Role of Entrepreneurs in Enhancing Innovation
Subtheme: Entrepreneurship, Small Businesses and Human Resource Development.
.
Daniel Nderi
Lecturer KIM- Meru Branch
Address: [email protected],
Tel No. 0721 986 343
Key Words; Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Product development, Creativity, Flexibility
ABSTRACTThis paper critically examines the role played by entrepreneurs in enhancing
innovations within their respective industries. This paper raises the questions of
why most of the industrial innovations tend to be related to the small entrepreneurs
within the industry. Many multinationals and national firms have been found to
either source for competitive linkages with these entrepreneurs or take over the
businesses or products developed by these innovative entrepreneurs. In Kenya the
mobile service providers are relying on platforms developed by the entrepreneurs to
serve their clients, for example the money transfer software’s developed by
entrepreneurs have enabled these companies to offer financial products. This study
investigates the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship, how
entrepreneurs drive innovation. This paper shows the contribution afforded to start
up business and entrepreneurial ventures by flexibility, the environment of
operation, the size and structure of the organization, ability to evaluate and attract
the right kind of personnel, and their risk taking nature. This study relied on
secondary data collected through review of current literature on entrepreneurship
and innovation
1.0 Introduction
Entrepreneurs have a huge role to play by driving change through product
innovation. What is most crucial is the level of innovation and development
required to meet the future needs of our society. This means all sectors needs to be
populated with entrepreneurs who are driven by the desire to innovate. This does
not rule out the presence of creative and bright people to spearhead the required
change, who should at least be driven by the desire to create products and processes
that solves the various problems besotting the mankind. The pace seems to have
been set and especially by the entrepreneurs in the financial sector. The most
pronounced leading entrepreneur- innovator in our beloved nation being Kamal
Budhabhati. He has cut a niche in the provision of the financial solutions to the
financial sector, Management (July 2011).
The concept of entrepreneurship, long hallowed in the context of business and
economic ventures, has been increasingly applied to the context of social problem-
solving (e.g., Dees, 1998a; 1998b; Thake & Zadek, 1997; Emerson & Twersky,
1986). The challenges of finding effective and sustainable solutions to many social
problems are substantial, and solutions may require many of the ingredients
associated with successful innovation in business creation. The nation today has to
find ways of bringing the industrial players together and embark on initiating
innovativeness.
It is only recently that entrepreneurship has been identified by many researchers as
a major driving force of a free market economy. However, it was only recently that
economists began to synthesize the knowledge about entrepreneurship and analyze
its impact on economic growth. However it should be understood that the
conception of small or large businesses would not drive the economy without the
presence of innovative products and processes. Thus this is why this paper tends to
interrogate the role that entrepreneurship should play in innovating products that
will sustain and give the organization a competitive edge.
2.0 The concept of entrepreneurship
As a concept, entrepreneurship has acquired unprecedented significance in the
global debate on the role of business enterprises on economic and social
development. According to Professor Papanek in Henry (1994) entrepreneurship
concept should be divided into three sub functions; Entrepreneurship in
Schumpeterian sense (that is seeing and seizing an opportunity for a new economic
venture), financial risk taking and finally managerial function. The amorphous
nature of the concept of entrepreneurship therefore can be illustrated by the
definition Benjamin Higgins uses when he describes the theory of development.
Svedberg’s (2000) provides a description of the historical developments.
Schumpeter (1934) sums up several entrepreneurial characteristics, including the
entrepreneur “acting in a way leading to creative destruction”. The latter
characteristic is known as the Schumpeterian notion (Gibb, 2002). This explanation
of the nature and process of the capitalist economy – wherein innovation is the
engine, and entrepreneurs serve as the commanders and risk takers, while creative
destruction symbolizes remains foundational and fundamental to date (Ma & Tan,
2005). Thus from the above argument it raises the argument of the need to combine
entrepreneurship with innovation. Success in the economic growth according to
Svedberg’s is accomplished when entrepreneurship and innovation are intertwined.
He further argues that innovation is only nurtured by that entrepreneur who have the
drive to achieve the competitive edge or who wants to leave a mark in their
businesses or endeavors.
By “entrepreneurship” is meant the function of seeing investment and production
activities: organizing an enterprise to undertake a new production process; raising
capital, hiring labour, arranging for a supply of raw materials, finding a site and
combining these factors of production into a going concern; introducing new
techniques and commodities discovering new sources of natural resources; and
selecting top managers for day to day operations’
Another dimension of defining entrepreneurship is taken by Hisrich etal (2009)
entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting
the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic, and
social risks and receiving the results and the rewards of monetary and personal
satisfaction and the rewards.
The concept of entrepreneurship is understood as a combination of creativity and
innovation. It is a stance taken within the business applying inherent creativity as
the act of 'thinking of' new things. It involves coming up with innovative ideas and
trying out new methods within the operations. The concept of entrepreneurship is
also concerned with new ways of looking at opportunities and identifying a new
approach towards solving problems. Entrepreneurship requires the entrepreneur to
shift paradigms and do away with old assumptions and perspectives.
The entrepreneur basically adopts techniques that can be utilized by the
organization or their firms to stimulate creativity amongst the employees. These
techniques tend to bring the urge or the competitiveness amongst the employees.
The concept of entrepreneurship involves the consideration of a number of
opportunities to enhance employee performance and business profits. The
entrepreneur is expected to imply strategic planning to assess if the opportunities
provided for growth are worthwhile and how they could be successfully exploited.
Strategic planning is an essential part of the concept of entrepreneurship and
effective application helps to ensure successful operation. It is a useful tool within
the sphere of influence of entrepreneurship and serves a niche market for improving
on the business performance. The concept of entrepreneurship involves the owner
taking absolute responsibility of empowering the employees and in turn, affecting
sales and profitability of the business.
3.0 The concept of Innovation
For many years, R & D (research and Development) has been closely associated
with technological innovation. Invention is the narrowest definition of innovation.
According to Drucker (1994), innovation “…is the specific function of
entrepreneurship...’’ , he continued to state that there were seven basic sources of
opportunities to innovate but only one of them was to do with inventing something
new. Therefore, innovation is more than invention and does not have to be
technical. There are numerous examples of social and economic inventions.
Innovation is a proposed theory or design concept that synthesizes extant
knowledge and techniques to provide a theoretical basis for a new concept Sundbo
(1998). Innovation thus has many stages and is multidimensional. Innovation could
also be explained as a process of intentional change made to create value by
meeting opportunity and seeking advantage. This process could depicted as having
the following stages; Invention à Change à Useful implementation
Hindle (2009) puts it that every invention process is a blend of four principle
components
i. Existing knowledge ( current expertise in given area)
ii. The conscious search for new knowledge ( continuous research )
iii. The serendipitous (not consciously sought ) discovery of new knowledge
iv. Creativity
That invention is the creation of new knowledge is the vital predicate process in the
innovation duality.
The most prominent innovation dimensions can be expressed as dualisms; radical
versus incremental, product versus process; and administrative versus
technological. Innovation can be radical and incremental. Radical innovations refer
to discontinuous, revolutionary, original, basic or pioneering innovations.
Incremental innovations are small improvements made to enhance and extend the
establishment processes, products and services. For the purpose of this research,
innovation is defined broadly to include new products, new processes, new services,
new forms of organization, new markets, and the development of new skills and
human capital.
Tidd et al (2005) argue that there are four types of innovation; consequently the
innovator has four pathways to investigate when searching for good ideas:
i) Product Innovation - new products or improvements on products. The new Bonga
na bob by Safaricom, OR the software enabling the mobile phones to use the local
languages or the updated Toyota vehicle models, new models of mobile phones and
so on.
ii) Process Innovation - where some part of the process is improved to bring benefit.
Just in Time is a good example.
iii) Positioning Innovation - Lucozade used to be a medicinal drink but this has
changed with it being repositioned as a sports drink.
iv) Paradigm Innovation - where major shifts in thinking cause change. During the
time of the expensive mainframe, Bill Gates and others aimed to provide a home
computer for everyone.
4.0 The conceptual relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation
The economics of innovation, in particular, have attracted increased attention in
recent years (Grupp, 2001; Arora et al 2002; Stoneman, 1995). Sundbo (1998)
summarized the basic theories of the economics of innovation and identified three
competing paradigms in the current theoretical discussion of innovation:
i. The entrepreneur paradigm
ii. The technology-economics paradigm
iii. The strategic paradigm
For our discussion the prevalent paradigm is the entrepreneur paradigm which can
be traced back to the 1930s when Schumpeter (1934) first attempted to establish a
linkage between entrepreneurs and innovation in theory, and viewed the
entrepreneur as innovator. He maintained that innovation contributed to the growth
of the economy because entrepreneurs produced innovations.
Peter Drucker actually erases any doubt that exists on the relationship between
entrepreneurship and innovation when he puts it that innovation is the specific
function of entrepreneurship. That is innovation depends on the entrepreneurial
ability of the owner or manager of the organization. Entrepreneurs seek to innovate.
And in keeping with our earlier definition of innovation as change, this means that
the entrepreneur is an agent of change made to create value. Thus there exists a
relationship between an entrepreneur and the process of innovation.
The concept of entrepreneur as innovator underpins the entrepreneur paradigm in
which the role of the entrepreneur is highlighted in the innovation process.
According to this paradigm, only a person who founds a new company on the basis
of a new idea can be called an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship is viewed as a creative
act and an innovation. Entrepreneurship is about creating something that did not
previously exists. Back to our nation this paradigm was exposed OR came to light
when we focus on the Equity bank led by Dr. Mwangi. The team in this financial
institution revolutionized the financial sector by opening banking to the people at the
bottom of the pyramid. This could be classified as an act of creativity that not only
charted, uncharted waters but introduced innovative products that meet the needs of
those ranked at the bottom of the pyramid. The creation adds value to the individual
and the community, and is based upon perceiving and capturing an opportunity [5].
Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurship by which entrepreneurs exploit
change as an opportunity for a different business or service. There is a considerable
overlap between entrepreneurship and innovation. Moreover, innovation has to
address market needs, and requires entrepreneurship to achieve commercial success.
While there is no test to determine entrepreneurs and innovators, they do appear to
share some of the same qualities. These include vision, high energy level, need to
achieve, self-confidence and optimism, tolerance for failure, creativity, tolerance for
ambiguity and internal locus of control (Coleman, 2000).
Others have had different views on the relationship between entrepreneurship and
innovation. Davidson (2004) has distinguished two principle schools of thought
within the entrepreneurial discipline. The ‘‘emergence perspective’’ (Katz and
Gartner 1998) and the ‘‘opportunity perspective’’ (Shane and Venkaraman 2000).
The latter argued that the truly distinctive characteristic of entrepreneurship lies not
in the act of organizational creation and development but in the management of
entrepreneurial opportunities.
Of fundamental importance to the opportunity perspective of entrepreneurship – the
perspective associated with innovation – is that entrepreneurial opportunity involves
discovery and the evaluation of new relationships between means and ends. This is
quite distinct from the improvement of the optimization within the existing means-
ends frameworks. Functionally opportunities are defined as situations in which new
goods and services, raw materials, markets and organizing methods can be
introduced through the formation of new means, ends or means- ends relationships
(Eckhardt and Shane 2003).
A point to note according to Hindle (2009) on the relationship between
entrepreneurship and innovation is that those who believe in the opportunist view
argue that entrepreneurship is about the discovery, evaluation and the exploitation
of opportunities whatever the organization mode of pursuit. This does not limit the
innovation of products or processes to the small scale business; rather it takes the
objectivity view of business growth on all kinds and sizes of organizations.
4.0 What is the difference between Entrepreneurship and Innovation?
According to Hisrich et al (2009) on the historical development of entrepreneurship
they argue that it is in the middle of the 20 th century, that the notion of an
entrepreneur as an innovator was established; they continue further to argue that the
function of the entrepreneur is to reform or to revolutionalize the pattern of
production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological
method of producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way,
opening a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by
organizing a new industry
This question has baffled both entrepreneurs and innovators since the “invention of
the invention” during the late 1800’s (before this time period, inventions were
thought of as being “flashes of genius”. They were considered mysterious, and
were definitely unmanaged.) This did change with the entrepreneur writers of the
20th century who could now be able to trace and observe the innovative ways
developed by the industrial captains. Within the renaissance period innovative
products like cars were developed and these guys were nowhere genius, just guided
by an appetite for risk taking which happened to be one of the characteristics
embodied by successful entrepreneurs.
The man who coined the term Entrepreneur, J.B. Say, defines an entrepreneur as
one who delegates resources (capital) from things that are less efficient to those that
are more efficiently used. I believe J.B. Say was referring to the process of
innovation and not necessarily Entrepreneurship as we know it today, Olson (2008)
A distinct characteristic of the Innovators is their special ability to
optimize. According to Livingstone (2000) innovation is the process whereby new
ideas are transformed, through economic activity into sustainable value-creating
outcome. They find inefficiencies in already existing resources (may it be
technological, like advancements in computing power or even social, like the
innovative practice of installment buying which revolutionizes industries from
supply-driven to demand-driven instantaneously). These innovators, though
important, often don’t “exploit” the changes that they have stumbled upon, through
research, invention, or whatever means it may be.
Thus it is the work of entrepreneurs to exploit change that has been brought through
innovation and often times are the creators of it. (Ma & Tan, 2005) describes the
successful entrepreneur as the master of creative destruction. They anticipate
change by systematically managing innovation through research. Rather they look
at the economic value of the innovation and try to fit it to the dynamic environment
in which we find the realm of today’s customers. This has made it possible the
ability of entrepreneurs to shun out continuo’s products in the same class of needs.
They make economic value out of things that previously had none and sometimes
drastically lower the value of existing innovations in the process. An example in
the recent history of our music industry is our transitions from Vinyl-> Cassette->
Compact Disc-> Digital, all within a relatively short period.
A very powerful statement that supports that definition comes from Drucker’s
(1994), “There is no such thing as a “resource” until a man finds a use for
something in nature and thus endows it with economic value. Until then, every
plant is a weed and every mineral just another rock.” Penicillin was once just
mold and crude was a nuisance for making the soil infertile and degenerate without
value. Thus the combination of innovation is required for many are the times
innovators develop innovations, which when not in the radar of the entrepreneur
may not be rolled out to the market.
Entrepreneurship is thought of to be a “risky” venture; similar to investing in the
stock market, simply because many of the so-called “Entrepreneurs”, like
Investors, are simply Speculators don’t know what they are doing. They are not
trying to create change producing value for mankind by converting innovations
(whether it be product, process, or social) into something we cannot refuse to
accept. They are looking for the “get rich quick” route, or opening small shops
that offer services that already exist.
5.0 Entrepreneurs Driving Innovation
According to Hisrich etal (2009) an entrepreneur starts by painting a vision that is
desirable, challenging and believable. This tends to reawaken the desire of
achievement in the human being. If an entrepreneur can do this then there are three
big gains for the organization: First, people share a common goal and have a sense
of embarking on a journey or adventure together. This means they are more willing
to accept the changes, challenges and difficulties that any journey can entail.
Secondly, it means that more responsibility can be delegated. Staff can be
empowered and given more control over their work. Because they know the goal
and direction in which they are headed they can be trusted to steer their own raft
and to figure out the best way of getting there. This ensures the freedom required to
exercise their creativity and innovative capability. According to Hindle (2009),
innovation is a combination of invention and implementation. Livingstone (2000,3)
amplifies the definition given by Hindle by putting it that “ .....Innovation is not just
the idea-innovation is only achieved when the idea has been transferred into an
outcome that has value”. This brings us to the role played by the entrepreneur who
ensures that the implementation phase is made available. That is the opportunity to
convert the ideas into tangible models or designs which can be developed into
innovative products that have economic value.
Thirdly, Hirsch puts it that people will be more creative and contribute more ideas if
they know that there are unsolved challenges that lie ahead. They have bought into
the adventure so they are more ready to find routes over and around the obstacles on
the way. This brings to the conclusion that the entrepreneur drives innovation
within the organization they lead.
6.0 Factors enhancing entrepreneur drive towards innovation
Flexibility of an Entrepreneur
Barnett and Weinstein’s (1998) argue that flexibility is the degree to which a
business unit is adaptable in administrative relations and the authority is vested in
situational expertise. A firm that exhibits low flexibility is therefore rigid in
administration relations and adheres to bureaucratic relations.
Kwaku (1989) uses the term “planned flexibility” defined as the firm’s ability to
change its strategic plan as environmental opportunities and threats emerge.
Flexibility is also defined as the degree to which a business unit is adaptable on
administration relations and the authority that is vested in situational expertise.
Long (2001) argues that although that there are various ways of looking at
flexibility, the defining characterization of flexibility include the design of
organization in which the employees are afforded wide latitude in performing their
jobs. It is intended to eliminate the need for extensive rigid systems of control
which would otherwise be necessary to ensure effective employee behaviour.
The term "flexibility" might best describe the feature of capital structures that enable
them to adjust to exogenous change at relatively low cost. The notion of flexibility
can be applied to both individual goods, in which it becomes a close, but more
descriptive, synonym for "generality," and to a whole production process or capital
structure. In an environment of greater uncertainty, or a faster pace of economic
change, entrepreneurs are likely to prefer, on the margin, capital that has relatively
more flexibility. This may be particularly true of human capital, where employees
may be required to move quickly from one project or production process to another
as market conditions change.
Kirzner (1973), considered the entrepreneur as the 'prime-mover' in the firm.
Therefore, the idea that the entrepreneur is simply a profit maximizing decision-
maker within the firm is regarded as defunct. This is so because it limits the nature
and the recognizable beehaviour of the entrepreneur which tends to lean towards
flexibility beyond the cost analysis aspect of maximizing profitability. According to
Kirzner’s theory, it is the notion of 'alertness', a tendency for an individual to
discover what would be profitable to him/her if he/she were to discover it. Thus the
entrepreneur must be able to exist in the different planes that are determined by the
forces of demand and supply observing not only the market but also the economic
gaps appearing within his or her field of play. This view suggests that
entrepreneurship is not a resource that can be planned. That is, alertness cannot be
traded on the market. This therefore supports the notion of the need of flexibility on
the side of the entrepreneur.
Thus an entrepreneurship approach towards the importance of transaction costs is
required in order to emphasize the discovery aspect involved in the emergence of a
firm
The degree of flexibility of a firm's capital structure will be an important factor in its
ability to respond to profit opportunities or potentially damaging exogenous change.
If the owners or managers of a firm see a new profit opportunity (referred by many
writers as the Kirzner's moment of entrepreneurial insight), it may well require
changes in the allocation of the firm's capital to actually grasp the opportunity. Firms
that have more flexible capital structures should, ceteris paribus, be quicker to seize
such opportunities than those who are more committed to particular production plans
through the use of highly specific inputs, Amir et al (2001)
The moment one is an entrepreneur and business owner he or she are afforded more
flexibilities with their business ideas and decisions than large corporations. This puts
you into a position to study and interact with your customers who are more
enthusiastic about going to your company because you are willing to work with them
and facilitate their needs. Since you make the decisions, you have the ability to give
a little leeway and customize the product according to their diverse needs. The
entrepreneur is able to develop processes, change them and develop solutions
relevant to the prevailing times the customers are experiencing and build customer
loyalty.
The Structure of Entrepreneur Business
According to Rusell (1986) many successful small businesses have been founded
upon an innovative idea which creates a new product, process or service that better
fulfills the needs of customers. By creating innovation, the small business
entrepreneur not only provides an opportunity for self-profit but also is an important
source of change within his or her industry.
There has been a great deal of effort directed at the study of the influence of
organizational structure on innovation. Early studies adopted a global perspective on
structure and found an association between increased levels of innovation and more
"organic" structures (Burns et al 1961). Conversely, other studies confirmed that
more "bureaucratic" organizations were less innovative (10;18).
According to Tornatzky et al (1983), recent innovation research has concentrated on
three structural variables: centralization, formalization and complexity. Positive
associations have been found between innovation and a decentralized structure
innovation and complexity and innovation and an informal structure (McGinnis
1983). These studies reinforce the notion that more organic structures seem to
support innovation while bureaucratic structure tends to inhibit innovation.
Since innovation is an uncertain, unpredictable process, its progress cannot be
directed by formal, structural means which large corporations tends to favor. This
may be due to the processes and systems that tend to be standardized. It should be
noted that the rules, procedures, job descriptions or even the experience of senior
managers that are synonymous with the large corporations cannot be used effectively
to solve the new, unique problems presented by the attempt to innovate, Utterback et
al (1971).
Innovation requires creative problem-solving during its initiation and
implementation by a large number of organization members. Organic structures can
aid innovation by providing the necessary context of freedom and autonomy to
organizational members to pursue creative solutions to problems but organic
structures cannot by themselves generate the motivation and commitment necessary
to seek out innovation. In fact, in most organizations, generating motivation for
innovation is difficult because of the inherent uncertainty of the process. Uncertainty
about how to achieve the innovation as well as uncertainty about how the innovation
will impact the organization will tend to reduce the propensity of organizational
members to act in innovative ways. Moreover, the ambiguity regarding the means of
achieving innovation makes it difficult for individuals to evaluate the likelihood that
they will be rewarded for their innovative efforts which also tend to curtail
motivation to innovate.
7.0 Conclusions
Although there are many differing views on what constitutes entrepreneurship and
innovation and the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship, some of
which are economically determined, there are developed core principles that
transcend the natural view taken by investors, and the scholars on the other hand
and which are viewed as representing the moral consensus of the business
stakeholders. There are also studies that confirm the relationship between
innovation and entrepreneurship; therefore every country Kenya included should
embrace entrepreneurial spirit. Although Kenya has developed and adopted the
Small and Micro enterprise bill that focuses on entrepreneurship, there is need to
strengthen the capacity to enforce creativity, invention, innovation and business
incubation.
There is need to acknowledge that innovation is important in our world but it is the
Entrepreneurs who systematically manage research to produce innovation that are
both the rocking balls of the “status quo” and the building blocks of the future. The
direction being taken by the government and the higher learning institutions of
opening incubation centers to nurture entrepreneurs furthering innovation is very
commendable.
As an entrepreneur, take advantage of the flexibility you have in your business. It
will benefit you when times are tough and change is needed. Be confident that by
being flexible you are not changing your business completely, but you are
developing it to fit with the current economy.
REFERENCES
A. Arora, A. Fosfuri, A. Gambardella, (2002) Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate strategy, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Amir Pirich, Stephen Knuckey and John Campbell (2001), An interface between
entrepreneurship & innovation - New Zealand SME’s Perspective Druid Nelson &
Winter Conference 2001 Aalborg University, Denmark.
Burns, T. and Stalker, S., (1961). The Management of Innovation (London, England:
Tavistock Publications,
Barret, H. and Weinstein, A. (1998), The effect of Market Orientation and Organizational Flexibility on Corporate Entrepreneurship; Theory and Practice 23 (1) pg 57-67
Coleman, D., (2000), Explaining Corporate Entrepreneurship, http://www.southwestern.edu/~colemand/buspaper.htm
Gibb, A. (2002), In Pursuit of A New Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Paradigm for Learning Creative Destruction, New Values, New Ways of Doing Things and New Combinations of Knowledge, International Journal of Management Review 4(3) pp 233-269
H. Grupp, (2001) Managing New Product Development and Innovation: A Microeconomic Toolbox. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
J. Sundbo, (1998). The Theory of Innovation: Entrepreneurs, Technology and Strategy, Edward Elgar, Massachusetts.
J. Schumpeter, (1934) .The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard, New York.
Kinner, I.M. (1996) Essays on Capital and Interest: AIZ Austria Perspective, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar.
Kwaku, A. and Ko, A (2001), An Empirical Investigation of The Effect of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation Alignment on Product Innovation, Journal of Organizational Science, 12(1) pp 54-74
Lachmann, L.(1978) Capital and its Structuree, Icansas City, Sheed Andrews and McMeel.
Ma, H. Tan, J. (2005), Key Components and The Implications of Entrepreneurship, A 4-P Framework , Journal of Business Studies, 21(5), pp 704-725
Matthew S. Olson and Derek van Bever, (2008) Stall Points: Most Companies Stop Growing—Yours Doesn't Have To (New Haven: Yale University Press,
McGinnis, M. and Ackelsberg, M., (1983)."Effective Innovation Management: Missing Link in Strategic Planning, “Journal of Business Strategy.
P.F. Drucker, (1994) Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles Heinemann, London.
P. Stoneman, (1995) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell, Oxford.
Russell, R., (1986) "The Effect of Environmental Context and Formal and Informal
Organizational Influence Mechanisms on the Process of Innovation" (Pittsburgh
Pa.: unpublished dissertation, Univ. of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Business,
Swendbergs, R. (2000).Entrepreneurship; The Social Science View, London, OUP
Susan, G. (2010), Flexibility of an Entrepreneur, Journal of The Women in Business, New
York
Tornatzky, L., Eveland, J., Boylan, M., Hetzner, M., Johnson, E., Roitman, D. and
Schneider, J., (1983)."The Processes of Innovation: Analyzing the Literature"
Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation,
Utterback, J., (March 1971) "The Process of Technological Innovation Within the Firm," Academy of Management Journal.