacturer in Italy and the

fur processor in Finland. At times, Mrs. Furrier is anxious due to the increasing amount of

production taking place at subcontractors. To maintain or “herd” the network organization,

as she prefers to call it, takes time and can be stressful. When producing in-house, it is

easier to estimate what can be produced and how long it will take. Unfortunately, the

company has not come up with a solution to cope properly with the involved risks in

subcontracting. The company is built in principle around one person and a network of

subcontractors. The production is located in many companies around a few persons with

special skills. This makes the supply-chain somewhat inflexible compared to larger

organizations with several employees. Building up the production network has taken many

years of development work. Now when the collaboration has been in place for some years,

it is slowly becoming a more trustful partnership. This allows for more business model

related planning, based on the network structure.

Furthermore, according to Mrs. Furrier, an entrepreneurial attitude is particularly important

in developing and maintaining customer relationships. A long relationship may forgive

faults and offers flexibility at least to some extent, but especially delays in delivery may

result in lost customers. Most contacts, especially to international customers are operated

via e-mail, which is really convenient for the company. Not only does it enable efficient

communication despite time zones, but it also enables forwarding e-mails to an assistant

company. They in turn make essential language translations and also provide linguistically

talented representatives for trade exhibitions.

Currently, the company is working hard to make its internationally trademarked brand

recognizable all over the world. In addition, business talent is sought after, to assist in

licensing the patent to other producers working with furs and other hairs. The process of

filing for a patent on an international level has been expensive and the monetary sources

have varied between the bank, the entrepreneur and the company. So far, the company has

been forced to slow down business growth, instead of being on full frontal selling its

products. It is not that the company would not have a desire for growth, but the challenges

have been the high raw-material costs and the need for skilled workforce.

Now when the business is developing more steadily there is also time to plan the future. In

fact, Mrs. Furrier is systematically striving to transform her knowledge, based on her tacit

experience, into the company. Everything that is central for the products and operations

should be documented, but it is evident that the process is challenging and takes time. In

addition, the conscious protection of central business concepts and production techniques is

assumed to increase the company’s competitive advantage in the future.

The return from entrepreneurship to arts

The process from being a designer to become an entrepreneur operating a design venture

has requested a lot of time and resources. Although, Mr. Furrier is still enthusiastic of

business development, she has also actively started to seek a suitable successor to enable

part-time retirement. When the company has a qualified successor to manage the business,

she will devote herself to creating arts. Mrs. Furrier would like to continue working within

the business, but mainly with product design and development of production techniques.

“Then the products do not need to involve so high commercial profitability thinking. I

would like to forget again how much the product should cost in the shop, or at what price it

is purchased into the supply chain. That is the largest difference that distinguishes art from

a professional designer’s work.” However, until now the potential candidates have mainly

lacked the entrepreneurial way of thinking. Additionally, Mrs. Furrier admits that she still

needs a certain spiritual growth to let go of her company.

DISCUSSION

The first period in the entrepreneurial process

The examined entrepreneurial process was launched almost twenty years ago. Back then,

the decision to become a self–employed craftsman was at least partly forced, due to

uncontrollable external circumstances. In that sense, the initial venture idea was based on

craftsmanship and not on a particularly innovative business opportunity. Then again, one

could argue if the venture idea was innovative after all. For instance, assume that the local

town lacked similar services from before. In that case, the venture idea could not be

considered as imitation, but instead as a new service or a “new means end” (cf. Shane,

2003). Anyhow, the venture idea emerged from a previous profession and from recognized

customer needs. In that sense, the initial venture idea could be expressed as “discovered”

by entrepreneurial alertness (Kirzner, 1973). Consequently, the venture idea was

materialized due to individual attributes (e.g. previous experience), but also due to external

pressure from the social and business environment.

Furthermore, the likelihood of initiating exploitation was substantially lower, whereas it

was supported by appropriate education, career experience and social factors. In addition,

the opportunity cost was considerably low, due the evident risk of unemployment and

manageable risks of failure. Hence, the decision to exploit could be described as a process

of “sliding” into self-employment, rather than a one time major step into the unknown.

Although, the process was unhurried it was at the same time a deliberate movement from

wage work into self-employment. Hence, the early process development followed a certain

path and was in that sense not a strictly creative process. On the other hand, it is evident

that a high personal motivation existed, along with self-confidence for the personal

craftsmanship.

At the beginning, the resource availabilities were rather limited and mainly of an individual

kind. The lack of financial capital was not crucial, whereas the venture idea relied mainly

on existing human capital and on an increase in the social capital (customer relations).

However, business related awareness was missing, and thus, requested human capital was

assembled from appropriate sources. Most of the central resources remained individual, and

hence, the company gave the individual a legal label to perform traditional craftsmanship.

In that sense, one could argue that there existed no essential organizational resources, or

pressure to create such, despite perhaps a few minor inventories. More precisely, there were

no significant attempts to transform individual resources, into more unique and valuable

organizational resources. Instead, the individual resources were gradually increasing,

whereas the income was mostly used for personal consumption and education of the

individual.

The second period in the entrepreneurial process

An introduction of a new venture idea was commenced, as a result from changes in the

personal social environment and expansions in the individual human capital. The idea of

combining individual capabilities resulted in the recognition of a new, ground-breaking

product innovation. However, it took some time to develop the product into a sellable good.

The likelihood of exploitation was uncertain, due to the involved risks, uncertain changes

of success, and resource unavailability (both financial, human and social). Consequently,

the process progressed in a rather creative fashion, whereas the product ideas were slowly

transformed by resourceful persons into a viable business opportunity. Although, the first

product prototypes emerged, the venture idea was not decided to be exploited at that stage.

Discouraging changes in the business environment diminished the demand for the

craftsmanship. The decision to exploit the new product idea, at least in small scale, was

thus made easier due to the desperate times. The petite success and initial opening of

exports were encouraging, but the venture lacked necessary resources to drive the idea

forward. The absent resources were mainly financial, but also human (business experience

and language skills) and social (stakeholders and customers). Consequently, the

craftsmanship continued along with small time trade and development of the product

innovation. On the other hand, a lot of motivation existed to strengthen these resource

deficiencies, to enable up scaled exploitation of the product idea. Eventually, the efforts

paid of and the product started to sell in a limited number of countries. It is evident that the

individual behaviour played a central role for initiating the exploitation of the venture idea.

However, mainly resource constraints forced the initiation to occur only in small scale. On

the other hand, certain resource deficits were probably substituted with other resources. For

example, despite lingual restrictions the product sales were from the early moments

directed to international markets. Furthermore, the desire to change business was slowly

becoming obvious. Nevertheless, the mode of exploitation remained consistent for a long

time, as did the main source of income. Hence, the company was used as a platform for

testing and developing the emerging venture idea. This probably slowed down the progress

of the entrepreneurial process, but also enabled “trial and errors” to take place, with smaller

risks for business failure.

The third period in the entrepreneurial process

Finally, the decision was made to consciously change business focus from craftsmanship

into fabrication and sales of own products. The transferral process took time, and was

formally manifested when a new company was established. Consequently, performing the

craftsmanship was brought to a halt, whereas most resources were focused to support the

advancement of the emerging business. The basic product idea was almost the same as the

one introduced years earlier, but the product line and the support functions expanded and

they underwent constant refinements. As a result, one could argue that the venture idea was

rediscovered along its expanding exploitation process (cf. McKelvie and Wiklund, 2004).

Due to the long market introduction, the product lost, in a sense, its path-breaking status.

Consequently, a great deal of involved substantial uncertainty vanished. The product was

tested for years on the market, and the entrepreneur increased the understanding regarding

the rules of business and international markets. Thus, the chances for the specific business

venture were not any longer fully unknown (Wiklund, 2005).

Furthermore, the movement from being a designer into becoming a design entrepreneur

followed a certain process. This individual level transformation required inputs in human

capital and a constant drive to combine business thinking with existing artistic thoughts.

Hence, again the individual behaviour played a central role for initiating the exploitation of

the emerging venture idea (Casson, 1982). As a milestone, exclusive rights for inventing a

production technique were achieved. The technique also improved the product quality

considerably, and importantly, the exclusive rights became licensable merchandise for the

future. Besides human capital, the individual social capital was expanded via networking

with likeminded people. The networking supported both personally and business wise the

development of the entrepreneurial process. Trust and cooperation were central in

developing these relations further. As with many other entrepreneurs, the private and

business network were at least to some extent intertwined with each other. Financial capital

suddenly became more central than before, whereas the new business focus was

considerably more capital intensive than the preceding one. The unavailability of especially

financial resources clearly influenced negatively the decision to fully exploit the venture

idea (cf. Aldrich, 1999). Own savings and the business income were not quite enough to

finance the investments made in the exclusive rights, the international trademark and

additional investments made in the business. As a result, business growth was holding

back, mainly due to lack of resources to deal with capacity problems in the production and

the growing administrative workload.

Eventually, more and more of production related tasks were outsourced, whereas hiring

personnel to the company was perhaps experienced as too risky. Overall, the efforts to

construct a functioning production network seemed to function fairly well, but some

challenges remained regarding the control and the confidence. Constructing the network

structure took time, but was an important step in creating competitive advantages for the

one person business. Hence, instead of building personnel wise on the own organization,

tasks were preformed by subcontractors. At last, the creation of a new company was

intended to support product identity and sales, with a network structure that provides

flexibility for manufacturing and administration.

Currently, to create and maintain the production network, individual resources are

transformed into the business. Particularly, tacit knowledge, as parts of both human and

social capital, is seen as vital to get documented and transformed into the business. The

risks of relying only on one key person are recognized, but similarly it seems challenging,

time consuming and also partly impossible to transform the whole lot of resources. One

way to convert tacit resources into more explicit ones has been the filing for exclusive

rights. Similarly, value has been created around the brand, by filing for the international

trademark and making the brand known internationally. At last, after making the business

viable, the entrepreneur is clearly experiencing a desire to return to the roots. Hence, a

succession would enable more time for making art and for being an artist. This progression

requires that viable individual resources are transformed to the business and that a suitable

person is found to carry on the trade. The future will show, how the business will develop

after the succession is carried out. Hence, each entrepreneur has a unique resource

endowment, and therefore, the successor will assemble resources and develop business in

accordance to an authentic trail of action. Hence, each entrepreneur make own choices

related to the acquisition of essential resources, to the combination and further refinement

of these.

Implications for Theory

The research presents some interesting observations concerning the progress of the

entrepreneurial process. Previous entrepreneurship research has generally focused on the

creation of a new venture or the emergence of a new venture idea. In this study, the focus

was not only on these, but also on the development of the resource needs and the individual

behaviour, along a stretched and shifting entrepreneurial process. Focusing on the individual

made it possible for the researcher to better grasp the process, especially before the venture

ideas were introduced, and moreover, before and after the decisions were made to exploit the

venture ideas. Previous research, focusing explicitly on a specific process of creating a new

company or launch of a venture idea, would almost automatically focus on a shorter time

span. Furthermore, the strength of this study is that it takes into consideration that initial

resources are assembled by the individual(s) and not by the new business venture.

Consequently, entrepreneurial processes often start with a set of individual resources and

additional external resources assembled by the individual. This is something that is not

particularly thoroughly explained in previous research. All the same, in new ventures,

organizational resources are normally brought together from individual and external

resources. Furthermore, the study allowed focusing on how resource needs grow and change,

along with a constant need for an individual conversion from craftsmanship into more

entrepreneurial behaviour. Interestingly, the process involves phases that to some extent

linear, but also phases that are strictly creative. In addition, the study supports the idea that

discovery and exploitation tend to be at least partially overlapping activities.

In this study, some of the venture ideas are either recognized or discovered initially, but

some parts (e.g. the innovation towards a patent) follow a highly creative process.

Naturally, the initial idea must be seen as less innovative, whereas the latter venture idea is

path-breaking also on the international level. No imitation as such occurs. Therefore, in

accordance with previous research, innovativeness made the decision to exploit harder (e.g.

Wiklund, 2005). On the other hand, a decision was made to first test the venture idea on a

smaller scale. After positive customer response at several occasions, over a longer time

span, the decision was taken to take the business further. Some of the previous researchers

agree that discovery and exploitation occurs simultaneously, but the stepwise decision

making towards full scale exploitation is not often explicitly explained (e.g. Choi &

Shepherd, 2004; Wiklund, 2005).

Regarding individual aspects, it is clear that the individual behaviour and human capital are

in a central role. Despite previous criticism towards research on psychological

characteristics, this study supports the value of personal motivation, core evaluation and

cognition for the progress of the process. In addition, resource availability seems to

influence individuals’ decision to exploit venture ideas. However, the resource

requirements and shortages changed during the progress of the process. In addition, the

research supported, to some extent, the idea that resource deficits can be compensated.

However, the lack of money, when the subsequent venture idea was launched, clearly could

not be fully compensated by other capital formations. Nevertheless, there existed also

deficits in the human and social capital.

Finally, regarding the mode of exploitation, it is important to understand that new venture

creation was not the only significant unit of analysis. In addition, the entrepreneurial

behaviour was considered as central. As can be seen from the case, the formal organization

was not crucial for taking the process further. This in turn contradicts with some of the

previous research. Consequently, the two created companies were simply not the most

interesting aspects in examined process. Hence, the vehicle to exploit the venture idea

changed between the two companies, but it never culminated in the creation of either one.

Therefore, it would feel absurd to merely focus on new business creation (Gartner, 1985,

2001; Low and MacMillan, 1988) when studying at least this entrepreneurial process.

Furthermore, resources are clearly important for the individual and for the organization,

especially when the subsequent venture idea came along. However, it clearly takes a long

time to create competitive advantages on the organizational level. Especially, craftsmen

seem to experience considerable challenges in transforming their personal resources.

However, extant entrepreneurship and management research clearly lack explanatory

power regarding the transformation of resources. At last, studying only one entrepreneurial

process clearly gives only one example of how resources are assembled and how deficits

are handled. In addition, studying a process from one point in time has many weaknesses.

At the same time, a longitudinal study for a period of almost twenty years seems

impossible.

Implications for Management

The findings put forth here include some exciting recommendations, both for business

managers and entrepreneurs. To start with, it is important to remember that the

entrepreneurial process does not start from the moment that a venture idea is recognized,

discovered or created. Instead, the process might actually start or at least is affected by the

accumulation of both individual level human and social capital. After a venture idea has

emerged and the decision is taken to exploit it, these capital forms along with financial

capital normally develop. As a result, the original, perhaps somewhat modest venture idea

is either modified, or a new venture idea emerges from customer needs or own innovation.

Hence, as the case show, without the initial venture idea to perform craftsmanship, the

second more lucrative venture idea would probably never have emerged. More precisely,

the individual and business growth processes were necessary to allow this innovation to

occur. In addition, it seems equally important to state that designers might be better of if

they first become self-employed in a profession, in accordance to their education (e.g.

craftsmanship etc.). Hence, receiving a steady income and having a position in the trade,

would allow them to develop own product ideas besides the main business. In that way,

they would perhaps have a safer platform to allow trial and errors. The uncertainties of

starting a new business venture that promotes own product ideas are considerable, due to

the deficits in adequate resources at the initiation. After scanning the market and

assembling resources, the launch of the grand (rediscovered) venture idea is more realistic

and can often be completed in smaller steps.

Finally, at least the studied design entrepreneur seems to have an ambition to return to arts.

It almost seems like entrepreneurship has not been a desire, but more a driver of the own

cause: making a living that supports the creation of arts. Nevertheless, when business starts

to flourish, too little time is left for arts and running the business is taking too much time.

This awakens a dream to return to arts. This is acceptable, but should be made in a planned

fashion, so that the business in itself is not unnecessarily endangered. Then the initiator can

very well become only part timer and consume more energy on creating arts. Consequently,

designers seem to important creators of design ventures, but after initiation some of them

might want to be replaced in daily operative activities, by a more professional management.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous research indicates that the decision to exploit is a central element of the

entrepreneurial process. This study supports this view, but argues that there is not only one

decision that is made along the long and winding process. Instead, the process constantly

asks for decisions related to resource assembly, business development and exploitation.

Simultaneously, resources are limited and the individual behaviour plays a central role for

the progression of the process.

Finally, it must be admitted that studying only one case, from one point in time, includes

some methodological weaknesses. On the other hand, it would be extremely demanding, if

not impossible to capture a twenty years progression of an entrepreneurial process in a

longitudinal study. Another option would be to narrow the scope of the study, but this

might leave out many of the factors influencing the way the process develops.

Consequently, the measures taken in the methodology are believed to minimize the

influence from most methodological disadvantages.

REFERENCES

Acs, Z. & D. Audretsch (1989).’Births and firm size’, Southern Economic Journal 56(2), 467-76.

Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations Evolving. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Amit, R., J. Glosten and E. Mueller (1993).’Challenges to theory development in

entrepreneurship research’, Journal of Management Studies 30, 815-834. Amit, R., K. MacCrimmon, C. Zietsma and J. Oesch (2001).’Does money matter?

Wealth attainment as a motive for initiating growth oriented technology ventures’, Journal of Business Venturing 16(2), 119-144.

Arbnor, I. and B. Bjerke (1994) Företagsekonomisk Metodlära [Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Barney, J. (1991).’Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management 17(1), 99-120.

Baron, R.A. and G.D. Markman (2000).’Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success’, Academy of Management Executive 14(1).

Bates T. and L. Servon (2000).’Viewing self employment as a response to lack of suitable opportunities for wage work’, National Journal of Sociology 12(2), 23-53.

Baumol, W.J. (1990).’Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive and destructive’, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893-921.

Baumol, W.J. (1993).’Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: existence and bounds’, Journal of Business Venturing 8(3).

Bhave, M.P. (1994).’A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation’, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 223-242.

Blanchflower, D.G. and A.J. Oswald (1998).’What makes an entrepreneur?’, Journal of Labor Economics 16(1), 26-60.

Borjas, G.J. and S.G, Bronas (1989).’Consumer discrimination and self-employment’, Journal of Political Economy 97(3), 581-605.

Bruderl, J. and P. Preisendorfer (1998).’Network support and the success of newly founded business organizations’, American Sociological Review 57, 227-302.

Bruno, A. and T. Tyebjee (1982).’The environment for entrepreneurship. Enclyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. pp. 288-315.

Burt, R. S. (1997).’The contingent value of social capital’, Administrative Science Quarterly 42(2), 339-365.

Busenitz, L. W. (1996).’Research on entrepreneurial alertness’, Journal of Small Business Management 34, 35-44.

Busenitz, L.W. and J. Barney (1997).’Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making’, Journal of Business Venturing 12, 9-30.

Casson, M. (1982).The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. Barnes and Noble Books, Totowa, NJ.

Casson, M. (1995).Entrepreneurship and Business Culture. Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, US: Edwar Elgar.

Chandler, G. N. and S. H. Hanks (1994).’Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities, venture strategies, and venture performance’, Journal of Business Venturing 9, 331-349.

Chen, C. C., P. G. Greene and A. Crick (1998).’Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?’, Journal of Business Venturing 13, 295-316.

Choi, Y.R. and D.A. Shepherd (2004).’Entrepreneurs’ decisions to exploit opportunities’, Journal of Management 30(3), 377-395.

Cohen, D. and L. Prusak (2001). How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Coleman, J. (1990).’Social capital and the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology 94, 95-120.

Collis, D. and C. Montgomery (1995). Competing on resources: strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 117-128.

Davidsson, P. (2003).’The domain of entrepreneurship research: some suggestions’. In J. Katz & S. Shepherd (Eds.) Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 6, 315-372. Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer Delmar, F. and P. Davidsson (2000).’Where do they come from? Prevalence and

characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 12, 1-23.

Design Business Network (2005). Design venture work shop. University of Art and Design in Helsinki: 28.11.2005, from 9.00 to 4.00pm.

Dolton, P.J. and G.H. Makepeace (1990).’Self employment among graduates’, Bulletin of Economic Research 42(1), 35-53.

Evans, D.S. and L. Leighton (1989). ‘Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship’, American Economic Reveiew 79. 519-535.

Evans, M.D.R. (1989). ‘Immigrant entrepreneurship: Effects of ethnic market size and isolated labor pool’, American Sociological Review 54(6), 950-962.

Finnish Business Information System. (2006). www.ytj.fi

Gartner, W. B. (1985).’A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation’ Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696 - 709.

Gartner, W. B. (2001).’Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship research? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4, Summer), 27-39.

Gartner, W. and S. Birley (2002).’Introduction to the special issue on qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research’, Journal of Business Venturing 17(5), 387-395.

Greene, P. G., C. G. Brush and M.M. Hart (1999). ‘The corporate venture champion: a resource-based approach to role and process’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 23(Spring), 103-122.

Hansen, E. and K. Allen (1992).’The creation corridor: Environmental load and pre-organization information-processing ability’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17(1), 57–65.

Herron, L. and H. Sapienza (1992).’The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch activities’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17(1), 49–55.

Hills, G., G. Lumpkin and R. Singh (1997).’Opportunity recognition: Perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs’, 1997 Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Johannisson, B. (2000a).’A tripolar model of New Venture Capitalising – Financial, Human and Social Capital’, Scandinavian Institute for Research in Entrepreneurship. Växjö: Sweden.

Johannisson, B. (2000b).’Humankapital och socialt kapital som kraftkällor vid regional utveckling’, Scandinavian Institute for Research in Entrepreneurship. Växjö: Sweden. http://naring.regeringen.se/fragor/regionalpolitik/las_mer.htm (14.01. 2002, 4.30 p.m.).

Johannisson, B (2005). Entreprenörskapets väsen [The Spirit of Entrepreneurship]. Studentlitteratur: Lund, Sweden.

Katz, J. and W.B. Gartner (1988).’Properties of emerging organizations,’ Academy of Management Review 13(3), 429-441.

Knight, F. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, New York, US: Augustus Kelly. Liebeskind, J.P. (1996).’Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm’, Strategic

Management Journal 17(special issue), 93-108. Low, M. B. & MacMillan, I. C. (1988).’Entrepreneurship: past research and future

challenges’, Journal of Management 14, 139-161. March, J.G. (1991).’Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’,

Organizational Science 2(1). McGee, J. and M. Dowling (1994).’Using cooperative R&D arrangements to leverage

managerial experience: A study of technology intensive new ventures’, Journal of Business Venturing 9(1), 33-48.

McKelvie, A. and J. Wiklund (2004).’How knowledge affects opportunity discovery and exploitation among new ventures in dynamic markets’, In J. Butler (Ed.) Opportunity Identification and Entrepreneurial Behaviour. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Miller, D. and J. Shamsie (1996).’The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965’, Academy of Management Journal 39(3), 519-543.

Nahapiet, J. and S. Goshal (1998).‘Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organisational advantage’, Academy of Management Review 23(2).

Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford University Press: New York. 2nd edition (1995).

Powell, W.W., K.W. Koput and L. Smith-Doerr (1996).’Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology’, Administrative Science Quarterly 41, 116-146.

Puhakka, V. (2002). Entrepreneurial Business Opportunity Recognition. Relations between Intellectual and Social Capital. Environmental Dynamism, Opportunity Recognition Behavior and Perfomance. Doctoral dissertation No. 104. Vaasa, Finland: Universitas Wasaensis.

Putnam, R. D. (1995).‘Bowling alone: America's declining social capital’, Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

Reynolds, P. D., D.J. Storey and P. Westhead (1994).’Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates’, Regional Studies 28(4), 443-456.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001).’Causation and effectuation: Towards a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency’, Academy of Management Review 26(2), 243-263.

Sarasvathy, S., N. Dew, S. Velamuri and S. Venkataraman (2003) ‘Three Views of Entrepreneurial Opportunity’, in Z. Acs and D. Audretsch (eds) Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic .

Saunders, M., P. Lewis and A. Thornhill (2003). Research methods for business students. 3rd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York, US: Harper. Shane, S. (2002).’Selling university technology patterns from MIT’, Management Science

48(1), 122-137. Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-Opportunity

Nexus. Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar. Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman (2000).’The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of

research’, Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. Stuart, T., H. Hoang and R. Hybels (1999).’Interorganizational endorsements and the

performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 315-349.

Suomen Yritystieto Ltd. (2006). Business information. Temple, J. and P.A. Johnson (1998).’Social capability and economic growth’, Quarterly

Journal of Economics 113(3), 965-990 Tötterman, H. and J. Sten (2005).’Start-ups: business incubation and social capital’,

International Journal Small Business Journal 23(5), 487-511. Venkataraman, S. (1997).’The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An

editor’s perspective’. In J. Katz & J. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Vesper, K. (1990). New Venture Strategies. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Von Hippel, E. (1986).’Lead users: A source of novel product concepts’, Management

Science 32(7), 971-805. Wernerfelt, B. (1984).’A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal

5(2), 171-180. Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publishing. Yli-Renko, H. (1999). Dependence, Social Capital, and Learning in Key Customer

Relationships: Effects on the Performance of Technology-Based New Firms. Doctoral thesis, The Finnish Academy of Technology, Espoo: Finland