Role of Entrepreneurs in Enhancing Innovation

Subtheme: Entrepreneurship, Small Businesses and Human Resource Development.

.

Daniel Nderi

Lecturer KIM- Meru Branch

Address: dnderius@yahoo.com,

Tel No. 0721 986 343

Key Words; Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Product development, Creativity, Flexibility

ABSTRACTThis paper critically examines the role played by entrepreneurs in enhancing

innovations within their respective industries. This paper raises the questions of

why most of the industrial innovations tend to be related to the small entrepreneurs

within the industry. Many multinationals and national firms have been found to

either source for competitive linkages with these entrepreneurs or take over the

businesses or products developed by these innovative entrepreneurs. In Kenya the

mobile service providers are relying on platforms developed by the entrepreneurs to

serve their clients, for example the money transfer software’s developed by

entrepreneurs have enabled these companies to offer financial products. This study

investigates the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship, how

entrepreneurs drive innovation. This paper shows the contribution afforded to start

up business and entrepreneurial ventures by flexibility, the environment of

operation, the size and structure of the organization, ability to evaluate and attract

the right kind of personnel, and their risk taking nature. This study relied on

secondary data collected through review of current literature on entrepreneurship

and innovation

1.0 Introduction

Entrepreneurs have a huge role to play by driving change through product

innovation. What is most crucial is the level of innovation and development

required to meet the future needs of our society. This means all sectors needs to be

populated with entrepreneurs who are driven by the desire to innovate. This does

not rule out the presence of creative and bright people to spearhead the required

change, who should at least be driven by the desire to create products and processes

that solves the various problems besotting the mankind. The pace seems to have

been set and especially by the entrepreneurs in the financial sector. The most

pronounced leading entrepreneur- innovator in our beloved nation being Kamal

Budhabhati. He has cut a niche in the provision of the financial solutions to the

financial sector, Management (July 2011).

The concept of entrepreneurship, long hallowed in the context of business and

economic ventures, has been increasingly applied to the context of social problem-

solving (e.g., Dees, 1998a; 1998b; Thake & Zadek, 1997; Emerson & Twersky,

1986). The challenges of finding effective and sustainable solutions to many social

problems are substantial, and solutions may require many of the ingredients

associated with successful innovation in business creation. The nation today has to

find ways of bringing the industrial players together and embark on initiating

innovativeness.

It is only recently that entrepreneurship has been identified by many researchers as

a major driving force of a free market economy. However, it was only recently that

economists began to synthesize the knowledge about entrepreneurship and analyze

its impact on economic growth. However it should be understood that the

conception of small or large businesses would not drive the economy without the

presence of innovative products and processes. Thus this is why this paper tends to

interrogate the role that entrepreneurship should play in innovating products that

will sustain and give the organization a competitive edge.

2.0 The concept of entrepreneurship

As a concept, entrepreneurship has acquired unprecedented significance in the

global debate on the role of business enterprises on economic and social

development. According to Professor Papanek in Henry (1994) entrepreneurship

concept should be divided into three sub functions; Entrepreneurship in

Schumpeterian sense (that is seeing and seizing an opportunity for a new economic

venture), financial risk taking and finally managerial function. The amorphous

nature of the concept of entrepreneurship therefore can be illustrated by the

definition Benjamin Higgins uses when he describes the theory of development.

Svedberg’s (2000) provides a description of the historical developments.

Schumpeter (1934) sums up several entrepreneurial characteristics, including the

entrepreneur “acting in a way leading to creative destruction”. The latter

characteristic is known as the Schumpeterian notion (Gibb, 2002). This explanation

of the nature and process of the capitalist economy – wherein innovation is the

engine, and entrepreneurs serve as the commanders and risk takers, while creative

destruction symbolizes remains foundational and fundamental to date (Ma & Tan,

2005). Thus from the above argument it raises the argument of the need to combine

entrepreneurship with innovation. Success in the economic growth according to

Svedberg’s is accomplished when entrepreneurship and innovation are intertwined.

He further argues that innovation is only nurtured by that entrepreneur who have the

drive to achieve the competitive edge or who wants to leave a mark in their

businesses or endeavors.

By “entrepreneurship” is meant the function of seeing investment and production

activities: organizing an enterprise to undertake a new production process; raising

capital, hiring labour, arranging for a supply of raw materials, finding a site and

combining these factors of production into a going concern; introducing new

techniques and commodities discovering new sources of natural resources; and

selecting top managers for day to day operations’

Another dimension of defining entrepreneurship is taken by Hisrich etal (2009)

entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting

the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic, and

social risks and receiving the results and the rewards of monetary and personal

satisfaction and the rewards.

The concept of entrepreneurship is understood as a combination of creativity and

innovation. It is a stance taken within the business applying inherent creativity as

the act of 'thinking of' new things. It involves coming up with innovative ideas and

trying out new methods within the operations. The concept of entrepreneurship is

also concerned with new ways of looking at opportunities and identifying a new

approach towards solving problems. Entrepreneurship requires the entrepreneur to

shift paradigms and do away with old assumptions and perspectives.

The entrepreneur basically adopts techniques that can be utilized by the

organization or their firms to stimulate creativity amongst the employees. These

techniques tend to bring the urge or the competitiveness amongst the employees.

The concept of entrepreneurship involves the consideration of a number of

opportunities to enhance employee performance and business profits. The

entrepreneur is expected to imply strategic planning to assess if the opportunities

provided for growth are worthwhile and how they could be successfully exploited.

Strategic planning is an essential part of the concept of entrepreneurship and

effective application helps to ensure successful operation. It is a useful tool within

the sphere of influence of entrepreneurship and serves a niche market for improving

on the business performance. The concept of entrepreneurship involves the owner

taking absolute responsibility of empowering the employees and in turn, affecting

sales and profitability of the business.

3.0 The concept of Innovation

For many years, R & D (research and Development) has been closely associated

with technological innovation. Invention is the narrowest definition of innovation.

According to Drucker (1994), innovation “…is the specific function of

entrepreneurship...’’ , he continued to state that there were seven basic sources of

opportunities to innovate but only one of them was to do with inventing something

new. Therefore, innovation is more than invention and does not have to be

technical. There are numerous examples of social and economic inventions.

Innovation is a proposed theory or design concept that synthesizes extant

knowledge and techniques to provide a theoretical basis for a new concept Sundbo

(1998). Innovation thus has many stages and is multidimensional. Innovation could

also be explained as a process of intentional change made to create value by

meeting opportunity and seeking advantage. This process could depicted as having

the following stages; Invention à Change à Useful implementation

Hindle (2009) puts it that every invention process is a blend of four principle

components

i. Existing knowledge ( current expertise in given area)

ii. The conscious search for new knowledge ( continuous research )

iii. The serendipitous (not consciously sought ) discovery of new knowledge

iv. Creativity

That invention is the creation of new knowledge is the vital predicate process in the

innovation duality.

The most prominent innovation dimensions can be expressed as dualisms; radical

versus incremental, product versus process; and administrative versus

technological. Innovation can be radical and incremental. Radical innovations refer

to discontinuous, revolutionary, original, basic or pioneering innovations.

Incremental innovations are small improvements made to enhance and extend the

establishment processes, products and services. For the purpose of this research,

innovation is defined broadly to include new products, new processes, new services,

new forms of organization, new markets, and the development of new skills and

human capital.

Tidd et al (2005) argue that there are four types of innovation; consequently the

innovator has four pathways to investigate when searching for good ideas:

i) Product Innovation - new products or improvements on products. The new Bonga

na bob by Safaricom, OR the software enabling the mobile phones to use the local

languages or the updated Toyota vehicle models, new models of mobile phones and

so on.

ii) Process Innovation - where some part of the process is improved to bring benefit.

Just in Time is a good example.

iii) Positioning Innovation - Lucozade used to be a medicinal drink but this has

changed with it being repositioned as a sports drink.

iv) Paradigm Innovation - where major shifts in thinking cause change. During the

time of the expensive mainframe, Bill Gates and others aimed to provide a home

computer for everyone.

4.0 The conceptual relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation

The economics of innovation, in particular, have attracted increased attention in

recent years (Grupp, 2001; Arora et al 2002; Stoneman, 1995). Sundbo (1998)

summarized the basic theories of the economics of innovation and identified three

competing paradigms in the current theoretical discussion of innovation:

i. The entrepreneur paradigm

ii. The technology-economics paradigm

iii. The strategic paradigm

For our discussion the prevalent paradigm is the entrepreneur paradigm which can

be traced back to the 1930s when Schumpeter (1934) first attempted to establish a

linkage between entrepreneurs and innovation in theory, and viewed the

entrepreneur as innovator. He maintained that innovation contributed to the growth

of the economy because entrepreneurs produced innovations.

Peter Drucker actually erases any doubt that exists on the relationship between

entrepreneurship and innovation when he puts it that innovation is the specific

function of entrepreneurship. That is innovation depends on the entrepreneurial

ability of the owner or manager of the organization. Entrepreneurs seek to innovate.

And in keeping with our earlier definition of innovation as change, this means that

the entrepreneur is an agent of change made to create value. Thus there exists a

relationship between an entrepreneur and the process of innovation.

The concept of entrepreneur as innovator underpins the entrepreneur paradigm in

which the role of the entrepreneur is highlighted in the innovation process.

According to this paradigm, only a person who founds a new company on the basis

of a new idea can be called an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship is viewed as a creative

act and an innovation. Entrepreneurship is about creating something that did not

previously exists. Back to our nation this paradigm was exposed OR came to light

when we focus on the Equity bank led by Dr. Mwangi. The team in this financial

institution revolutionized the financial sector by opening banking to the people at the

bottom of the pyramid. This could be classified as an act of creativity that not only

charted, uncharted waters but introduced innovative products that meet the needs of

those ranked at the bottom of the pyramid. The creation adds value to the individual

and the community, and is based upon perceiving and capturing an opportunity [5].

Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurship by which entrepreneurs exploit

change as an opportunity for a different business or service. There is a considerable

overlap between entrepreneurship and innovation. Moreover, innovation has to

address market needs, and requires entrepreneurship to achieve commercial success.

While there is no test to determine entrepreneurs and innovators, they do appear to

share some of the same qualities. These include vision, high energy level, need to

achieve, self-confidence and optimism, tolerance for failure, creativity, tolerance for

ambiguity and internal locus of control (Coleman, 2000).

Others have had different views on the relationship between entrepreneurship and

innovation. Davidson (2004) has distinguished two principle schools of thought

within the entrepreneurial discipline. The ‘‘emergence perspective’’ (Katz and

Gartner 1998) and the ‘‘opportunity perspective’’ (Shane and Venkaraman 2000).

The latter argued that the truly distinctive characteristic of entrepreneurship lies not

in the act of organizational creation and development but in the management of

entrepreneurial opportunities.

Of fundamental importance to the opportunity perspective of entrepreneurship – the

perspective associated with innovation – is that entrepreneurial opportunity involves

discovery and the evaluation of new relationships between means and ends. This is

quite distinct from the improvement of the optimization within the existing means-

ends frameworks. Functionally opportunities are defined as situations in which new

goods and services, raw materials, markets and organizing methods can be

introduced through the formation of new means, ends or means- ends relationships

(Eckhardt and Shane 2003).

A point to note according to Hindle (2009) on the relationship between

entrepreneurship and innovation is that those who believe in the opportunist view

argue that entrepreneurship is about the discovery, evaluation and the exploitation

of opportunities whatever the organization mode of pursuit. This does not limit the

innovation of products or processes to the small scale business; rather it takes the

objectivity view of business growth on all kinds and sizes of organizations.

4.0 What is the difference between Entrepreneurship and Innovation?

According to Hisrich et al (2009) on the historical development of entrepreneurship

they argue that it is in the middle of the 20 th century, that the notion of an

entrepreneur as an innovator was established; they continue further to argue that the

function of the entrepreneur is to reform or to revolutionalize the pattern of

production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological

method of producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way,

opening a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by

organizing a new industry

This question has baffled both entrepreneurs and innovators since the “invention of

the invention” during the late 1800’s (before this time period, inventions were

thought of as being “flashes of genius”.  They were considered mysterious, and

were definitely unmanaged.) This did change with the entrepreneur writers of the

20th century who could now be able to trace and observe the innovative ways

developed by the industrial captains. Within the renaissance period innovative

products like cars were developed and these guys were nowhere genius, just guided

by an appetite for risk taking which happened to be one of the characteristics

embodied by successful entrepreneurs.

The man who coined the term Entrepreneur, J.B. Say, defines an entrepreneur as

one who delegates resources (capital) from things that are less efficient to those that

are more efficiently used.  I believe J.B. Say was referring to the process of

innovation and not necessarily Entrepreneurship as we know it today, Olson (2008)

A distinct characteristic of the Innovators is their special ability to

optimize. According to Livingstone (2000) innovation is the process whereby new

ideas are transformed, through economic activity into sustainable value-creating

outcome. They find inefficiencies in already existing resources (may it be

technological, like advancements in computing power or even social, like the

innovative practice of installment buying which revolutionizes industries from

supply-driven to demand-driven instantaneously).  These innovators, though

important, often don’t “exploit” the changes that they have stumbled upon, through

research, invention, or whatever means it may be.

Thus it is the work of entrepreneurs to exploit change that has been brought through

innovation and often times are the creators of it. (Ma & Tan, 2005) describes the

successful entrepreneur as the master of creative destruction.  They anticipate

change by systematically managing innovation through research. Rather they look

at the economic value of the innovation and try to fit it to the dynamic environment

in which we find the realm of today’s customers. This has made it possible the

ability of entrepreneurs to shun out continuo’s products in the same class of needs.

They make economic value out of things that previously had none and sometimes

drastically lower the value of existing innovations in the process.  An example in

the recent history of our music industry is our transitions from Vinyl-> Cassette->

Compact Disc-> Digital, all within a relatively short period. 

A very powerful statement that supports that definition comes from Drucker’s

(1994), “There is no such thing as a “resource” until a man finds a use for

something in nature and thus endows it with economic value.  Until then, every

plant is a weed and every mineral just another rock.”  Penicillin was once just

mold and crude was a nuisance for making the soil infertile and degenerate without

value. Thus the combination of innovation is required for many are the times

innovators develop innovations, which when not in the radar of the entrepreneur

may not be rolled out to the market.

Entrepreneurship is thought of to be a “risky” venture; similar to investing in the

stock market, simply because many of the so-called “Entrepreneurs”, like

Investors, are simply Speculators don’t know what they are doing.  They are not

trying to create change producing value for mankind by converting innovations

(whether it be product, process, or social) into something we cannot refuse to

accept.  They are looking for the “get rich quick” route, or opening small shops

that offer services that already exist.

5.0 Entrepreneurs Driving Innovation

According to Hisrich etal (2009) an entrepreneur starts by painting a vision that is

desirable, challenging and believable. This tends to reawaken the desire of

achievement in the human being. If an entrepreneur can do this then there are three

big gains for the organization: First, people share a common goal and have a sense

of embarking on a journey or adventure together. This means they are more willing

to accept the changes, challenges and difficulties that any journey can entail.

Secondly, it means that more responsibility can be delegated. Staff can be

empowered and given more control over their work. Because they know the goal

and direction in which they are headed they can be trusted to steer their own raft

and to figure out the best way of getting there. This ensures the freedom required to

exercise their creativity and innovative capability. According to Hindle (2009),

innovation is a combination of invention and implementation. Livingstone (2000,3)

amplifies the definition given by Hindle by putting it that “ .....Innovation is not just

the idea-innovation is only achieved when the idea has been transferred into an

outcome that has value”. This brings us to the role played by the entrepreneur who

ensures that the implementation phase is made available. That is the opportunity to

convert the ideas into tangible models or designs which can be developed into

innovative products that have economic value.

Thirdly, Hirsch puts it that people will be more creative and contribute more ideas if

they know that there are unsolved challenges that lie ahead. They have bought into

the adventure so they are more ready to find routes over and around the obstacles on

the way. This brings to the conclusion that the entrepreneur drives innovation

within the organization they lead.

6.0 Factors enhancing entrepreneur drive towards innovation

Flexibility of an Entrepreneur

Barnett and Weinstein’s (1998) argue that flexibility is the degree to which a

business unit is adaptable in administrative relations and the authority is vested in

situational expertise. A firm that exhibits low flexibility is therefore rigid in

administration relations and adheres to bureaucratic relations.

Kwaku (1989) uses the term “planned flexibility” defined as the firm’s ability to

change its strategic plan as environmental opportunities and threats emerge.

Flexibility is also defined as the degree to which a business unit is adaptable on

administration relations and the authority that is vested in situational expertise.

Long (2001) argues that although that there are various ways of looking at

flexibility, the defining characterization of flexibility include the design of

organization in which the employees are afforded wide latitude in performing their

jobs. It is intended to eliminate the need for extensive rigid systems of control

which would otherwise be necessary to ensure effective employee behaviour.

The term "flexibility" might best describe the feature of capital structures that enable

them to adjust to exogenous change at relatively low cost. The notion of flexibility

can be applied to both individual goods, in which it becomes a close, but more

descriptive, synonym for "generality," and to a whole production process or capital

structure. In an environment of greater uncertainty, or a faster pace of economic

change, entrepreneurs are likely to prefer, on the margin, capital that has relatively

more flexibility. This may be particularly true of human capital, where employees

may be required to move quickly from one project or production process to another

as market conditions change.

Kirzner (1973), considered the entrepreneur as the 'prime-mover' in the firm.

Therefore, the idea that the entrepreneur is simply a profit maximizing decision-

maker within the firm is regarded as defunct. This is so because it limits the nature

and the recognizable beehaviour of the entrepreneur which tends to lean towards

flexibility beyond the cost analysis aspect of maximizing profitability. According to

Kirzner’s theory, it is the notion of 'alertness', a tendency for an individual to

discover what would be profitable to him/her if he/she were to discover it. Thus the

entrepreneur must be able to exist in the different planes that are determined by the

forces of demand and supply observing not only the market but also the economic

gaps appearing within his or her field of play. This view suggests that

entrepreneurship is not a resource that can be planned. That is, alertness cannot be

traded on the market. This therefore supports the notion of the need of flexibility on

the side of the entrepreneur.

Thus an entrepreneurship approach towards the importance of transaction costs is

required in order to emphasize the discovery aspect involved in the emergence of a

firm

The degree of flexibility of a firm's capital structure will be an important factor in its

ability to respond to profit opportunities or potentially damaging exogenous change.

If the owners or managers of a firm see a new profit opportunity (referred by many

writers as the Kirzner's moment of entrepreneurial insight), it may well require

changes in the allocation of the firm's capital to actually grasp the opportunity. Firms

that have more flexible capital structures should, ceteris paribus, be quicker to seize

such opportunities than those who are more committed to particular production plans

through the use of highly specific inputs, Amir et al (2001)

The moment one is an entrepreneur and business owner he or she are afforded more

flexibilities with their business ideas and decisions than large corporations. This puts

you into a position to study and interact with your customers who are more

enthusiastic about going to your company because you are willing to work with them

and facilitate their needs. Since you make the decisions, you have the ability to give

a little leeway and customize the product according to their diverse needs. The

entrepreneur is able to develop processes, change them and develop solutions

relevant to the prevailing times the customers are experiencing and build customer

loyalty.

The Structure of Entrepreneur Business

According to Rusell (1986) many successful small businesses have been founded

upon an innovative idea which creates a new product, process or service that better

fulfills the needs of customers. By creating innovation, the small business

entrepreneur not only provides an opportunity for self-profit but also is an important

source of change within his or her industry.

There has been a great deal of effort directed at the study of the influence of

organizational structure on innovation. Early studies adopted a global perspective on

structure and found an association between increased levels of innovation and more

"organic" structures (Burns et al 1961). Conversely, other studies confirmed that

more "bureaucratic" organizations were less innovative (10;18).

According to Tornatzky et al (1983), recent innovation research has concentrated on

three structural variables: centralization, formalization and complexity. Positive

associations have been found between innovation and a decentralized structure

innovation and complexity and innovation and an informal structure (McGinnis

1983). These studies reinforce the notion that more organic structures seem to

support innovation while bureaucratic structure tends to inhibit innovation.

Since innovation is an uncertain, unpredictable process, its progress cannot be

directed by formal, structural means which large corporations tends to favor. This

may be due to the processes and systems that tend to be standardized. It should be

noted that the rules, procedures, job descriptions or even the experience of senior

managers that are synonymous with the large corporations cannot be used effectively

to solve the new, unique problems presented by the attempt to innovate, Utterback et

al (1971).

Innovation requires creative problem-solving during its initiation and

implementation by a large number of organization members. Organic structures can

aid innovation by providing the necessary context of freedom and autonomy to

organizational members to pursue creative solutions to problems but organic

structures cannot by themselves generate the motivation and commitment necessary

to seek out innovation. In fact, in most organizations, generating motivation for

innovation is difficult because of the inherent uncertainty of the process. Uncertainty

about how to achieve the innovation as well as uncertainty about how the innovation

will impact the organization will tend to reduce the propensity of organizational

members to act in innovative ways. Moreover, the ambiguity regarding the means of

achieving innovation makes it difficult for individuals to evaluate the likelihood that

they will be rewarded for their innovative efforts which also tend to curtail

motivation to innovate.

7.0 Conclusions

Although there are many differing views on what constitutes entrepreneurship and

innovation and the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship, some of

which are economically determined, there are developed core principles that

transcend the natural view taken by investors, and the scholars on the other hand

and which are viewed as representing the moral consensus of the business

stakeholders. There are also studies that confirm the relationship between

innovation and entrepreneurship; therefore every country Kenya included should

embrace entrepreneurial spirit. Although Kenya has developed and adopted the

Small and Micro enterprise bill that focuses on entrepreneurship, there is need to

strengthen the capacity to enforce creativity, invention, innovation and business

incubation.

There is need to acknowledge that innovation is important in our world but it is the

Entrepreneurs who systematically manage research to produce innovation that are

both the rocking balls of the “status quo” and the building blocks of the future. The

direction being taken by the government and the higher learning institutions of

opening incubation centers to nurture entrepreneurs furthering innovation is very

commendable.

As an entrepreneur, take advantage of the flexibility you have in your business. It

will benefit you when times are tough and change is needed. Be confident that by

being flexible you are not changing your business completely, but you are

developing it to fit with the current economy.

REFERENCES

A. Arora, A. Fosfuri, A. Gambardella, (2002) Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate strategy, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Amir Pirich, Stephen Knuckey and John Campbell (2001), An interface between

entrepreneurship & innovation - New Zealand SME’s Perspective Druid Nelson &

Winter Conference 2001 Aalborg University, Denmark.

Burns, T. and Stalker, S., (1961). The Management of Innovation (London, England:

Tavistock Publications,

Barret, H. and Weinstein, A. (1998), The effect of Market Orientation and Organizational Flexibility on Corporate Entrepreneurship; Theory and Practice 23 (1) pg 57-67

Coleman, D., (2000), Explaining Corporate Entrepreneurship, http://www.southwestern.edu/~colemand/buspaper.htm

Gibb, A. (2002), In Pursuit of A New Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Paradigm for Learning Creative Destruction, New Values, New Ways of Doing Things and New Combinations of Knowledge, International Journal of Management Review 4(3) pp 233-269

H. Grupp, (2001) Managing New Product Development and Innovation: A Microeconomic Toolbox. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

J. Sundbo, (1998). The Theory of Innovation: Entrepreneurs, Technology and Strategy, Edward Elgar, Massachusetts.

J. Schumpeter, (1934) .The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard, New York.

Kinner, I.M. (1996) Essays on Capital and Interest: AIZ Austria Perspective, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar.

Kwaku, A. and Ko, A (2001), An Empirical Investigation of The Effect of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation Alignment on Product Innovation, Journal of Organizational Science, 12(1) pp 54-74

Lachmann, L.(1978) Capital and its Structuree, Icansas City, Sheed Andrews and McMeel.

Ma, H. Tan, J. (2005), Key Components and The Implications of Entrepreneurship, A 4-P Framework , Journal of Business Studies, 21(5), pp 704-725

Matthew S. Olson and Derek van Bever, (2008) Stall Points: Most Companies Stop Growing—Yours Doesn't Have To (New Haven: Yale University Press,

McGinnis, M. and Ackelsberg, M., (1983)."Effective Innovation Management: Missing Link in Strategic Planning, “Journal of Business Strategy.

P.F. Drucker, (1994) Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles Heinemann, London.

P. Stoneman, (1995) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell, Oxford.

Russell, R., (1986) "The Effect of Environmental Context and Formal and Informal

Organizational Influence Mechanisms on the Process of Innovation" (Pittsburgh

Pa.: unpublished dissertation, Univ. of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Business,

Swendbergs, R. (2000).Entrepreneurship; The Social Science View, London, OUP

Susan, G. (2010), Flexibility of an Entrepreneur, Journal of The Women in Business, New

York

Tornatzky, L., Eveland, J., Boylan, M., Hetzner, M., Johnson, E., Roitman, D. and

Schneider, J., (1983)."The Processes of Innovation: Analyzing the Literature"

Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation,

Utterback, J., (March 1971) "The Process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm," Academy of Management Journal.