Get topics and a plan for your dissertation. Find out more.

Cognitive Process of Entrepreneurs in the Examination of Opportunity Evaluation

Disclaimer: This is not a sample of our professional work. The paper has been produced by a student. You can view samples of our work here. Opinions, suggestions, recommendations and results in this piece are those of the author and should not be taken as our company views.

Type of Academic Paper – Dissertation
Word Count – 13421 words

 

Entrepreneurship is about recognizing valuable opportunities and converting them into an innovative businesses. The paper discusses the cognitive process that is used by entrepreneurs for the evaluation and evaluation of the opportunity. The research is conducted to identify the cognitive process and the factors that are important for the evaluation of the opportunity. The research involves the collection of primary and secondary data along with using qualitative as well as quantitative methods for collecting the data.

The population of the study was business owners and entrepreneurs and a sample of 45 entrepreneurs was selected to collect the primary data. for the collection of primary data, the questionnaire was used as an instrument with 12 questions on it. The variables of the study were relatedness of entrepreneurs with the potential industry, the market size, and the innovation type. The conjoint analysis was performed on the collected data and the results of primary data were completely aligned with the results of secondary data or literature review.

The literature review confirmed that the relatedness has a positive link with the opportunity evaluation effectiveness. It also confirmed that the mass market is more effective as compared to a niche market and radical innovation is more reliable as compared to incremental innovation for evaluating and pursuing an opportunity.

The majority of the entrepreneurs in the primary data also confirmed the importance of a high level of relatedness of entrepreneurs for effectively evaluating the opportunity. The entrepreneurs in the majority also believed that the mass market is more reliable and the opportunity that provides a chance for radical innovation is expected to be better as compared to incremental innovation. In the end, a conclusion with a set of recommendations is provided for the readers.

Key Words: Cognitive process, Entrepreneurs, Relatedness, Innovation, Radical, Incremental, Mass market, Niche market, Opportunity, Evaluation.

Introduction

Research topic and question overview

The cognitive process is an important concept for the learning of individuals and growing further. The importance of cognition or cognitive process for the managers or the entrepreneurs cannot be neglected as the cognition helps the entrepreneurs to spot and examine the opportunity prevailing in the business environment. The cognitive process helps to identify different factors that are linked and important for opportunity evaluation such as relatedness of the entrepreneurs with the industry, opportunism of the entrepreneurs, and some of the factors linked with the industry (Short et al, 2010). According to Welpe et al (2012), in response to this identification, the entrepreneurs further use the cognition to evaluate the opportunity and come up with a result either the opportunity is valuable or not. Keeping in view the importance of the cognition or cognitive process towards the evaluation of the existing opportunities by the entrepreneurs, the topic is selected so that the cognitive process of entrepreneurs can be explored to come up with knowledgeable and valuable outcomes.

Research contexts/backgrounds

Foo (2011) states that entrepreneurship is about spotting the existing market gap and opportunity that is valuable and then providing an innovative and creative solution for fulfilling the gap. The entrepreneurs use their skills and abilities to evaluate the opportunity as the successful entrepreneurs are good in evaluating the opportunity. The entrepreneurs give importance to different factors for evaluating an opportunity more or less attractive. The size of the potential target market, the relatedness of entrepreneurs, the opportunism of entrepreneurs, and the type of innovation are some of the important factors that are linked for the evaluation of opportunity. According to Moroz & Hindle (2012), a market gap does not mean that the gap or opportunity exists that is valuable but it is the responsibility of the entrepreneurs to first evaluate the opportunity before deciding to provide the innovative solution for the market gap or opportunity.  The use of cognition is required for the evaluation of opportunity by the entrepreneurs to turn it into a successful venture.

Chell (2013) mentioned that logical reasoning and critical thinking is important to process to come up with valuable outcomes, judgments, and decisions. The use of cognitive abilities for decision making or evaluating a particular strategy or opportunity in the business context is a significant factor that contributes to success. Entrepreneurs need to use the cognitive process for the evaluation of the opportunities identified. In the cognitive process, the relatedness of the entrepreneurs with the relevant industry matters as the high relatedness would most probably be in favour of better opportunity evaluation. The cognitive process is used by entrepreneurs. The cognition of the entrepreneurs also gives a high level of importance to the size of the market as it also contributes towards the opportunity evaluation. entrepreneurs all around the world use the cognitive process and personal experience and knowledge are the significant factors that contribute to the evaluation of the opportunity through cognition (Lorhke et al, 2010).

The rationale of the research

The importance of opportunity evaluation cannot be ignored for the success of entrepreneurs. The use of the cognitive process is also important for the proper evaluation of the opportunity. If the entrepreneur is not going to use personal experience and knowledge, the innovative solution or product or service would not be an effective and valuable outcome for solving the problem. There is a chance that the problem does not lie in the solution but it may lie in the opportunity evaluation (Tang et al, 2012).

The relatedness of the entrepreneurs with the industry helps the entrepreneurs to better evaluate the opportunity. The market size also matters in making an opportunity less or more attractive as mass-market innovation has more potential for success in comparison with niche market innovation. Radical innovation is an innovation that is major in nature while incremental innovation is a small scale innovation. Radical innovation improves the evaluations of the opportunity as the opportunity with radical innovation tend to be more attractive than incremental innovation.

The research gap is identified as the research is needed to find out the cognitive process of entrepreneurs. for the evaluation of opportunities that exist in a particular market.

Keeping in view the importance of cognitive process, relatedness, innovation type, and market size with the opportunity evaluation, the topic is selected so that the research findings of the research can be used for further research. The young and upcoming entrepreneurs can also use the research findings effectively as it would highlight the cognitive process of the entrepreneurs for the evaluation of the opportunities. It would be a good source of learning for young entrepreneurs to spot the process and follow it without making huge mistakes at the early age of their entrepreneurial career.

Research hypotheses and objectives

It is important to develop some of the hypotheses and objectives of the research so that the research can be aligned around those objectives and hypotheses. The lack of objectives and hypotheses would not let the researcher stay focused and come up with effective and valuable results of the research.

Hypotheses

Following are the hypotheses developed for the study

H1: The process of opportunity evaluation involves higher cognitive effort aligning positive relationship with relatedness.

H2: In the process of opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurs’ intention, reliance is higher if the target is towards the mass market rather than a niche market.

H3: In the process of opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurs’ intention, reliance would be higher if the opportunity presents radical innovation rather than incremental innovation.

H4: The new product opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention of entrepreneurs are positively related to their opportunism.

H5: Opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention for an opportunity targeted with the mass market would be higher than the niche market if an entrepreneur has a higher level of opportunism.

H6: Opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention for an opportunity that presents radical innovation would be higher than incremental innovation if an entrepreneur has a higher level of opportunism.

Research objectives

The objectives of the research are

  • To identify the involvement of cognitive effort aligning positive relationship with relatedness for opportunity evaluation.
  • To identify the contribution of reliance for an opportunity with radical innovation rather than the incremental innovation in the process of opportunity evaluation.
  • To identify the contribution of reliance for opportunity evaluation and entrepreneur’s intention when the target market is mass rather than a niche.
  • To identify the contribution of the entrepreneur’s opportunism for the opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention of entrepreneurs.

Dissertation structure

It is important to structure the dissertation properly so that effective outcomes can be achieved. The proper dissertation structure would also impress the readers and leave a positive impact on the reader about the researcher and the research. This impress would help the reader to rely on the findings of the research. The dissertation is structured properly and systematically so that the first image can be positive for the reader.

The dissertation starts with a proper introduction that highlights the overview of the topic, provide the background of the study, rationale for choosing the topic, and it also states the hypotheses of the research study that are going to be tested. The objectives are also clearly identified in the introduction part so that the alignment can be made in different research parts with the objectives. Moving forward, a detailed literature review is presented by focusing on the topics of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial opportunities evaluation, influencing factors of entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation, and the conjoint analysis. After the literature review, a detailed methodology is presented explaining the data collection methods, sources, and instruments. Along with it, the population, sample, and the statistical tools used are also mentioned in the methodology section. The analysis of the statistical results of the primary data and the discussion on the results are also provided in detail after the methodology section. In the end, a conclusion is provided for the paper along with some recommendations that are prepared after understanding the findings of the research.

Hire an Expert Dissertation Writer

Orders completed by our expert writers are

  • Formally drafted in an academic style
  • Free Amendments and 100% Plagiarism Free – or your money back!
  • 100% Confidential and Timely Delivery!
  • Free anti-plagiarism report
  • Appreciated by thousands of clients. Check client reviews

Literature Review

Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship opportunity evaluation

Entrepreneurship

Scholars in the field of entrepreneurship often define the concept of entrepreneurship by distinguishing traditional business entrepreneurial activities. For example, Austin describes the entrepreneurial process as a non-profit organization, government department, or business organization by comparing the entrepreneurial mission, the market utility, the performance evaluation method, and the resource allocation method (Austin et al., 2006). Also, some scholars elaborate on the connotation of entrepreneurship from the perspective of social needs and believe that entrepreneurship is the process of satisfying social needs, creating social values, and solving social problems (Janssen et al., 2012). Some scholars follow the definition of business entrepreneurship, emphasize entrepreneurial opportunities, and define entrepreneurship as the process of creating social wealth by creating new enterprises or adopting innovative management models (Martin and Osberg, 2007, Zahra et al., 2009). Also, Dimov (2010) believes that entrepreneurship is a business that constantly pursues new opportunities to create social value. It is a brave behaviour that constantly innovates, improves, and is not limited by resources (Dimov and Milanov, 2010). The Stanford University Entrepreneurship Research Center proposes that entrepreneurship refers to the behaviour of entrepreneurs using business operations models to solve problems in society through innovative behaviour (Etzkowitz, 2003).

Entrepreneurial activities include both entrepreneurial activities that serve both profit and social purposes, as well as non-profit entrepreneurial activities that are entirely driven by social goals. In Van Stel et al. (2005), entrepreneurial activity refers to the entrepreneurial process of adopting some innovative means in the business model to solve existing problems, while taking into account the process of economic profit and social value creation. Dacin et al. (2011) define the entrepreneurial organization and the traditional model to create social value completely. Although scholars on the definition of entrepreneurship have their own opinions, there are many common points in these definitions, such as innovation, commercial means.

Entrepreneurial opportunities evaluation

Different from the core goal of commercial entrepreneurial opportunities with profitability, entrepreneurial opportunities need to focus on creating social value and paying attention to profitability (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006). Entrepreneurial organizations are hybrid organization that spans profitability and social mission. To maintain the sustainable development of both public welfare and profitability, entrepreneurship needs to explore opportunities with dual economic and social values (Mair et al., 2006). Therefore, entrepreneurial opportunities can be defined as the possibility of entrepreneurs investing time, energy, and money to generate social influence (Plummer and Armitage, 2007).

Evaluation is a comparison process between goodness and badness for a particular object. The evaluation object can be a matter of people and things, or it can be a certain point of view. The evaluation results generally have certain reference standards. The evaluation process is the test of the evaluation subject’s understanding (Keh et al., 2002). The process is also a decision-making process. In general, evaluation and description are confusing. The description focuses on the description of objective facts, and the evaluation is the value of something, namely the choice and explanation of the “goodness or badness” of the research object, which is of high subjectivity. If it is an evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities, the quality of the evaluation results will directly affect whether the entrepreneur decides to invest a large number of people and property to develop this entrepreneurial opportunity to enter the next stage of entrepreneurship (Welpe et al., 2012).

When entrepreneurs face entrepreneurial opportunities, they use their evaluation criteria to make a personalized comparative analysis of entrepreneurial opportunities (Wood and Williams, 2014). This is an opportunity evaluation. Opportunities can generally be seen as a possibility in the future. Entrepreneurs often can control this possibility and believe that these opportunities are worth developing. This “worth” understanding is highly subjective.

Hills and Shrader (1998) believe that many entrepreneurs have no problem in generating ideas, but there is a fundamental difference between ideas and opportunities. Ideas exist in ideology, while opportunities are based on objective reality. A detailed assessment of an idea is made to judge whether it can be transformed into a real opportunity. Entrepreneurs generally put a positive impact on opportunities before they put them into entrepreneurial action. Therefore, entrepreneurs need to study how entrepreneurs judge the opportunity at the subjective level in the face of an entrepreneurial opportunity (Grichnik et al., 2010).

From the perspective of the elements of entrepreneurship and based on Timmons (1989) entrepreneurial model theory, Koellinger et al. (2007) first construct a comprehensive model of entrepreneurial behaviour, in which entrepreneurial behaviour is assumed to be a fully rational process. The financial market, the perception of cost and the social environment are seen as the antecedents of this process. The author believes that opportunity perception includes two logical stages of perceptual opportunity and evaluation of perceived opportunities, and ultimately determines whether entrepreneurial behaviour occurs. Thus, it is seen that the evaluation of opportunities is an important part of the entire entrepreneurial process.

Regardless of the definition of entrepreneurial opportunities in the academic world, the opportunities themselves are only the entrepreneur’s ideas for a future or a certain situation (Renko et al., 2012). Generally speaking, if the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities is regarded as the starting point of the entrepreneurial process, then the opportunity for real entrepreneurial activities depends on the entrepreneur’s accurate grasp and evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Since entrepreneurial opportunities are a vague and dynamic concept, the scenarios it contains are generally vague, which will gradually become clear over time (Ardichvili et al., 2003). Based on this, the entrepreneurial process is to continuously evaluate the future scenarios contained in the opportunity, and thus decide the dynamic process of continuing to pursue or abandon the entrepreneurial opportunity (Kor et al., 2007). From this point of view, the opportunity evaluation runs through the entire entrepreneurial process, and it is also the first door for entrepreneurs to start entrepreneurial activities. Nicolaou et al. (2009) propose that the evaluation of new business products for entrepreneurs who are just starting out or for large companies is a central part of entrepreneurial activity. Therefore, when entrepreneurs have strong entrepreneurial motives, entrepreneurship can be said to be the result of entrepreneurs’ evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities.

Timmons (1989) summarized a framework for evaluating entrepreneurial opportunities. The entire framework involved 53 indicators. In general, there were eight broad categories: industry and market, economic base, harvest conditions, competitive advantage, management team, and fatal flaws. Zimmerer and Yasin (1998) propose a flow chart for the qualitative evaluation process of entrepreneurial opportunities. There are five steps: the first step is to determine what value the product has brought to the customer and to derive new results based on the analysis of the potential market of the product. The potential demand for the product and the return on investment of the product. The second step is to analyze the risk of product launch, including R&D, finance and competition. In the third step, the product knows whether it can meet the expected production and quality requirements. The fourth step is to assess the up-front capital requirements for new product launches and what financing channels to use. The fifth step is to consider risk factors and the means to manage these risks on a larger scale.

Stevenson (2000) suggests that to fully evaluate entrepreneurial opportunities, five issues must be considered. First, is the size of the market brought about by the opportunity, and the rate of growth of the opportunity over time. Second, it can cover all the input costs, including capital cost, time cost, and opportunity cost. Third, the opportunity opens up a brand new business field and has strong expansion. Fourth, when the uncertainty event occurs, it can gain sustainable benefits. Fifth, the product has truly met market expectations and solved market demand.

Longenecker et al. (2006) point out five basic criteria for evaluating entrepreneurial opportunities: market demand, competitive advantage, high rate of return, matching of entrepreneurs and opportunities, and entrepreneurial opportunities without fatal flaws.

Burch (1986) proposes four evaluation methods in Entrepreneurship: standard scoring matrix, Westinghouse method, HananPotentiomncter method, and Baty’s selection factor method. These methods are based on certain scoring rules for certain factors of entrepreneurial opportunity according to the level of scores to evaluate entrepreneurial opportunities. Kyrö and Niemi (2008) use the fuzzy mapping principle to construct an opportunity to evaluate the mathematical chess type and to quantify the index weights and scores, making the evaluation process more procedural and operable. The evaluation results are more comparable.

Influencing factors of entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation

At present, in the research on the evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunity, scholars mainly focus on the indicators for the evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities. The most influential is the eight major categories of entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation indicators of Timmons (1989). After research, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) believe that three variables play a key role in the opportunity assessment: the entrepreneur’s perception of risk, the probability of the chance of success, and the profit that may be obtained in the future. Both the perceived risk and the likelihood of success determine whether the entrepreneur ultimately starts a business, and the potential profit return is the driving force for the entrepreneur to keep working hard. Simon et al. (2000) are mainly concerned with the cognitive bias of entrepreneurs and the influence mechanism of risk perception on behavioural decision-making. In the research process, the case-study method is used, and it is found that risk perception negatively affects entrepreneurial decision-making, while cognition deviation will affect the size of the risk perceived by the entrepreneur and ultimately influence the decision-making. This cognitive bias is mainly reflected in three aspects of overconfidence, control of fantasy and belief in the law of decimals, and the impact mechanism of each aspect on the final entrepreneurial decision-making will be different. Overconfidence has no obvious influence on entrepreneurial decision-making (Forbes, 2005). Controlling fantasy and believing in the law of decimals will positively influence entrepreneurial decision-making in the entrepreneurial process. Later, Keh et al. (2002) add optimistic bias to this theoretical model. Baker et al. (2003) find that gender differences affect entrepreneurs. In the face of the same entrepreneurial opportunities, men are more likely to pay attention to the positive aspects of opportunities, but women are more likely to pay attention to the negative aspects of opportunities. The direct result of this difference is that men are more inclined to choose to develop this opportunity in the face of opportunity assessment, and women are easy to see the risks behind opportunities, so they will give up. Baron (2009) points out that there is a certain correlation between entrepreneurs’ attitudes and opportunity evaluations (Hmieleski and Baron, 2008). Entrepreneurs are optimistic when they evaluate opportunities, and they tend to choose to develop this opportunity. On the contrary, they tend to give up this opportunity. Haynie et al. (2009) focus on the relationship between the entrepreneur’s mastery of resources and the opportunity assessment. Mitchell and Shepherd (2010)’s research is based on the research system of Timmons, and he explores the common managers and experience by referring to its index system. He tries to figure out the differences between the rich entrepreneurs in the opportunity assessment indicator system. Experienced entrepreneurs think they are very important. Grégoire and Shepherd (2012) propose an assessment of an opportunity by judging five important indicators: (1) the length of time the opportunity exists; (2) having good characteristics; (3) the potential market size growth rate will gradually increase; (4) the size of the initial scale; (5) the opportunity itself is feasible. Wood et al. (2014) evaluate entrepreneurial opportunities based on 14 indicators of market evaluation and reward evaluation.

Relatedness and opportunity evaluation

Opportunity evaluation behaviour and management behaviour of entrepreneurs are influenced by previous experience and their relatedness to the potential market. The entrepreneurial behaviours carried out by entrepreneurs are the external manifestations of entrepreneurial ability (Fatoki, 2014), so entrepreneurs with high-quality prior experience and relatedness are more likely to take correct entrepreneurial actions and show stronger entrepreneurial ability (Quan, 2012). Entrepreneurs’ previous entrepreneurial experience generates tacit knowledge to help them make entrepreneurial opportunities under uncertain and time-stressed decision-making (Sarasvathy, 2001), thus giving them a strong opportunity. Individuals with entrepreneurial experience develop an entrepreneurial mindset that enables them to better capture entrepreneurial opportunities (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000). Repeated entrepreneurs are more familiar with the whole process of entrepreneurial activities, and are more conducive to their entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurs with management experience can increase the survival rate of new companies in the first three years, thereby reducing the likelihood of new business failures (Miralles et al., 2016). Entrepreneur-related industry knowledge has a strong influence on the development of entrepreneurial knowledge (Choi et al., 2008). Industry-related knowledge enables entrepreneurs to be sensitive to industry change and development, so they can better identify and develop valuable business opportunities. As a result, entrepreneurs with a variety of prior experiences have demonstrated greater entrepreneurial capabilities in identifying and developing entrepreneurial opportunities, creating and managing new businesses.

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) point out that increasing the efficiency of opportunity identification and evaluation must consider two factors: the information necessary to identify an opportunity and the cognitive characteristics necessary to develop an assessment opportunity. The entrepreneurial experience, industry experience and functional experience of entrepreneur diversity contribute to the diversity of their external network relationships (Hallak et al., 2011). The highly diverse network embedded by entrepreneurs is an important channel for external support in the early stages of resource-poor startups, making it easier to access scarce resources and information that are valuable to new businesses (Ardichvili et al., 2003). This valuable knowledge and information provide entrepreneurs with the knowledge and information necessary to identify opportunities and the resources necessary to develop information, thereby enabling them to identify and develop entrepreneurial opportunities. Multiple entrepreneurial experiences enable entrepreneurs to better gather information and make effective decisions for identifying new business opportunities. Such activities can only be understood by people who have worked (Muchena et al., 2005). Entrepreneurs who previously had multiple creation experiences develop entrepreneurial thinking and problem-solving skills, which increases the ability of entrepreneurs to further identify and develop entrepreneurial opportunities (Ucbasaran et al., 2003).

Therefore, the first hypothesis is proposed:
H1: The process of opportunity evaluation involves higher cognitive effort aligning positive relationship with relatedness.

Market type and opportunity evaluation

The literature on marketing and strategy reveals that in a relatively uncompetitive niche market, compared to mass market, companies have the right to self-pricing products, which can result in higher profits (Parrish et al., 2006). The greater the difference in company products, the smaller the competition the company faces. Drucker (2014) believe that because of the narrow market space of the niche strategy and the disadvantages and risks of relying on final product sales, the niche strategy will exert a negative impact on corporate performance. Deephouse (1999) reveals two competitive approaches based on niche strategies—Product Niche and Customer Niche.
Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990) research the microelectronics industry and find that the fate and growth of a company largely depend on whether the niche is in the process of formation, growth or maturity. In the early stage of the venture, retailers who focus on product depth and specialization will get better performance than the incumbent companies that are engaged in product diversity. Further research finds that in the strong competition situation, SMEs tend to have more products.

SAKAMOTO et al. (1990) point out that in the market economy environment of “limited commodities and unlimited markets”, there will always be blind spots that other enterprises have not occupied. The products or services of small and medium-sized enterprises can revolve around “finding market gaps”. Enterprises use their advantages of less capital investment, small enterprise-scale, less management personnel, flexible operation, low market entry, and exit costs, and participate in the market division of labour through specialized operations, to carefully serve a small market to achieve a certain gap. SMEs can make full use of the professional technology and management capabilities formed by “product differentiation” to find the “gap” of the market.

Iansiti and Levien (2004) argue that the niche strategy is a differentiated operational strategy that enables them to differentiate their businesses in an ecosystem by capacity specialization. Drucker (2014) points out that the niche strategy aims to achieve a real monopoly in a small scope, to protect enterprises from the competition and other people’s challenges. The whole point of the most successful niche strategy is to try to make yourself look unremarkable. Since their products have become an essential element in a program, no one is willing to compete.

Ortt et al. (2015) sum up the basic idea of the niche strategy. Any market will always have some business gaps that cannot be reached by large enterprises. Entrepreneurs can choose one based on their small scale, flexibility, adaptability, small products or service areas, concentrate on providing products or services to these gap markets, and become the first. At the same time, they establish barriers to entry, gradually forming a stable and lasting advantage as well as gaining a higher industry level.

Based on the above analysis, the third hypothesis is proposed:
H2: In the process of opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurs’ intention, reliance is higher if the target is towards the mass market rather than a niche market.

Innovation type and opportunity evaluation

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) suggest why, when and how to use opportunities, and the characteristics of opportunities. Many aspects of entrepreneurial opportunities have the potential to increase or decrease the likelihood that potential entrepreneurs will take advantage of this opportunity (Walker, 2007). Regarding the discussion of the characteristics of entrepreneurial opportunities, most scholars talk about the profit, risk, and feasibility of the relevant market, but rarely pay attention to the innovation of entrepreneurial opportunities. But Schumpeter (1934) puts forward the “innovation theory”, emphasizing the important role of innovation activities in productivity (Carland et al., 2007). Plucker et al. (2004) find that in most cases, the combination of novelty and practicality is the most common definition of innovation.

The most common definition of innovation is uniqueness or rarity (Shalley et al., 2004). The novelty of an entrepreneurial opportunity means that the commercial content or service or product contained in the opportunity has not appeared or spread. Feasibility considerations focus more on the issue of feasibility (Dean et al., 2006), and feasibility refers to the practicality or easiness perceived by an opportunity. According to Nussbaum et al. (2003), the feasibility of entrepreneurial opportunities is represented by the target market situation and the founder’s seed capital requirements.

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) argue that entrepreneurial opportunity evaluations are influenced by both entrepreneurs and opportunity innovation. Gupta (2013) uses the evaluation form of Timmons (1999) to point out that the innovation of opportunity has advantages in the industry and market, competitive advantage, the strategic difference between ideal and reality, such as the influence of products or services on the market. High and emerging industries have less competition and are more likely to occupy a leading position in the market. Competitors have not yet awakened and competition is weak. Therefore, the higher the innovation of entrepreneurial opportunities, the higher the evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities by entrepreneurs (Boso et al., 2013). Tumasjan et al. (2013) find that the feasibility of entrepreneurial opportunities has a positive impact on entrepreneurial opportunity assessment and entrepreneurial opportunity development.

Choi and Gray (2008) point out that entrepreneurial opportunity development is the process by which entrepreneurs can effectively scale up the identified entrepreneurial opportunities. Gatewood et al. (2002) point out that evaluation criteria reflect the value of entrepreneurs, and expectations related to risks, personal goals and efforts that affect this value judgment. Therefore, cognitive evaluation is positively related to the innovation type of opportunities and products.

Based on the above analysis, the second hypothesis is proposed:
H3: In the process of opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurs’ intention, reliance would be higher if the opportunity presents radical innovation rather than incremental innovation.

Entrepreneurial Opportunism and opportunity evaluation

META, proposed by Ahmetoglu et al. (2010), assesses individual differences in the ability to recognize and exploit opportunities, innovate and create change (Kuratko, 2007, Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). According to Chandler and Hanks (1993), entrepreneurs are different in opportunity identification and evaluation because of their different entrepreneurial competencies. Bird (2019) believes that entrepreneurial competency is a high level of personal traits, including personality traits, skills, and knowledge, and can be considered as entrepreneurial ability to successfully perform entrepreneurial work in an organization. Sarasvathy et al. (2013) emphasize the entrepreneurial problem from the interaction process between entrepreneurs and the external environment, and put forward the concept of Entrepreneurial social competency, combining social competence theory with social capital theory to study entrepreneurship at the organizational level.

According to Ahmetoglu et al. (2011), the total META score significantly predicted all entrepreneurial outcomes and is essential to predict entrepreneurial activity and achievement. META has four dimensions: Entrepreneurial Proactivity, Entrepreneurial Creativity, Entrepreneurial Opportunism and Entrepreneurial Vision. Entrepreneurial Opportunism refers to the tendency to spot new business opportunities. Entrepreneurs with higher opportunism will promote their exploitation of opportunities in novel and innovative ways. Ahmetoglu et al. (2011)’s research also indicates that opportunism is positively related to entrepreneurial activities and achievements.

Based on the above analysis, the fourth hypothesis is proposed:
H4: The new product opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention of entrepreneurs are positively related to their opportunism.
H5: Opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention for an opportunity targeted with the mass market would be higher than the niche market if an entrepreneur has a higher level of opportunism.
H6: Opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention for an opportunity that presents radical innovation would be higher than incremental innovation if an entrepreneur has a higher level of opportunism.

Get Help With Any Part of Your Dissertation!

UK’s Best Academic Support Services. How would you know until you try?

Conjoint Analysis

Conjoint Analysis (CA) is a kind of multiple statistic method. The research on the theory is based on the demand for market research methods in the wake of the development of the commercial economy (Green et al., 2001). The academic circle and the operational management circle have paid increasing attention to the way to measure the demands and preferences of consumers (Louviere, 1988). Green and Srinivasan (1978) introduced Conjoint Analysis into the field of marketing. Conjoint Analysis becomes an important method to describe consumers’ decision-making. Green et al. (1972) applied it into the field of commerce and gain good effects. Since then, it is loved by marketing researchers. Conjoint Analysis technology is widely adopted in Europe and America. Lancaster (1971) proposes the multi-index simulation theory based on the Fishbein-Roseberg model and the new economic theory of consumer selection. Wilkie and Pessemier (1973) get the combination method based on the expected value model. In this method, the total utility of some multi-feature targets is obtained by sorting the weighted sum of the target’s feature level and the corresponding utility value. The conjoint approach is based on a decomposition approach in which respondents respond to a set of general profiles. The task of the analysis is to find a combination of principles for a given feature, such as the principle of addition, which is consistent with the respondent’s overall preference.

As for the research in entrepreneurial researches, Shepherd and Zacharakis (2018) recommended several topics where entrepreneurship studies could fruitfully use CA by drawing from economics (e.g., decision-making rationality), social psychology (e.g., decision anchoring under uncertainty), marketing (e.g., the liability of newness), and extant entrepreneurship research (e.g., strategic decision making). Subsequently, other researchers have recommended other topics, including corporate venturing (Shepherd and Krueger, 2002) and entrepreneurial intuition (Mitchell et al., 2005). In general, CA could potentially revive research studying the individual-level phenomenon, an area that has been somewhat deemphasized following widespread disillusionment with the ‘‘trait” approach (Gartner, 1990). Because entrepreneurship occurs at the individual-opportunity nexus (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), however, deemphasizing the former is not a viable option. One issue with previous (especially trait-based) studies is they often proxied decision making with demographics (e.g., age) or attitudinal (e.g., need for achievement) attributes, resulting in a decision making ‘‘black box” (Mitchell et al., 2005). With its advantages in examining respondents’ ‘‘theory in use,” however, CA may help open this box by providing insight into entrepreneurial decision making.

To date, researchers have frequently used CA to examine VCs’ and, to a lesser extent, entrepreneurs’ (Choi and Shepherd, 2004) criteria for evaluating opportunities. Some have also examined how specific biases can affect these assessments (DeTienne et al., 2008). However, the relatedness factor, innovation type as well as market type of products haven’t been explored through CA. Therefore, this research tries to apply the CA method to find out the factors that influence the cognitive process of entrepreneurs in the examination of opportunity evaluation.

Literature and hypotheses summary

Through reviewing the literature review of the above entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation method and factors influence entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation, the author believes that there are two shortcomings:
First of all, the existing quantitative research is a study of the evaluation index system of entrepreneurial opportunities, but an entrepreneurial opportunity has many attributes, some of which can be quantified, such as potential market size, expected market growth rate, etc.; but some attributes are not easy to quantify, such as the relatedness, the innovation type of products and the market type.

Secondly, the current qualitative research is more focused on the characteristics of the opportunity itself and external factors. However, as the main body of evaluation opportunities, entrepreneurs receive less attention. As entrepreneurs, each person has different characteristics, and people are rational. Especially when entrepreneurs evaluate entrepreneurial opportunities, they will face extremely complicated situations. The processing of information on opportunities itself cannot be completely rational. The evaluation system and steps lead to conclusions. Therefore, this paper also considers the gender and the META (Entrepreneurial Tendencies and Abilities) into the process of entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation.

The CA method is applied to test the following hypotheses:
H1: The process of opportunity evaluation involves higher cognitive effort aligning positive relationship with relatedness.
H2: In the process of opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurs’ intention, reliance is higher if the target is towards mass market rather on a niche market.
H3: In the process of opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurs’ intention, reliance would be higher if the opportunity presents radical innovation rather than incremental innovation.
H4: The new product opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention of entrepreneurs are positively related to their opportunism.
H5: Opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention for an opportunity targeted with the mass market would be higher than the niche market if an entrepreneur has a higher level of opportunism.
H6: Opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention for an opportunity that presents radical innovation would be higher than incremental innovation if an entrepreneur has a higher level of opportunism.

 

Need an Dissertation On a Similar Topic?

Order Now

 

Methodology

Overview

The methodology is one of the most important parts of the research as it defines the whole research process. The methodology needs to be selected systematically and it is most important to keep alignment between different parts of the methodology (Groves et al, 2011). The alignment means the mythology is well-directed and developed professionally. the attention is given to mythology design and all parts of the methodology are aligned with each other to come up with the best results. The methodology for the project is explained in detail with the reasoning for every selection.

Research design

Sources of data

According to Bell et al (2018), there are two sources of collecting data which are primary and secondary sources. The research has used both sources of collecting the data as both have their advantages. Zikmund et al (2013) state that the primary data is firsthand data that is collected by the researcher for the specific topic to study a specific process or concept. The primary data provides several advantages to the research as it increases the validity and reliability of the research. It also increases the generalizability of the research due to the proper collection of data. The primary data is never outdated but collected in the current period and it is always specific to the topic. the primary data is collected to know the decision-making process of entrepreneurs so that the results can be more reliable. On the other hand, the secondary data is already available on the relevant topic and it forms the basis of the research. The collection and exploration of secondary data clarify many concepts and help the researcher to develop an outline for further research (Saunders, 2011). The secondary data is also collected on the entrepreneur’s decisions making process so that a basic level of understanding can be developed. The secondary data is collected from reliable sources such as journal articles, news articles, and published reports. The purpose of using the mixed approach is to have an understanding from the work of previous scholars and collect new hands-on information as well.

Research methods

The focus of the research is to collect the quantitative as well as qualitative data as it provides several advantages to the researcher and research. According to Hammersley (2017), the quantitative data is easy to interpret and it also provides convenience to the participants as well. the answers are exact and accurate and the biases of the interpreter or researcher are also low in interpreting the quantitative data. One of the disadvantages of the quantitative data is the bias of the research during the development of the options of questions but it is done professionally to keep the biases low. On the other hand, the qualitative data is majorly collected through secondary sources in this research as the qualitative data provides in-depth information and knowledge about a particular subject. One of the disadvantages is the high level of possibility of researcher bias while interpreting the qualitative data which is controlled as well through careful interpretation (Atieno, 2009).

Strategy for primary data collection

It is important to develop a suitable strategy for the collection of primary data. The strategy has to be reliable and realistic which is possible to implement by the researcher within the given circumstances and resources. The strategy is developed to collect the primary data in an effective way so that the reliability and the validity of the research cannot be questioned. The decision is made to collect the primary data through an online survey. The online survey provides convenience, saves time and cost for the researcher, and it is a fast source of collecting the primary data. Participation in this study consists of one online survey taking around 15-20 minutes to complete.

Population

The owners and the business managers are the populations of the group that is contacted online to fill the survey.

Sample size

A sample size of 45 is selected from the population of the business owners and managers to fill out the survey.

Data instrument

The selection and development of the instrument are also crucial as it collects the relevant primary data (Zohrabi, 2013). The instrument used for collecting the data is a questionnaire that was composed of 12 questions. The questions were close-ended and the data is collected quantitatively to keep alignment. The objectives and the research questions are given priority during the development of questions of the questionnaire as the questions are completely aligned with the objectives of the study. During the development of questions, it is also made sure that the questions must not be ambiguous, double-barreled and leading to keep the reliability of the instrument high.

Data analysis

The data is collected from the primary sources and to analyze the findings of the data, the statistical tools are applied using SPSS. The correlation and conjoint analysis are performed under the relationship between opportunity evaluation and personality.

Ethical considerations

Ethics are an important part of businesses and the research process and these need to be followed with full attention and detail. Many ethics need to be given attention during the whole research process as there are many times when the researcher has the chance to breach the ethics and fulfill the required activity. The research needs to be ethical if the research is aiming to contribute to society and further the research process. Research without following the ethical considerations would not create a positive impact on the minds of the readers. Keeping in view the importance of ethical considerations, the following ethical guidelines are followed during the research process

  • The first and one of the most important ethical aspects occurs during the collection of primary data which is about the consent of the participants. The written consent is taken from the participants by providing all the necessary details of the research and the usage of collected information.
  • The confidentiality of the collected information is also made sure and the research results or information would not be shared other than the agreed stakeholders.
  • In case, there is a need to share the information with other parties, the prior consent of the participants would be taken to keep it completely ethical.
  • During the whole research process, it is kept in mind that no part of the research process is promoting discrimination or hatred against a particular group.
  • environmental protection is also everyone’s responsibility and it is made sure that no part or activity during the research process is harmful to the environment. the research is completely based on the ethics and rules of the green environment to keep it protected.

Limitations of research

Despite the following of whole and systematic procedure, nothing can be perfect and the same is the case with this research as it has a few limitations as well that are listed below

  • The sample size is 45 which is inadequate to generalize it on the entrepreneurs at the international level. There are millions of entrepreneurs all across the globe and findings from the sample size of 45 is hard to generalize.

Another limitation is the lack of qualitative data collection in the primary data collection which restricts the participants from expressing subjective opinions.

Hire an Expert Dissertation Researcher

Orders completed by our expert writers are

  • Formally drafted in academic style
  • 100% Plagiarism free & 100% Confidential
  • Never resold
  • Include unlimited free revisions
  • Completed to match exact client requirements

Analysis and findings

Conjoint analysis profile is one of the important factors of this research and the data for the variable profile is collected through a questionnaire. There was a total of 12 questions regarding the opportunity that are presented in the questionnaire. To analyze the variable profile and make it easy to be analyzed, an index is developed on SPSS using compute variable command (the SPSS data file is attached) and the profile variable contains all those 12 questions in one variable. The conjoint analysis allows the researcher to identify how people value different variables or attributes for a particular product, service or process. In this research, the conjoint analysis is applied so that the value entrepreneurs attribute to different variables such as innovation type, market size, and relatedness for the opportunity evaluation can be found out. This would provide specific details regarding the importance of those factors according to entrepreneurs for the evaluation of opportunities that are existing in the market. the conjoint analysis for the study under discussion is provided in detail to have an understanding of each variable concerning different entrepreneurs.

Conjoint analysis

The conjoint analysis of the variables of this study is shown and the utilities of each factor are provided as an individual factor as well as individual subjects. The utilities of the factors or variables are shown and with each factor, there are multiple factors or variations such as low or high, mass or niche and more.

Findings 1

Relatedness and opportunity evaluation

The relatedness and opportunity evaluation is measured so that the impact of relatedness on opportunity evaluation can be found out. The relatedness and the value of utility for the different attributes of relatedness is an important measure to find out the impact of each attribute of relatedness towards the opportunity evaluation and evaluation. For this, table 1 and figure a is presented

 

Table 1

Utility Estimate Std. Error
High

Relatedness

Low

1.207

-1.207

.041

.041

 

summary-utilities

Table 1 and figure a shows the utility for the relatedness for the opportunity evaluation. The answers were collected by 45 entrepreneurs for this factor. First, it is important to understand that the concept of utility is relative and the negative utility value for one attribute of a factor does not mean that the attribute is not important but it means that it is relatively not important with another attribute of the factor. In the case of relatedness, the answers of the participants show a positive attitude towards the high level of relatedness. The value of utility for high relatedness is 1.207 which means that the high relatedness contributes towards the entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and evaluation. The value of utility for the low relatedness is -1.207 which does not mean that the low-level elatedness does not matter at all and is not important but comparatively, with the high relatedness, the low relatedness is barely important. It means that when it comes to the factor of relatedness for opportunity evaluation and evaluation, high relatedness is important and it makes an opportunity valuable and worth processing. It is important to understand that the relatedness here means the prior experience and expertise of the entrepreneur is related to the potential market in which the opportunity is recognised and evaluated. The results show that the high level of relatedness of the entrepreneur with the potential market would lead to better evaluation and evaluation of the existing opportunity that would improve the chances of creating a valuable innovation. The standard deviation for both attributes is equal which is .041 and it is acceptable as well. the results derived from the utility values accept hypothesis 1 which is

The process of opportunity evaluation involves higher cognitive effort aligning positive relationship with relatedness.

It means that the cognitive process is better if the relatedness of the entrepreneur is positive with the potential market and the opportunity evaluation and evaluation would be better.  Figure 1 shows the individual utilities of each participant towards the low and high relatedness and it shows that the high relatedness has positive utilities and the low relatedness has negative values.

It is important to look at the individual responses on the two attributes of relatedness by the respondents and the value of utility for each respondent to understand the variation in others’ responses in more detail. Figure 1 shows the individual responses.

 

individual-subject

Market size and opportunity evaluation

The link between market size and the opportunity evaluation is measured and checked from the collection of primary data and results are presented. The market and the value of utility for the different attributes of market size is an important measure to find out the impact of each attribute of market size towards the opportunity evaluation and evaluation. For this, table 2 and figure b is presented  

Table 2

Utility Estimate Std. Error
Mass

Market size

Niche

.311

-.311

.041

.041

system-utility

Table 2 shows the utility values and standard deviation for the market size of the potential market in which the opportunity is reorganizing or evaluated. There are two types of market which are mass and niche and the test is applied accordingly to find out the utilities for these two attributes or types of the market. the results of the conjoint analysis show a positive value of .311 for the mass market and a negative value of the niche market which is also .311. the concept of utility is that the sum of different attributes of each factor has to be zero and it is zero in this and previous cases. The positive 0.311 utility for the mass market means that the dependence of the opportunity on the mass market would be more reliable as compared to the niche market. The entrepreneurs use reliance as one of the important factors of the cognitive process. the reliance would be higher in the case of a mass market which means the opportunity that is targeting the mass market would be reliable according to an entrepreneur that participated in the study as compared to the opportunity that is targeting the niche market. The niche market has higher profit margins but the target size is small and the growth chances are lower as compared to the mass market. The standard deviation error for both attributes of market size is the same which is .041 and it is acceptable. Therefore, the second hypothesis is also accepted which is

H2: In the process of opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurs’ intention, reliance is higher if the target is towards the mass market rather than a niche market.

Below is figure 2 which shows the individual participant’s utility for mass and niche markets. The case is somehow different here as compared to the utilities for the relatedness of the entrepreneur. In this case, despite the positive value for the mass market collectively, there was some individual that has a negative value for the mass market. For the niche market, despite the negative collective value, there was some individual with positive individual utility.

 

individual-subject-utility

Innovation type and opportunity evaluation

The innovation type and opportunity evaluation also measure the impact of innovation type on evaluating a particular opportunity. The innovation type and the value of utility for the different attributes of innovation type is an important measure to find out the impact of each attribute of innovation type towards the opportunity evaluation and evaluation. For this, table 3 and figure c is presented

 Table 3

Utility Estimate Std. Error
Radical

Innovation type

Incremental

.146

-.146

.041

.041

Table 3 shows the utility values for the innovation type as there can be incremental as well as a radical innovation in the opportunity that exists. The innovation usually provides larger profits and more attraction to the potential market or customers. The utility values also show that radical innovation has a positive value of .146 which means that if the innovation is radical and higher, the opportunity would be more attractive and highly evaluated by the entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs during the collection of primary data confirm that the opportunity that provides a high level of innovation is more valuable or highly

Figure c

 

evaluated as compared to the low or incremental level of innovation. The utility value of incremental innovation is -.146, which shows that radical innovation is more important to make an opportunity attractive as compared to incremental innovation.  The positive value for the radical innovation for the attraction of an opportunity means that the reliance of the entrepreneur towards the opportunity with radical innovation would be higher as compared to the opportunity with the incremental innovation. It means that the entrepreneurs would be more interested in pursuing an opportunity that provides a high level of innovation as compared to the small level of innovation as it would be offering different from the competitors. The standard deviation in this utility or test is .041 like previous ones which are acceptable. The result of this utility value shows that the hypothesis 3 is accepted which is

H3: In the process of opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurs’ intention, reliance would be higher if the opportunity presents radical innovation rather than incremental innovation.

It is important to look at the individual responses on the two attributes of innovation type by the respondents and the value of utility for each respondent to understand the variation in others’ responses in more detail. Figure 3 shows the individual responses.

Figure 3

 

innovation-type-subject

The individual subject utilities are also shown in the above figure which it can be seen that the entrepreneurs have shown a negative attitude as well towards radical innovation. Not all the entrepreneurs showed a positive attitude towards radical innovation for opportunity evaluation and evaluation but few of them consider that radical innovation is not the only factor that contributes towards the evaluation. On the other hand, some participants believe in the positive role of incremental innovation towards opportunity evaluation. But the overall result of all the participants is in favour of radical innovation as compared to incremental innovation. This result also shows that the relative power of radical innovation is not amazingly high for opportunity evaluation as compared to incremental innovation. It also shows that incremental innovation is weak when compared to radical innovation but lonely it may have a large impact on opportunity

Findings  2

Conjoint importance of factors

The statistical tools are applied to find out the utility of different attributes within each factor as well as the importance of the factors in comparison with each other. The importance table with the values is provided that came as a result of statistical tools application.

Table 4

Importance values

Relatedness 56.004
Market Size 24.279
Innovation Type 19.718

Figure d

 

Important-summary

Table 4 shows the relative importance of each factor for the opportunity evaluation and evaluation by the entrepreneurs. According to the results of the data collected from the 45 entrepreneurs, 56.004 percent of the participants believe that the relatedness of the knowledge and expertise of the entrepreneurs with the potential market is most important for the opportunity evaluation and evaluation through a cognitive process. It means that the attribute of the entrepreneurs is linked with the opportunity evaluation and evaluation process and it has the most contribution towards it as compared to market size and innovation type. This results approves and accepts hypothesis 4 which is

H4: The new product opportunity evaluation and exploitation intention of entrepreneurs are positively related to their opportunism.

It means that if the relatedness of the entrepreneur is high, the entrepreneur would be an expert in the market which increases the possibility of recognizing the opportunity in a good manner as compared to someone who is not an expert and cannot recognize the opportunity. The opportunities of the entrepreneur due to his/her relatedness with the industry plays a role in opportunity evaluation and evaluation.

On the other hand, the percentage for the market size is 24.27 and the innovation type is 19.718 which shows the less importance of these two factors as compared to the relatedness of the entrepreneurs. The contribution of market size towards the opportunity evaluation and evaluation is 24.27 percent relative to innovation type and relatedness. It does not mean that the market size is not important but it means that the market size is less important when compared with the relatedness of entrepreneurs. It also means that the market size is more important when compared with the innovation type which has a value of 19.718 percent. For innovation type, it is the least important factor out of the three factors for the evaluation and evaluation of the opportunity through the cognitive process.

It is also important to look at the individual responses or values for the importance of each factor by the respondents of the study.

Figure 4

 

individual-subject-factor

Figure 4 shows the individual subject importance of the participants for each factor which are relatedness, market size, and innovation type. It can be seeming in the individual responses that most of the entrepreneurs have shown a positive attitude towards the high importance of the relatedness as compared to the market size and innovation type.  The reaction of the participants towards the market size for importance is good as well as some participants rate it high and one participant gives it almost 100 percent importance. This is not the case with the innovation type as most of the participant’s value reflects around 50 or lower than 50 percent which is why the innovation type is the least important of the factor for the evaluation and evaluation of the opportunity through the cognitive process when compared with relatedness and market size.

Get Help With Any Part of Your Dissertation!

UK’s Best Academic Support Services. How would you know until you try?

Discussion

Overview

Opportunity evaluation and evaluation are important for the entrepreneurs as the evaluation of the opportunity would form the basis for a valuable and innovative solution. The proper decision about the evaluation and evaluation of the opportunity would improve the chances of success for entrepreneurial business by the entrepreneurs. One of the major differences between a successful and struggling entrepreneur is the ability to spot and evaluate the opportunity. Different factors create an impact on opportunity evaluation and evaluation by entrepreneurs through the use of the cognitive process. the relatedness of the entrepreneurs with the potential market, the size of the market, and the innovation type are some of the factors that contribute towards the opportunity evaluation and evaluation.

Discussion 1

The findings of the research and the primary data collected in the research are inclined with the literature review for the importance of using the cognitive process to recognize and evaluate the opportunity. The relatedness of the entrepreneur’s experience and expertise is important with the potential market and it plays a crucial role in effectively evaluating and spotting the opportunity in a particular market (Bishop, 2012). The findings of the research and the primary data confirm the findings of the secondary data. The results of this research show that the high level of relatedness of the entrepreneurs would be more beneficial for the entrepreneur to assess and evaluate the opportunity effectively using the cognitive process. Due to the high level of relatedness, the entrepreneurs would be having a better understanding and in-depth knowledge of the industry or market. This would help the entrepreneurs to better understand the impact factors and identify if the opportunity is a valuable opportunity or just a market gap that does not have the potential or capacity to contribute or provide value to society, customers, and the business. It is important to note that the opportunity evaluated is good if it provides value for the customers or users as well as the business owners or the entrepreneurs. If the innovation does not provide value or profits to the business, it is either not a valuable innovation or it is not implemented and recognized properly. In the case of low relatedness, the level of understanding would not be as effective as otherwise. The knowledge would not be sufficient, the understanding of the different important factors would also be weak, and the judgment based on the weak understanding would most probably not be good which would be the case in the high level of relatedness. Therefore, it is confirmed and accepted from the collection of secondary and primary data results that the high level of relatedness of the entrepreneurs with the potential industry increases the probability of effective opportunity evaluation and evaluation by using cognitive process by the entrepreneurs.

Moving forward to market size, the mass market opportunity provides better scope for the entrepreneurs to conduct business as compared to niche markets unless all the factors are in the favor of attraction of a niche market. but still, the mass market-related opportunity has more reliance and it is more reliable as the market size would cover many different negative aspects. It is possible to sustain the high level of competition in the mass market which is not the case in the niche market. the findings of the primary data confirm that the reliance on the opportunity for the mass market is high according to the entrepreneurs that participated in the study (Maine et al, 2015). The entrepreneurs confirm that the opportunity that comes from the mass market is more attractive and valuable and evaluated high by the entrepreneurs as compared to the opportunity that comes from the niche market. For the niche market, the entrepreneur has to be very specific and cautious. The findings do not say that the opportunity from the niche market is bad or not attractive at all but it shows the relative answers. Concerning the mass market, the primary data shows that the niche market opportunity is less attractive as compared to the mass-market opportunity. The alignment can be seen in the findings of the secondary and primary data once again and the results of both types of data confirm the preference of mass-market over niche market for the opportunity evaluation through a cognitive process.

The innovation type is also important for entrepreneurs to evaluate a particular opportunity. Radical innovation has more chances to provide regular growth and a high level of profits. In the case of incremental innovation, the profit levels are comparatively lower due to the low level of differentiation (Autio et al, 2014). The primary data finding again confirms and aligned with the secondary data findings that radical innovation seems to be a better opportunity for entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs that participated in the study confirm that radical innovation rated high among them and incremental innovation is valued low in comparison with radical innovation. One thing that is different in the result for the type of innovation is that despite the negative results for incremental innovation as compared to radical innovation. Many respondents voted in favour of s innovation as well which shows the importance of incremental innovation.

Discussion 2

The relative importance of each factor mentioned is another important analysis and the primary data confirms the highest importance for their relatedness of the entrepreneurs with the potential market. The high level of relatedness of the entrepreneur would make improve the opportunism in the entrepreneur and the chances of opportunity evaluation and right evaluation are more. The importance of the market size comes at the 2nd spot for the relative importance of the opportunity evaluation and evaluation. The innovation type come sat 3rd spot concerning market size and the relatedness of the entrepreneurs. The secondary data also weighs high to the personal quality of opportunism of the entrepreneur for the evaluation and evaluation of the opportunities.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion

The success of the entrepreneurs and the cognitive process of recognizing and evaluating the opportunities go hand in hand. The high level of ability and the proper use of the cognitive process for the evaluation and evaluation of the opportunities by the entrepreneurs create a positive impact on the outcomes, decisions and judgments. The relatedness of the entrepreneur’s prior experience and knowledge has a link with the ability of the entrepreneur to effectively evaluate the opportunity in the potential market. A high level of relatedness means more expertise and knowledge to evaluate differently related and concerning factors about the opportunity (Wang et al, 2013). Without the proper evaluation of the opportunity in the potential market, it would not be a wise decision to enter a market and start the business. the market size is another factor that comes into consideration for the evaluation and evaluation of the opportunities. The mass market according to the entrepreneurs is more reliable as compared to the niche market when it comes to opportunity evaluation. The entrepreneurs also believe that radical innovation has a higher reliance and the entrepreneurs would evaluate the opportunity with radical innovation higher and better as compared to the opportunity with incremental innovation. The incremental innovation is not completely unattractive but in comparison with radical innovation, it is less effective to make an opportunity highly attractive. The opportunism of the entrepreneurs is another factor that contributes towards the evaluation of the opportunities. The relatedness is the highest-rated factor by the entrepreneurs for the effective and proper evaluation of the opportunity as the high level of experience and expertise would contribute positively.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, a set of recommendations is prepared and provided is below

  • The young, emerging, and struggling entrepreneurs should be going through the findings of the study and focusing more on the self-cognitive process for evaluating the opportunities.
  • The entrepreneurs should be looking at the elatedness of the industry with personal skills, abilities, prior experience and knowledge so that the opportunities can be evaluated effectively with a high level of reliability.

During the evaluation of the opportunities, the entrepreneurs must not be solely focusing on one aspect but both sides should be given importance. The incremental innovation can also be successful as few of the entrepreneurs voted in favour of this. But in comparison, entrepreneurs should always be looking for radical innovations as it has more chances for success.

The entrepreneurs should also be preferably looking to explore opportunities in the mass market as compared to a niche market as multiple factors are favourable in the mass market to make an opportunity attract while the factors are limited in the niche market.

References

  • Ahmetoglu, G., Leutner, F. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011) EQ-nomics: Understanding the relationship between individual differences in trait emotional intelligence and entrepreneurship. Personality and Individual Differences. 51 (8), pp.1028-1033.
  • Ahmetoglu, G., Swami, V. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010) The relationship between dimensions of love, personality, and relationship length. Archives of sexual behavior. 39 (5), pp.1181-1190.
  • Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. & Ray, S. (2003) A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing. 18 (1), pp.105-123.
  • Austin, J., Stevenson, H. & Wei‐Skillern, J. (2006) Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship theory and practice. 30 (1), pp.1-22.
  • Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy43(7), 1097-1108.
  • Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2013). Information exposure, opportunity evaluation, and entrepreneurial action: An investigation of an online user community. Academy of Management Journal56(5), 1348-1371.
  • Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century13(1), 13-38.
  • Baker, T., Miner, A. S. & Eesley, D. T. (2003) Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research policy. 32 (2), pp.255-276.
  • Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2018). Business research methods. Oxford university press.
  • Bird, B. (2019) Toward a theory of entrepreneurial competency. 2019 Seminal Ideas for the Next Twenty-Five Years of Advances.Emerald Publishing Limited.
  • Bishop, P. (2012). Knowledge, diversity, and entrepreneurship: a spatial analysis of new firm formation in Great Britain. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development24(7-8), 641-660.
  • Boso, N., Cadogan, J. W. & Story, V. M. (2013) Entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation as drivers of product innovation success: A study of exporters from a developing economy. International Small Business Journal. 31 (1), pp.57-81.
  • Burch, J. G. (1986) Profiling the entrepreneur. Business Horizons. 29 (5), pp.13-16.
  • Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R. & Carland, J. a. C. (2007) Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. 2007 Springer.
  • Chandler, G. N. & Hanks, S. H. (1993) Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing. 8 (5), pp.391-408.
  • Chell, E. (2013). Review of skill and the entrepreneurial process. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research19(1), 6-31.
  • Choi, D. Y. & Gray, E. R. (2008) The venture development processes of “sustainable” entrepreneurs. Management Research News. 31 (8), pp.558-569.
  • Choi, Y. R., Lévesque, M. & Shepherd, D. A. (2008) When should entrepreneurs expedite or delay opportunity exploitation? Journal of business venturing. 23 (3), pp.333-355.
  • Choi, Y. R. & Shepherd, D. A. (2004) Entrepreneurs’ decisions to exploit opportunities. Journal of management. 30 (3), pp.377-395.
  • Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A. & Tracey, P. (2011) Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization science. 22 (5), pp.1203-1213.
  • De Carolis, D. M. & Saparito, P. (2006) Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. 30 (1), pp.41-56.
  • Dean, D. L., Hender, J., Rodgers, T. & Santanen, E. (2006) Identifying good ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of Association for Information Systems. 7 (10), pp.646-699.
  • Deephouse, D. L. (1999) To be different, or to be the same? It’s question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic management journal. 20 (2), pp.147-166.
  • Detienne, D. R., Shepherd, D. A. & De Castro, J. O. (2008) The fallacy of “only the strong survive”: The effects of extrinsic motivation on the persistence decisions for under-performing firms. Journal of Business Venturing. 23 (5), pp.528-546.
  • Dimov, D. (2010) Nascent entrepreneurs and venture emergence: Opportunity confidence, human capital, and early planning. Journal of Management Studies. 47 (6), pp.1123-1153.
  • Dimov, D. & Milanov, H. (2010) The interplay of need and opportunity in venture capital investment syndication. Journal of Business Venturing. 25 (4), pp.331-348.
  • Drucker, P. (2014) Innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M. & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990) Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative science quarterly. pp.504-529.
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research policy. 32 (1), pp.109-121.
  • Fatoki, O. (2014) The entrepreneurial intention of undergraduate students in South Africa: The influences of entrepreneurship education and previous work experience. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 5 (7), pp.294.
  • Forbes, D. P. (2005) Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others? Journal of business venturing. 20 (5), pp.623-640.
  • Foo, M. D. (2011). Emotions and entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Entrepreneurship theory and practice35(2), 375-393.
  • Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., Powers, J. B. & Gartner, W. B. (2002) Entrepreneurial expectancy, task effort, and performance. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. 27 (2), pp.187-206.
  • Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M. & Wind, Y. (2001) Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces. 31 (3_supplement), pp.S56-S73.
  • Green, P. E. & Srinivasan, V. (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of consumer research. 5 (2), pp.103-123.
  • Green, P. E., Wind, Y. & Jain, A. K. (1972) Preference measurement of item collections. Journal of Marketing Research. 9 (4), pp.371-377.
  • Grégoire, D. A. & Shepherd, D. A. (2012) Technology-market combinations and the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities: An investigation of the opportunity-individual nexus. Academy of Management journal. 55 (4), pp.753-785.
  • Grichnik, D., Smeja, A. & Welpe, I. (2010) The importance of being emotional: How do emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 76 (1), pp.15-29.
  • Gupta, A. K. (2013) Tapping the entrepreneurial potential of grassroots innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Rev. 11 (3), pp.18-20.
  • Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2011). Survey methodology(Vol. 561). John Wiley & Sons.
  • Hallak, R., Lindsay, N. J. & Brown, G. (2011) Examining the role of entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on SMTE performance. Tourism Analysis. 16 (5), pp.583-599.
  • Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A. & Mcmullen, J. S. (2009) An opportunity for me? The role of resources in opportunity evaluation decisions. Journal of Management studies. 46 (3), pp.337-361.
  • Hammersley, M. (2017). Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide 1. In Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research(pp. 39-55). Routledge
  • Hills, G. E. & Shrader, R. C. (1998) Successful entrepreneurs’ insights into opportunity evaluation. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. 18 (2), pp.30-41.
  • Hmieleski, K. M. & Baron, R. A. (2008) Regulatory focus and new venture performance: A study of entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2 (4), pp.285-299.
  • Iansiti, M. & Levien, R. (2004) The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business Press.
  • Janssen, F., Bacq, S. & Brouard, F. (2012) L’entrepreneuriat social: Un thème pour la recherche passée, présente et future. Revue internationale PME: Économie et gestion de la petite et moyenne entreprise. 25 (3-4), pp.17-44.
  • Keh, H. T., Der Foo, M. & Lim, B. C. (2002) Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. 27 (2), pp.125-148.
  • Koellinger, P., Minniti, M. & Schade, C. (2007) “I think I can, I think I can”: Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of economic psychology. 28 (4), pp.502-527.
  • Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T. & Michael, S. C. (2007) Resources, capabilities and entrepreneurial perceptions. Journal of management studies. 44 (7), pp.1187-1212.
  • Kuratko, D. F. (2007) Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century: Guest editor’s perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 13 (4), pp.1-11.
  • Kyrö, P. & Niemi, M. (2008) Advancing business planning: from planning to entrepreneurial learning. 2008 Teaching Entrepreneurship.
  • Lancaster, J. B. (1971) Play-mothering: the relations between juvenile females and young infants among free-ranging vervet monkeys (Cevcopithecus aethiops). Folia primatologica. 15 (3-4), pp.161-182.
  • Longenecker, J. G., Moore, C. W., Petty, J. W., Palich, L. E. & Mckinney, J. A. (2006) Ethical attitudes in small businesses and large corporations: Theory and empirical findings from a tracking study spanning three decades. Journal of Small Business Management. 44 (2), pp.167-183.
  • Louviere, J. J. (1988) Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences. Journal of transport economics and policy. 22 (1), pp.93-119.
  • Lohrke, F. T., Holloway, B. B., & Woolley, T. W. (2010). Conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research: A review and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods13(1), 16-30.
  • Mair, J., Robinson, J. & Hockerts, K. (2006) Social entrepreneurship. Springer.
  • Maine, E., Soh, P. H., & Dos Santos, N. (2015). The role of entrepreneurial decision-making in opportunity creation and evaluation. Technovation39, 53-72.
  • Martin, R. L. & Osberg, S. (2007) Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford social innovation review Stanford.
  • Mcgrath, R. G. & Macmillan, I. C. (2000) The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Harvard Business Press.
  • Miralles, F., Giones, F. & Riverola, C. (2016) Evaluating the impact of prior experience in entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 12 (3), pp.791-813.
  • Mitchell, J. R., Friga, P. N. & Mitchell, R. K. (2005) Untangling the intuition mess: Intuition as a construct in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29 (6), pp.653-679.
  • Mitchell, J. R. & Shepherd, D. A. (2010) To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing. 25 (1), pp.138-154.
  • Moroz, P. W., & Hindle, K. (2012). Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonizing multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice36(4), 781-818.
  • Muchena, F., Onduru, D., Gachini, G. & De Jager, A. (2005) Turning the tides of soil degradation in Africa: capturing the reality and exploring opportunities. Land Use Policy. 22 (1), pp.23-31.
  • Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L. & Spector, T. D. (2009) Opportunity evaluation and the tendency to be an entrepreneur: A bivariate genetics perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 110 (2), pp.108-117.
  • Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2003) Creeping dispositionism: the temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of personality and social psychology. 84 (3), pp.485.
  • Ortt, J. R., Kamp, L. M. & Doe, M. F. (Year) ‘Niche strategy selection to introduce radically new systems: The case of kite-based airborne wind energy’. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology, and Innovation/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC). 2015. IEEE. Available.
  • Parrish, E. D., Cassill, N. L. & Oxenham, W. (2006) Niche market strategy for a mature marketplace. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 24 (7), pp.694-707.
  • Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. T. (2004) Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist. 39 (2), pp.83-96.
  • Plummer, R. & Armitage, D. (2007) A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecological economics. 61 (1), pp.62-74.
  • Quan, X. (2012) Prior experience, social network, and levels of entrepreneurial intentions. Management Research Review. 35 (10), pp.945-957.
  • Renko, M., Shrader, R. C. & Simon, M. (2012) Perception of entrepreneurial opportunity: a general framework. Management Decision. 50 (7), pp.1233-1251.
  • Sakamoto, T., Saito, T., Harumi, N. & Nakajima, T. (1990) Business History Research in 1987: Other Nations. Japanese Yearbook on Business History. 6 pp.197-234.
  • Sarasvathy, S. D. (Year) ‘Effectual reasoning in entrepreneurial decision making: existence and bounds’. Academy of management proceedings. 2001. Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510. Available.
  • Sarasvathy, S. D., Menon, A. R. & Kuechle, G. (2013) Failing firms and successful entrepreneurs: Serial entrepreneurship as a temporal portfolio. Small business economics. 40 (2), pp.417-434.
  • Saunders, M. N. (2011). Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education India.
  • Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J. & Oldham, G. R. (2004) The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of management. 30 (6), pp.933-958.
  • Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of management review. 25 (1), pp.217-226.
  • Shepherd, D. A. & Krueger, N. F. (2002) An intentions–based model of entrepreneurial teams’ social cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 27 (2), pp.167-185.
  • Shepherd, D. A. & Zacharakis, A. (2018) Conjoint analysis: A window of opportunity for entrepreneurship research. 2018 Reflections and Extensions on Key Papers of the First Twenty-Five Years of Advances.Emerald Publishing Limited.
  • Simon, M., Houghton, S. M. & Aquino, K. (2000) Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of business venturing. 15 (2), pp.113-134.
  • Short, J. C., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Shook, C. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). The concept of “opportunity” in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management36(1), 40-65.
  • Stevenson, H. H. (2000) Why entrepreneurship has won. Coleman White Paper. pp.1-8.
  • Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M. M., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing27(1), 77-94.
  • Timmons, J. A. (1989) The Entrepreneurial Mind. ERIC.
  • Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I. & Spörrle, M. (2013) Easy now, desirable later: The moderating role of temporal distance in opportunity evaluation and exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 37 (4), pp.859-888.
  • Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M. & Westhead, P. (2003) Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 28 (2), pp.107-128.
  • Van Stel, A., Carree, M. & Thurik, R. (2005) The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small business economics. 24 (3), pp.311-321.
  • Walker, R. M. (2007) An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 18 (4), pp.591-615.
  • Wang, Y. L., Ellinger, A. D., & Jim Wu, Y. C. (2013). Entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation: an empirical study of R&D personnel. Management Decision51(2), 248-266.
  • Welpe, I. M., Spörrle, M., Grichnik, D., Michl, T. & Audretsch, D. B. (2012) Emotions and opportunities: The interplay of opportunity evaluation, fear, joy, and anger as an antecedent of entrepreneurial exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 36 (1), pp.69-96.
  • Wilkie, W. L. & Pessemier, E. A. (1973) Issues in marketing’s use of multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing research. 10 (4), pp.428-441.
  • Wood, M. S., Mckelvie, A. & Haynie, J. M. (2014) Making it personal: Opportunity individuation and the shaping of opportunity beliefs. Journal of Business Venturing. 29 (2), pp.252-272.
  • Wood, M. S. & Williams, D. W. (2014) Opportunity evaluation as rule‐based decision making. Journal of Management Studies. 51 (4), pp.573-602.
  • Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O. & Shulman, J. M. (2009) A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of business venturing. 24 (5), pp.519-532.
  • Zikmund, W. G., Carr, J. C., Babin, B., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods. Nelson Education.
  • Zimmerer, T. W. & Yasin, M. M. (1998) A leadership profile of American project managers. Project Management Journal. 29 (1), pp.31-38.
  • Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed-Method Research: Instruments, Validity, Reliability and Reporting Findings. Theory & practice in language studies3(2).

 

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this Dissertation and no longer wish to have it published on the www.ResearchProspect.com then please:

Request The Removal Of This Dissertation