As the world is transforming towards the value-based economy, viable new venture ideas are recognized as the antecedents of all entrepreneurial activities that drive economic growth. This paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of new venture idea development by exploring the constructs of external enablers and the design process through the science of design theory. To explore the effect of external enablers and design processes on the generation of new venture ideas, two experiments were carried out in the format of a new venture idea challenge. The first experiment was conducted with 120 undergraduate students to test the effects of an external enabler and the design process on new venture idea generation. The second experiment was conducted with 15 graduate students to test the effects of different technological external enablers on new venture idea development. The findings suggest that external enablers mainly affect the quality of new venture ideas, and design processes mainly affect the number of new venture ideas. With the application of a design process, external enablers had a more positive effect on the quantity and quality of new venture ideas. This study extends the theoretical explanation of the entrepreneurial process by applying the science of design to examine the transformation of opportunities into new venture ideas. With this research design, researchers can test the effects of objective phenomena and subjective conjecture through the design process instruments to measure new venture ideas. This study can also be applied in entrepreneurial classroom activities, and to the idea generation process of novice entrepreneurs.
Keywords: external enabler, idea development, idea opportunity creation, new venture, science of design,Alvarez, S.A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1‐2), 11–-26. doi: 10.1002/sej.4/epdf
Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2012). Forming and exploiting opportunities: The implications of discovery and creation process for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science, 24(1), 301–-317. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0727
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2013). Epistemology, opportunities, and entrepreneurship: Comments on Venkataraman et al. (2012) and Shane (2012). Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 154–-157. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ybmvxn2u
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business vVenturing, 18(1), 105–-123. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yas9wdm5
Arenius, P., & De Clercq, D. (2005). A network-based approach on opportunity recognition. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 249–-265. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y9d9dfsw
Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–-119. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yba3r9qy
Berglund, H., & Wennberg, K. (2006). Creativity among entrepreneurship students: comparing engineering and business education. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and LifeLong Learning, 16(5), 366–-379. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ybpugdqu
Briel, F., Davidsson, P., Recker, J. “Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the IT hardware sector”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (forthcoming). doi: 10.1177/1042258717732779
Cardozo, R. N., (1986). Product classification in marketing: aAn appraisal and proposal. [White paper]., Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Choo, S., & Wong, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial intention: Triggers and barriers to new venture creations in Singapore. Singapore Management Review, 28(2), 47–-64. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ybtq43fv
Corbett, A. C. (2002). Recognizing high-tech opportunities: A learning and cognitive approach. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1(2), 49–-61. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y9nj7um9
Corbett, A. C. (2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 97–-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.10.001
Davidsson, P., (2003). The domain of entrepreneurship research: Some suggestions. In A. Editor B. Editor (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 6(Vol. 63),; pp. 315–-372. Place of publication: Publisher. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y6wshqwa
Davidsson, P., Hunter, E., and & Klofsten, M. (2006). Institutional forces: The invisible hand that shapes venture ideas? International Small Business Journal, 24(2), 115–-131.
Davidsson, P., and & Tonelli, M. (2013). Towards an operable entrepreneurship nexus: cConceptualizing venture ideas and their characteristics. in In L. Toombs, Leslie (Ed.), 73rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management: Capitalism in Question, 9-13 August 9–13, Orlando, Florida. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yaflkdbt
Davidsson, P., (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674 695. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.002 2
Dimov, D. (2007). Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 713-731. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yamlctvq
Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00423.x
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–-120. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yamfhjt7
Eckhardt, J., & and Shane, S. (2013). Response to the commentaries: The Individual Opportunity (IO) nexus integrates objective and subjective aspects of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 160–-163. doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0192
Gregoire, D. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2010). Measuring opportunity-recognition beliefs illustrating and validating an experimental approach. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 114–-145. doi: 10.1177/1094428109334369
Heinonen, J., Hytti, U., and & Stenholm, P. (2011). The role of creativity in opportunity search and business idea creation. Education+Training, 53(8/9), 659–-672. doi: 10.1108/00400911111185008
Hill, S. A., and Birkinshaw, J. M. (2010). Idea sets: cConceptualizing and measuring a new unit of analysis in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 85–-113. doi: 10.1177/1094428109337542
Hsiao, S.W., and & Chou, J.R. (2004). A creativity-based design process for innovative product design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 34(5), 421–-443. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2004.05.005
Jones, J. C. (1992). Design methods., Place of publication: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2004.05.005
Korsgaard, S. (2013). It’s really out there: A review of the critique of the discovery view of opportunities. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(2), 130-148. doi: 10.1108/13552551311310347
Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (2007). Semantics: Meanings and contexts of artifacts. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ya7ytsby
Lumpkin, G. T., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the Opportunity‐Recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451–-472. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y8mgk3sm
Nambisan, S. (2016). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship., Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, x, xxxx–xxxx. doi: 10.1111/etap.12254
Okudan, G. E., Ogot, M., & Shirwaiker, R. (2006, September). An Investigation on the Effectiveness Design Ideation Using TRIZ. In Proceedings of IDETC/CIE 2006 Design Education Conference, Sept (pp. 10–-13). Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y93ap3x5
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Institut d’Informatique et Organisation. Lausanne, Switzerland, University of Lausanne, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales HEC, 173. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y88v3wv6
Plattner, H.,; Meinel, C.,; & Weinberg, U. (Eds.). (2009). Design Thinking. Munich: Publisher, mi-wirtschaftsbuch. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0
Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Forster, W. R. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 21–-33. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0079
Samuelsson, M. and Davidsson, P. (2009). Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 229-255. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y759wrv8
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55). Place of publication: Transaction Publishers. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ycudvskh
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–-226. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y9r9x2og
Shane, S. (2001). Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management sScience, 47(9), 1173–-1190. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yb53shxn
Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Place of publication: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yd9wwc9c
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: dDelivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10–-20. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0078
Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 91–-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00071.x
Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture Creation and the Enterprising Individual: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management, 29(3), 379–399. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00016-3
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ybw363n9
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(2), 203–-220. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00203-9
Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 141–160). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yd3gve73
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2008). Opportunity identification and pursuit: Does an entrepreneur’s human capital matter? Small Business Economics, 30(2), 153–-173. doi: 10.1007/s11187-006-9020-3
Wang, H. C., Fussell, S. R., & Cosley, D. (2011, March). From diversity to creativity: Stimulating group brainstorming with cultural differences and conversationally-retrieved pictures. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 265–-274). Place of publication: ACM. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y7amwpmy