A Proposal for a Standard With Innovation Management System

Ioannis Akritidis and Alexandros Kakouris
The result for a fully adaptive entrepreneur (α=0.5, β=0.5) is shown by the (b) curves (with circular
markers) in Figure 2. The fully adaptive learner has no predominant learning style and corresponds to
the Minniti and Bygrave (2001) individual. Solid curves in Figure 2 show the evolution of the selfconfidence
level for the 10 th option of the entrepreneur (i.e. the most promising for the entrepreneur
without interaction with the market) while dashed curves show the evolution for the 50 th option (i.e. the
most favoured by the market). The fully adaptive person gives the same confidence (~4%) for the two
options after two time-steps. He also attains an asymptotic confidence (i.e. equilibrium) for the 50 th
option of ~7% (~1% for the 10 th respectively) after 20 time-steps.
An entrepreneur with converging learning style (α=0.2, β=0.5) attains the asymptotic values for his
options more rapidly compared with the fully adaptive. The convergent one, shown by curves (c) with
diamond markers in Figure 2, attains equal confidence (~4%) for the two options in almost 1.5 timesteps.
He also attains a slightly higher asymptotic value (~7.5%) for the 50 th option much earlier.
Practically, after the 10 th time-step the convergent has reached equilibrium. The result is due to the
market evidence distribution which promotes an option in the converging style domain (dashed curve
in Figure 1).
Let now consider an entrepreneur with diverging learning style (α=0.8, β=0.5). The evolution of
confidence levels are shown by the curves (a) with asterisk markers in Figure 2. The diverging
entrepreneur attains equipartition of self-confidence much later (more than 5 time-steps) compared to
the previous cases. He also reaches a significantly less asymptotic value (~5.5%) for the most
favoured option in 20 time-steps. The “resistance” of the diverging entrepreneur to abandon his initial
(diverging) 10 th option due to market evidence is much higher compared with the rest two.
The present example illustrated a symmetrical case for entrepreneurs who are expected to empirically
change their options (confidence on alternatives) due to the interaction with the market. Converging
style situations correspond to supply-driven opportunities in the market whilst diverging ones
correspond to demand-driven opportunities (Dimov 2007). As the increase of self-confidence for an
entrepreneurial option is expected to lead to intentional action, the present simulation results are in
agreement with Dimov’s (2007) findings.
4. Discussion and implications
Learning from experience is fundamental in business venturing. The model of Minniti and Bygrave
(2001) simulates decision making of a rational entrepreneur who interacts with a market. The
entrepreneur has an initial conception about his/her options; however, he/she is keen to learn from
experience. The model supposes that the entrepreneur can change his/her options without calculating
the costs for such a change (e.g. transactional costs). Krrznerian alertness has also to be considered
for a more consistent simulation of entrepreneurial decision making (e.g. Parker 2007). However, new
entrepreneurial knowledge and insight are expected to build upon prior knowledge and experience
(Shane 2000). Thus, experiential learning models provide an initial base for simulating the evolution of
small firms.
The adoption of the learning style from Kolb’s (1984) theory complements existing decision making
models by introducing individual difference features in the analysis. Such a consideration advances
the effectiveness of the models to deal with SMEs and innovating firms where many decisions depend
upon leading individuals. Corbett (2005, 2007) discussed effects of the learning style in the
organisational context. The way to build effective entrepreneurial teams within an organisation is not
straightforward; however, learning styles underlie the process and the distribution of liabilities.
Recently, Gemmell, Boland and Kolb (2011) discussed “entrepreneurial ideation” in the context of
social creativity for innovating firms. Hence, the adoption of learning style is expected to have
implications in the organisational context.
The introduction of a personal “style” inducing “myopic” view on the market evidence in Minniti and
Bygrave’s model may not explicitly refer to a learning style. An entrepreneurial style may be more
appropriate; however there is poor development of such a style so far. Many personal attributes and
traits are related to business venturing in literature; however, they have to be integrated in a concise
framework. The adoption of other “styles” enables further quantitative analyses.
Another consideration pertains to the number of options which a real entrepreneur considers and
crosschecks. We expect an increase of options to elongate the time interval for an entrepreneur to act
5