Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:49:24.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Entrepreneurial Ideation: Effects of Morphology and Complexity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Studies of product architecture identify a mirroring process between the product and the organisation. Parallel, empirical studies of effectual entrepreneurship show an accumulation of commitments between stakeholders while negotiating the features of the product in a similar fashion to product mirroring. This paper presents a study that looks at the effects of mirroring architectural complexity in early stages of entrepreneurship. The survey asked participants to interpret parametrically generated artefacts with the purpose of starting a new firm. Responses were analysed for complexity in the lexical semantic structure of ideas. Results show that the effects of artefact complexity are not as straightforward as hypothesised and provide evidence that suggests an important role of artefact morphology in entrepreneurial ideation. These findings support a model of product architecture mirroring that is filtered by design morphology.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Bird, S., Klein, E. and Loper, E. (2009), “Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit”, 1 edition. ed. Cambridge Mass, O'Reilly Media, Beijing.Google Scholar
Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R. and Lefebvre, E. (2008), “Fast unfolding of communities in large networks”, J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2008, p. 10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008Google Scholar
Browning, T.R. (2001), “Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions”, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. Vol. 48, pp. 292306. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.946528Google Scholar
Christensen, C. (2013), “The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail”. Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, C.M. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (1995), “Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network”. Res. Policy Vol. 24, pp. 233257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00764-KGoogle Scholar
Colfer, L.J. and Baldwin, C.Y. (2016), “The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions”, Ind. Corp. Change Vol. 25, pp. 709738. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw027Google Scholar
Conway, M.E. (1968), “How do committees invent?”, Datamation Vol. 14, pp. 2831.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J.A., Godinho, A. and Kushnir, V. (2017), “Can Amazon's Mechanical Turk be used to recruit participants for internet intervention trials? A pilot study involving a randomized controlled trial of a brief online intervention for hazardous alcohol use”, Internet Interv. Vol. 10, pp. 1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2017.08.005Google Scholar
Davidsson, P. (2007), “Method challenges and opportunities in the psychological study of entrepreneurship”, Psychol. Entrep. p. 287323.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Des. Stud. Vol. 22, pp. 425437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6Google Scholar
Finke, R.A. (1996), “Imagery, Creativity, and Emergent Structure”, Conscious. Cogn. Vol. 5, pp. 381393. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1996.0024Google Scholar
Gartner, W.B. (1988), “Who Is an Entrepreneur?” Is the Wrong Question”, Am. J. Small Bus. 12, pp. 1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878801200401Google Scholar
Gemmell, R.M., Boland, R.J. and Kolb, D.A. (2012), “The Socio–Cognitive Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Ideation. Entrep”, Theory Pract. Vol. 36, pp. 10531073. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00486.xGoogle Scholar
Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, (2017), “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Global Report 2016/17”, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.Google Scholar
Gundry, L.K., Ofstein, L.F. and Monllor, J. (2016), “Entrepreneurial Team Creativity: Driving Innovation from Ideation to Implementation”, J. Enterprising Cult. Vol. 24, pp. 5577. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495816500035Google Scholar
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990), “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms”. Adm. Sci. Q. Vol. 35 No. 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549Google Scholar
Jankowska, D.M. and Karwowski, M. (2015), “Measuring creative imagery abilities”, Front. Psychol. Vol. 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01591Google Scholar
Kudrowitz, B. and Dippo, C. (2013), “When does a paper clip become a sundial? Exploring the progression of originality in the alternative uses test”, J. Integr. Des. Process Sci. Vol. 17, pp. 318.10.3233/jid-2013-0018Google Scholar
Lu, S.C.-Y. and Suh, N.-P. (2009), “Complexity in design of technical systems”, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. Vol. 58, pp. 157160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.067Google Scholar
Murmann, J.P. and Frenken, K. (2006), “Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change”. Res. Policy. Vol. 35, pp. 925952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.011Google Scholar
NLTK Project (2017), “Natural Language Toolkit — NLTK 3.3 documentation [WWW Document]”, URL http://www.nltk.org/ (accessed 9.10.18).Google Scholar
Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, J.T. (1996), “Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design”, Strateg. Manag. J. Vol. 17, pp. 6376. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171107Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2004), “Making It Happen: Beyond Theories of the Firm to Theories of Firm Design. Entrep”, Theory Pract. Vol. 28, pp. 519531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00062.xGoogle Scholar
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2003), “Entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial”, J. Econ. Psychol. Vol. 24, pp. 203220.10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00203-9Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S.D. and Dew, N. (2005), “New market creation through transformation”, J. Evol. Econ. Vol. 15, pp. 533565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-005-0264-xGoogle Scholar
Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. and Rowles, C.M. (2004), “The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development”. Manag. Sci. Vol. 50, pp. 16741689. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0289Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (2005), “Complexity: Theory and Applications”, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”. Res. Policy Vol. 24, pp. 419440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3Google Scholar