ANÁLISIS DE LA SUBSIDENCIA MEDIANTE INSAR 

In order to estimate the level of internal consistency of the case study findings and the survey results, this chapter introduces and discusses the survey answers from the four case incubatees. As is elaborated on in the following chapter when we introduce and discuss the survey findings in depth, the respondents, including the four case incubatees, were asked to rate how participation in the business incubation program had influenced their entrepreneurial process and development, based on a set of several measures and business incubation elements. For this a 5-point Likert scale was used, with 1 being lowest and 5 highest. The survey strategy is also discussed more thoroughly in the next chapter. The reader must be aware that the survey was distributed 6 months after the second and last interview was conducted with the case incubatees. Thus, the case incubatees could have experienced something during this 6-month period that could have influenced their perception of the business incubator and the different support elements of the business incubation program and hence their answers to the survey questions. This time difference issue has also highlighted by McMullan et al. (2001). However, regardless of this time difference, the survey answers from the four case incubatees should provide us with valuable insight about the level of internal consistency between the two studies.

Firstly, we can conclude that the classification of the cases’ entrepreneurial experience, which was determined by the author, matches the perspective of the cases themselves when they were asked about their level of entrepreneurial experience in the questionnaire, as depicted in Table 5.

Incubatee Experience

Ziya Experienced

Heidi Novice

Troels Novice

Sean Experienced

Søren Berg Jørgensen CBIT, Roskilde University 160 10.1 Effectuation/causation

To investigate whether the case incubatees had a preference for effectual or causal logic (even though this can be difficult to measure quantitatively), the case incubatees were asked to rate to what degree they believed the following elements were important for their entrepreneurial process. For the purpose of this dissertation, causal logic was measured by two elements – business planning and conducting market and competitor analysis – whereas effectual logic was measured by the answer choices of creating partnerships and strategic alliances and learning by doing. These measures are obviously simplified, but as is explained later in the survey chapter, this approach is adequate for the purpose of this dissertation. The answers of the case incubatees are displayed below in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Perceived importance of elements in the entrepreneurial process and development

(Likert scales 1–5).

From Figure 13 above, we can see that Ziya rated all of the different elements in the entrepreneurial process at 4 except creating partnerships and strategic alliances, which he perceived to be very important and thus rated 5. These answers are very much aligned with the findings we discovered in the case study, where Ziya indicated that especially the business consultant had taught him to understand the value of establishing collaborations with potential partners via his network. Thus, according to the survey results, Ziya would be categorized as an effectual entrepreneur, as the

0 1 2 3 4 5 Creating partnerships and strategic alliances Business

planning Conductingmarket and competitor analysis Learning by doing Ziya Heidi Troels Sean

Søren Berg Jørgensen CBIT, Roskilde University 161 effectual elements combined are rated higher than the causal elements. Even though both business planning and conducting market and competitive analysis are rated 4, there is a clear indication from the case study that Ziya prefers effectual logic; e.g., Ziya stated that he learned the value of how he can best ensure progress in his entrepreneurial development by exploiting the tools and resources available to him, which is much aligned with the effectual mind-set.

When we study Heidi’s answers from the survey, we can see that she rated all of the proposed elements of the entrepreneurial process as 5 except for conducting market and competitor analysis, which is not rated as an important element of the entrepreneurial process. This is quite surprising, as Heidi rated business planning to be of great importance in her entrepreneurial process, which is also stressed in the case study findings. Regardless, according to the survey answers, she is classified as preferring effectual logic, which could also be backed up with the case study findings suggesting that acquiring knowledge through her entrepreneurial network was of significant importance for Heidi’s entrepreneurial process. However, findings from the case study could also argue that Heidi prefers causal logic, as she appreciated the planning process that her mentor had carried her through.

In the case of Troels, we can see that his answers are a bit more spread out across the different entrepreneurial elements, as he rated both learning by doing and conducting market and competitor analysis as having a neutral importance in his entrepreneurial process, whereas business planning is rated 4 and lastly creating partnerships and strategic alliances is rated 5. Based on these answers, Troels is classified as preferring effectual logic; however, it could also be argued that he should be categorized somewhere in between, as his answers are closely balanced and it is hard to conclude from the case study whether he seems to prefer an effectual or causal mind-set.

Sean rated all of the entrepreneurial elements at 4 except for business planning, which is rated 5 and thus very important for his entrepreneurial process and development. This means that Sean would be categorized as preferring causal logic in his entrepreneurial process based on the survey results. From the case study, we learned that he started his company without any extensive business planning, but from the survey answers, we can see that he considered business planning to be very

Søren Berg Jørgensen CBIT, Roskilde University 162 important for his entrepreneurial process. This difference might indicate that Sean learned from his mistakes in not using business planning prior and thus considered it to be valuable now. On the other hand, as indicated from the case study findings, it is also possible that Sean is self-contradictory in his perception and thus answers at times.

Based on the four case incubatees’ answers to the questionnaire, three of the four cases are categorized as preferring effectual logic. Nonetheless, these three cases also value the importance of the causal elements to some degree, just as the causal entrepreneur also values the effectual elements. However, for quantitative purposes, it has been decided to roughly categorize the incubatees into one category or the other, even though the literature and the empirical findings indicate that in general entrepreneurs apply both of the entrepreneurial logics at different times during the entrepreneurial process and development. Despite the difficulty in measuring the differences among incubatees in relation to effectuation and causation, we still see a difference that is interesting to investigate further. In relation to the case study findings and the survey results, it is difficult to either confirm or disconfirm the internal consistency of the results regarding the theoretical concept of effectuation and causation.

Søren Berg Jørgensen CBIT, Roskilde University 163 10.2 Business incubation elements

The following figure depicts the survey answers of the case incubatees regarding how they perceived the influence of the different elements of the business incubation program in relation to their entrepreneurial process and development.

Figure 14. Perceived influence of separate business incubation program elements on the

entrepreneurial process (Likert scale 1–5).

From the survey answers, we discover that Ziya rated business support as the element that had the most influence on his entrepreneurial process, followed by social network, office facilities, and incubator manager. Only educational courses is rated as not having any significant influence on his entrepreneurial process and development. These answers are very much aligned with the findings of the case studies, where Ziya stated the business consultant influenced him as an entrepreneur significantly, and both the network and office space were mentioned as being the most beneficial elements of the business incubation program. Furthermore, from the case study, we found that Ziya did not believe that the educational courses were influential, which is probably why it was only rated 3 in the survey.

When studying Heidi’s survey answers, we detect that the social network element was perceived as the most influential element of the business incubation program, which is

0 1 2 3 4 5 Business Support Educational Courses

Social network Office facillities Incubation managers Ziya Heidi Troels Sean

Søren Berg Jørgensen CBIT, Roskilde University 164 aligned with the findings of the case studies. Additionally, there is also a match between the rating of educational courses from the survey and the qualitative findings of the cases, where she stated that there was room for improvement and that they were beneficial in terms of the network that was created when meeting other incubatees at the courses. Surprisingly, both incubation manager and business support are rated low in terms of influence on Heidi’s entrepreneurial process in the survey, but in the case study, these elements were highlighted as being very influential on her entrepreneurial process. This is inconsistent and hard to explain, but it could be because of some sort of response bias or because Heidi has changed her perception over time. The low rating of office facilities from the survey could be aligned with the case study findings, where these are not mentioned or discussed much, only in relation to the network element.

Troels rated both educational courses and social network as being the most influential elements of the business incubation program, even though the case study showed that Troels believed the educational courses lacked practical knowledge. The remaining elements are also rated as having a significant influence on Troels’s entrepreneurial process, which is much aligned with the positive findings that were discovered from the case study, where Troels claimed the business incubation program had a positive influence on his entrepreneurial process and development. From Sean’s survey answers, we can see that only social network and office facilities were considered to have an influence on his entrepreneurial process. This is aligned with the case study findings, as it is concluded that Sean did not believe that he had developed as an entrepreneur while at the business incubator, but he had grown his entrepreneurial network significantly. Furthermore, from the case study is also seems as if Sean had chosen to be part of the business incubator mostly because of the office facilities and the network, as he had not made much use of the other support elements. For example, he stated that as long as the business incubation manager made sure that the daily operation of the business incubator was running smoothly, then he was satisfied.

When comparing the survey answers of the case incubatees with the case study findings, there seems to be overall internal consistency between the two except for the case of Heidi, who differed notably in her survey answers and the case study. This

Søren Berg Jørgensen CBIT, Roskilde University 165 could be for several reasons, e.g., time difference between the last interview and filling out the questionnaire or some sort of response bias that is hard to detect.

10.3 The entrepreneurial process

Figure 15. Perceived influence of the overall business incubator on aspects of the

entrepreneurial process (Likert scale 1–5).

As depicted in Figure 15, we can see that all of the case incubatees rate commitment, self-confidence, and ambition for growth as very significant aspects of their entrepreneurial process and development that they perceived as being positively influenced by the business incubator. This is aligned with the case study findings that all point toward this perceived influence, expect Sean, who, it seems, did not believe that he developed as an entrepreneur during his time at the business incubator, despite the fact that he answered differently to the questionnaire.

Expansion of the incubatees’ entrepreneurial network was also perceived to have been influenced by all of the incubatees, which is also aligned with the conclusions we can draw from the case study findings. In relation to knowledge of how to effectuate and

0 1 2 3 4 5 Ziya Heidi Troels Sean

Søren Berg Jørgensen CBIT, Roskilde University 166 knowledge of business planning, all of the incubatees perceived that the business incubator also had influenced this area except for Troels, who did not perceive to have been influenced and thus did not learn about knowledge of business planning. No findings from his case study can contradict this result. From the case studies, it is again hard to compare the qualitative findings with the effectuation and causation element measured via the questionnaire. This is due to the complexity of the theoretical concepts, which makes it hard to draw them out of the qualitative case studies.

Based on the comparison of the case study findings with the survey answers of the four case incubatees, we can conclude that there seems to be reasonable internal consistency between the qualitative and the quantitative results. However, there are also notable differences, some of which cannot be logically explained. Still, 100% internal consistency cannot be expected, in this researcher’s opinion, especially with a time difference of 6 months between the last interview and the distribution of the survey, as well as the contradictory findings in the case studies.

Søren Berg Jørgensen CBIT, Roskilde University 167