WELCOME!
1
Innovation and Collaboration:
A New Approach for Supporting the
Theory and Practice of
Entrepreneurship
Steve Wallis, PhD
F.A.S.T.
[email protected]
Noah Harris, MA
Shamana Consulting, Inc.
[email protected]
USASBE 2013
What's New, What Works: In the Classroom and on the Street
San Francisco, California - January 10 - 13, 2013
2
AGENDA
Introductions (who are we and why are we
here?)
Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA)
– (a new way to improve & test models)
Activity – Use IPA to integrate and test
models
Discussion – academic/practitioner
challenge – creating a better model together
Consortial benchmarking – brief overview
& next steps
3
Definition of a Model
A model (conceptual construct) is a
set of interrelated propositions.
4
A Model by Any Other Name
Lens
Map
Metaphor
Story
Diagram
Narrative
Set of axioms
Theory
Ethics
Policy
Mental model
Schema
Mind map
Assumptions
These are all names for a conceptual construct
that is useful for engaging the world.
5
One Very Simple
(very difficult)
Idea
Creating a good model has TWO requirements:
1 – External correspondence (reality-to-concept)
2 – Internal coherence (concept-to-concept)
6
AGENDA
Introductions (who are we and why are we
here?)
Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA)
– (a new way to improve & test models)
Activity – Use IPA to integrate and test
models
Discussion – academic/practitioner
challenge – creating a better model together
Consortial benchmarking – brief overview
& next steps
7
Integrative Propositional Analysis
1. Identify propositions within one or more
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
theoretical models.
Diagram those propositions with one box for each
concept and arrows indicating directions of causal
effects
Find linkages between causal concepts and
resultant concepts between all propositions
Identify the total number of concepts
Identify concatenated concepts
Divide the number of concatenated concepts by
the total number of concepts in the model
8
IPA – Step 1
Identify propositions within
one or more models.
For Example:
When there is more entrepreneurial risk-taking, the
firm will exhibit enhanced performance.
9
IPA – Step 2 Diagram
propositions
•one box for each concept
•arrows indicating directions of causal effects
Proposition #1
“Concept A” More
entrepreneurial risk taking
“Concept B” Better
firm performance
10
IPA – Step 3
Find linkages between causal
concepts and resultant concepts
P #1
A
P #2
B
B
C
OR
A
B
C
11
IPA – Step 4
Identify the total number of
concepts
A
B
C
Total Number of Concepts = 3
12
IPA – Step 5
Identify concatenated
concepts
A
B
C
Number of Concatenated Concepts = 1
13
IPA – Step 6
Divide the number of concatenated
concepts by the total number of
concepts in the model
A
B
C
Number of Concatenated Concepts = 1
Total Number of Concepts = 3
Robustness = 0.33 (result of one divided by three)
14
Pop-quiz #1 …
Holmes, T. J., & Schmitz Jr, J. A. (1990). A theory of
entrepreneurship and its application to the study of business
transfers. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2), 265-294.
[partial model]
More pursuit of
opportunity
(entrepreneurial task)
More new product
created (new
business forms)
Total number of concepts =
Number of concatenated concepts =
Robustness =
15
Pop-quiz #2 …
Montanye, J. A. (2006). Entrepreneurship. The independent review,
10(4), 547-571.
More creation
and capture of
economic
rents in face
of uncertainty
and scarcity
More rewards
above equilibrium
level
More living
better than
others
Total number of concepts =
Number of concatenated concepts =
Robustness =
16
Pop-quiz #3 …
Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B.
(2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics, 32, 15-30.
More stock
of
knowledge
Less
efficient use
of R&D by
incumbents
More
entrepreneurship
Less regulation
administrative
barriers,
government
intervention in
the market
Total number of concepts =
Number of concatenated concepts =
Robustness =
17
Comparing Models
Model
Structure
Complexity
Holmes, T. J., & Schmitz Jr,
J. A. (1990)
R = 0.0
C=2
Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P.,
Audretsch, D. B., &
Carlsson, B. (2009)
R = 0.0
C=3
Montanye, J. A. (2006)
R = 0.25
C=4
18
Example of integration…
Holmes & Schmitz”A theory of entrepreneurship and its application to the study
of business transfers.”
More
Modernization
More economic
growth
Less
equilibrium
Less
equilibrium
More opportunities
for developing new
products
More opportunities
for developing new
products
19
Integrating the two
propositions…
More
Modernization
More economic
growth
Less
equilibrium
More opportunities
for developing new
products
Total number of concepts =
Number of concatenated concepts =
Robustness =
20
AGENDA
Introductions (who are we and why are we
here?)
Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA)
– (a new way to improve & test models)
Activity – Use IPA to integrate and test
models
Discussion – academic/practitioner
challenge – creating a better model together
Consortial benchmarking – brief overview
& next steps
21
Integrating Three Models (see handout)
More creation
and capture of
economic
rents in face
of uncertainty
and scarcity
More rewards
More living
Total number of concepts
=
above equilibrium
better than
Number of concatenated
level
others concepts =
Robustness =
22
The Integration Game
Work solo or in group (as convenient)
Examine handouts
Identify where models might overlap
Link them together
Prepare to share your results and
insights
23
AGENDA
Introductions (who are we and why are we
here?)
Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA)
– (a new way to improve & test models)
Activity – Use IPA to integrate and test
models
Discussion – academic/practitioner
challenge – creating a better model together
Consortial benchmarking – brief overview
& next steps
24
Resulting Model…
Is more Complex (greater breadth)?
Is more Robust (more likely to be
effective in practice?
Creates opportunities for research?
Suggests directions for practice?
25
AGENDA
Introductions (who are we and why are we
here?)
Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA)
– (a new way to improve & test models)
Activity – Use IPA to integrate and test
models
Discussion – academic/practitioner
challenge – creating a better model together
Consortial Benchmarking – brief overview
& next steps
26
Consortial Benchmarking (CB)
What is it? Collaborative form of
Researcher-Practitioner investigation of “best
practice” firms re: a specific research
question.)
Purpose – Enhance rigor & relevance in
collaborative research
Brief History - American Productivity &
Quality Center process benchmarking work
influences, key proponents Schiele &
Krummaker
27
CB Process
28
CB, Rigor & Relevance
Appropriate Operational Measures
Strong Relationship Identification
Generalizability
Reliability/Replicability
29
CB vs. Multi-Case Studies
Practitioners as Co-Researchers –
Accesses both knowledge-practice bases
Team-Based – Member, Perspective,
Experience & Competency Diversity
Multiple Evidence Sources – Analyst,
Perspective & Data Triangulation
Best “Practice” (Pattern) Focus –
Industry Tourism Prevention
Critical Discourse – Constructive
Researcher-Practitioner Discourse/Dialogue
30
CB Challenges & Suitability
Complexity – Research Approach
Resource Intensity – Time, Analysis,
Discussions, etc.
Potential Practical Issues – Member/Best
Practice Firm Competition, Team-Based
Challenges
Best for High Priority ResearcherPractitioner Topics
31
To Conclude…
IPA provides an innovative and rigorous
tool for integrating and evaluating
models based on logical structure
Using IPA, we can develop better academic
models
CB provides an innovative and useful
process for sharing knowledge
Using CB, we can share and improve upon
best practices for supporting entrepreneurs
32
MANY THANKS
We look forward to collaborating
with YOU!
Steve Wallis, PhD
F.A.S.T.
[email protected]
Noah Harris, MA
Shamana Consulting, Inc.
[email protected]
USASBE 2013
What's New, What Works: In the Classroom and on the Street
San Francisco, California - January 10 - 13, 2013
33