The entrepreneurial journey: From entrepreneurial intent to opportunity realization

Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of High Technology Management Research

The entrepreneurial journey: From entrepreneurial intent to opportunity realization Min-Seok Cha ⁎, Zong-Tae Bae KAIST Graduate School of Management, 207-43, Cheongryangri-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 2 March 2010 Keywords: Journey Emergent process Grounded theory Opportunity realization

a b s t r a c t The entrepreneurial process of new business creation starts when a business opportunity is discovered or created by nascent entrepreneurs. This process involves a journey of improvising and coping with uncertainty. There are many obstacles as well as pulling, pushing, and driving forces that the entrepreneur may encounter along the way. In this paper, There need the internal driving forces that solves these problems by taking entrepreneurial actions to actualize new business potential against all odds. The series of entrepreneurs' autonomous, innovative, and improvised actions throughout the entrepreneurial process will consist the entrepreneurial journey. This journey will be viewed as a combination of volitional and emergent process of transforming potentiality into actuality, that is, opportunity realization. This paper attempts to explain the internal driving forces that direct, drive, and sustain entrepreneurial processes with and against internal and external conditions and changes. An entrepreneurial process is composed of driving forces of activity and a number of activities related with resource and opportunity. In this paper, we conceptualize the obsessive motivation and internal driving forces that catalyzes the entrepreneurial journey as entrepreneurial intent: entrepreneurial mindset that can be defined as an aroused state of entrepreneurial motivation to initiate, drive and sustain the entrepreneurial journey til the opportunity is completely transformed to real business. A case study method that implements a modified version of the grounded theory method is applied to identify the multidimensional and emergent processes of this entrepreneurial journey. This study examines a sample of hightech venture firms in Korea. The results show that entrepreneurial intent toward a new opportunity emerges as collective actions for combining new resources to create new value. In the journey, entrepreneurial intent can be considered as internal driving force because it is at the center of underlying layers of the emergent process of opportunity realization. In successful journeys, entrepreneurial intent seems to be an extreme level of entrepreneurial motivation because it is characterized by more energetic functions of motivation: arousal, direction, and duration of entrepreneurial activity. In this paper, these three functions will be referred to as the 3C Effects: the channeling (arousal), the concentrating (direction), and the continuing (duration) of entrepreneurial action. This mechanism converts the actions of the entrepreneur and his/her firm into entrepreneurial ones that aim to seize every chance to make the opportunity into reality. The entrepreneurial actions, increase the chances of serendipity in the external process of creating, attracting, and combining resources to meet the value criteria of market opportunity. Cases of entrepreneurial journey are analyzed in layered and diamond type frameworks. In summary, the volitional and emergent journey can be illuminated by frameworks consisting of multiple phases, dimensions and layers of entrepreneurial process that interact with various kinds of external conditions including business opportunities. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.-S. Cha), [email protected] (Z.-T. Bae). 1047-8310/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2010.02.005

32

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

1. Introduction In the course of opportunity realization, entrepreneurs create new ventures from scratch. Although the interaction between the entrepreneur and opportunity is the essence of entrepreneurship, no distinctive theory exists to explain it (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Opportunity, which is the potential state of value creation, is realized through the emergent process (Phan, 2004). Emergence means that opportunity comes into reality in the multiple level processes where entrepreneurs interact with many other economic agents that possess resources for creating a new venture that can, in turn, deliver value in the marketplace. Entrepreneurship is an innovative process because entrepreneurs create new technological solutions consisting of new products and services. Innovation is an uncertain journey (Van de Ven, 1986; Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman, 1999); entrepreneurs can fail many times in their journey of new business creation. New ventures must confront a number of diverse problems, pitfalls, and obstacles. Although the dominant problems, like new product development and commercialization, are predictable (Kazanjian, 1988), a multitude of other serious potential problems are not. Entrepreneurs try to solve these unpredictable problems throughout the new-venture-creation process. We call “the series and combinations of entrepreneurs' autonomous, innovative, and unpredictable or improvised actions and interactions” the entrepreneurial journey. This underlying and interacting journey of entrepreneur is for transforming potentiality of opportunity into actual value in new business. Moreover, a new venture experiences the “liability of newness” (Stinchcombe, 1965). Initial conditions such as assets, networks, legitimacy, and capabilities are disadvantageous to new organizations. A lack of resources and legitimacy cannot guarantee the competitive advantage of new entrants (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001). The traditional resource-based view cannot illuminate the future of new ventures. However, the concept of “entrepreneurial capability” has been suggested as a means for developing a theory of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial capability is the capability to combine new resources that will carry new values in the future market (Alvarez & Barney, 2000, 2005). The next step is focused on the mechanism of new resource combination in the entrepreneurial process. The causes and the generative mechanisms of the complex and dynamic phenomenon (Bhaskar, 1975) can be shed light on by case study methods. The phenomenon of entrepreneurship is emergent (Phan, 2004) because it evolves in response to the interaction between agents and circumstances. The entrepreneurial process can be viewed as the interaction between entrepreneur and opportunity. Both the causes and the generative mechanisms of the entrepreneurial process are dealt with extensively in the process of theory formation and validation. An important clue to the origins of the entrepreneurial process is that the generation of new resources should arise from what this paper terms emergence. This paper aims to answer the following questions: 1) What are the internal driving forces of the entrepreneurial journey? 2) How do these driving forces spur and sustain the journey? This paper adopts a case study method (Eisenhardt, 1989) that applies a modified version of the grounded theory method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to identify the multidimensional and emergent processes of the entrepreneurial journey. Even though the entrepreneurial journey is uncertain and unpredictable, this paper attempts to illuminate the internal driving forces that underlie the entrepreneurial process by adopting a case-based grounded theory approach by induction. 2. Literature review Basically, the new intentionality of implementing an idea seems to drive the processes of organizing and commercializing (Aldrich, 1999; Bird, 1988; Katz & Gartner, 1988). Entrepreneurs say that strong intent is a requisite for successful new business creation (Norwood, 2007). The mechanism of intentionality, the least-understood aspect of the entrepreneurial process (Mitchell et al., 2007), needs to be studied to obtain further knowledge about this elusive subject. Although the nexus of entrepreneurs and opportunity is the key to entrepreneurship (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), the entrepreneur has, of late, received little scholarly attention. This neglect partially stems from the failure of early research on personality factors to consistently explain phenomena. This paper's attempt at theory building takes the advice that the researcher must strive to accommodate both the person and the process simultaneously (Shaver & Scott, 1991). The focal point of our theory development is the entrepreneurial process as manifested in the interactions between entrepreneurs and opportunities. Although the many studies on the characteristics of entrepreneurs have had diverse results, some topics on the features of entrepreneurs, their choices, and their behavioral orientations still have value (Bloodgood, Sapienza, & Carsrud, 1995; Naffiziger, 1995; Shaver & Scott, 1991). We provide a review of several theoretical perspectives and concepts that have helped us to develop a theory of entrepreneurial intent, opportunity, and the entrepreneurial process. Several researchers have studied the processes and the driving forces of realizing opportunities. Ajzen (1985) proposed the “theory of planned behavior,” which predicts human behavior with consideration of intention. Hamel and Prahalad (1989) suggested the concept of “strategic intent,” or an obsession to stretch goals, as a source of winning in the world market. Shepherd and Krueger (2002) illustrated “entrepreneurial intention,” which can be used to predict the intention of founding a venture. Although these theories have served as foundations for the new concept of “entrepreneurial intent,” they have limitations in explaining the emergent process of realizing entrepreneurial opportunities. This study addresses this gap by trying to explain the underlying motivation and internal driving forces that shape the entrepreneurial process. The entrepreneurial process is composed of three activities: opportunity recognition, gap-filling, and opportunity realization. In this paper, we conceptualize the obsessive motivation and internal driving forces that underlie the entrepreneurial process or journey as “entrepreneurial intent,” which will be defined as a type of strategic intent characterized by an entrepreneurial mindset that can be defined as “an aroused state of entrepreneurial motivation to complete the entrepreneurial journey toward opportunity realization.”

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

33

Although strong entrepreneurial intent appears to be largely accepted as the primary driving force behind the entrepreneurial process (Norwood, 2007), a proper theory to account for this phenomenon has yet to be devised. Entrepreneurial intent can be understood as an extreme type of motivation that enables individual entrepreneurs to make the entrepreneurial process result in opportunity realization, which can be and has been verified by studies on the relationships among individuals, processes, and results (Shaver & Scott, 1991). In other words, some explorations on the connection between entrepreneurs and opportunities (Venkataraman, 1997) can be expected to show how individual levels of behavior affect the industrial level of achievement (Phan, 2004). The entrepreneurial journey that emerges from entrepreneurial intent is, specifically, a process of opportunity realization through the combination of resources. In this regard, several theories merit mention including “Innovation journey” (Van de Ven & Engleman, 2004), “New combination” (Schumpeter, 1942), “Dynamic capability” (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), and “Resourcebased view” (Barney, 1991). Innovation journey provides an excellent description of the course of innovations through alternating “convergent behavior” and “divergent behavior” (Van de Ven & Engleman, 2004). In contrast, new combination argument neglects some important details because it is solely concerned with the macro aspects of innovation. Dynamic capability theory is also somewhat limited in that it provides only introductory-level explanations of its three components. The resource-based view faces the restriction of being unable to evaluate the value, rarity, inimitability, and difficulty of substitution of nonexistent resource combinations: the theory generalizes that the extent of current resources cannot guarantee opportunity realization in the future. Especially because of the “liability of newness” (Stinchcombe, 1965), the resources of new ventures tend to be significantly less than those of other corporations. Resource-based view would be able to overcome its limitations if it were to adopt concepts such as potential resources, capabilities of combining resources, and the directivity to connect resources. It is true that this type of approach has been attempted by several authors by complementing the entrepreneurial capability component (Alvarez & Barney, 2000, 2005; Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001); however, despite these efforts, the theory still cannot avoid the criticism that it regards all internal elements, including corporate-internal procedures or potential parts, as simply being company resources. An entrepreneurial process that discovers and realizes chance in the growth of a venture is seen as an insecure process of ‘trial and error’ in the search for and combination of dispersed potential values. The root of this view is that the knowledge needed to realize new values is dispersed and that the potentiality of these values has yet to reveal itself. Even though the needed knowledge could serve as the basis for detecting a new opportunity, its possessors are unable to appreciate its value because this needed knowledge remains dispersed and scattered (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Therefore, for the purpose of discovering and exploiting new opportunity, entrepreneurs utilize the method of bricolage, which utilizes scarce knowledge and seemingly unrelated resources. Bricolage enables entrepreneurs to pursue new combinations by maximizing their resources and means (Baker & Eesley, 2003; Baker & Nelson, 2005). In this sense, entrepreneurs can be considered bricoleurs who establish new connections and make new combinations. In other words, innovation is achieved through new combinations of given resources (Schumpeter, 1942), and it is the role of the “arbitrageur” to enable these new combinations (Kirzner, 1997). Entrepreneurs as “arbitrageurs” can create new values only when they play the “structural hole” role to connect groups that have different resources and demands in their networks regardless of whether these groups are already formed or yet developing (Burt, 1992). The entire process proceeds by means of bootstrapping and trial and error, thus requiring the entrepreneurs to maximize the use of available resources while being economical and to focus the resources on the entrepreneurial project (Ebben & Johnson, 2006). At the same time, however, entrepreneurial actions are performed with specific intentions under uncertain circumstances. In this vein, an entrepreneurial process in the context of an unsecured situation has been rightfully referred to as the “innovation journey” by Van de Ven (1986, 1999). In addition, the entrepreneurial process is an “entrepreneurial journey” along which entrepreneurs attempt to provide both organizational resources and financial resources while constructing needed functions. 3. Research framework and methods This paper attempts to provide useful concepts and framework by integrating the case study method (an inductive approach) with a literature review (a deductive approach). To explore the nature of the entrepreneurial process, we need to understand the internal process of venture growth. This suggests that we should conduct a case study rather than focus solely on the literature review; for this reason, we need to integrate the two approaches for the purpose of developing a theory of venture growth. As shown in Fig. 1, based on actual data, we have constructed concepts and categories while developing a conceptual theory through the “grounded theory approach” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Following Eisenhardt (1989), we have conducted interviews, collected data, and developed a theory based on raw data, open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The Grounded Theory Approach builds a paradigm model after collecting data, and categorizing (open coding) and characterizing six factors in a theoretical framework (axial coding). The paradigm model consists of cause, phenomenon, contextual conditions, intervening conditions, interactions, and consequences. However, attempting to explain all of the problems related to these six relationships within a given situation can raise issues about the interrelationships between the variables. This study follows the typical procedures in data collection and case studies as suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (1989). Data was collected from archives, books, articles, in-depth interviews, and field experiences. We conducted open coding according to raw data, axial coding for constructing categorical relations, and selective coding for the research model (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The categorization uses core variables that address entrepreneurs, opportunities, entrepreneurial activities, and venture growth in an attempt to develop a conceptual theory based on the multifaceted aspects related to entrepreneurial intent, entrepreneurial activity, and opportunity realization.

34

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

Fig. 1. The grounded theory approach by induction.

Axial coding in two kinds of diagrams may provide an approach for developing the grounded concepts and theoretical framework combined with deductive elements of theory. First one is a diamond type framework that has four dimensions which are technological, market, organizational, and financial aspects. Every dimension has an internal and external domain that has chances and problems in the journey. Second one is a layered type framework that has four layers from internal driving force, entrepreneurial action, resource combined, and value creation. In an actual practice of case analysis, diverse theoretical possibilities might emerge to make story of journey more munificent. However, a grounded approach combined with a building framework has more chance to explanation of a complicated and complex journey. Fig. 2 displays a research model for addressing contextual and intervening conditions based on axial coding. Because entrepreneurship can be multifaceted, the case study approach presents a useful research methodology for examining the mechanisms and causalities of emergent phenomena (Bhaskar, 1975). In addition, this methodology enhances the possibility of identifying the causality of emergent phenomena. Prior research on entrepreneurialism has utilized case studies and descriptive studies rather than survey methods. We have collected data at the levels of the market, the company, the resources, and the entrepreneur. The new venture cases examined in this study include such companies as Cellbiotech and Medison. Other cases like Humax, NC Soft, Exio Communications, Exponential Technology, Apple, and Google are used to have comparisons and validation of new concepts in diverse contexts. We selected these high-tech cases via the level of convenient sampling: that is, high data availability and well-known performance. From these sample firms, we first investigate two representative cases in Korea. These companies endeavored to reach the global level of resources after they observed the existence of opportunity in the world market. They are examples of typical entrepreneurial processes in an Asian context: that is, ‘imitative innovation’ to capture opportunity in the world market. As a research tool for explaining the entrepreneurial journey, we document entrepreneurial activity based on technology, market, organization, and finance. To obtain a holistic picture of the entrepreneurial process, we suggest a four-dimension diagram

Fig. 2. Research framework: Emergence through the entrepreneurial journey.

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

35

of a journey. There are two types of diagrams: diamond and layered. Problems during the journey toward realizing opportunity can be illustrated with longitudinal perspectives as part of which the main activities are aimed at solving problems that involve technology, market, organization, and finance. These activities might be internal activities or inter-relational activities between external networks. Research aimed at illuminating the entrepreneurial journey would benefit from a longitudinal approach (Van de Ven, 1992). 4. The entrepreneurial journey: frameworks and cases 4.1. Multidimensional framework of the emergent process To grow and prosper, entrepreneurs in new ventures must overcome a considerable number of problems. The problems that a venture faces can be both internal and external. As these challenges emerge while the entrepreneur attempts to realize opportunities, endeavors aimed at gaining competence and realizing potential entrepreneurial opportunities are of fundamental importance to the venture's growth. The problems that a venture confronts in the course of its growth take place either consecutively or simultaneously. Moreover, these problems generally happen dependently. These problems may sometimes be predictable, but many of them are unpredictable and uncertain because of their multiple sources: seemingly unsolvable problems exist as do complicated but solvable problems. Technical problems may be considerably easier to handle than, for instance, financial issues. On the basis of the analytical framework discussed above, Fig. 3 displays the core events in four areas during the growth of Medison and its relationships with outer-related institutions. What is peculiar about Medison is that balanced problemsolving procedures appear in all four areas. This symmetry is in sharp contrast with the problem-solving patterns in most other corporations in which asymmetry often materializes in the market area or the financial area at the critical moment of their growth, which results in a dramatic settlement. In reality, entrepreneurial actions aimed at solving the problems at hand are performed simultaneously within several bases in the economic system. This paper embraces the view of Cha and Bae (2003) who assert that four bases exist: management, technology, market, and finance. At the management base, experts are recruited, educated, and organized. At the technology base, on the other hand, technologies are acquired and new products are developed. At the market base, entrepreneurs seek customers, inquire into their needs, construct relationships, make efforts to observe the movement of the market, and convey the values that

Fig. 3. Entrepreneurial journey diagram: Medison case (diamond type).

36

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

specific opportunities require. In contrast, the financial base involves finding investors, raising funds, and sometimes making investments, which differs according to the ventures' financial resources and the conditions of the capital market. All of these entrepreneurial actions, which occur within the four areas, are ultimately intended to solve the problems that each venture must confront. These entrepreneurial actions are further classified using the following questions: 1) Is the problem internal or external? 2) In the course of venture growth, is the problem inevitable or occasional? In general, problems that arise at the market and technology bases are dominant issues that happen consecutively and interact until being resolved. For instance, issues such as product development, release of new products, preparation of the system to enable mass supply, and market expansion are considered to be both consecutive and dominant. However, there also are occasional problems at the market and technology bases: for example, difficulties in understanding the market, the entrance of new competitors into the market, technological trial and error, cooperative development, and consortium management. The dominant problems in the management and financial bases are structured to support fundraising as well as innovative processes at both the market and technology bases. As occasional difficulties at these bases, internal conflicts or problems related to cash flow deserve attention. For example, in the case of Cellbiotech, it was essential to raise governmental funds for technology development. Despite an inferior position with respect to technology, finances, and human resources, Cellbiotech convinced the investors of its potential by demonstrating its strong intent and firm belief in its ability to cultivate and coat lactic acid bacteria. These factors persuaded the investors to trust Cellbiotech despite the company's insecure and uncertain conditions. In comparison, an internal driving force enabled Humax to overcome early adversity by developing an intense focus on promising market opportunities. Early in its history, Humax's laboratories developed the best available product on the market. However, after the failure of this product, Humax realized that possessing a technically superior product was not as important as possessing a product that met actual consumer demand. Adjusting to this reality, Humax now intensely focuses on tangible market opportunities. IDIS is another example of strong entrepreneurial intent attracting resources, filling the resource gap, and facilitating the recognition of market opportunities. Composed of members who hold doctoral degrees in Electric Engineering from KAIST, IDIS discovered the possibilities of merchandizing digital video recorders (DVRs) and, subsequently, strived to develop DVR technology. In the case of IDIS, strong intent attracted other researchers and created sufficient conviction for researchers to forego their secure jobs and plunge into the insecure world of a new venture. In addition to helping to address the problems that may arise at marketing and technology bases, entrepreneurial intent plays an important role during the search for necessary resources and supplies. This search represents the meaning of absorptive capacity that is most reinterpreted. On the basis of this capacity, entrepreneurs take on the part of “attractor” to lure new resources. Opportunities in business can be obtained by continually overcoming obstacles, and they can be observed as growth in ventures in the realm of dynamics. Although the potentialities of opportunity realization always suffer from many visible obstacles and outer forces, the internal driving force firmly leads entrepreneurs to seek entrepreneurial opportunities. The process of combining new resources is directed at new ventures from all four areas and is made possible through the interconnection of these areas. Because the process and result of resource combination can vary depending on the circumstances, the entrepreneurial process should be analyzed under multiple conditions as well as from a longitudinal perspective (Van de Ven, 1992). In Silicon Valley, for example, technological opportunities and entrepreneurial capital are abundant, and new information and workforce are actively exchanged (Saxenian, 1994). Although situated in the same region, the Silicon Valley ventures each followed a different entrepreneurial process as a result of the circumstances and obstacles that each encountered. Exio Communications and Exponential Technology provide excellent examples. Starting a business in Silicon Valley, Exio Communications entered into the mobile communication market with homemade CDMA technology. Initially, the company experienced difficulties in raising funds and recruiting experts due to a lack of time and poor local networks; however, after successfully contracting with Sprint, it finally received an offer from Cisco Systems. On the other hand, equipped with experts from Stanford University and investments from venture capitalists, Exponential Technology developed a state-of-the-art microprocessor; however, the venture failed because Apple withdrew its original offer to transact with the company. Exio Communications represents a case in which entrepreneurial efforts overcame unfavorable conditions, especially in terms of resources. In contrast, Exponential Technology represents a case in which, despite favorable resource conditions, the entrepreneurial journey ended because of the uncertainty of the market. The entrepreneurial journey is characterized by both descriptive and general aspects. From brief illustrations of various cases in differing and disparate contexts, it is difficult to ascertain the reality of the process model. However, two facts seem certain: (a) there are various kinds of problems in the process that are general or idiosyncratic in the case and context, and (b) there are processes of recognition and resolution of the problems or challenges. In this way, the entrepreneurial process can be considered a journey throughout which the time and place of destined position of entrepreneurial process is uncertain and the protagonist– entrepreneurial agents have a sense of direction and energy to sustain the process to actualize their vision. As shown in Table 1, we can categorize the diverse problems in the entrepreneurial journey into a 4 × 4 matrix to anticipate and focus the resources and energy to sustain the journey of entrepreneurship. When Cellbiotech was created, there was a need to develop lactic acid bacteria powder. To finance a response to this need, Cellbiotech tried to attract investment from the local government. During receiving funding, the entrepreneur was selected for the intent of completing R&D project. After getting fund, he had to build a network and recruit qualified researchers. Even after it succeeded in developing the core technique, more funding was required for the mass cultivation of lactic acid bacteria and for the construction of factories. In addition, Cellbiotech had to begin the process of market creation. From technique development to

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

37

Table 1 Problem categories in the entrepreneurial process. Problem recognition matrix Inner context

Outer context

Market

Technology

Organization

Finance

Dominant

•Market understanding

Occasional

•Neglect of market trends

•Product development •Scaling up •Trials and errors

•Investing •Managing liability •Cash flow management

Dominant

•Market creation •Pricing •New entrants and competitor

•Acquiring new technology •Setting Standard •Consortium management

•Structuring •Systemizing •Conflicts •Growing pains •Recruiting •Collaborating •Distrust •Dissonance of interest between partners

Occasional

•Fundraising •Coordinating •Signaling •Negotiating •IR

market building, Cellbiotech had to solve consecutive problems in challenging environment. The nascent entrepreneur experienced serial and complicated difficulties in the process of developing new techniques of products and operations. The uncertain and unexpected challenges create many frustrating situations mentally and socially. The core role of entrepreneurial intent is to overcome the obstacles on the journey of the entrepreneur by utilizing newly combined resources and realizing opportunities. Entrepreneurial intent is the mindset for discovering and realizing new values. In other words, it is the application of strategic intent (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989) into the entrepreneurial mindset (Kuratko & Hodgetts, 2007). Strategic intent can be defined as a strong adhesion to the goal of victory in a long-term competition (Hamel & Prahalad), and the entrepreneurial mindset is an orientation to opportunities. Entrepreneurial intent is characterized by both drive and directivity. Entrepreneurial intent is different from entrepreneurial orientation and strategic intent because it is motivated by opportunity. To define these new concepts, this study follows an integrative approach and uses a 2 × 2 matrix. To position the concept of entrepreneurial intent, we divided it into two axes and compared it to other motivations and actions. (a) Entrepreneurial intent is more opportunity-centric compared to the resource-centric axis. For this reason, it can serve as an entrepreneur's motivation to pursue the uncertain and risky process. (b) It guides and energizes entrepreneurial behaviors to face the unseen and emerging events and obstacles ahead in the journey. It is a motivational and committed layer of the emergent process. Entrepreneurial intent can be understood as entrepreneurial (opportunity-driven) approaches that are directed toward stretched (strategically focused) goals. Entrepreneurial intent is the mental force that realizes the value of a new business opportunity. Its compositional process seems to be located at the intersection of strategic intent (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989) and the entrepreneurial mindset (Kuratko & Hodgetts, 2007). Strategic intent is the stage in which goals are set to establish a new position in the market or to win against the competition. Strategic intent is a more sharpened and intense state of mind to develop a competitive business. Past research defines strategic intent as a strong obsession with success and victory in the long term (Hamel & Prahalad). Entrepreneurial intent, on the other hand, is not focused on competitors but on opportunity itself. An entrepreneurial mindset without clear direction has no clear focus on activities. It is important to identify the most entrepreneurial element in strategic research. According to Competing for the Future, the firms that develop new core competencies based on strategic intent become the front-runners (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989). This probability can be applied to both new and existing firms. Strategic intent sources energy to enable firms to move toward a goal. From observed cases, it can be seen that entrepreneurial intent commonly possesses two dimensions: directivity and drive. Directivity channels the entrepreneurial action whereas both the drive of intent to continue the action and the synergy of the two dimensions concentrate all the effort and energy to this channel. With these underlying elements, entrepreneurial intent acts as an agent for dealing with uncertain aspects of the entrepreneurial journey. Entrepreneurial intent seems to have at least three kinds of effects on the emergent events and muddling-through actions throughout the journey. We propose 3C Effects of entrepreneurial intent, the guiding posts as well as the driving forces of the risky endeavor. The concepts of the 3Cs Effects of entrepreneurial activities—channeling, concentrating, and continuing—are similar to those of segmentation, targeting, and positioning (STP) in target marketing activities. Channeling includes searching for potential opportunities and orienting entrepreneurs' interests to specific areas while concentrating is related to the focus on customers' specific problems and the intensive efforts to resolve them. Continuing means resolving customers' problems and institutionalizing processes for maintaining the firm's competitive competences and assets. Table 2 illustrates the 3C Effects in the four different dimensions.

Table 2 Effects of entrepreneurial intent along the uncertain journey. Effects on journey

Market

Technology

Organization

Finance

Channeling •Market orienting (e) •Technology orienting •Attaining participations (e) •Bootstrapping Concentrating •Committing on customers' problem (e) •Intensive efforts on technological problem (i) •Focusing on Coherency (i) •Saving and Investing (i) Continuing •Resolving customers' problems (i) •Searching and discovering the solutions •Recruiting key persons (e) •Persuading capitalist (e)

38

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

4.2. Multi-layered framework: emergent process of opportunity realization Throughout the process of appearance, growth, and disappearance of an opportunity, an entrepreneur finds an unrealized opportunity and exerts entrepreneurial effort in order to realize the opportunity. Opportunity is the potential to provide consumers new value through services or products. An entrepreneur finds several opportunities and then embarks on a mission to realize these opportunities by investing and developing necessary abilities. By offering consumers value at their required standards, the opportunity is realized. Through differentiation, the entrepreneur can occupy a position in the market while creating a barrier of entry. Unfulfilled demand and scattered resources with uncertain value meet to realize business opportunity. A realized opportunity affords validity and a position in the market, but sustaining a competitive position is almost impossible (Christensen, 2003). New entrants can enter the market even after the opportunity is realized. Especially in situations when the market grows to a large size, large firms and multinational companies enter the market. In the situation of price, competition through economies of scale causes the new venture to lose its competitive position and to differentiate by choosing a specific domain in the market. Of course in enriched resource environments, such as Silicon Valley, small venture firms can grow to become large companies like HP or Apple. However, in the cases of Reigncom and VK mobile, the internationally widespread proliferation of the MP3 player and cellular phone markets intensified competition to the point that they could not sustain their position after opportunity realization. The entrepreneurial journey does not end with the realization of opportunity. The journey can only continue via careful preparation for new circumstances. This study focuses on the process of finding and realizing opportunity. Fig. 4 explains the process of realization between Reigncom and its competitor, Apple. In the case of Cellbiotech, the founder, who had studied microbiology, showed great motivation for sales and research during his employment at a large firm. His entrepreneurial intent was formed while studying in Denmark. While participating in a joint study at Christenhansen, the world famous manufacturer of lactic bacteria, he realized that a terrific opportunity existed in the market. Despite the ups and downs of establishing his business, a dramatic opportunity came when he received funding to go up against a large firm. He needed the funds to start his business and, in the intense realization there was no other way, devoted his life to research. In the end, his efforts won the favor of the investors, and he was able to receive funding for developing the technology. To address his two largest problems, technology development and funding, he formed a research center funded by Gyonggi Province. By 1996, Cellbiotech had become the fifth largest player in the world in the area of lactic acid bacteria development (“powder technology”). After the establishment of the first factory, 2 years of joint research with Hallym University enabled them to develop 10 different kinds of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) at half the price of imported lactic acid bacteria. This case represents the initial realization of opportunity. Because the global LAB industry was quite large, the consecutive task required developing a coating technology that would enable the bacteria to live a longer period of time. As the business entered into its initial growth stage, both quality and funding issues created problems. The company resolved the funding problem through investments from KTV. The quality issues were overcome by the employees who worked substantial overtime hours in the factory to fix the quality problems. As the company was continually up against liquidity problems, the founder was forced to learn more about managerial finance. The greatest liquidity risk came during the Asian Financial Crisis when the company had to sell all of its assets and obtain help from nearby contacts. When they built their second factory, the focus was on supplying their own complete products from start to finish. At this

Fig. 4. Opportunity realization process in MP3 player market.

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

39

time, 18 of the 22 employees were research personnel. Overcoming this crisis, they were declared as a venture company and were able to enter into their latent growth stage. Through strategic cooperation, they were able to guarantee a sales network, and the firm grew to 60 employees. The firm then sought to export products. They were finally able to achieve their objective of entering the global market. This is the point at which the entire company collaborated and formed a collective intent. This intent culminated in the formation of a strategic alliance with Samsung Corporation to enter the European market. By 2002, they were able to export to 50 large firms through 10 different companies. In 2003, the company grew into maturity and was able to IPO. They developed their own brand, “Bodytune,” which they supplied to convenience stores and other similar outlets. The product design and promotional efforts were not executed very well, but held a strong position in the nutraceutical product market nonetheless. As soon as he found his intent, the founder left his current position and embarked on his entrepreneurial journey. He put all of his efforts into developing technology and seeking funding. All of his experience and intent were focused on developing lactic acid bacteria. The need to supply the product in large volumes impaired his ability to find funding for the research; thus, his efforts had to be focused on finances in addition to development and operations. This was the emergent process that led to actions and resources, a process that stemmed from the underlying motivation. Table 3 displays the outcome of a multi-layered emergent process of opportunity realization that started “from scratch.” Along the path of realizing opportunity, as in the case of Cellbiotech, the four gaps—market, technology, organization, and finance—are filled through entrepreneurial intent, actions, resources, and value layers. While entrepreneurial intent guides the direction of actions, entrepreneurial actions (conversion, concentration, and continuity) can resolve the differences that exist in resources. At Cellbiotech, the most important problem was the development of powder and coating technology. The financial gap remained a problem for a long time because the company faced liquidity problems even through their growth stages. They had no distribution network, and it would have been difficult for them to develop one on their own. By cooperating with large companies with existing distribution channels, they were able to fill this gap. When the company began to do well and win awards, the tension loosened within the organization. They set out to enter the global market, the long-term vision of the organization, and they were able to solidify the intent of the entire organization. Moreover, they were able to renew the organization by creating the capability to trade with global firms and building new processes, thereby continually realizing opportunity.

Table 3 Emergence diagram of opportunity realization: Cellbiotech case (layered type).

40

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

Other strengths in the Cellbiotech case were its founder's education in microbiology and experience in sales and research in this area. By studying abroad, he was able to come into contact with information about the global market. With this new information and knowledge, the intent was instilled and the direction became pointed towards the LAB market. This intent enabled him to become both the fifth largest player in the world in developing powder technology and the world's first producer of double-coating technology. Cellbiotech's research capability was built through steady focus and intense research effort. The manufacturing method or coating method was discovered through substantial trial and error and was ultimately the result of serendipity and effort. This success was achieved not only through their own internal capability but also through both joint research with Hallym University and a distribution network involving 50 or more companies. Between resource and value lies a gap, which signifies that existing resources are unable to provide value to the market demand. The founder of Cellbiotech first discovered his opportunity while at Christianhansen, and after 10 years of hard work, he was able to formulate a lactic acid capable of being preserved over time and mass-produced. Because he already possessed the requisite knowledge from experience and studies abroad, he could focus primarily on the entrepreneurial path ahead. Of course funding, manufacturing, sales, research, and other factors were obstacles to overcome; however, these obstacles strengthened the capability. When a competitor provides better value to customers, the chance of realizing opportunity is relatively smaller. To realize opportunity, one must attain validity and position in the market. Competition jeopardizes this position. If the value provided is more competitive than that of other ventures in the market, then a better position in the market will be attained and the potential market can also be attained. The gap-filling process consists of motivation, innovation, and fulfillment. With Cellbiotech, we saw the intent behind the story; this process is what is called visioning. Motivation, innovation, and fulfillment are collectively called the acting of the process. Visioning forms intent, but acting allows the intent to show. When the opportunity is realized or materialized, there must be a new and different direction, and the formation processes must also be present in order to sustain an entrepreneurial activity. So we can add sustaining the journey to the grounded framework. The entrepreneur solidifies the vision, develops the technology, forms an organization with close allies, and bootstraps the necessary funding. Through visioning, the entrepreneurial intent both drives the new venture's innovation processes and helps to build the basic organization and find investments. The value that arises from innovation is sold in the market and gains market power; then further attempts to acquire technology are made. This process is performed through building research centers or partnerships, and, in the finance area, innovation creates profit. Thus, through this process to fulfill the needs of consumers and partners in the industry, the achievements will enhance the venture's validity both as a new entity in the economy and the standard of new technology. Moreover, visioning will form the organization and distribution channels, which will lead the venture to enlist in the market. Then, the venture will reach a position in which it can gain financing from investors. It is highly important in the entrepreneurial process to group resources with the potential to become valuable forms along the way. The difference between the start and end is the gap of resources. If the market problem is resolved, then the entrepreneur has the right product and the right technology. Organization and finances are the elements upon which innovation relies. 5. Discussion and conclusion New ventures grow through the process of opportunity realization. Realizing opportunity signifies a continual process of finding the required resources and fusing new values in the four areas. In order to realize opportunity, it is necessary to build a system that continually provides customer satisfaction. Actual capability and potential capability are key factors during the entrepreneurial process, but the most important factor is the absorptive capacity to build new capabilities (Zahra & George, 2002). To realize opportunity, the entrepreneur must provide the specific kind of value wanted by consumers. By deeply observing opportunity, one can see both when the possibility of realization began and its composition. The entrepreneurial journey can be completed successfully if the gap between the new venture and opportunity can be filled. In order to provide consumers with the value they desire, the entrepreneur needs to possess new resources. Creating new resources requires a few activities; for example, the development of a new technology, finding investors, and finding the latent and potential consumer needs. This paper is intended to identify the dynamic and uncertain processes of absorbing and combining new resources for creating new businesses which deliver new value to the market. The process commonly originates in entrepreneurial motivation. The entrepreneurial journey begins with a new entrepreneurial intent that is cognitively shaped with a motivational driving force. Intentionality in innovation and entrepreneurship needs to be explored because it is the focal point of any new business and organization emergence (Aldrich, 1999; Bird, 1988; Katz & Gartner, 1988). Moreover, it can be the key element in entrepreneurial capability combining with resources to realize opportunity under uncertain conditions (Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001). The entrepreneurial journey consists of both the activities for which a company is prepared as well as the improvised actions of bricolage (Baker & Eesley, 2003; Baker & Nelson, 2005). The outcome of the process emerges from uncertain and risky conditions (Van de Ven, 1986; Van de Ven et al., 1999). We can see the different journeys of opportunity realization in different places (Saxenian, 1994), networks (Burt, 1992), and institutions (Aldrich; Scott, 1987). A key aspect of the process is the ‘make-it-happen’ intentionality. The channeling, concentrating, and continuing of entrepreneurial activities, our 3C Effects as displayed in Table 2, are the critical effects that occur during the process of emergence from intent to realization. Based on the theoretical framework and cases of the high-tech venture firms in Korea, the results indicate that entrepreneurial intent toward a new opportunity emerges as collective actions for combining new resources to create new values. Because entrepreneurial intent is the extreme level of entrepreneurial motivation, it features the more energetic functions of motivation: arousal, direction, and duration. Considering the energy of these motivations, this paper refers to the three functions as the 3C

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

41

Effects: the channeling of entrepreneurial action, the concentrating of entrepreneurial action, and the continuing of entrepreneurial action. These mechanisms convert every action of the entrepreneur and her/his firm into an entrepreneurial action, which always attempt to find and realize opportunity. The entrepreneur's motivation is the key driver in combining available resources with prospective opportunities and potential markets thereby promoting the entrepreneurs' efforts toward opportunity realization. Especially considering the uncertainty, entrepreneur's intent may foster intended outcomes in the entrepreneurial process. There are two main sources of uncertainty reside in the process of resource accumulation and value creation. The first source of uncertainty is whether the resource is attainable; the second is whether it will be of relatively advantageous value to the customer. The internal cause of the entrepreneurial process may have a strong effect on the quality of the actions by increasing the possibility of combining resources to have potential value from the extended bases of resources. The mechanism of enhancing possibility stems from the quality of actions that is channeled, and concentrated on solving problems and continued til opportunity realization. In summary, Studying the factors and layers of entrepreneurial process provides an illustrative explanation of the sources and shapes of the entrepreneurial journey. Future approaches to this subject could take three directions: (a) a sophistication of the theoretical framework and explanations; (b) a multiple in-depth case analysis that employs diverse and longitudinal data; and (c) an extension of the time and geographical scope of the data. Future studies could also focus on a sophisticated process of opportunity realization that considers the negative aspects of the intensive entrepreneurial process such as life-work imbalance and persistence through disappointment. The evolution of the journey may differ according to the cause of the entrepreneurial intent and/or the effects of these factors during the process. Theoretical frameworks have been suggested as a means for illustrating an emergent model of the entrepreneurial process or journey that underlies the development of innovative solutions. Experiencing failure can damage and temper the entrepreneurial intent, but it can also provide opportunities to learn important lessons that revise the directivity of the entrepreneurial intent. Thus, the direction and intensity of the journey continually evolves. If nascent entrepreneurs want to create new ventures, they would benefit from considering their own behavioral causes along with real mechanisms to create a combination of resources with potential value to the market so that they can proceed to the next phases of the journey. References Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organization evolving. London: Sage Publications. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2000). Entrepreneurial capabilities: A resource-based view. In G. Meyer, & K. Sheppard (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge (pp. 63−82). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31(5), 776−793. Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27, 755−775. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11−39). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Baker, A. M., & Eesley, D. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, retrospective interpretation and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32, 255−276. Baker, A. M., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329−366. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99−120. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. London: Verso. Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442−453. Bloodgood, J. M., Sapienza, H. J., & Carsrud, A. L. (1995). The dynamics of new business start-ups: Person, context, and process. Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, 2, 123−144. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Cha, M., & Bae, Z. (2003, June). Toward the theory of venture growth: A driving force and four growth bases. BKERC (Babson-Kauffman Foundation Entrepreneurship Research Conference), Babson Park, MA. Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School. Ebben, J., & Johnson, A. (2006). Bootstrapping in small firms: An empirical analysis of change over time. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 851−865. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532−550. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67(3), 63−76. Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429−441. Kazanjian, R. K. (1988). Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 257−279. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60−85. Kuratko, D. F., & Hodgetts, R. M. (2007). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, practice. Mason: Thomson South-Western. Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L. W., Bird, B., Gaglio, C. M., McMullen, J. S., Morse, E. A., et al. (2007). The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1−27. Naffiziger, D. (1995). Entrepreneurship: A person based theory approach. Advances in Entrepreneurship—Firm Emergence, and Growth, 2, 21−50. Norwood, T. (2007). Tiffany Norwood speaks to eClips. eClips. : Cornell University Retrieved October 30, 2007 from http://cornell-eclips.blogspot.com/2007/10/ tiffany-norwood-speaks-to-eclips.html Phan, P. H. (2004). Entrepreneurship theory: Possibilities and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 617−620. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493−511. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217−226. Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 23−45. Shepherd, D. A., & Krueger, N. F. (2002). Intentions-based model of entrepreneurial teams social cognition. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27(2), 167−184. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142−193). Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509−533. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590−607.

42

M.-S. Cha, Z.-T. Bae / Journal of High Technology Management Research 21 (2010) 31–42

Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Longitudinal methods for studying the process of entrepreneurship. In D. L. Sexton & J.D. Kasarda (Eds.), The state of the art entrepreneurship. Boston: PWS-Kent. Van de Ven, A. H., & Engleman, R. M. (2004). Event- and outcome-driven explanations of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 343−358. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor's perspective. In J. A. Katz & R.H. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185−203.