ACUERDO DE CONCEJO MUNICIPAL Nº 009-2007-MDLU La Unión, 20 de abril de 2007

Generally, processes are concerned with the established and usually routine set of procedures that facilitate the transformation of organisational functions (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Burgelman, 1985). Comparatively, little is known about CE processes when the abundance of the CE antecedent-outcome literature in Section 2.3.1 is considered. Recognising that CE processes were less understood Burgelman (1983) designed a qualitative longitudinal processual study to generate a process model of internal corporate venturing. Interest in CE process research seemed to increase as evidenced from 1996 when Lumpkin & Dess, EXLOGLQJ RQ &RYLQ  6OHYLQ¶V  HQWUHSUHQHXULDO SRVWXUH FRQVWUXFW conceptualised EO as,

The processes, practices and decision-making activities that lead to new entry. p. 136.

Other CE researchers followed this trend and began conceptualising CE models as wholly process-driven or included processes as a translational element between CE antecedents and CE outcomes. As such, of the 11 models under review, only 3 of them are described as process models by their authors, (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Hornsby et al., 1993; Burgelman, 1983). However, a further 5 models include processes in their conceptualisations, (Ireland et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2005; Dess et al., 2003; Zahra et al., 1999; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).

This section will be devoted to discussing CE processes in particular. My analysis of the 8 CE models has yielded 20 CE processes, Table 5, that transform the antecedents of CE discussed in Section 2.3.1 into the CE outcomes that will be covered subsequently in Section 2.3.3. Further, these CE processes naturally disaggregated into 5 process categories: (1) evaluative (Kuratko et al., 2005; Hornsby et al., 1993), (2) learning (Dess et al., 2003; Zahra et al, 1999), (3) entrepreneurial (Ireland et al., 2009; Kuratko et al., 2005; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), (4) corporate venturing (Hornsby et al., 1993; Burgelman, 1983) and (5) strategic renewal (Floyd & Lane, 2000). Further, some authors followed %XUJHOPDQ¶V  VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW &( SURFHVVHV QHHGHG WR EH FRQFHSWXDOLVHG over multiple levels of analysis. As such, Table 5 separates these processes over 2 levels of analysis: the organisation (Section 2.3.2.1) and individual (Section, 2.3.2.2), which I will use to structure my discussion.

2.3.2.1 Corporate Entrepreneurship Processes: Organisational Level

As one would expect in keeping with the CE paradigm where the organisation is the dominant unit of analysis, Table 5 exhibits that the CE processes proffered by scholars exist at the organisational level. These 8 organisational level CE processes that facilitate the transformation of large, complex organisations to entrepreneurial ones have been categorised as: learning and entrepreneurial processes.

Two models posit that learning processes are required for organisations to achieve their CE potential (Dess et al., 2003; Zahra et al., 1999). CE learning processes achieve this by facilitating the relationships between the development of new types of knowledge as CE activities are undertaken to acquire new competencies, or improve existing ones which in turn improve organisational performance. The Zahra et al. (1999) and Dess et al. (2003) models are similar in that they both include the organisational learning process. The authors advocate that organisational learning processes are profound as they can increase an RUJDQLVDWLRQ¶V &( DELOLWLHV VXFK DV DVVHVVLQJ PDUNHWV DQG FRPPHUFLDOLVLQJ knowledge-intensive product, process and service innovations (Kanter, 1985).

The models differ however in that they offer varying levels of detail. First, Dess HWDO¶V2003) recognises that the multidimensionality of CE can complicate the relationship between CE and knowledge outcomes. As such, the authors look specifically at how learning processes impact the SE phenomena, Table 2, under &( &RQYHUVHO\ =DKUD HW DO¶V 1999) model looks at the role of organisational learning in formal and informal uptake of CE in general. Second Dess et al. (2003) disaggregates organisational learning into acquisitive and experimental learning and links both processes to specific SE phenomena. Last, =DKUDHWDO¶V  PRGHO JRHV IXUWKHU WKDQ 'HVV HW DO¶V  LQ WKDW LW LQFOXGHV D knowledge integration process, which shows how CE is sustained by integrating new knowledge with suitable organisational tasks.

The second category of CE processes used in CE models at the organisational level was the entrepreneurial processes. Organisation level entrepreneurial

processes comprised of 4 of the 5 EO processes: innovation, proactiveness, risk- taking and competitive aggressiveness, (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) (see Table 5). Comparatively these four processes have received substantial conceptual and empirical attention, when other CE processes are considered. More than 100 studies of EO have been conducted, which has led to wide acceptance of the conceptual meaning and relevance of the concept (Rauch, Wiklund & Lumpkin 2009). Rauch et al. (2009) meta-analysis indicates that the correlation of EO with performance is significant and that this relationship is robust. Thus, these entrepreneurial processes exemplify one of the few areas in entrepreneurship research where an extensive body of knowledge is developing though, primarily at the organisational level.

2.3.2.2 Corporate Entrepreneurship Processes: Individual Level

Table 5 indicates that there are 11 CE processes operating at the individual level across the 7 of 11 models under review. The inclusion of these individual level processes indicates that despite the inconsistent treatment of the individual organisational members (Corbett et al., 2013), they are inextricably linked to and play an integral role in the workings of CE. The individual processes fall into 4 CE process categories: evaluative, entrepreneurial, corporate venturing and strategic renewal.

Similar to Dess et al., (2003), in Section 2.3.2.1 above, some of the individual level CE processes were targeted at how specific CE phenomena emerged in an organisation: internal corporate venturing (Burgelman, 1983; Hornsby et al., 1993) and strategic renewal (Floyd & Lane, 2000). Despite focusing on 2 different CE phenomena, the Burgelman (1983) and Floyd & Lane (2000) models are quite similar. Unlike the majority of CE models under review, the Burgelman (1983) and Floyd & Lane (2000) models are unconcerned with CE antecedents or outcomes. Instead, both models focus on presenting their respective CE processes to portray how the processes actually occur in the organisation by attributing them to specific levels of management. For instance, Floyd & Lane (2000) propose that operating-level managers simultaneously assimilate relevant information gained from outside the firm while responding to the strategic

decisions of top-level managers, communicated to them by to middle-level managers. Conversely, the Hornsby et al. (1993) model while it also focuses on the internal corporate venturing process; it does not use multiple management OHYHOV5DWKHU+RUQVE\HWDO¶VGLVWLQJXLVKHVWKDWWKHLUPRGHOFRQFHQWUDWHV on organisational members in general and the CE antecedents that influence their decision to act entrepreneurially.

This decision-PDNLQJIDFHWRI+RUQVE\HWDO¶V(1993) model leads to the second category of individual level CE processes: evaluative processes which include the +RUQVE\HWDO¶VPRGHODQGLWVGHULYDWLYHFRQFHSWXDOLVHGE\.XUDWNRHWDO (2005). Generally, to make a decision an individual is required to evaluate some set of factors or circumstances they are presented with. From an individual standpoint the Hornsby et al. (1993) model suggests the individual must evaluate the organisation himself or herself and precipitating events before the decision to DFW HQWUHSUHQHXULDOO\ FDQ HPHUJH 6LPLODUO\ .XUDWNR HW DO¶V  PRGHO DOVR requires middle managers to make an evaluation. However, the authors propose that middle managers evaluate possible CE outcomes (Section 2.3.3, Table 6) as positive, neutral, or negative to decide whether they will act entrepreneurially on behalf of the organisation.

The fourth and final category of individual level CE processes used in CE models is the entrepreneurial process category. The fifth EO dimension from Lumpkin & 'HVV¶PRGHODXWRQRP\WLHVLQZLWK%XUJHOPDQ¶VYLHZWKDW&(LV the result of the autonomous actions of organisational members required to bring WKH RUJDQLVDWLRQ¶V YLVLRQ DQG QHZ LGHDV WR IUXLWLRQ .XUDWNR HW DO  specifically elaborate on the entrepreneurial processes middle managers participate in to assist the organisation in achieving its CE goals, Table 5. For instance, middle managers are expected to endorse opportunities similar to the impetus process put forward by Burgelman (1983) to support and maintain CE initiatives. Ireland et al. (2009) like Hornsby et al. (1993) also focus on general organisational members. Ireland et al. (2009) draw directly on what Shane & Venkataraman (2000) cite as the defining characteristics of entrepreneurship: opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation. The authors propose that both these processes are the domain of all organisational members and not just

top or middle level managers. This subsumes perspectives that CE could be a combination of individual initiatives driven from the bottom-up or as well as induced from the top-down.