IJBE030105 TRIVEDI

74 Int. J. Business Environment, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2010

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Technopreneurial competence and its relationship with social and environmental factors: an empirical study

Rohit H. Trivedi* V.M. Patel Institute of Management, Ganpat University, Kherva – 382 711, Gujarat, India E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

B.K. Oza Department of Commerce, Bhavnagar University, Bhavnagar – 364 001, Gujarat, India E-mail: [email protected]

Jignasa R. Savalia V.M. Patel College of Management Studies, Ganpat University, Kherva – 382 711, Gujarat, India E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: In this work, we find a synergy between two highly acclaimed approaches of entrepreneurship theory, i.e., population ecology approach and strategic choice approach, and thus its focus is on ‘situation-person context’ of the entrepreneurial process. With the help of empirical research on a sample ICT technopreneur of India, the relationship between various ‘social and environmental factors’ as perceived by the technopreneur to their ‘technopreneurial competence’ measured with the help of a self rating questionnaire (SRQ) propounded by McClelland (1973) have been explored. The findings suggest that there is a statistically significant difference between perceptions of technopreneurs towards the role of a few of the social factors, as their level of technopreneurial competence differs. However, the same do not show any significant difference towards the role of external environmental factors such as technological factors, political factors and so on. This paper with unique ‘situation-person context’ dimension will provide key insights for entrepreneurship educator to deal with these factors, especially while dealing with the emerging technopreneur.

Keywords: technopreneur competence; social factors; external environmental factors; technopreneur background; population ecology approach; strategic choice approach; business environment; India.

Technopreneurial competence and its relationship 75

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Trivedi, R.H., Oza, B.K. and Savalia, J.R. (2010) ‘Technopreneurial competence and its relationship with social and environmental factors: an empirical study’, Int. J. Business Environment, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.74–94.

Biographical notes: Rohit H. Trivedi is working as an Assistant Professor in V.M. Patel Institute of Management, Ganpat University, Gujarat, India. He has graduated in Commerce and then post-graduated in both Commerce and Management from reputed institutes of India. He has completed his Doctoral research on ‘technology-based entrepreneurship’ and is presently pursuing ‘SAARC-AMDISA Post Doctoral Fellowship’. He has seven papers and two book chapters to his credit. His prime areas of interest are entrepreneurship, marketing management and business research methodology.

B.K. Oza is a Professor in Post Graduate Department of Commerce, Bhavnagar University, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India. He received his PhD in Economics (Corporate Finance) and specialised in Marketing and Finance. He has many research papers to his credit. He has also shouldered responsibility as the Vice Chancellor of Bhavnagar University, Bhavnagar.

Jigansa R. Savalia is working as a Lecturer in V.M. Patel College of Management. She has completed her post-graduation in management and presently she is pursuing her Doctoral degree from Bhavnagar University on Corporate Entrepreneurship. Her areas of interest are entrepreneurship and marketing management.

1 Introduction

Research on entrepreneurship has had its focus shifting between the person, the project and the environment, depending on the paradigms chosen by the researcher (Manimala, 2002). In this, two major dimensions of entrepreneurship research are the person (entrepreneur) and the society in which he operates (Gaikwad, 1978), that are commonly labelled as the strategic choice model and population ecology model (Manimala, 1992) respectively. Researcher who believes in the strategic choice model would tend to focus on the entrepreneurial personality, while those who believe in the population ecology model would tend to focus on the role of the environment in stimulating entrepreneurship (Manimala, 2002).

A number of scholars have stressed the importance of strategic choice model (Child, 1972; Evan, 1976; Hisrich, 1975; Starbuck, 1976) and there is found a deep interest in researchers around the world in studying the characteristics of the entrepreneurial individual (Miner, 2000; Hyrsky, 1999; Wiklund, 1999; Minniti and Bygrave, 1999; McCarthy and Leavy, 1999). With this, a large number of scholars have also described the importance of socio-cultural milieu in entrepreneurship development. Jenks (1949) and Cochran (1949) also suggested that a considerable number of researchers have found that the socio-cultural history accounts for the performance of entrepreneurial functions. The population ecology model goes to the extreme end by saying that entrepreneur is a mere instrument of the environment (Hannman and Freeman 1977).

However, there are very less study which combine and create synergy among these two major dimensions of entrepreneurship research to find the relationship between the

76 R.H. Trivedi et al.

entrepreneurial characteristics and their perception to social and environmental factors in which they develop and operate their business. Therefore, this research tries to find-out that whether perception of an entrepreneur with regard to social and environmental factors’ contribution to their venture formation and operations changes with change in their level of entrepreneurial competence or not.

For this, a survey based research has been conducted on a sample of 104 technopreneurs operating in information technology industry in India. The technopreneurs are especially selected to conduct this empirical research because it is a nascent field of study and there are only a few studies directly targeting the high-tech new venture and its founder (Slatter, 1992; Roberts, 1991; Roure and Maidique, 1986; Cooper and Bruno, 1977).

Here, first the literature on technology-based entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial competence, sociology of entrepreneurship and external factors affecting entrepreneurship will be reviewed with special context to technology-based entrepreneurship. Second, the study, sample, methodology, measurement and the nature of the data collected are outlined. Then the data analysis and main findings of the research are discussed in some detail and attention is paid to the technopreneurial competence of sample respondent and their perception about social and external environmental factors. Finally, based on the above discussion, the salient conclusions are reached and pertinent implications for entrepreneurship research and education in future are explored.

2 Review of literature

2.1 Technological entrepreneurship

A good science has to begin with good definition (Bygrave and Hoofer, 1991). Theorists cannot function without definition. But, looking at past literature it is felt by a large number of researchers that there is no consensus even on definition of entrepreneurship leaving apart technological entrepreneurship.

Still, for the purpose of better understanding of concept and to develop and test hypothesis of subject at hand, researcher agrees with Byers (1983), “High-tech entrepreneurship/technopreneurship is a style of business leadership based on the process of identifying high-potential, technology-intensive business opportunities, gathering resources such as talent and cash, and managing rapid growth using principled, real-time decision-making skills.”

Other studies (Braden, 1977; Cooper, 1970, 1971; Litvak and Maule, 1971; Roberts and Wainer, 1966) have also related ‘technical entrepreneurship’ directly to the founding of new ventures, through ‘spin-offs’ from either university departments (Doutriaux, 1987; Lamont, 1972; Roberts, 1968; Samson and Gurdon, 1990) or larger organisations (Cooper, 1971; Draheim, 1972; Knight, 1988). For example, Cooper (1971) describes a technology-based firm as ‘a company which emphasises research and development or which place major emphasis on exploiting new technical knowledge’.

However, for the purposes of this research, a technical entrepreneur/technopreneur will be defined as the founder and/or current owner-manager of a technology-based business, i.e., primarily responsible for its planning and establishment, and currently having some management control of the organisation.


2.2 Socio-cultural factors and technopreneurship

The social engineering school of thought believes that individualism itself is a social phenomenon (Bendix, 1977) and that you can understand individuals by studying the situations with which the individual is faced and the social groups to which the individual relates (Gibb and Ritchie, 1985). And therefore, sociological studies focus primarily on background influences, such as gender, ethnic origin, family background, norms and value of immediate social circle, education, etc. and study the extent to which entrepreneurs or persons with entrepreneurial intentions share these variables (Robertson, 2002).

In relation to technopreneurs and their socio-cultural background, Kisfalvi (2002) found that background factors such as age and experience could influence technopreneurs’ strategic choices in creating and developing their firm. In Blais and Toulouse’s (1992) study, technopreneurs were found to be rather young and their average age being around 30 at the time they launch their businesses. After completing their postgraduate university studies, they have acquired extensive experience with the technology they use, and are therefore familiar with their respective sectors.

Regarding their education, it was found that a technical entrepreneur seems to have at least a BS often in Engineering, and frequently hold a MS. (Cooper, 1973; Mancuso, 1975; Litvak and Maule, 1971). In another study, Roure and Keeley (1990) linked an entrepreneur’s previous experience in a similar position or in rapid-growth companies to the success of a new technology-based venture. For most, creating an internet-based enterprise constituted their first professional experience.

Gautam (2004) also emphasised on experience and formal education as ingredients for success of technopreneur. In a comparative study between British new technology based firms (NTBFs) vs. Indian NTBFs, Manimala (1999) found that there were three factors for the distinguishing background variables, which were named as:

a psychological deprivations and disappointments

b family affluence and nature of previous work

c personal interests and choices.

2.3 Entrepreneurial competence as psychological variable and technopreneurship

One of the early psychological studies of entrepreneurship is that of McClelland (1967). His objective was to identify and to analyse the psychological factors which produce entrepreneurial personalities. In particular, he focuses on the motivational variables affecting the supply of entrepreneurship: namely, the psychological drives underlying the individual’s ‘need for achievement’ (Hamilton and Harper, 1994). Later on he concentrated highly on ‘entrepreneurial competence’ and proposes that proactivity, initiative, assertiveness, a strong achievement orientation and commitment to others are competencies of successful entrepreneurs (McClelland, 1967).

Regarding technopreneurial competence, in one of the recent research study conducted by Malach et al. (2005), which compared high-tech entrepreneurs in three countries namely Israel, the USA and Hungary, it was found that initiative is the highest rated trait for success in the high-tech business. The other factors that are identified are


commitment, love for challenges, initiative and independence, dreamer, optimism and creativity by Israel respondent. Moreover, Israelis demonstrates greater risk taking tendencies regarding a high-tech start-up than Americans and Hungarians.

Edward (1991), in his book Entrepreneurship in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond, argues that the desires to innovate and appreciate ideas are commonly found competence in technopreneurs. They are also seen by Siu (2002) as being more marketing information and planning oriented than traditional entrepreneurs. Zhao and Aram (1995) also studied networking and growth among young technology-intensive firms in China. They find that rapidly growing technology firms outperformed the slowly growing firms both in terms of range and intensity of network relationships established by the technopreneur.

It has also been argued by some researchers that the technical entrepreneurs have characteristics, such as, propensity to adopt new knowledge/technology more rapidly than their counterparts – the commercial entrepreneurs. This assertion, however, is not corroborated by some other studies conducted in Sweden and Denmark (Utterbak, 1998). In a comparative study of British NTBFs vs. Indian NTBFs, Manimala (1999), found 14 distinguishing traits which was divided into four groups, namely

a need for structure and conformity

b self-confidence

c self-employment orientation due to a dislike of authority

d hard-work orientation.

2.4 External environmental factor and technopreneur

The process-driven school studies attitudes and the external environment and believes that the external environment influences thoughts, which shape attitudes and form intention, which, if strong enough, leads one to action (Bird, 1988). Nordhaug (1992) in Ellström and Nilsson (1997) suggests that the more complex and dynamic the environment is, the more efforts are put into acquisition of competence. Berglund and Blomquist (1999) agree, stating that complex and dynamic environments brings with them higher demand for problem solving and individual initiative leading to larger opportunities for competence transmission between individuals. On other hand, as mentioned in Anderson et al. (2000), Aldrich (1979) notes that environment provides or withhold resources, based upon which we may argue that more supportive environment results into greater likelihood of an enterprise.

Regarding technopreneurship, there are very few studies which site the role of external environmental factor in developing and shaping technopreneur. But as mentioned by Cooper in Sexton (1986), a number of environmental factors help to shape technopreneurship. He mentioned that one important determinant is the availability of capital, including attitudes of banker and investor. Other than this, innovation centres, incubators and educational and assistance programme often promote technopreneurship.

Regarding role of university and education system, in one survey it was found that only 26% of the founders thought their university had been supportive, with the reminders feeling that their universities had been indifferent. Gautam (2004) also


reported that mainly technopreneur have lack of skilled labour, under capitalisation, credit rating problem, lack of R&D support, etc. Because of this, the net number of surviving technical enterprise is a small fraction of those who started off. Moreover, he also found that the need for a meaningful presence of a supportive environment is necessary because labour and material as well as finance and utilities come from the environment and the product is consumed in a given environment.

3 Methodology

3.1 Methodology and sample

The data reported in this paper were collected as part of a large study designed to test the relationship between technopreneurial background, environmental factors, technopreneurial competence, and growth rate of firm. The survey approach was adopted. The convenience sampling method was employed and survey was conducted among 104 technopreneurs doing business of software, software development and various forms of outsourcing. That is, the sample has been collected from those technology based firms (TBFs) which are having their reliance on computer and computer-based technology. To determine the sample size, researcher has taken 95% level of confidence at 4% tolerance error as population was unknown. With this, it was found that required sample size was about 98, while the actual number of respondent were 104.

A structured non-disguised questionnaire was designed to gather the data required for this research. Prior to administering the survey, a pre-test was done among 15 respondents and minor modifications were made.

3.2 Measurement

The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part measured background and role of social factors. Respondents were asked about their gender, present age, age at the time of inception of business, educational qualification, father’s occupation, business background and previous job experience. The role of six important social factors, i.e., parents, siblings, peers, friends, society and formal education were measured with the help of five-point Likert-rating scale ranging from 5 (highly positive) to 1 (highly negative).

The second part measured entrepreneurial competence of the sample technopreneurs. To measure entrepreneurial competence, ‘competence assessment model’ proposed by David McClelland has been used (McClelland, 1973). The said competence model is highly acclaimed in the research world. Looking at its statistical and research validation as well as its fitness to set standards of competence measurement, a large number of studies have used it (Rao, 1997).

The competence measurement under the model is done with the help of a ‘self rating questionnaire (SRQ)’ composed of 70 brief questions1 in which respondent need to answer how well a sentence describe himself/herself. The answer range from very well to not at all in five point Likert scale. After the standard predefined calculation, we are able to measure 13 competence of technopreneur. The maximum possible score on all the 13 competence is 25. That’s why the maximum total possible score for an entrepreneur is 325.


The third part of the questionnaire measured the perception of the technopreneurs towards the effect of external environmental factors. The external environmental includes economic, technological, cultural and political-legal variables (Analoui and Karami, 2002). In this study, effect of six external environmental factors, i.e., competitor, technological dynamism, economic environment, social environment, cultural environment and international environment are measured. A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) was applied to measure the effect of external environment.

4 Data analysis and major findings

4.1 Effect of social factors

Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation and alpha coefficient value of the role of six important social factors. As for the reliability of the data, by calculating alpha (α) coefficient, it was found that there was internal consistency between the responses in each group. The finding shows that of all the six factors measured in social influence, parents (mean = 4.27, SD = 0.807) and formal education (mean = 4.05, SD = 0.954) were found to be having highest positive influence on the technopreneurship development. On other hand, society (mean = 3.67, SD = 0.806) and peers (mean = 3.76, SD = 0.701) were on the bottom of the list. Table 1 Role of social factors

Mean* Standard deviation

Parents 4.27 0.807

Siblings 3.90 0.839

Peers 3.76 0.701

Friends 4.00 0.767

Society 3.67 0.806

Formal education 4.05 0.954

Note: *5 means highly positive whereas 1 means highly negative.

This indicates that influence of parents and formal education can play a significant role in developing new technology-based entrepreneurs in a country while the influence of society at large and peers are though found to be higher than average, their effect were more or less found to be neither positive nor negative on technology-based entrepreneurship development.

4.2 Effect of external environmental factor

Table 2 summaries the effect of external environmental factor on development of technopreneurship as perceived by the respondents. As the result indicates, we can see that technological dynamism (mean = 3.80, SD = 0.999) and economical and financial environment (mean = 3.59, SD = 0.866) are having highest effect, which indicates that


Indian IT industry and IT based technopreneurship is highly influenced by technological dynamism, but at the same time, it is also affected by prevailing economic and financial environment. Table 2 Effect of external environmental factors

Mean* Standard deviation

Competitor 3.38 1.167

Technological dynamism 3.80 0.999

Economic and financial environment 3.59 0.866

Social environment 2.85 0.911

Cultural environment 2.84 0.925

International environment 3.42 1.180

Note: *5 means very high whereas 1 means very low.

On other hand, cultural environment (mean = 2.84, SD = 0.925) and social environment (mean = 2.85, SD = 2.85, SD = 0.911) are found to have least effect on technopreneurship development in IT industry in India. This indicates that local socio-cultural factors are having less than average effect on Indian IT industry and IT based technopreneurship.

4.3 Technopreneurial competence

As described earlier, SRQ measures 13 entrepreneurial competencies on a five-point scale.2 The content validity of the survey was assessed in a pretest with 15 technopreneurs not included in the sampling frame. Pretest participants were asked to evaluate all aspects of the questionnaire, including the wording of individual items, the general flow and structure of the instrument and its comprehensiveness. Participants’ suggestions were then incorporated into the survey prior to its final use.

Prior to examining the relationship between technopreneurial competence and its relationship with social and environmental factors, the strength of the SRQ was assessed by examining its reliability. In reliability analysis, the alpha (α) co-efficient was calculated to find out the internal consistency of the items on the scale. It was found to be 0.894 which indicated that the internal consistency was high.

Thereafter, for the purpose of further analysis and testing of the model, the technopreneurs based upon their total competence score of all the 13 competencies were divided into three categories, as mentioned in Table 3.

The total score of sample respondents were ranging from 172 to 290. As ‘theory of equal distribution’ is applicable, technopreneurs are divided into three categories namely: low competence technopreneur, moderate competence technopreneur and high competence technopreneur taking equal class frequency distribution, i.e., 40. Therefore, those technopreneurs whose total competence score ranges from 171 to 210 were defined as low competence technopreneur, the technopreneur whose score is between 211 to 250 were defined as moderate competence technopreneur and those technopreneurs whose total competence score ranges from 251 to 290 were defined as high competence technopreneur.


Table 3 Competence category-wise profile of technopreneur

Competence category Frequency Percentage

Low competence technopreneur 16 15.4

Moderate competence technopreneur 51 49.0

High competence technopreneur 37 35.6

Total 104 100

If we look at Table 4, we can find that the highest number of technopreneurs fall in moderate competence category (n = 51, 49%) followed by high competence (n = 37, 35.6%) and low competence category (n = 16, 15.4%).

4.4 Relationship between social factors and technopreneurial competence

As noted earlier, the study attempts to find-out a relationship between social factors and technopreneurial competence. For this, the relationship of technopreneurial competence with background factors is analysed with the help of chi-square test while its relationship with other social factors are analysed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

4.4.1 Relationship between technopreneurial competence and present age

Data on present age and level of technopreneurial competence (Table 4) revealed that across the entire age category, highest numbers of technopreneurs are at moderate competence level, followed by high and lower level of competence.

Table 4 Relation between present age and technopreneurial competence

Present age competence category 21–30 years

31–40 years

41–50 years

51–60 years Total

Low competence technopreneur 7(16.7) 6(16.2) 3(15.8) 0(0) 16(15.4)

Moderate competence technopreneur 19(45.2) 18(48.6) 10(52.6) 4(66.7) 51(49.0)

High competence technopreneur 16(38.1) 13(35.1) 6(31.6) 2(33.3) 37(35.6)

Total 42(100) 37(100) 19(100) 6(100) 104(100)

Notes: Figures in parentheses represents percentage. The calculated value of chi-square = 1.74. Table value of chi-square at 5% level = 12.59.

To further analyse the data, the chi-square test was performed with six degree of freedom and calculated value (1.74) is found to be less than the table value at 95% confidence level (12.59). Therefore, we can say that competence of technopreneur is independent of his present age. It simply means that age of technopreneur do not have any statistically significant relationship with his level of technopreneurial competence. This means that as the age and subsequently experience of a technopreneur because of age factor increases, the competence do not increase or decrease subsequently.


4.4.2 Relationship between technopreneurial competence and age at the time of inception

As discussed earlier, the early age and especially before 35 years shows higher chance of establishing technology based enterprise. But does it also mean that those who start their firm in early age have higher level of technopreneurial competence? To find an answer to this question, the relationship was found between age at the time of inception and level of technopreneurial competence. As we can see from Table 5, of those technopreneurs that established their business between 16–45 years, about 50% are in moderate competence category. But when we observe those who established their business in between 46–55, about 67% is in the high competence category. This indicates that as we move to the later age groups of inception, we can find that more of the technopreneur are in high competence category. Even this can be observed from low competence category, where as we move ahead in age, the percentage of technopreneurs who fall in this category decreases.

Table 5 Relationship between age at time of inception and technopreneurial competence

Age at the inception competence category

16–25 years

26–35 years

36–45 years

46–55 years Total

Low competence technopreneur 8(14.3) 7(20.6) 1(9.1) 0(0) 16(15.4)

Moderate competence technopreneur 27(48.2) 17(50) 6(54.5) 1(33.3) 51(49)

High competence technopreneur 21(37.5) 10(29.4) 4(36.4) 2(66.7) 37(35.6)

Total 56(100) 34(100) 11(100) 3(100) 104(100)

Notes: Figures in parentheses represents percentage. The calculated value of the chi-square = 2.859. The table value of chi-square at 5% level = 12.59.

However, after applying chi-square test, the calculated value with six-degree of freedom (2.859) is found to be less than the table value at 95% confidence level (12.59). The chi-square test reveals that though there are more chance of establishing business before the technopreneur crosses 35, however, it does not mean that his/her level of competence is dependent on his earlier or later decision to be a technopreneur. Though quite often person prefer to be a technopreneur at a later age after getting required experience, his competence level is not significantly affected.

4.4.3 Relationship between technopreneurial competence and educational qualification

The general assumption that has acceptance among most people is that professional and technical education often provides the base for development of entrepreneurship. The professional and technical education is seen to help entrepreneurs identify the right kind of business (Panda, 2002) and nurture it.

Regarding technopreneurship, the central question that remained unanswered till date is whether higher educational qualification and that is also in a specific stream result into higher competence or not? To find-out the same, the relationship was sought between educational qualification and technopreneurial competence.


Table 6 Relation between educational qualification and technopreneurial competence

Educational qualification competence category

Under graduate

Commerce and

management

Engineering and computer Science Any

other Total

Low competence technopreneur

1(14.3) 4(16.7) 8(14.8) 0(0) 3(60) 16(15.4)

Moderate competence technopreneur

4(57.1) 12(50.0) 29(53.7) 5(35.7) 1(20) 51(49)

High competence technopreneur

2(28.6) 8(33.3) 17(31.5) 9(64.3) 1(20) 37(35.6)

Total 7(100) 24(100) 54(100) 14(100) 5(100) 104 (100)

Notes: Figures in parentheses represents percentage. The calculated value of the chi-square = 14.340. The table value of chi-square at 10% = 13.36.

As we can see from Table 6, a higher percentage of technopreneurs who were undergraduates are falling in moderate competence category (about 57%). Technopreneurs having graduation or higher degree are further divided in four streams namely commerce and management, engineering and computer, science and any other.

In this, almost half of technopreneurs from commerce and management stream are falling in moderate competence category followed by high competence category (33.3%). Engineering and computer stream technopreneurs were also found more in moderate competence category (53.7%) while science stream technopreneurs were found more in high competence category (64.3%).

The chi-square found that technopreneurial competence is not independent of educational qualification. The calculated value of chi-square with eight degree of freedom (14.340) is found to be higher than the table value at 90% confidence level (13.36) strengthens the above argument. The chi-square test reveals that educational qualification do have significant effect on level of technopreneurial competence. Higher educational qualification and that is also in science and technology would benefit a person in understanding his business and product well and ultimately it get reflected in the level of competence.

4.4.4 Relationship between previous job experience and technopreneurial competence

A large number of respondent during the brief discussion at the time of filling questionnaire were of the opinion that previous job experience do play a major role in development and growth of an enterprise. The most cited reason behind the argument was that exposure of the technologically complex and highly dynamic business from functional job level plays a crucial role at the time of decision making in own enterprise. However, the researcher was interested in finding that whether previous job experience does have any relationship with that of level of competence of a technopreneur. As shown in Table 7, about 55% of technopreneur who were having previous job experience are having moderate competence followed by high competence (34.5) and low competence (10.7). While in those technopreneurs who were not having previous job experience, 40% are in high competence category followed by 35% in low competence technopreneurs.


Table 7 Relation between technopreneurial competence and previous job experience

Previous job experience Competence category

Yes No Total

Low competence technopreneur 9(10.7) 7(35) 16(15.4) Moderate competence technopreneur 46(54.8) 5(25) 51(49) High competence technopreneur 29(34.5) 8(40) 37(35.6) Total 84(100) 20(100) 104(100)


The chi-square found that technopreneurial competence is not independent of previous job experience. The calculated value of chi-square with two degree of freedom (9.247) is found to be higher than the table value at 90% confidence level (4.60) strengthens the above argument.

4.4.5 Relationship between duration of previous job experience and technopreneurial competence

The job experience normally is normally believed to contribute positively towards a person’s knowledge, skill and expertise of performing a particular job better. So, it is a common belief among people that higher tenure of job experience result into better entrepreneur or employee in term of their job requirements. This common belief has been tested by finding its relationship with level of competence. As indicated in Table 8, in the case of low competence technopreneur, about 43.8 do not have any job experience and equally have a job experience of 1–10 years. However, in case of moderate and high competence technopreneur, highest percentage of technopreneur has a job experience of 1–10 years.

Table 8 Relationship between technopreneurial competence and duration of previous job experience

Job experience competence category

No job experience 1–10 11–20 21–30 Total


7(43.8) 7(43.8) 2(12.5) 0(0) 16(100)


5(9.8) 40(78.4) 4(7.8) 2(3.9) 51(100)


8(21.6) 24(64.98) 5(13.5) 0(0) 37(100)

Total 20(19.2) 71(68.3) 11(10.6) 2(1.9) 104(100)


When chi-square was applied, it was found that the duration of job experience and competence level are not independent of one another. The calculated value of chi-square


with six degree of freedom (12.508) is found to be higher than the table value at 90% confidence level (10.64) strengthens the above argument. Thus, we can safely argued that longer job experience may result into better knowledge about the market and market trends to a person, and thus it help a person to build his entrepreneurial competence. As we are studying a specific category of entrepreneur, i.e., ‘technopreneur’, which itself depends upon knowledge of complex technology; therefore, the effect of previous job experience would definitely help a person to increase his level of competence. However, many a time it is also possible that a person with long job experience may get tune to his service requirement in such a way that when he starts his own enterprise, the feel of ‘being and working as own boss’ may get adversely affected.

4.4.6 Relationship between father’s occupation and technopreneurial competence

Previously we have seen that those people take risk of starting their business more whose father is/was in business. However, as indicated in technopreneurial profile of father’s occupation earlier, now a day even the child of service class family is also taking risk and becomes a technopreneur. But the question here is that whether there exist any statistically significant association between the father’s occupation of a technopreneur and his level of competence.

Table 9 Relationship between technopreneurial competence and father’s occupation

Competence category Business Govt.

service

Private sector

job Agriculture Any

other Total


6(14.6) 5(13.5) 3(27.3) 2(25) 09(0) 16(15.4)


22(53.7) 17(45.9) 1(9.1) 5(62) 6(85.7) 51(49)


13(31.7) 15(40.5) 7(63.6) 1(12.5) 1(14.3) 37(35.6)

Total 41(100) 37(100) 11(100) 8(100) 7(100) 104(100)


As indicated in Table 9, a striking feature to note in the table is the highest number of technopreneurs whose father were in business or agriculture, which are considered to be a risky profession, fall in moderate competence category (53.7% and 62% respectively) while the highest number of technopreneurs whose father were in private sector job fall in high competence category (about 64%).

Here, the chi-square found that technopreneurial competence is having statistically significant relationship with father’s occupation because the calculated value of chi-square with eight degree of freedom (13.666) is found to be higher than the table


value at 90% confidence level (13.36). This is in confirmation with the traditional school of thought which propound that business background in general and parental occupation in specific develop the entrepreneurial spirit in the child and this would get reflected in his entrepreneurial competence in the later stage of his life. Moreover, looking at the form of entrepreneur we study, i.e., ‘technopreneur’, the relationship between technopreneurial competence and father’s occupation indicates that some basic background would definitely help a person to develop his technopreneurial competence.

4.4.7 Relationship between technopreneurial competence and role of other social factors

Is there any statistically significant relationship between competence level of technopreneur and role of social factors in process of entrepreneurship development? To answer this question, one-way ANOVA was used. As indicated in Table 10, the mean of high competence technopreneur in first two social factors, i.e., parents and siblings are higher than moderate and low competence technopreneur (n = 4.30 and n = 3.97 respectively). While in case of peers and friends, the mean of low competence technopreneur was found to be much higher than other two competence category technopreneur (n = 3.93 and n = 4.13 respectively). But in case of society and formal education, the mean of moderate competence category was found much higher than other two category of technopreneur (n = 3.78 and n = 4.24 respectively).

Table 10 ANOVA results indicating relation between technopreneurial competence and role of other social factors

Social factors Low competence

Moderate competence

High competence F-value Significance

Parents 4.19 4.28 4.30 0.107 0.899

Siblings 3.93 3.83 3.97 0.292 0.747

Peers 3.93 3.60 3.89 2.312 0.105

Friends 4.13 3.90 4.08 0.848 0.432

Society 3.63 3.78 3.54 1.015 0.366

Formal education 3.80 4.24 3.89 2.027 0.137

Note: *Significant at 0.05 level.

However, the result of F-test shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean of three competence categories of technopreneurs towards the role of other social factors at 0.05 level as all the significance value is higher than 0.05. This indicates that role of social factors do not differ significantly with different competence category. This may be because that in the process of advancement of education and involvement in the career, a person is able to give less of the time to his ‘social environment’ and this may result into his reduction in ‘social belongingness’. This reduced social belongingness may be one of the reasons why it is not having significant relationship technopreneurial competence.


4.5 Relationship between technopreneurial competence and effect of external environmental factors

To find-out that whether technopreneurs of difference competence category perceive the effect of external environment differently or not, one-way ANOVA was applied. As we can see from Table 11, the mean of high competence technopreneur is found to be higher than other two category of technopreneur in case of first three environmental factors, i.e., competitor, technological dynamism and economical and political environment (3.68, 3.86 and 3.76 respectively). However, in case of social environment, the mean of moderate competence technopreneur was found to be higher than other two. But if we observe the mean of cultural environment and international environment, it is found to have highest effect on low competence category (3.19 and 3.82 respectively) than other two. However, the result indicated by one-way ANOVA table clearly shows that mean of only cultural environment significantly differs between three competence categories of technopreneur (0.003). Table 11 ANOVA results indicating relation between technopreneurial competence and effect of

external environment

External environmental factors

Low competence

Moderate competence

High competence F-value Significance

Competitor 3.13 3.24 3.68 1.997 0.141 Technological dynamism

3.63 3.80 3.86 .320 0.727

Economic and financial environment

3.50 3.49 3.76 1.113 0.333

Social environment 3.13 2.88 2.68 1.449 0.240 Cultural environment 3.19 3.02 2.43 6.254 0.003* International environment

3.81 3.37 3.32 1.049 0.354

Note: *Significant at 0.05 level.

To find out that mean of which competence category of technopreneur differs from other in cultural environmental effect, least significant difference (LSD) method was applied. As we can see from Table 12, mean of low competence technopreneur differ significantly from high competence technopreneur (0.755). In the same way, the mean of moderate competence technopreneur also differs significantly from high competence technopreneur (0.587). However, the mean difference between low and moderate competence technopreneur does not have significant difference (–0.168).

Overall, from Table 11, we can say that three of the most important external environment for a technology based firm, i.e., competitor, technological dynamism and economic and political environment are perceived to be highly influential by high competence technopreneur. This indicates that high competence technopreneur do understand the importance of these three factors more than low and moderate competence technopreneur. With this from Table 12, we can see that as the level of competence increases, the perceived effect of cultural environment on entrepreneurship development decreases. It is also found to be statistically significantly different among three classes of technopreneurs.


Table 12 Result of LSD test of cultural environment in different competence category

(I) Competence category

(J) Competence category

Mean difference (I – J)

Std. error Sign.

Moderate competence

technopreneur

–0.168 0.253 0.508 Low competence

technopreneur


0.755* 0.264 0.005


0.168 0.253 0.508 Moderate competence

technopreneur High competence

technopreneur 0.587* 0.190 0.003


–0.755* 0.264 0.005

Cultural environment

High competence

Technopreneur Moderate

competence technopreneur

–0.587* 0.190 0.003

Note: Significant at 0.05 level.

5 Major findings of the study

In this article, we have concentrated on an aspect that is very much required to be understood by both entrepreneurship educators and researcher before framing relevant teaching pedagogy or developing specific research framework for technology-based enterprises. Our objective has not been just to understand and know the positive or negative influence of various social and external environmental factors’ contribution in development of technology-based enterprises, but also to find-out that whether at different level of technopreneurial competence, the influence of these factors are perceived differently by an technopreneur or not.

Two theoretical frameworks have been our basis for formulating the hypotheses that support this research: population ecology model and strategic choice model. While population ecology model concentrates on environment that surrounds a person and helps him/her to develop a new venture, strategic choice model concentrates on entrepreneur as an individual and focuses on traits and competence of that are required to perform entrepreneurial task successfully.

The main conclusions can be summarised as follows:

• As indicated by earlier research (Cooper, 1973), it was found that out of the 104 respondent, about 75% of technopreneurs were in the age category of 21 to 40 years; established their business between 16 to 35 yeas (86%); predominantly male (94%); mostly having their graduation in either computer, science or engineering (65%); having previous work experience (81%) but only of one to ten years (68%); about 46% of technopreneurs’ father was doing service while about 40% of technopreneurs’ father were having their own business.


• Out of other social factors, it was found that parents and formal education were found to be having highest positive influence on the technopreneurship development while, society and peers were least influence.

• Regarding external environmental influence, it was found that technological dynamism and economical and financial environment are having highest influence, while, cultural environment and social environment are found to have least effect on technology-based business.

• In technopreneurial competence, out of the total 104 respondent, it was found that about 36% were high competence technopreneur while 15.4% being low competence technopreneur, rest falling in moderate competence level.

• While relating social factors with technopreneurial competence, it was found that technopreneurial competence do have statistically significant relationship with four of the factor, i.e., educational qualification, previous job experience, duration of previous job experience and father’s occupation. On other hand, the factors like present age, age at the time of inception and role of other social factors like parents, siblings, peers, friends, society and formal education are not having any significant association.

• While relating external environmental factors and technopreneurial competence with the help of one-way ANOVA, it was found that mean of only cultural environment significantly differs between three competence categories of technopreneur (0.003). It simply means that to a large extent, all the three competence categories of technopreneur do not perceive the impact of external environmental factors’ differently.

6 Conclusions and implications of the study

Some of the implications of the results are having significant academic value. Based upon the study, it can be inferred that while designing entrepreneurship development programme (EDP) or entrepreneurship curricula and teaching pedagogy, that are specially focusing on technology-based enterprises, an institution should normally tap those students or individuals who have at least completed their graduation, preferably with some form of technical background. The preferable age category for the same should be 16 to 35 years and rather than concentrating only on fresh graduate, the more attention should be paid to those working executive who are having some minimum working experience. Moreover, those criteria for selection of candidates in technology-based EDP that takes into consideration the social factors like business background, family influence, etc. are of no relevance as they do not significantly contribute to develop higher level of technopreneurial competence.

As it is derived from the study, the external environmental factors like technological dynamism and economic and financial environmental factors are highly influential on the technology-based firms. And therefore, while designing the EDP curricula and course structure, rather than concentrating solely on developing ‘soft skill’ or ‘entrepreneurial traits’, equal or more attention should also be paid to teach them basics of technology and make them aware about technological changes and challenges. With this, key inputs


regarding economics and financial management, which equally concentrates on both the macro and micro aspect and their managerial applicability would serve the much needed help to a technopreneur.

Despite the satisfactory results, this research is not devoid of limitations. We are aware of the need to study in more depth some aspects. Its improvement constitutes a challenge that will bring about new lines of research, like:

• A standard tool of measurement of social and environmental factors and their influence in entrepreneurship development is the need of time. This will help the research fraternity by developing homogenous criteria that are applicable across time and space, and thus, bring comparability in results.

• A more in-depth analysis and differentiation of external environmental factors’ influence during pre-start-up and operational phase would bring more clarity regarding their role and changing dimensions.

References Alison, M., Daryl, H., Donald, M. and Nancy, M. (1984) Feasibility of High-tech Company

Incubation in Rural University Settings, Missouri Incutech, Inc., Rolla, Missouri. Analoui, F. and Karami, F. (2002) ‘How chief executive’s perception of the environment impacts

on company performance’, Journal of Management Developmen, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.290–306. Anderson, A., Drakopolou, S. and Scott, M. (2000) ‘Religion as an environmental influence on

enterprise culture’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.5–20.

Bendix, R. (1977) Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Berglund, Å. and Blomquist, A. (1999) ‘Från affärskompetens till affärsutveckling i småföretag: en studie kring processerna bakom kompetensutveckling och affärsutveckling bland småföretag i olika affärsmiljöer’, Företagsekonomiska Institutionen Stockholms Universitet, No. 1999, p.5.

Bird, B. (1988) ‘Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.442–453.

Blais, R.A. and Toulouse, J-M. (1992) ‘Entrepreneurship technologique: 21 cas de PME a` succe`s’, Foundation de’ Entrepreneurship, Publications Transcontinental Inc., Montreal.

Braden, P.L. (1977) ‘Technological entrepreneurship – the allocation of time and money in technology-based firms’, Michigan Business Reports No. 62, University of Michigan, MI.

Byers, T. (1983) ‘A study of technical entrepreneur’ as mentioned in Zutushi, R.K. ‘Role of technical entrepreneurs in industrial development – a literature view’, Technological Entrepreneur, Global Business Press.

Bygrave, W.D. and Hoofer, C.F. (1991) ‘Theorizing about entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.13–22.

Child, J. (1972) ‘Organisational structures, environmental performance: the role of strategic choice’, Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 1.

Cochran, T.C. (1949) ‘Approaches to entrepreneurial personality’, In Change and the Entrepreneur, pp.97–112, Prepared by the Research Centre in Entrepreneurial History, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cooper, A.C. (1970) ‘Incubator organisations, spin-offs and technical entrepreneurship’, Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 3rd Series, p.4.

Cooper, A.C. (1971) The Founding of Technologically Based Firms, Center for Venture Management, Milwaukee, WI.


Cooper, A.C. (1973) ‘Technical entrepreneurship: what do we know?’, Research and Development Management.

Cooper, A.C. (1986) ‘Entrepreneurship and high technology’, in Sexton, D.L. and Smilor, R.W. (Eds.): The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.

Cooper, A.C. and Bruno, A.V. (1977) ‘Success among high-technology firms’, Business Horizons, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.16–22.

Doutriaux, J. (1987) ‘Growth pattern of academic entrepreneurial firms’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp.285–297.

Draheim, K.P. (1972) ‘Factors influencing the rate of formation of technical companies’, in Cooper, A.C. and Komives, J.L. (Eds.): Technical Entrepreneurship: A Symposium, pp.3–27, Center for Venture Management, Milwaukee, WI.

Edward, R.B. (1991) Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond, Oxford University Press.

Ellström, P-E. and Nilsson, B. (1997) ‘Kompetensutveckling i små-och medelstora företag – en studie av förutsättningar’, Strategier och effecter, Linköpings Universitet, pp.46–52.

Evan, W. (1976) Organisational Theory: Structures, Systems and Environment, Wiley, New York. Gaikwad, V. (1978) ‘Entrepreneurship: the concept and social context’, in Udai Pareek,

T.V. Venkateswara and Rao, N.D. (Eds.): Developing Entrepreneurship – A Hand Book Learning Systems, pp.4–13.

Gautam, V. (2004) ‘Towards developing a science and technology based entrepreneurship index’, Technical Entrepreneur.

Gibb, A. and Ritchie, J. (1985) ‘Understanding the process of starting small businesses’, European Small Business Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1.

Hamilton, R.T. and Harper, D.A. (1994) ‘The entrepreneur in theory and practice’, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.3–18.

Hannman, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977) ‘The population ecology of organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 5, pp.929–964.

Hisrich, P.M. (1975) ‘Organisational effectiveness and institutional environment’, Administrative Scienhce Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 3.

Hyrsky, K. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurial metaphors and concepts: an exploratory study’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1.

Jenks, L.K. (1949) ‘Approaches to entrepreneurial personality’, Change and the Entrepreneur, pp.80–96, Prepared by the Research Centre in Entrepreneurial History, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kisfalvi, V. (2002) ‘The entrepreneur’s character, life issues, and strategy making: a field study’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17, pp.489–518.

Knight, R.M. (1988) ‘Spin-off entrepreneurs: how corporations really create entrepreneurs’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp.134–149, Babson Centre for Entrepreneurial Studies, Wellesley, MA.

Lamont, L.M. (1972) ‘Entrepreneurship, technology and the university’, R&D Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp.119–123.

Litvak, I. and Maule, C.J. (1971) Canadian Entrepreneurship: A Study of Small Newly Established Firms’, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Ottawa.

Malach, A., Utasi, A. and Hill, T.L. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurs as cultural heroes: a cross-cultural, interdisciplinary perspective’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 6.

Mancuso, J.R. (1975) ‘The entrepreneurs’ quiz’, in C.M. Baumback and J.R. Mancuso (Eds.): The Entrepreneurship and Venture Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Manimala, M. (1992) ‘Innovative entrepreneurship: testing the theory of environmental determinism’, in B.L. Maheshwari (Ed.): Innovation in Management for Development, Tata Macgraw Hill, New Delhi.


Manimala, M. (1999) ‘Policies and founder characteristics of new technology based firms (NTBFs): a comparison between British and Indian firms’, Entrepreneurship Theory at Crossroads, Wheeler Publishing.

Manimala, M. (2002) ‘Founder characteristics and start-up policies of entrepreneurial ventures: a comparison between British and Indian enterprise’, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.139–171.

McCarthy, B. and Leavy, B. (1999) ‘The entrepreneur, risk-perception and change over time: a typology approach’, IBAR, Vols. 19–20, No. 1.

McClelland, D. (1967) The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. (1973) ‘Testing for competence rather than for intelligence’, American

Psychologist, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.1–14. Miner, J.B. (2000) ‘Testing a psychological typology of entrepreneurship using business founders’,

The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 36, No. 1. Minniti, M. and Bygrave, W. (1999) ‘The micro-foundations of entrepreneurship’,

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23, No. 4. Panda, T. (2002) ‘Entrepreneurial success and risk perception among small scale entrepreneurs of

eastern India’, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.173–190. Rao, M.S. (1997) ‘The entrepreneurial competency index: an assessment tool for financial

institutions’, The Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.197–208. Roberts, E.B. (1968) ‘Entrepreneurship and technology: a basic study of innovators’, Research

Management, Vol. 11, pp.249–266. Roberts, E.B. (1991) ‘Entrepreneurs in high technology: lessons from MIT and beyond’, Oxford

University Press, New York, NY. Roberts, E.B. and Wainer, H.A. (1966) ‘Some characteristics of technological entrepreneurs’, Sloan

School of Management, Working paper No. 195-6, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Robertson, M. (2002) UK Undergraduate Entrepreneurial Culture, Background and Career

Aspirations, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds. Roure, J.B. and Keeley, R.H. (1990) ‘Predictors of success in new technology-based ventures’,

Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.201–220. Roure, J.B. and Maidique, M.A. (1986) ‘Linking propounding factors and high-technology venture

success: an exploratory study’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp.295–306. Samson, K.J. and Gurdon, M.A. (1990) ‘Entrepreneurial scientists: organisational performance in

scientist-started high technology firms’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp.437–451, Babson Centre for Entrepreneurial Studies, Wellesley, MA.

Siu, W. (2002) ‘Marketing activities and performance: a comparison of the internet-based and traditional small firms in Taiwan’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.177–188.

Slatter, S.T.P. (1992) Gambling on Growth: How to Manage the Small Hightech Firm, John Wiley Sons, New York, NY.

Starbuck, W.H. (1976) ‘Organisational and their environments’, in M.D. Dunnette (Ed.): Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago.

Utterbak, J.M. (1998) ‘Technology and industrial innovation in Sweden’, Research Policy. Wiklund, J. (1999) ‘The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation – performance

relationship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 24, No. 1. Zhao, L. and Aram, J.D. (1995) ‘Networking and growth of young technology intensive ventures in

China’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10, pp.349–370.


Notes 1 The SRQ consists of 70 brief statements. The respondent rates these statements on a five-point

scale, depending on how well each of them describes him/her. The ratings of all the statements that indicate a particular competence are totalled. A correction factor is used to determine whether or not a person has presented a favourable image of himself/herself. If the correction factor is > 20, then the total scores on all the 13 competencies are corrected to give a more accurate assessment. These scores are used to draw the competence profile of a respondent.

2 Thirteen competencies that are measured with the help of SRQ is: initiative, seeing and acting on opportunities, persistence, information-seeking, concern for high quality work, commitment to work contract, efficiency orientation, systematic planning, problem-solving, self-confidence, assertiveness, persuasion and use of influence strategies.

Documents

IJBE030105 TRIVEDI