ISNN 1392-3110
Social Research / Socialiniai tyrimai. 2007. Nr. 2 (10), 39–48
En­trep­re­neu­rial skills de­ve­lop­ment via Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se
Al­gir­das Ga­ra­lis, Gra­ži­na Straz­die­nė
Šiau­liai Uni­ver­si­ty
In­tro­duc­tion
mo­ti­va­tion and ca­pa­ci­ty, in­de­pen­dent­ly or wit­hin an
or­ga­ni­za­tion, to iden­ti­fy an op­por­tu­ni­ty and pur­sue it,
in or­der to pro­du­ce new va­lue or eco­no­mic suc­cess”
(Eu­ro­pe­an Com­mis­sion, 2003).
The const­ruct of en­trep­re­neurs­hip is com­plex
and the­re is no ag­re­e­ment on its de­fi­ni­tion. Kauf­mann
and Dant (1998) ca­te­go­ri­ze en­trep­re­neurs­hip in­to
three per­spec­ti­ves fo­cu­ses, na­me­ly on:
1. De­fi­ni­tions stres­sing the cha­rac­te­ris­tic traits
pos­ses­sed by en­trep­re­neurs inc­lu­ding risk ta­king, le­a­
ders­hip, mo­ti­va­tion, abi­li­ty to re­sol­ve cri­ses, cre­a­ti­vi­
ty, low le­vel of risk aver­sion, de­ci­sion ma­king abi­li­ty
and mo­re.
2. De­fi­ni­tions stres­sing the pro­cess of en­trep­re­
neurs­hip and its re­sult inc­lu­ding the cre­a­tion of new
en­ter­pri­se and new and va­lu­ab­le com­bi­na­tions of re­
sour­ces in an un­cer­tain and am­bi­guo­us en­vi­ron­ment.
3. De­fi­ni­tions fo­cu­sing on the ac­ti­vi­ties of en­
trep­re­neurs inc­lu­ding se­ar­ching for new mar­kets, cre­
a­ting and ma­na­ging con­trac­tu­al ar­ran­ge­ments, sup­
ply­ing re­sour­ces, main­tai­ning and de­ve­lo­ping pro­fit
orien­ted bu­si­ness, ta­king ope­ra­tio­nal con­trol of the
com­pa­ny.
Mor­ris (1997) de­fi­nes en­trep­re­neurs­hip as the
pro­cess through which in­di­vi­du­als and/or te­ams cre­a­
te va­lue by brin­ging to­get­her uni­que pac­ka­ges of re­
sour­ce in­puts to ex­ploit op­por­tu­ni­ties in the en­vi­ron­
ment. Re­y­nolds et al. (2002) sug­gest that edu­ca­tion
is a key ele­ment in the fra­me­work con­di­tions that en­
han­ces eco­no­mic growth through en­trep­re­neurs­hip.
So­lo­mon et al. (2002) con­firm the po­si­ti­ve ro­le of
te­aching en­trep­re­neu­rial and small bu­si­ness ma­na­ge­
ment skills for new ven­tu­re cre­a­tion and suc­cess.
Uni­ver­si­ties and col­le­ges of­fer a num­ber of
en­trep­re­neurs­hip pro­gram­mes. The ri­se of the­se pro­
gram­mes has be­en cal­led by stu­dent de­mand as stu­
dents lo­ok for a sty­le of bu­si­ness edu­ca­tion that will
pro­vi­de them with trans­fe­rab­le skills (Co­o­per et al.,
2004) ne­eded to suc­ce­ed in an inc­re­a­sin­gly di­ver­gent
bu­si­ness en­vi­ron­ment. Stu­dents de­mand in­teg­ra­ted
pro­gram­mes that te­ach prac­ti­cal skills for star­ting
and ex­pan­ding bu­si­ness en­ter­pri­ses (Far­rell, 1994).
Tra­di­tio­nal bu­si­ness edu­ca­tion pro­gram­mes are not
sup­ply­ing the re­le­vant ne­eds of the chan­ging bu­si­ness
en­vi­ron­ment. En­trep­re­neu­rial edu­ca­tion emp­ha­si­zes
So­cie­ty is chan­ging ra­pid­ly. It be­co­mes inc­re­a­
sin­gly ba­sed on know­led­ge and mo­dern tech­no­lo­gies.
Eve­ry­bo­dy must be pre­pa­red to co­pe with this si­tu­a­
tion and to find his or her own de­ci­sion. One of them
is en­trep­re­neurs­hip. En­trep­re­neurs­hip is a ma­jor dri­
ver of in­no­va­tion, com­pe­ti­ti­ve­ness and growth (Ac­
tion Plan: The Eu­ro­pe­an Agen­da for En­trep­re­neurs­
hip, 2004). Gor­man et al. (1997) sup­po­se that en­trep­
re­neurs­hip is the en­gi­ne that dri­ves the eco­no­my of
most na­tions. Due to their strong pre­sen­ce in key sec­
tors such as ser­vi­ces and know­led­ge-ba­sed ac­ti­vi­ties,
en­trep­re­neurs­hip has be­en re­cog­ni­zed as being of fun­
da­men­tal im­por­tan­ce for the eco­no­my (Bru­y­at and Ju­
lien, 2000) due to its con­si­de­rab­le mac­ro- and mic­role­vel ef­fects (Hen­ry et al., 2003). It is main­tai­ned to
be es­sen­tial in gi­ving birth to new ide­as, cre­a­ting new
en­ter­pri­ses and jobs, and nur­tu­ring the eco­no­my as a
who­le (His­rich and O’Cinneide, 1985). In desc­ri­bing
va­rio­us chan­ges that ha­ve ta­ken pla­ce at the glo­bal,
so­cie­tal, or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal and in­di­vi­du­al le­vels, Gibb
(2000) sup­ports the idea of a mac­ro-mic­ro spec­trum
of be­ne­fits to be gai­ned from en­trep­re­neurs­hip. Glo­
ba­li­za­tion and glo­bal pres­su­res such as the re­duc­tion
of tra­de bar­riers and ad­van­ced te­le­com­mu­ni­ca­tions
and tech­no­lo­gy pro­vi­de mo­re op­por­tu­ni­ties as well as
mo­re un­cer­tain­ty in the world, and thus sha­pe go­vern­
ment/so­cie­tal ins­ti­tu­tions, cor­po­ra­te and in­de­pen­dent
bu­si­ness, and in­di­vi­du­al ac­tors.
Eu­ro­pe­an Union en­cou­ra­ges us to fos­ter en­trep­
re­neu­rial dri­ve mo­re ef­fec­ti­ve­ly. It is ve­ry im­por­tant
that in­di­vi­du­al who is going to be­co­me en­trep­re­neur,
should be ma­de awa­re of the con­cept of en­trep­re­
neurs­hip. The ca­re­er of an en­trep­re­neur should al­so
be ma­de an at­trac­ti­ve op­tion. It is ve­ry im­por­tant that
an edu­ca­tion sys­tem ma­ke it pos­sib­le to de­ve­lop right
skills to turn am­bi­tions in­to suc­ces­sful ven­tu­res (Eu­
ro­pe­an Com­mis­sion, 2003).
The Gre­en Pa­per – En­trep­re­neurs­hip in Eu­ro­
pe – points out that en­trep­re­neurs­hip is first and fo­re­
most a mind­set. “En­trep­re­neurs­hip is about pe­op­le,
their choi­ces and ac­tions in star­ting, ta­king over or
run­ning a bu­si­ness, or their in­vol­ve­ment in a firm’s
stra­te­gic de­ci­sion-ma­king. It co­vers an in­di­vi­du­al’s
39
which of­fers 80 free on-li­ne cour­ses as a vir­tu­al SME
“uni­ver­si­ty.” In ad­di­tion, SBA works with SCORE, a
na­tio­nal net­work of re­ti­red and wor­king en­trep­re­neurs
and cor­po­ra­te ma­na­gers/exe­cu­ti­ves wor­king in 389 lo­
ca­tions (OECD, 2005). The­se vo­lun­te­ers pro­vi­de free
bu­si­ness coun­sel­ling and ad­vi­ce as a pub­lic ser­vi­ce to
all ty­pes of bu­si­nes­ses, in all sta­ges of de­ve­lop­ment.
In ad­di­tion, sta­te and lo­cal go­vern­ments pro­vi­de fun­
ding for an ex­ten­si­ve net­work of com­mu­ni­ty col­le­
ges, which pro­vi­de aca­de­mic and skills trai­ning for re­
si­dents of the com­mu­ni­ties in which they are lo­ca­ted.
SME ma­na­gers are ab­le to use trai­ning pro­gram­mes
avai­lab­le in the com­mu­ni­ty col­le­ges to inc­re­a­se skill
sets and se­ek trai­ning on bu­si­ness re­la­ted to­pics.
Ja­pan. SMEs play a ve­ry im­por­tant ro­le in the
Ja­pa­ne­se eco­no­my and so­cie­ty - as evi­den­ced by their
sha­re in the to­tal firm po­pu­la­tion, the ship­ment vo­lu­
me for which they are res­pon­sib­le, and the em­plo­y­
ment they ge­ne­ra­te. SME me­a­su­res will be im­ple­men­
ted in the fu­tu­re by the Mi­nist­ry of Eco­no­my, Tra­de
and In­dust­ry ba­sed on the fol­lo­wing four prin­cip­les:
• Re­vi­ta­li­sa­tion of the eco­no­my and the re­gions
through “Sup­port for SMEs ta­king up mar­ket
chal­len­ges”.
• Trai­ning and uti­li­sa­tion of SME hu­man re­sour­
ces.
• Sup­port for the re­vi­ta­li­sa­tion of SMEs and for the
di­ver­si­fi­ca­tion/fa­ci­li­ta­tion of SME fi­nan­cing.
• Re­vi­ta­li­sa­tion of me­a­su­res for com­mer­cial di­
stricts and ci­ty cen­tres (OECD, 2005).
The aim of the Ja­pan go­vern­ment is to doub­le
the num­ber of new bu­si­nes­ses in fi­ve years. Spe­ci­fi­cal­
ly, ef­forts are being ma­de to furt­her en­han­ce ca­pi­tal
sup­ply and ot­her sys­tems to di­rec­tly and in­di­rec­tly
as­sist ven­tu­re com­pa­nies that may be short of col­la­
te­ral; to pro­vi­de hu­man re­sour­ce sup­port such as the
pro­vi­sion of trai­ning op­por­tu­ni­ties, to sup­port tech­
no­lo­gy de­ve­lop­ment such as as­sis­tan­ce to­wards the
fun­ding of pro­to­ty­pe de­ve­lop­ment mo­dels; and to pro­
vi­de ex­per­ti­se and ot­her ma­na­ge­ment sup­port such as
through SME sup­port cen­tres.
Fin­land. In the Fin­nish eco­no­my, the high pro­
por­tion of small com­pa­nies is ac­com­pa­nied by the im­
por­tant ro­le pla­y­ed by lar­ge com­pa­nies. Mic­ro firms
(with less than 10 em­plo­y­e­es) ac­count for 94% of all
en­ter­pri­ses and a lar­ge ma­jo­ri­ty of Fin­nish firms are
born and re­main small, and it is ar­gu­ed that a ne­ed
exists for a mo­re growth-orien­ted per­spec­ti­ve on the
first of start-ups. The re­gio­nal net­work of 15 Em­plo­
y­ment and Eco­no­mic De­ve­lop­ment Cen­tres (EEDCs)
se­ek to im­pro­ve the ope­ra­tio­nal con­di­tions for SMEs
by ar­ran­ging coun­sel­ling, trai­ning, and en­ter­pri­se de­
ve­lop­ment pro­jects. The­se ac­ti­vi­ties aim to sti­mu­la­te
the es­tab­lis­hment of SMEs; de­ve­lop bu­si­ness skills
of ma­na­ge­ment and per­son­nel; de­ve­lop skills in mar­
ima­gi­na­tion, cre­a­ti­vi­ty, and risk ta­king in bu­si­ness
whe­re­as tra­di­tio­nal bu­si­ness scho­ols tend to overemp­ha­si­ze qu­an­ti­ta­ti­ve and cor­po­ra­te tech­ni­qu­es at
the ex­pen­se of mo­re cre­a­ti­ve skills (Por­ter, 1994).
The aim of the re­se­arch is to pro­vi­de a the­o­
re­ti­cal sub­stan­tia­tion for en­trep­re­neu­rial skills taught
in Lit­hu­a­nian col­le­ges via Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­
ter­pri­ses and to de­tect the ex­pres­sion of the­se skills
amongst the stu­dents.
The ob­jec­ti­ves:
1. To find out the the­o­re­ti­cal foun­da­tions of the di­
men­sions of en­trep­re­neu­rial skills.
2. To de­sign the mo­del of en­trep­re­neu­rial skills
taught in Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­ses and to
de­tect their main diag­nos­tic and met­ho­do­lo­gi­cal
cha­rac­te­ris­tics.
3. To in­ves­ti­ga­te the ex­pres­sion of en­trep­re­neu­rial
skills taught in Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­ses.
The met­hods of the re­se­arch: ana­ly­sis of the­o­
re­ti­cal li­te­ra­tu­re, sta­tis­ti­cal da­ta
En­trep­re­neurs­hip and Eco­no­mic De­ve­lop­ment
This sec­tion will draw at­ten­tion to the ex­pe­rien­
ces of the US and le­a­ding Eu­ro­pen OECD coun­tries
in pro­mo­ting en­trep­re­neurs­hip, no­ting dif­fe­ren­ces in
how the­se coun­tries va­lue en­trep­re­neurs­hip and en­
trep­re­neurs. It will be dis­cus­sed what ro­le en­trep­re­
neurs­hip pla­ys in eco­no­mic de­ve­lop­ment.
The Uni­ted Sta­tes. The dy­na­mic small bu­si­
ness sec­tor is a vi­tal part of the US eco­no­my. Small
bu­si­ness ge­ne­ra­tes USD 4 tril­lion of an­nu­al eco­no­mic
out­put, 68 mil­lion jobs, one-third of fo­reign tra­de,
and rep­re­sents ap­pro­xi­ma­te­ly 40% of to­tal eco­no­mic
ac­ti­vi­ty (OECD, 2005).
In the Uni­ted Sta­tes, small bu­si­nes­ses ac­count
for 54.1% of go­ods-pro­du­cing in­dust­ries and 49.2%
of ser­vi­ce-pro­vi­ding in­dust­ries. The US Go­vern­ment
re­cog­ni­ses the pi­vo­tal ro­le of small bu­si­nes­ses in the
mar­ket­pla­ce, and the bar­riers that agen­cy re­gu­la­tions
can cre­a­te. Whi­le small bu­si­nes­ses are key pro­du­cers
in the US eco­no­my, they spend mo­re mo­ney per em­
plo­y­ee to com­ply with re­gu­la­tions than their lar­ger
pro­du­cer coun­ter­parts. In the past few years, the Uni­
ted Sta­tes has ta­ken sig­ni­fi­cant steps to­wards a mo­re
small-en­ter­pri­se-friend­ly en­vi­ron­ment.
The US Small Bu­si­ness Ad­mi­nist­ra­tion (SBA)
and pri­va­te sec­tor part­ners ma­ke avai­lab­le tech­ni­cal
as­sis­tan­ce pro­gram­mes, inc­lu­ding trai­ning, coun­sel­
ling and men­to­ring, and in­for­ma­tion ser­vi­ces to mo­re
than four mil­lion exis­ting and po­ten­tial small bu­si­
ness en­trep­re­neurs an­nu­al­ly. SBA pro­vi­des grants to
pri­va­te sec­tor-ma­na­ged net­works of 1100 Small Bu­si­
ness De­ve­lop­ment Cen­tres, 105 Wo­men’s Bu­si­ness
Cen­tres and the Small Bu­si­ness Trai­ning Net­work
40
fi­nan­cing of the in­tro­duc­tion of: qu­a­li­ty sys­tems,
in­no­va­tions, lo­gis­tics as well as the es­tab­lis­hment
of new or the ex­pan­sion of exis­ting re­cyc­ling
units, or units that pro­vi­de qu­a­li­ty ser­vi­ces.
Ger­ma­ny. In Ger­ma­ny, SMEs are re­gar­ded as
a dri­ving for­ce eco­no­mic growth for be­hind struc­tu­ral
chan­ge. Edu­ca­tion and trai­ning are es­sen­tial pre­re­qui­
si­tes for an ef­fi­cient, high­ly-de­ve­lo­ped in­dust­rial sec­
tor (OECD, 2004). SMEs, in par­ti­cu­lar, ne­ed skil­led
la­bour for know­led­ge-ba­sed pro­cucts and ser­vi­ces. In
a coun­try with few raw ma­te­rials and an ageing po­pu­
la­tion, eco­no­mic pro­spe­ri­ty re­qui­res high and ri­sing
le­vels of in­vest­ment in know­led­ge and skills. Ac­cor­
ding to the la­test PISA stu­dies of the OECD, Ger­ma­
ny ne­eds to im­pro­ve its edu­ca­tion sys­tem es­pe­cial­ly
in se­con­da­ry scho­ols, but al­so in pri­ma­ry scho­ols and
hig­her edu­ca­tion.
A high­ly-skil­led la­bour for­ce tends to sti­mu­la­te
in­no­va­tions. As ma­ny as 10 000 Ger­man com­pa­nies
can­cel­led in­no­va­ti­ve pro­jects due to lack of su­itab­le
skil­led per­son­nel. Suc­ces­sful in­no­va­tion po­li­cy be­
gins wit­hin the edu­ca­tion sys­tem. Go­vern­ment se­eks
to inc­re­a­se the per­cen­ta­ge of scho­ol-le­a­vers going to
uni­ver­si­ty to 40% from 2003 un­til 2010. At the sa­me
ti­me, uni­ver­si­ties ha­ve be­en ma­de mo­re at in­tro­du­
cing in­ter­na­tio­nal de­gre­es, shor­ter stu­dy pe­riods and
the sta­tus of a pro­fes­sor (OECD, 2005).
The Fe­de­ral Go­vern­ment has al­so laun­ched a
spe­cial “trai­ning ini­tia­ti­ve”: cam­paign for young per­
sons in col­la­bo­ra­tion with in­dust­rial as­so­cia­tions and
tra­de aim is to ex­pand the sup­ply of skil­led wor­kers
in the fu­tu­re by re­du­cing the scar­ci­ty of pri­va­te trai­
ning pla­ces.
ke­ting and in­ter­na­tio­na­li­sa­tion; pro­mo­te pro­duct de­
ve­lop­ment; pro­mo­te the uti­li­sa­tion of new tech­no­lo­gy
and im­pro­ve pro­duc­ti­vi­ty; inc­re­a­se co-ope­ra­tion bet­
we­en en­ter­pri­ses and pro­mo­te net­wor­king; and de­ve­
lop ser­vi­ce en­ter­pri­ses.
Ma­na­ge­ment trai­ning or­ga­ni­sed by the EEDCs
is de­sig­ned spe­ci­fi­cal­ly to me­et the ne­eds of SMEs
and du­ring the trai­ning pro­cess the emp­ha­sis is on
the prac­ti­cal ap­pro­ach both in terms of the se­lec­tion
of te­achers and the te­aching met­hods. Spe­cia­list and
con­sul­ta­tion ser­vi­ces are na­tion­wi­de brand pro­ducts
and the qu­a­li­ty of spe­cia­list and con­sul­ta­tion ser­vi­ces
is en­su­red in ad­van­ce by ca­re­ful se­lec­tion of qu­a­li­fied
spe­cia­lists who are sub­ject to strict eli­gi­bi­li­ty cri­te­ria
and who are gi­ven the ap­prop­ria­te trai­ning to de­li­ver
the pro­gram­me (OECD, 2005).
Uni­ted King­dom. The Uni­ted King­dom has ap­
pro­xi­ma­te­ly four mil­lion SMEs (inc­lu­ding bu­si­nes­ses
run by the self-em­plo­y­ed). 99% of them em­ploy fe­
wer than 50 pe­op­le, and the­se small bu­si­nes­ses pro­
vi­de 46% of pri­va­te sec­tor em­plo­y­ment and 38% of
tur­no­ver out­si­de the fi­nan­cial sec­tor (OECD, 2005).
The Small Bu­si­ness Ser­vi­ce (SBS) and the Ca­
bi­net Of­fi­ce con­ti­nue to work to en­su­re that all new
po­li­cies and re­gu­la­tions are de­sig­ned and im­ple­men­
ted in a way that mi­ni­mi­ses the bur­dens on small bu­
si­nes­ses. The SBS has de­ve­lo­ped a da­ta­ba­se of mo­re
than 1 200 small bu­si­nes­ses that are wil­ling to en­ga­ge
with the go­vern­ment in this pro­cess. The SBS con­ti­
nu­es to as­sist go­vern­ment de­part­ments in con­sul­ting
small bu­si­ness prior to for­mu­la­ting po­li­cy and to
work in part­ners­hip with small bu­si­nes­ses and their
rep­re­sen­ta­ti­ve bo­dies to en­su­re that their con­cerns
about re­gu­la­to­ry pro­po­sals are con­si­de­red. SBS al­so
works clo­se­ly with go­vern­ment agen­cies, lo­cal aut­ho­
ri­ties and bu­si­nes­ses so that sen­sib­le na­tio­nal and lo­
cal en­for­ce­ment re­gi­mes are adop­ted.
Gre­e­ce. SMEs are at the he­art of go­vern­ment
po­li­cy which aims at im­pro­ving the com­pe­ti­ti­ve­ness
of en­ter­pri­ses, in re­cog­ni­tion of the po­ten­tial of SMEs
and their de­ci­si­ve con­tri­bu­tion to the eco­no­mic and
so­cial li­fe of Gre­e­ce, es­pe­cial­ly in re­la­tion to em­plo­
y­ment cre­a­tion and the im­pro­ve­ment of com­pe­ti­ti­ve­
ness.
The­re are ma­ny na­tio­nal pro­gram­mes that are
ai­med at as­sis­ting SMEs. They are as fol­lows:
• In­teg­ra­ted bu­si­ness plans for small and ve­ry small
en­ter­pri­ses: The pro­gram­me, which is ad­dres­sed to
ma­nu­fac­tu­ring en­ter­pri­ses that are at le­ast threeyears old, fi­nan­ces en­ti­re two-year bu­si­ness
plans.
• Net­wor­king of SMEs: The pro­gram­me is ad­dres­
sed to exis­ting SMEs in ma­nu­fac­tu­ring Tech­no­lo­gi­
cal mo­der­ni­sa­tion of en­ter­pri­ses: The pro­gram­me is
tar­ge­ted at ma­nu­fac­tu­ring SMEs and sup­ports the
De­ve­lop­ment of en­trep­re­neurs­hip via Si­mu­la­tion
Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se
This sec­tion se­eks to iden­ti­fy the suc­ces­sful
met­hod of en­trep­re­neu­rial and en­ter­pri­sing ac­ti­vi­ties
wit­hin Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se.
The at­tempts to te­ach bu­si­ness via si­mu­la­tion
are com­mon in ma­ny coun­tries. The net­work of “vir­tu­
al bu­si­ness” has be­en in exis­ten­ce in Eu­ro­pe for over
30 years (Kauf­mann & Se­pe, 1998). This met­hod of
te­aching ca­me from Den­mark and was adap­ted in Lit­
hu­a­nia by edu­ca­tors of bu­si­ness sub­jects who to­ok
cou­ra­ge to re­new their te­aching skills and to put in­
to prac­ti­ce the met­hods and tech­ni­qu­es mo­del­led in
pe­da­go­gy of ot­her coun­tries. The Con­cept of Si­mu­la­
tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se in Lit­hu­a­nia was in­tro­du­ced
in 1993 when Lit­hu­a­nian - Da­nish Prac­ti­ce Firm Pro­
gram­me star­ted. As the re­sult of the pro­ject, the first
six Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­ses we­re es­tab­lis­hed
at the end of the year.
Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se is a vir­tu­al en­
41
dents re­view pre­vio­us bu­si­ness and mar­ke­ting plans
and an­nu­al re­ports to cre­a­te go­als and ob­jec­ti­ves for
the bu­si­ness. Stu­dents li­ke em­plo­y­e­es re­act to mar­
ket for­ces by de­ve­lo­ping their skills in de­a­ling with
com­mer­cial tran­sac­tions, sol­ving pro­blems, ma­king
de­ci­sions, ma­na­ging and run­ning the en­ter­pri­ses.
They may be as­ked to ana­ly­ze pre­vio­us in­ter­na­tio­nal
sa­les and to en­ter a new fo­reign mar­ket. This ac­ti­vi­
ty would re­qui­re com­ple­ting re­se­arch on re­al mar­ket
for the pro­duct. Stu­dents le­arn how to de­ve­lop and
in­ves­ti­ga­te mar­ke­ting stra­te­gies and im­ple­ment fi­
nan­cial dis­cip­li­nes. They are ab­le to de­sign, test and
eva­lu­a­te new tech­ni­qu­es, de­monst­ra­te di­ver­se ta­lents
and ac­qui­red in­teg­ra­ted skills, in en­trep­re­neurs­hip,
com­mu­ni­ca­tion, in­for­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gy, e-bu­si­ness.
A hu­ge at­ten­tion is gi­ven to im­ple­men­ta­tion of new
in­for­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gies wi­de­ly used in Lit­hu­a­nia
in Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se dai­ly work. In the
Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se, such in­for­ma­tion
tech­no­lo­gy ap­pli­ca­tions for da­ta pro­ces­sing are used
ac­coun­ting, per­son­nel, cus­toms, sa­les, cc client and
cc client ban­king sof­twa­re. The Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness
En­ter­pri­se has its own web­pa­ge, which is cons­tant­ly
re­ne­wed by stu­dents.
ter­pri­se which si­mu­la­tes the work of “re­al” bu­si­ness
en­ter­pri­se. Each Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se tra­
des with ot­her en­ter­pri­ses, fol­lo­wing com­mer­cial bu­
si­ness pro­ce­du­res in the Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­
pri­se’s worl­dwi­de eco­no­mic en­vi­ron­ment.
The Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se is stu­dentcen­tred le­ar­ning mo­del which re­qui­res that stu­dents
work in te­ams, le­arn from one anot­her, use in­for­ma­
tion tech­no­lo­gy to sol­ve eve­ry­day bu­si­ness pro­blems
and think cre­a­ti­ve­ly to sol­ve pro­blems and prac­ti­ce
writ­ten and oral com­mu­ni­ca­tion rou­ti­ne­ly. By com­
bi­ning hands-on bu­si­ness ex­pe­rien­ce in a pro­tec­ted
en­vi­ron­ment with the op­por­tu­ni­ty to de­ve­lop cri­ti­cal
thin­king and pro­blem-sol­ving skills, stu­dents are pre­
pa­red to com­pe­te ef­fec­ti­ve­ly in the world of bu­si­ness.
Stu­dents le­arn in a way that al­lows them to im­pro­ve
their abi­li­ty to hand­le in­for­ma­tion, to ma­ke de­ci­sions,
to work in­de­pen­dent­ly and in groups, to set up ob­jec­
ti­ves and eva­lu­a­te re­sults. The main aim is to gi­ve
stu­dents prac­ti­cal bu­si­ness skills and to de­ve­lop the
com­pe­ten­ce of en­trep­re­neurs­hip.
Stu­dents ha­ve op­por­tu­ni­ty to work in va­rio­us
de­part­ments for so­me pe­riod of ti­me and to de­ve­lop
and me­a­su­re their skills in each sphe­re of bu­si­ness
ac­ti­vi­ty. At the be­gin­ning of prac­ti­cal trai­ning stu­







 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 


 

















 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









Pic­tu­re
1. So­cial, pro­fes­sio­nal and tech­no­lo­gi­cal skills gai­ned in the Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se




42
The E-shop ope­ra­ting in the EUROPEN net­
work was cre­a­ted in the year 2004. Stu­dents pre­pa­
red a com­mer­cial about the prac­ti­cal trai­ning that
ex­plains the prac­ti­ce firm con­cept, de­monst­ra­tes prin­
cip­les of wor­king with the sof­twa­re, in­forms about
the achie­ve­ments of the Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­
pri­ses’ fairs and shows a new­ly pre­pa­red ca­ta­lo­gue.
Go­od re­la­tions with so­cial part­ners ga­ve re­sults. All
in­for­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gy ap­pli­ca­tions for da­ta pro­ces­
sing we­re do­na­ted by spon­sor com­pa­nies.
Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se is res­pon­sib­le
for pre­pa­ring stu­dents for la­bor mar­ket and de­monst­
ra­ting their pro­fes­sio­na­lism and com­pe­ten­cy in un­der­
ta­king re­al of­fi­ce ad­mi­nist­ra­ti­ve work using the Si­mu­
la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se’s sa­fe eco­no­mic trai­ning
met­ho­do­lo­gi­cal en­vi­ron­ment – high­ligh­ting their so­
cial, pro­fes­sio­nal skills and in­for­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gy
skills.
Ac­cor­ding to Eu­ro­pen Le­o­nar­do pro­ject which
de­ve­lo­ped mi­ni­mum qu­a­li­ty stan­dards for Si­mu­la­tion
Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se, the skills that com­pa­nies re­gard
as im­por­tant we­re grou­ped in­to three ca­te­go­ries:
so­cial, pro­fes­sio­nal and tech­no­lo­gi­cal skills. Each
group en­com­pas­ses a ran­ge of skills. The grou­ping of
so­cial, pro­fes­sio­nal and tech­no­lo­gi­cal skills is pre­sen­
ted in pic­tu­re 1.
The re­se­arch re­sults con­fir­med that the Si­mu­la­
tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se te­aches the skills re­qui­red by
the re­al bu­si­ness world (Tem­kov, 2003). Em­plo­y­a­bi­li­
ty skills are one group of skills which are de­man­ded
from the em­plo­y­e­es to work suc­ces­sful­ly in the com­
pa­ny and which are vi­tal for tho­se who are se­e­king
to get a job. Em­plo­y­a­bi­li­ty skills in­vol­ve such skills
as com­mu­ni­ca­tion, in­for­ma­tion pro­ces­sing, adap­ta­bi­
li­ty, in­de­pen­dent de­ci­sion-ma­king, rights and du­ties
as a ci­ti­zen and con­su­mer, le­ar­ning and self-de­ve­
lop­ment, lan­gu­a­ges, ini­tia­ti­ve and cre­a­ti­vi­ty, cri­ti­cal
abi­li­ty, work pro­cess ma­na­ge­ment, pro­blem sol­ving,
self-con­fi­den­ce and un­cer­tain­ty, thin­king and doing
(Piot­row­ski, Bed­narc­zyk, 1997; An­der­son, Mars­hall,
1996; Hen­drik­se, 1997). The de­gree of im­por­tan­ce
gi­ven to em­plo­y­a­bi­li­ty skills re­flects the view that in
the mar­ket eco­no­my pe­op­le ne­ed to de­ve­lop em­plo­
y­ment-re­la­ted skills not on­ly to get jobs, but al­so to
ke­ep them and to mo­ve from one job to anot­her as
re­qui­red by shifts in the la­bor mar­ket. In­te­res­tin­gly,
em­plo­y­ment skills are al­so se­en as a le­gi­ti­ma­te part
of edu­ca­tion, re­flec­ting the ne­ed to pre­pa­re young pe­
op­le for work.
The Ame­ri­can As­so­cia­tion of Com­mu­ni­ty Col­
le­ges com­pi­led the fol­lo­wing list of skills es­sen­tial
for pro­duc­ti­ve em­plo­y­e­es (We­ber, 2002):
• in­ter­per­so­nal skills, inc­lu­ding spe­a­king, lis­te­ning
and the abi­li­ty to be a part of the te­am;
• abi­li­ty to find in­for­ma­tion using tech­no­lo­gy;
•
•
wri­ting skills to com­mu­ni­ca­te ef­fec­ti­ve­ly;
in­ter­na­tio­nal per­spec­ti­ve and un­ders­tan­ding of
dif­fe­rent cul­tu­res;
• know­led­ge of fo­reign lan­gu­a­ges;
• know­led­ge of the world ge­og­rap­hy.
The abo­ve men­tio­ned skills clo­se­ly cor­res­pond
with tho­se po­in­ted out by Eu­ro­pen as so­cial, pro­fes­
sio­nal and tech­no­lo­gi­cal skills.
Re­se­arch met­ho­do­lo­gy
A sur­vey qu­es­tion­nai­re was com­ple­ted with stu­
dents who to­ok part in the trai­ning in Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­
ness En­ter­pri­se in the be­gin­ning of the year 2007. The
sur­vey was ano­ny­mous and the res­pon­dents we­re not
iden­ti­fiab­le in any way. A to­tal of 150 qu­es­tion­nai­res
we­re sent out and 21 qu­es­tion­nai­res we­re re­tur­ned as
un­de­li­ve­rab­le. In to­tal 103 res­pon­ses we­re re­cei­ved.
A 5-point Li­kert-ty­pe sca­le was em­plo­y­ed to fa­ci­li­ta­
te stu­dent res­pon­ses.
The qu­es­tion­nai­re was ba­sed on His­rich and
Pe­ters (1998) ca­te­go­ri­za­tion of tech­ni­cal, bu­si­ness
ma­na­ge­ment and per­so­nal en­trep­re­neu­rial skills re­
qui­red by en­trep­re­neurs. They are as fol­lows:
Tech­ni­cal skills: inc­lu­de writ­ten and oral com­
mu­ni­ca­tion, tech­ni­cal ma­na­ge­ment and or­ga­ni­zing
skills.
Bu­si­ness ma­na­ge­ment skills: inc­lu­de plan­ning,
de­ci­sion-ma­king, mar­ke­ting and ac­coun­ting skills.
Per­so­nal en­trep­re­neu­rial skills: inc­lu­de in­ner
con­trol, in­no­va­tion, risk ta­king and in­no­va­tion.
In ad­di­tion, His­rich and Pe­ters (1998) stress
the de­ve­lop­ment of in­ner con­trol, risk ta­king, in­no­
va­ti­ve­ness, being chan­ge-orien­ted, per­si­sten­ce and
vi­sio­na­ry le­a­ders­hip.
The qu­es­tion­nai­re was com­ple­men­ted with the
en­trep­re­neu­rial skills ob­ser­ved by Gal­lo­way (2005)
who sug­gests that such skills as ini­tia­ti­ve, com­mu­
ni­ca­tion, or­ga­ni­za­tion, pe­op­le ma­na­ge­ment, te­am
wor­king, ne­go­tia­tion skills, pro­blem-sol­ving abi­li­ty,
con­fi­den­ce, cre­a­ti­vi­ty and fi­nan­cial acu­men are im­
por­tant for en­trep­re­neurs­hip.
Re­se­arch re­sults
In or­der to de­ter­mi­ne the en­trep­re­neu­rial skills
which are es­sen­tial for en­trep­re­neurs­hip, the stu­dents
we­re as­ked to in­di­ca­te if they con­si­de­red se­lec­ted
skills as­so­cia­ted with en­trep­re­neurs­hip edu­ca­tion
im­por­tant for star­ting a bu­si­ness. Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, they
we­re as­ked to in­di­ca­te if they ha­ve the­se skills and
if they be­lie­ve that Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se
has de­ve­lo­ped en­trep­re­neu­rial skills. Tab­le 1 shows
re­sults of the­se qu­es­tions.
43
Tab­le 1
En­trep­re­neu­rial skills per­cep­tion
Skills
Com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills
Or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal skills
Tech­ni­cal ma­na­ge­ment skills
Fo­reign lan­gu­a­ge skills
Abi­li­ty to work with sof­twa­re
pro­gramms
Abi­li­ty to ma­na­ge in­for­ma­tion
flow
Pro­blem-sol­ving abi­li­ty
De­ci­sion ma­king abi­li­ty
Fi­nan­cial acu­men
Ne­go­tia­tion skills
Te­am wor­king skills
Ma­na­ge­ment skills
Net­wor­king skills
Plan­ning
Mar­ke­ting skills
Cre­a­ti­vi­ty
Per­se­ve­ran­ce
Con­fi­den­ce
Ini­tia­ti­ve
Cri­ti­cal thin­king
Risk ta­king
Ne­ed for achie­ve­ment
Lo­cus of con­trol
De­si­re for au­to­no­my
In­tui­tion
In­no­va­ti­ve­ness
Skills de­ve­lo­ped via Si­mu­
la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­
se, Per cent (N = 103)
Std. de­via­
Per
Me­an Std. de­
tion
cent
via­tion
0.721
97.1
4.63
0.572
0.711
98.1
4.64
0.558
0.777
92.2
4.49
0.670
0.762
83.3
4.13
1.021
Skills im­por­tant for star­ting
bu­si­ness, Per cent (N = 103)
Skills which stu­dents ha­ve,
Per cent (N = 103)
Per
cent
97.1
96.1
84.3
93.1
Me­an
Per
cent
92.2
90.2
78.4
89.2
Me­an
4.65
4.62
4.16
4.55
Std. de­via­
tion
0.539
0.564
0.780
0.684
89.2
4.28
0.736
91.3
4.27
0.717
89.3
4.36
0.884
93.1
4.35
0.639
88.1
4.41
0.695
90.2
4.39
0.773
94.2
95.1
95.1
97.1
95.1
94.2
86.1
90.2
92
90.2
92.1
98.1
91.3
81.6
84.5
91.3
95.1
68
79.4
73.5
4.57
4.52
4.54
4.52
4.47
4.50
4.04
4.34
4.29
4.35
4.50
4.64
4.48
4.12
4.10
4.24
4.42
3.84
4.11
4.01
0.680
0.669
0.668
0.639
0.671
0.640
0.720
0.652
0.671
0.766
0.673
0.521
0.684
0.900
0.823
0.664
0.586
0.937
0.866
0.790
87
83.3
72.8
86.4
86.3
80.4
68
88.1
79.6
91.2
95.1
91.3
88.3
80.4
79.4
89.2
88.3
82.4
86.4
69.9
4.28
4.23
4.00
4.29
4.30
4.20
3.86
4.33
4.05
4.46
4.51
4.43
4.35
4.17
4.07
4.33
4.25
4.22
4.23
4.00
0.740
0.743
0.828
0.749
0.701
0.771
0.852
0.776
0.833
0.685
0.624
0.722
0.763
0.880
0.893
0.788
0.763
0.886
0.854
0.886
92.2
96.1
96.1
87.4
94.1
92.2
83.5
92
91.3
87.4
90
89.3
92
79.6
72.8
85.4
79.4
74.5
74.8
77.7
4.47
4.56
4.47
4.37
4.53
4.41
4.18
4.53
4.30
4.32
4.38
4.42
4.32
4.18
4.01
4.25
4.20
3.95
3.94
4.16
0.669
0.573
0.574
0.727
0.671
0.733
0.883
0.674
0.698
0.782
0.22
0.35
0.750
0.916
1.071
0.849
0.890
1.028
1.027
0.814
4.42
4.34
4.10
4.21
lop in Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se are de­si­re for
au­to­no­my (the me­an is 3.95), in­tui­tion (the me­an is
3.94) and risk ta­king (the me­an is 4,63) skills. Si­mu­la­
tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se de­ve­lo­ped fi­nan­cial acu­men
(the me­an is 4.47), te­am wor­king skills (the me­an is
4.53), ne­go­tia­tion skills (the me­an is 4.18), plan­ning
skills (the me­an is 4.53) com­pa­red to the skills which
stu­dents ha­ve. Ana­ly­sis de­monst­ra­tes that the­re are
im­pro­vab­le are­as in the ac­ti­vi­ties of Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­
ness En­ter­pri­se.
The se­cond set of qu­es­tions se­eks to in­ves­ti­
ga­te the stu­dents’ in­ten­tion about their bu­si­ness start.
Stu­dents we­re as­ked if they in­tend to start their own
bu­si­ness. A sum­ma­ry of stu­dents’ main ex­pec­ta­tions
is pro­vi­ded in Tab­le 2. Due to small cell si­ze da­ta
we­re di­vi­ded in two groups: tho­se who in­tend to start
bu­si­ness and tho­se who do not. Stu­dents who in­tend
to start their bu­si­ness wit­hin the next fi­ve years and
who bet­we­en the next fi­ve and 10 years we­re put in­to
the first group and tho­se who in­tend to start their bu­si­
ness af­ter ten years or tho­se who do not in­tend we­re
put in­to the se­cond group.
The ma­jo­ri­ty of stu­dents think that the en­trep­
re­neu­rial skills men­tio­ned in the qu­es­tion­nai­re are
im­por­tant for star­ting bu­si­ness (the me­an ra­ting is
4) and the vast ma­jo­ri­ty thinks that they ha­ve the­se
skills. Stu­dents sig­ni­fi­cant­ly ra­te the im­pact of Si­mu­
la­tion Bu­si­ness en­ter­pri­se on de­ve­lo­ping en­trep­re­neu­
rial skills (the me­an is abo­ve 4). When ran­king the
skills im­por­tant for star­ting bu­si­ness, stu­dents po­in­
ted out that en­trep­re­neu­rial skills such as de­si­re for
au­to­no­my (the me­an is 3.84), in­no­va­ti­ve­ness (the me­
an is 4.01) are less sig­ni­fi­cant than ot­her skills. All
stu­dents high­ly ra­te their en­trep­re­neu­rial skills (the
me­an is abo­ve 4) but fe­wer stu­dents con­si­der net­wor­
king skills (the me­an is 3.86) and in­no­va­ti­ve­ness (the
me­an is 4) less im­por­tant than ot­her items.
Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se spa­res mo­re
ti­me to de­ve­lop com­mu­ni­ca­tion (the me­an is 4.63),
or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal (the me­an is 4.64) skills, de­ci­sion ma­
king abi­li­ty (the me­an is 4.56), te­am wor­king skills
(the me­an is 4.53). Ac­cor­ding to stu­dents’ view, en­
trep­re­neu­rial skills that are less ne­ces­sa­ry to de­ve­
44
Tab­le 2
Stu­dents’ in­tent to start bu­si­ness
Res­pon­ses
Num­ber
Per­cent
Wit­hin the next fi­ve years
21
20.4
Bet­we­en fi­ve and ten years
23
22.3
Af­ter ten years
17
16.5
Ne­ver
36
35.0
No res­pon­se
To­tal
In or­der to as­sess the stu­dents’ pre­pa­red­ness
for set­ting up in bu­si­ness and to de­ter­mi­ne their de­ve­
lop­ment ne­eds drawn up stu­dents we­re as­ked to ra­te
6
5.8
103
100
their skills in a num­ber of key bu­si­ness are­as. Crossta­bu­la­tion tab­le was re­ve­a­led. Tab­le 3 shows that the­
re are dif­fe­ren­ces in two groups.
Tab­le 3
The at­ti­tu­de to the skills which stu­dents ha­ve and which are de­ve­lo­ped in the
Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se
In­ten­ded to start bu­si­ness
Skills
Skills which stu­
dents ha­ve, Per cent
(N = 103)
Skills de­ve­lo­ped
via Si­mu­la­tion Bu­
si­ness En­ter­pri­se,
Per cent (N = 103)
Com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills
Or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal skills
Tech­ni­cal ma­na­ge­ment skills
Fo­reign lan­gu­a­ge skills
Abi­li­ty to work with sof­twa­re pro­grams
Abi­li­ty to ma­na­ge in­for­ma­tion flow
Pro­blem-sol­ving abi­li­ty
De­ci­sion ma­king abi­li­ty
Fi­nan­cial acu­men
Ne­go­tia­tion skills
Te­am­wor skills
Ma­na­ge­ment skills
Net­wor­king skills
Plan­ning
Mar­ke­ting skills
Cre­a­ti­vi­ty
Per­se­ve­ran­ce
Con­fi­den­ce
Ini­tia­ti­ve
Cri­ti­cal thin­king
Risk ta­king
Ne­ed for achie­ve­ment
Lo­cus of con­trol
De­si­re for au­to­no­my
In­tui­tion
In­no­va­ti­ve­ness
86.6
84.1
76.7
86
93.2
83.7
88.6
88.4
75
93.2
90.7
86.4
72.7
92.9
77.3
86
93.2
86.4
86.4
72.7
81.4
88.6
90.9
84.1
84.1
61.4
93.2
96.5
90.9
81.4
88.6
86
93.2
95.5
95.5
81.8
93
95.5
86.4
95.2
86.4
84.1
86
86.4
87.8
72.7
63.6
86.4
81.8
61.4
70.5
70.5
It was in­te­res­ting to no­te that stu­dents who
in­tend to start bu­si­ness sig­ni­fi­cant­ly ra­te the en­trep­
re­neu­rial skills: abi­li­ty to work with sof­twa­re pro­
grams, pro­blem-sol­ving abi­li­ty, de­ci­sion-ma­king abi­
li­ty, fi­nan­cial acu­men, ne­go­tia­tion skills, te­am­work
Not in­ten­ded to start bu­si­ness
Skills de­ve­lo­ped via
Skills which stu­
Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness
dents ha­ve, Per
En­ter­pri­se, Per cent
cent (N = 103)
(N = 103)
94.9
94.8
79.7
91.5
89.8
91.4
85.7
79.7
71.2
81.4
83.1
75.9
64.4
84.7
81.4
94.9
96.6
94.9
89.8
86.2
78
89.7
86.4
81
88.1
76.3
100
100
93.2
84.7
89.8
93.2
91.5
96.6
96.96
91.5
94.9
89.8
81.4
89.7
94.9
89.8
93
91.5
94.9
84.7
79.7
84.7
77.6
84.5
78
83.1
skills, plan­ning and com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills. Stu­dents
who do not in­tend to start their bu­si­ness high­ly ra­te
com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills, or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal skills, tech­ni­cal
ma­na­ge­ment skills, fo­reign lan­gu­a­ge skills, cre­a­ti­vi­ty,
per­se­ve­ran­ce and cri­ti­cal thin­king skills. The lo­west
45
sco­res in the first group ap­pe­a­red in the tech­ni­cal ma­
na­ge­ment skills, net­wor­king skills, cri­ti­cal thin­king
and in­no­va­ti­ve­ness.
ef­fi­cient was de­ter­mi­ned for each com­po­nent on the
me­a­su­re­ment in­stru­ment and all we­re sa­tis­fac­to­ry.
Cron­bach’s alp­ha ran­ged from 0.853 to 0.760 for the
three com­po­nents.
Fac­tor 1: Per­so­nal skills. This me­a­su­re has 9
items on the me­a­su­re­ment in­stru­ment and inc­lu­des
per­so­nal skills de­ve­lo­ped in the Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness
En­ter­pri­se. This fac­tor rep­re­sents items re­la­ting to
per­so­nal skills such as cre­a­ti­vi­ty, per­se­ve­ran­ce, con­
fi­den­ce, cri­ti­cal thin­king and ot­her. A KMO va­lue of
0.818 is con­si­de­red. Cor­re­la­tion co­ef­fi­cient is 0.66 ≤
r ≤ 0.76.
Fac­tor 2: Ma­na­ge­ment skills. This me­a­su­re
has 10 items on the me­a­su­re­ment in­stru­ment and con­
tains items as­so­cia­ted with ma­na­ge­ment skills such as
pro­blem sol­ving, de­ci­sion ma­king, fi­nan­cial acu­men,
ne­go­tia­tion skills etc. The­se items we­re mo­de­ra­te­ly
cor­re­la­ted with a ran­ge of 0.43 to 0.72. This com­po­
nent ex­hi­bi­ted a re­lia­bi­li­ty of 0.779 using Cron­bach’s
alp­ha.
Fac­tor 3: Ef­fi­cien­cy skills. This me­a­su­re has
7 items on the me­a­su­re­ment in­stru­ment. The­se se­ven
items we­re mo­de­ra­te­ly cor­re­la­ted with a co­ef­fi­cient
of 0.35 to 0.72. Cron­bach’s alp­ha in­di­ca­ted re­lia­bi­li­ty
for this com­po­nent as 0.760.
En­trep­re­neurs­hip mo­del in the Si­mu­la­tion
Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se
Ex­plo­ra­to­ry fac­tor ana­ly­sis was con­duc­ted
to as­sess the va­li­di­ty of the pro­po­sed const­ructs of
en­trep­re­neurs­hip. The ini­tial fac­tors we­re de­ri­ved
through a prin­ci­pal com­po­nent so­lu­tion, and the fi­nal
so­lu­tion was re­a­ched through Va­ri­max ro­ta­tion. Be­
cau­se the cri­te­rion of in­de­pen­den­ce was not a strong
mo­ti­va­tor for this choi­ce, Va­ri­max ro­ta­tion was used
for ease of in­ter­pre­ta­tion as it pro­vi­des the sim­pli­fy­
ing as­sump­tion of ort­ho­go­na­li­ty.
The ro­ta­ted so­lu­tion of the prin­ci­pal com­po­
nent ana­ly­sis is shown in Tab­le 4 along with a short
desc­rip­tion of each item. The Kai­ser-Ma­y­er-Ol­kin
(KMO) me­a­su­re of sam­pling ade­qu­a­cy was used to
me­a­su­re the ade­qu­a­cy of the sam­ple. A KMO va­lue
of 0.755 is con­si­de­red ade­qu­a­te. Fac­tor ana­ly­sis re­ve­
a­led three fac­tors that ex­plai­ned 89.3 per­cent of the
va­rian­ce. From this re­sult, three fac­tors we­re con­si­
de­red: per­so­nal skills (9 items), ma­na­ge­ment skills
(10 items), ef­fi­cien­cy skills (7 items). A re­lia­bi­li­ty co­
Tab­le 4
Fac­tor ana­ly­sis
Fac­tor
Per­so­nal skills
Ma­na­ge­ment skills
Ef­fi­cien­cy skills
N
KMO
Cron­bach al­fa
9
10
7
0.818
0.712
0.792
0.853
0.779
0.760
ANOVA was con­duc­ted to de­ter­mi­ne whet­
her the­re we­re ove­rall sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ces among
groups be­fo­re pro­ce­e­ding with the mo­re-spe­ci­fic uni­
va­ria­te ana­ly­sis. Re­sults are pro­vi­ded in Tab­le5.
En­ter­pre­neu­rial skills for (ANOVA)
Fac­tor
F
1.530
0.082
0.344
0.242
Per­so­nal skills
Ma­na­ge­ment skills
Ef­fi­cien­cy skills
En­ter­pre­neurs­hip
Tab­le 6
Cor­re­la­tions
Ma­na­ge­ment skills
Ef­fi­cien­cy skills
p
0.219
0.775
0.559
0.624
so­nal skills edu­ca­ted via Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­
pri­se (Tab­le 6).
The ANOVA in­di­ca­ted a sig­ni­fi­cant dif­fe­ren­ce
bet­we­en ma­na­ge­ment skills (r= 0.710 p < 0.001) and
ef­fi­cien­cy skills (r= 0.599 p < 0.001) re­la­ted with per­
Per­so­nal skills
Tab­le 5
Per­so­nal skills
1
0.481**
0.599**
Ma­na­ge­ment skills
0.481**
1
0,.710**
** Cor­re­la­tion co­ef­fi­cients sig­ni­fi­cant on 0.01 le­vel
46
Ef­fi­cien­cy skills
0.599**
0.710**
1
It was in­te­res­ting to point out that in the fac­tor
(per­so­nal skills) the most fre­qu­ent­ly men­tio­ned skills
we­re ini­tia­ti­ve (92%), per­se­ve­ran­ce (90%), con­fi­den­
ce (89.3%), cre­a­ti­vi­ty (87.4%) and de­si­re for au­to­no­
my (85.4%).
The fac­tor of ma­na­ge­ment skills emb­ra­ce such
skills as de­ci­sion ma­king abi­li­ty (96.1%), fi­nan­cial
acu­men (96.1%), te­am wor­king skills (94.1%), ma­
na­ge­ment skills (92.2%), pro­blem-sol­ving abi­li­ty
(96.1%) and plan­ning (92%) skills.
In the fac­tor of ef­fi­cien­cy skills we­re high­ligh­
ted com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills (98.1%), or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal
skills (98.1%), tech­ni­cal ma­na­ge­ment skills (92.2%)
and abi­li­ty to ma­na­ge in­for­ma­tion flow (90.2%)
skills.
ve­ness less im­por­tant than ot­her skills.
4. Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se spa­res mo­re ti­me
to de­ve­lop com­mu­ni­ca­tion, or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal skills,
de­ci­sion ma­king abi­li­ty, te­am wor­king skills. Ac­
cor­ding to stu­dents’ view, en­trep­re­neu­rial skills
that are less ne­ces­sa­ry to de­ve­lop in Si­mu­la­tion
Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se are de­si­re for au­to­no­my, in­
tui­tion and risk ta­king skills. Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness
En­ter­pri­se de­ve­lo­ped fi­nan­cial acu­men, te­am wor­
king skills, ne­go­tia­tion skills, plan­ning skills com­
pa­red to the skills which stu­dents ha­ve.
5. Stu­dents who in­tend to start bu­si­ness sig­ni­fi­cant­
ly ra­te the en­trep­re­neu­rial skills: abi­li­ty to work
with sof­twa­re pro­grams, pro­blem-sol­ving abi­li­ty,
de­ci­sion ma­king abi­li­ty, fi­nan­cial acu­men, ne­go­
tia­tion skills, te­am­work skills, plan­ning and com­
mu­ni­ca­tion skills. Stu­dents who do not in­tend to
start their bu­si­ness high­ly ra­te com­mu­ni­ca­tion
skills, or­ga­ni­za­tio­nal skills, tech­ni­cal ma­na­ge­
ment skills, fo­reign lan­gu­a­ge skills, cre­a­ti­vi­ty, per­
se­ve­ran­ce and cri­ti­cal thin­king skills. The lo­west
sco­res in the first group ap­pe­a­red in the tech­ni­cal
ma­na­ge­ment skills, net­wor­king skills, cri­ti­cal thin­
king and in­no­va­ti­ve­ness.
6. Fac­tor ana­ly­sis re­ve­a­led three fac­tors: per­so­nal
skills, ma­na­ge­ment skills and ef­fi­cien­cy skills.
Conc­lu­sions
1. Eu­ro­pe­an Union en­cou­ra­ges fos­te­ring en­trep­re­neu­
rial dri­ve mo­re ef­fec­ti­ve­ly. For in­di­vi­du­al who is
going to be­co­me an en­trep­re­neur it is ve­ry im­por­
tant to be awa­re of the con­cept of en­trep­re­neurs­hip.
That is why Uni­ver­si­ties and col­le­ges are of­fe­ring
a num­ber of en­trep­re­neurs­hip pro­gram­mes which
ri­se has be­en con­di­tio­ned by stu­dent de­mand. Stu­
dents de­mand in­teg­ra­ted pro­gram­mes that te­ach
prac­ti­cal skills for star­ting and ex­pan­ding bu­si­
ness en­ter­pri­ses (Far­rell, 1994). Tra­di­tio­nal bu­si­
ness edu­ca­tion pro­gram­mes are not sup­ply­ing the
re­le­vant ne­eds of the chan­ging bu­si­ness en­vi­ron­
ment.
2. Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se is a vir­tu­al en­ter­
pri­se which si­mu­la­tes the work of a “re­al” bu­si­
ness en­ter­pri­se. Each Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­
ter­pri­se tra­des with ot­her en­ter­pri­ses, fol­lo­wing
com­mer­cial bu­si­ness pro­ce­du­res in the Si­mu­la­
tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se’s world wi­de eco­no­mic
en­vi­ron­ment. The Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se
is stu­dent-cen­tred le­ar­ning mo­del which re­qui­res
that stu­dents work in te­ams, le­arn from each ot­her,
use in­for­ma­tion tech­no­lo­gies to sol­ve eve­ry­day
bu­si­ness pro­blems and think cre­a­ti­ve­ly to sol­ve
pro­blems and prac­ti­ce writ­ten and oral com­mu­ni­
ca­tion rou­ti­ne­ly.
3. The re­se­arch re­ve­a­led that the ma­jo­ri­ty of stu­
dents think en­trep­re­neu­rial skills to be im­por­tant
for star­ting bu­si­ness and the vast ma­jo­ri­ty thinks
that they ha­ve the­se skills. Stu­dents al­so sig­ni­fi­
cant­ly ra­te the im­pact of Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness
en­ter­pri­se for de­ve­lo­ping en­trep­re­neu­rial skills.
When ran­king the skills im­por­tant for star­ting bu­
si­ness, stu­dents po­in­ted out that en­trep­re­neu­rial
skills such as de­si­re for au­to­no­my, in­no­va­ti­ve­ness
are less sig­ni­fi­cant than ot­her skills. All stu­dents
high­ly ra­te their en­trep­re­neu­rial skills but fe­wer
stu­dents con­si­der net­wor­king skills and in­no­va­ti­
Re­fe­ren­ces
1 An­der­son A. and Mars­hall V. (1996). Co­re ver­sus oc­cu­
pa­tion - spe­ci­fic skills. Lon­don: DfEE.
2 Ac­tion plan: The Eu­ro­pe­an agen­da for En­trep­re­neurs­
hip. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion from the Com­mis­sion to the Coun­
cil, the Eu­ro­pe­an Par­lia­ment, the Eu­ro­pe­an Eco­no­mic
and So­cial Com­mit­tee and the Com­mit­tee of the re­
gions. (2006). Ac­ces­sed on 2005-08-20. URL: http://
eu­ro­pa.eu.int.comm.
3 Bru­y­at, C. and Ju­lien, P.-A. (2000). De­fi­ning the field
of re­se­arch in en­trep­re­neurs­hip. Jour­nal of Bu­si­ness
Ven­tu­ring, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 165–80.
4 Co­o­per, S., Bot­tom­ley, C. and Gor­don, J. (2004). Step­
ping out of the clas­sro­om and up the lad­der of le­ar­ning:
an ex­pe­rien­tial le­ar­ning ap­pro­ach to en­trep­re­neurs­hip
edu­ca­tion. In­dust­ry & Hig­her Edu­ca­tion. Vol. 18 No.
1, p. 11–22.
5 Eu­ro­pe­an Com­mis­sion (2003). Gre­en pa­per – En­trep­
re­neurs­hip in Eu­ro­pe. Brus­sels. Ac­ces­sed on 2007-0812. URL: http://www.oecd.org/do­cu­ment.
6 Far­rell, K. (1994). Why b-scho­ols emb­ra­ce en­trep­re­
neurs. Ven­tu­re. Vol. l6 No. 4, p. 60–3.
7 Gal­lo­way, L., An­der­son, M., Wrown, W. (2005). En­ter­
pri­se skills for eco­no­my. Edu­ca­tion + Trai­ning, Vol.
47, No. 1, p. 7–17.
8 Gor­man, G., Han­lon, D., King, W. (1997). So­me re­se­
arch per­spec­ti­ves on en­trep­re­neurs­hip edu­ca­tion, en­ter­
pri­se edu­ca­tion and edu­ca­tion for small bu­si­ness ma­na­
ge­ment. In­ter­na­tio­nal Small Bu­si­ness Jour­nal, Vol. 15
No.3, p. 56–77.
47
9 Hen­ry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2003). En­trep­re­neurs­
hip Edu­ca­tion and Trai­ning. As­hga­te.
10 Hen­drik­se A. (1997). The (re) in­teg­ra­tion of work and
le­ar­ning. In: Eu­ro­pe­an Trai­ning Foun­da­tion, Qu­a­li­fi­ca­
tion chal­len­ges in the part­ner coun­tries and Mem­ber
Sta­tes. Tu­rin: ETF.
11 His­rich, R. D. and O’Cinneide, B. (1985). The Irish
En­trep­re­neur: Cha­rac­te­ris­tics, Pro­blems and Fu­tu­re
Suc­cess. Uni­ver­si­ty of Li­me­rick, Li­me­rick.
12 Kauf­mann & Se­pe, 1998. Col­le­ge uses vir­tu­al bu­si­ness
to pre­pa­re stu­dents for glo­bal eco­no­my. Com­mu­ni­ty
Col­le­ge Jour­nal 69 (2), 26–29.
13 Mor­ris, M. H. (1997). En­trep­re­neu­rial In­ten­si­ty: Su­stai­
nab­le Ad­van­ta­ge for In­di­vi­du­als. Or­ga­ni­za­tions and
So­cie­ties. Quo­rum Bo­oks, West­port, CT.
14 OECD. (2004). Pro­mo­ting En­trep­re­neurs­hip and in­no­
va­ti­ve SMEs in glo­bal eco­no­my. Fran­ce: OECD.
15 OECD. (2005). SME and En­trep­re­neurs­hip Out­lo­ok
2005. Fran­ce: Or­ga­ni­sa­tion for eco­no­mic co-ope­ra­tion
and de­ve­lop­ment.
16 Piot­row­ski M. and Bed­narc­zyk H. (1997). Against
over-spe­cia­li­za­tion and in fa­vour of fle­xi­bi­li­ty: the
“cor­rect” de­sign of oc­cu­pa­tio­nal pro­fi­les. In: Eu­ro­pe­an
Trai­ning Foun­da­tion, Qu­a­li­fi­ca­tion chal­len­ges in the
part­ner coun­tries and Mem­ber Sta­tes. Tu­rin: ETF.
17 Por­ter, L. (1994). The re­la­tion of en­trep­re­neurs­hip edu­
ca­tion to bu­si­ness edu­ca­tion. Si­mu­la­tion and Ga­ming,
Vol. 25 No. 3, p. 416–9.
18 Re­y­nolds, P. D., Byg­ra­ve, W. D., Au­tio, E., Cox, L. W.
and Hay, M. (2002). Glo­bal En­trep­re­neurs­hip Mo­
ni­tor: Exe­cu­ti­ve Re­port. GEM, Bab­son Col­le­ge and
Ewing Ma­rion Kauf­mann Foun­da­tion, Wel­les­ley, MA
and Kan­sas Ci­ty, MO, avai­lab­le at: www.gem­con­sor­
tium.org (ac­ces­sed in Ja­nu­a­ry 2006)
19 So­lo­mon, G. T., Duf­fy, S. and Ta­ra­bis­hy, A. (2002).
The sta­te of en­trep­re­neurs­hip edu­ca­tion in the Uni­ted
Sta­tes: a na­tion-wi­de sur­vey and ana­ly­sis. In­ter­na­tio­
nal Jour­nal of En­trep­re­neurs­hip Edu­ca­tion, Vol. 1 No.
1, p. 1–22.
20 Tem­kov, S. (2003). Edi­to­rial. Eu­ro­pen Bul­le­tin No.
26.
21 We­ber C. (2002). The post – Se­con­da­ry Prac­ti­ce Firm
Con­cept in the Uni­ted Sta­tes. Eu­ro­pen Bul­le­tin No.
24.
A. Ga­ra­lis, G. Straz­die­nė
En­trep­re­neu­rial skills de­ve­lop­ment via Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se
Sum­ma­ry
ma­na­ge­ment skills and ef­fi­cien­cy. The­se fac­tors show sig­
ni­fi­cant and com­ple­te sup­port for the mo­del. Re­sults of the
re­se­arch re­ve­al that the­re are po­si­ti­ve re­la­tions­hip bet­we­en
di­ver­si­ty of le­ar­ning pro­cess, per­cep­tion of bu­si­ness en­vi­
ron­ment, gai­ning ex­pe­rien­ce and group work and stu­dents’
en­trep­re­neu­rial skills.
Te­aching and trai­ning in the Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness
En­ter­pri­se is be­co­ming an ac­ti­vi­ty that in cre­a­sin­gly re­qui­
res ca­re­ful ana­ly­sis of each le­ar­ning si­tu­a­tion, the de­ve­lo­
ping and mo­ni­to­ring of su­itab­le le­ar­ning op­por­tu­ni­ties, the
eva­lu­a­tion of their im­pact on stu­dents‘ achie­ve­ment fol­lo­
wed, in so­me ca­ses, by the ad­just­ments de­e­med ne­ces­sa­ry,
and a per­so­nal or col­lec­ti­ve re­flec­tion on the who­le pro­
cess, in or­der to build pro­fes­sio­nal know­led­ge
The ar­tic­le is fo­cu­sed on en­trep­re­neurs­hip and
small bu­si­ness which play a cen­tral ro­le in the Eu­ro­pe­an
Union eco­no­my and dic­ta­te a new at­ti­tu­de to the ro­le of
Si­mu­la­tion Bu­si­ness En­ter­pri­se which task is to en­cou­ra­
ge the de­ve­lop­ment of stu­dents’ en­trep­re­neurs­hip skills.
In or­der to de­li­ver ef­fec­ti­ve pro­grams in en­trep­re­neurs­hip,
edu­ca­tors and com­mu­ni­ty part­ners will ne­ed to re­cog­ni­ze
the chan­ging dy­na­mics of the glo­bal land­sca­pe and its ma­
jor im­pact on te­aching, le­ar­ning and const­ruc­ting com­mu­
ni­ties that nur­tu­re in­no­va­tion and en­trep­re­neurs­hip. The
pa­per ana­ly­zes the main EU do­cu­ments on pro­mo­ting en­
trep­re­neurs­hip.
The ar­tic­le exa­mi­nes the mo­del of Si­mu­la­tion Bu­
si­ness En­ter­pri­se and se­eks to me­a­su­re its ef­fec­ti­ve­ness
on le­ar­ning en­trep­re­neu­rial skills. Fac­tor ana­ly­sis with the
ro­ta­ted so­lu­tion of prin­ci­pal com­po­nent ana­ly­sis con­si­de­
red three fac­tors of en­trep­re­neu­rial skills: per­so­nal skills,
Key words: en­trep­re­neurs­hip, en­trep­re­neurs­hip
edu­ca­tion, si­mu­la­tion bu­si­ness en­ter­pri­se.
48