Entrepreneurship论文模板 – Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Analysis of the Environment

The objective of this essay is to critically evaluate and assess the degree of entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity in a proposed entrepreneurial business. The proposed company is known as Pet Flickers and it will be situated at Marylebone, London in the United Kingdom. Pet Flickers is owned by a sole trader and will operate in the pet photography industry. As indicated by Hisrich & Peters (2013), the entrepreneurship and innovation aspect of Pet Flickers is depicted in the fact that the company will not only offer ordinary pet photography services but also present consumers with services such as pet dressing, make up, selection of site and organization and video coverage of pet ceremonies such as birthday events.

 The goal of Pet Flickers which will launch its services in June 2015 is to become the leading pet photography company in the United Kingdom in the first three years of business operations. The main objectives of Pet Flickers is to establish brand presence in the UK, earn a profit of £250,000 in the first year of operation and a 50% gross profit margin in the second year of operation. In order for Pet Flickers to attain its goals and objectives, Tudor, Runco & Moger (2008) claim that it is fundamental to assess the company’s micro and macro environment and the manner in which factors in these environments impact the discovery  and exploitation of entrepreneurial and innovation opportunities.

Macro-environment Analysis

The rapid growth of the pet industry in the United Kingdom results in increased consumer demand for pet services. In the year 2012, for example, the pet industry grew by 12% (approximately 4 billion pets). The forecasted growth of the industry in the next half a decade is wrought with business opportunities for entrepreneurs since the industry has proven to be resistant to recession and related effects. Timmons & Spinelli (2006) posit that there are government policies and rules that govern the treatment of pets; the pet industry, in a similar manner to other industries in the UK, the company is subject to taxation and business regulation, for example the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Animal Welfare Act of 2007, which are aimed at ensuring consumers and their pets. The economy of the United Kingdom is a well-developed one in which most people live comfortable lives.

In the twenty first century, the Britons have become increasingly concerned on not only attaining material wealth and wellbeing, but also spiritual and psychological health. As intimated by Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt (2005), the pet industry, particularly the pet photography sector is instrumental in enabling consumers to relax, bond with their pets and attain increased spiritual satisfaction. Stokes & Wilson (2010) reveal that a significant problem in the industry, however, is the fact that products and services offered by businesses in the pet industry like clear and universal specifications. Tudor et al (2008) assert that there is need for more qualified and enthusiastic personnel in the pet photography and event management sector.

Micro-environment Analysis

The analysis of Pet Flickers micro-environment is mostly aimed at identifying internal competition in the industry. Although the company is in a unique competitive position due to the innovative services it presents consumers with, Drucker (2012) alleges that there is considerable competition from standard portrait studios and other exclusive photographers of pets in the industry. While such competitors have been in the market longer than Pet Flickers and have established customer bases, they are significantly expensive, with limited assortment of services and inflexible schedules. Although competition and threat of new entrants into the industry is significant, Tidd et al (2005) state that Pet Flickers differentiates itself through increased innovation and creativity. It is unarguable that factors in Pet Flickers’ micro and macro environment have significant implications on entrepreneurship and innovation in the company. Due to the competition in the industry, Timmons & Spinelli (2006) posit that Pet Flickers will have to ensure that the staff are well-trained and that highly sophisticated technology and equipment, for example Videocon and HD cameras, is used to enhance photograph quality.

Evaluation and Critical Understanding of Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is typified by a quest for innovative and risk-ridden business ventures which allow entrepreneurs of capitalize on emergent opportunities in the business world. Drucker (2012) alleges that entrepreneurs are innovative persons who do not shy away from risk taking but rather generate novel and ingenious ideas which enable them to profit from formulating solutions for current consumer problems. Stokes & Wilson (2010) reveal that Pet Flickers is an entrepreneurial venture since it responds to consumer need for affordable, quality and flexible pet photography and event management. As posited by Spinelli (2012), it is noteworthy that entrepreneurial activities are divergent based on the type of creativity and organizations that are involved in the process. As intimated by Tidd et al (2005), it is noteworthy that in order for entrepreneurship activities by companies such as Pet Flickers to be possible, it is fundamental that there be opportunities in the business arena. Although there are many different ways in which sources of entrepreneurial activity may be categorized, Tudor et al (2008) assert that there are two main fundamental factors which interact consistently in entrepreneurship- the environment and individuals.

There are two main experts who have contributed significantly in explanations regarding the interaction between individual and environment, types of entrepreneurship and benefits of entrepreneurial ventures such as Pets Flickers to society. These are Joseph Schumpeter and Israel Kirzner. According to Schumpeter (1947) entrepreneurship is a creative endeavor in which entrepreneurs exploits existent opportunities to create new means and ends; such opportunities are not only new, but also innovative. Kirzner (1997), on the other hand, describes opportunities as ever present phenomena that surface from current market disequilibria and must be found through an entrepreneur’s ability to remain alert (Timmons & Spinelli, 2006). Table 1 below depicts the differences between entrepreneurial opportunities as described by Schumpeter and Kirzner.

Table 1: Entrepreneurial Opportunities by Schumpeter versus those by Kirzer

Schumpeterian OpportunitiesKirzenerian Opportunities
RareCommon
Highly innovativeLess innovative
Typified with creationRestricted to discovery
Requires new informationDoes not require new information
DisequilibriatingEquilibrating

 (Shane, 2003)

Pet Flickers and Schumpeterian Entrepreneurship

As already intimated, there are several key issues that surround entrepreneurship and innovation in Pet Flickers. Hisrich & Peters (2013) assert that these may be identified through analyzing the extent of entrepreneurship and innovation in the business. Schumpeter (1947) argues that entrepreneurial activities should be sources of innovation in economic systems and entrepreneurial ventures musty engage in creative destruction. Drucker (2012) alleges that creative destruction in this case refers to the ability by entrepreneurial ventures such as Pet Flickers to bring about economic development through the destruction of conventional and outdated techniques of business. The analysis of Pet Flickers from a Schumpeterian perspective of entrepreneurship reveals that there are three main sources of entrepreneurial opportunities for the company. Timmons & Spinelli (2006) posit that these are socio-demographic transformations, technological changes and revolutions in political and regulatory decrees.

Although the pet industry has been operational in the United Kingdom for many centuries, the socio-demographic transformations that have occurred in the industry since the advent of the second millennium offer many opportunities to firms such as Pet Flickers in the pet photography sector. Through being entrepreneurial and innovative, Tudor et al (2008) assert that Pet Flickers is able to make the procedure of pet photography an affordable and enjoyable activity for both pets and their masters. By securing breathtaking photo shooting sites, themed backdrops and video coverage of important pet events typified with music and special effects, Tidd et al (2005) purport that Pet Flickers successfully brings about economic development through the destruction of conventional and outdated techniques of business. More over, Stokes & Wilson (2010) reveal that innovation in Pet Flickers is also depicted in the fact that the company will present customers with a wide variety of products, for example transferring photographic images of pets to T-shirts, calendars and key-tags. It is however noteworthy that as depicted by Hisrich & Peters (2013), the Schumpeterian form of entrepreneurship is significantly rare and only emerges in exceptional circumstances. Although such entrepreneurship may transform entire industries into innovative technological frontiers Bragg & Bragg (2005) purport that it only occurs in the presence of high levels of education and income, transparent and accountable law systems and diverse markets.

Pet Flickers and Kirzeneriann Entrepreneurship

The Kirzenerian perspective of entrepreneurship-also commonly referred to as a non-novel type of entrepreneurship was established by Isaac Kirzner (Kirzner, 1997). The fundamental tenet of the Kirzenerian approach to entrepreneurship is that entrepreneurship opportunities are not created by special persons; on the contrary, they are readily accessible in environments and may be exploited by any person that is alert enough to identify them. According to Kirzen (1997) entrepreneurial opportunities emerge from the tendency of markets to be in disequilibrium states brought about by ineffective systems of decision making. Shane (2003) argues that it is in the scarcities and excesses that occur as consequence of ineffective systems of decision making that entrepreneurial opportunities surface. Unlike the Schumpeterian perspective of entrepreneurship in which an entrepreneur is perceived as an opportunity creator, Drucker (2012) asserts that the Kirzenerian approach describes the entrepreneur as an opportunity discover.

Degree of entrepreneurship in Pet Flickers

In the contemporary day it is not uncommon for the degree of entrepreneurship in companies to be assessed. Morris, Kuratko & Covin (2011) argue that in order to assess the level of entrepreneurship in Pet Flickers it is fundamental to make use of a systemic technique that is comprised of three main stages namely: evaluation of firm entrepreneurial intensity, diagnosis of corporate entrepreneurship climate and establishment of organization-wide comprehension of the process of innovation (Morris et al, 2011, p. 368). The level of innovation in Pet Flickers Company is high as depicted in the company’s proactiveness and propensity towards risk taking. Regardless of the fact that there is a significant chance of costly failure in the pet photography and event management sector that Pet Flickers wishes to operate, Drucker (2012) alleges that the company is willing to commit its available resources in the exploitation of identified opportunities. The proactive nature of Pet Flickers is demonstrated by the company’s pioneering behavior and pursuit of initiatives that have not yet been undertaken by competitors in the industry (Morris et al, 2011).

The high level of entrepreneurship at Pet Flickers is also demonstrated in the frequency of innovation in the company. Entrepreneurship frequency is demonstrated in the number of novel products and processes innovations that a company introduces in the markets in a specified time period. In order to diagnose the climate for corporate entrepreneurship in Pet Flickers it is useful to make utilize Kuratko, Montagno & Hornsby’s (1990) Corporate Entrepreneurship Climate Instrument (CECI) in the assessment, appraisal and management of a company’s internal environment and the level to which it supports entrepreneurship. The CECI was improved by Hornsby, Kuratko & Zahra (2002) and is currently known as Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI). As indicated by Morris et al (2011) this tool is based on five basic constructs namely management support, work autonomy, reinforcement of entrepreneurial behavior, organizational boundaries and availability of time tom pursue entrepreneurial initiatives. Since Pet Flickers is a sole trader, Bragg & Bragg (2005) purport that the owner of the business must ensure that they create an organizational culture and climate that is supportive of entrepreneurship and innovation.

According to Morris et al (2011), in order to increase the degree of entrepreneurship in the company, it is fundamental for the owner of Pet Flickers to establish organization-wide comprehension of the process of innovation. Timmons & Spinelli (2009) purport that the strategy of corporate entrepreneurship cannot be successfully implemented in a company unless all the members of a firm understand and are supportive of it. Morris et al (2011) argues that the sole trader in Pet Flickers must ensure that all members of the company from whom entrepreneurial behavior is expected fully comprehend the goals, objectives and mission of the firm’s corporate entrepreneurial strategy. Moreover, Drucker (2012) argues that systems and frameworks must be put in place to enhance the entrepreneurial skills of members of the company.

Recommendations

From the assessment of Pet Flicker Company made herein, it is undisputable that there are several actions and processes which if implemented effectively, will enable the company to maximize its entrepreneurial potential and innovation opportunities. Spinelli (2012) argues that such recommendations will also ensure that Pet Flickers is better positioned to deal with any threats or challenges to business. In order to maximize its entrepreneurial potential and innovation, Bragg & Bragg (2005) purport that it is crucial for Pet Flickers to establish an entrepreneurial culture that is geared towards the execution of strategic innovation initiatives.

It is noteworthy that although entrepreneurial ventures may be established in different contexts and environments, Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin & Frese (2009) assert that there are certain economic conditions that may impact a firm’s ability to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. Shane (2003) posits it is thus recommended that the leadership of Pet Flickers remains sensitive to the economic factors which influence the type of entrepreneurial opportunities available for exploitation by the company. As indicated in the table below, Drucker (2012) posits that the most significant economic factors impacting entrepreneurial opportunities include the stability and growth of the economy, taxation, availability of capital, rates of joblessness and income disparities. Drucker (2012) alleges that it is commendable for Pet Flicker to come up with relevant strategies that will respond to the impacts of any of these factors on the form’s entrepreneurship and innovation.

Table 2: Conditions Impacting Entrepreneurial Opportunities

ConditionImpact on Opportunities
Stability and growth of economyMay increase or reduce entrepreneurial opportunities
High levels of taxationReduces entrepreneurial opportunities
Power devolutionIncreases entrepreneurial opportunities
High rates of joblessnessMay increase or reduce entrepreneurial opportunities
Availability of capitalMay increase or reduce entrepreneurial opportunities
Rule of law and property rightsIncreases entrepreneurial opportunities
Income disparitiesMay increase or reduce entrepreneurial opportunities
Policies on licensing and bankruptcyincreases

The second recommendation for Pet Flickers is fore the company to enhance its orientation and inclination towards entrepreneurship. Hudson & Miron (2014) argue that there exists a positive association between a firm’s general profitability and its capacity to create and capture value. Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin & Frese (2009) describe the most important elements of entrepreneurship orientation that Pet Flickers should focus on. These are: innovativeness, risk taking, autonomy, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness. While autonomy refers to the degree to which the management of Pet Flicker will allow and support free entrepreneurial action, Bessant & Tidd (2007) define innovativeness as the preeminence that the company places on product leadership and technology. Wickham (2006) asserts that while risk taking requires Pet Flickers to increase its willingness to inject resources into chancy business initiatives, proactiveness will be depicted in the tendency of the firm to be a market leader in the pet photography and event management sector. According to Hisrich & Peters (2013) competitive aggressiveness will enable Pet Flickers to successfully pursue its competitors’ markets.

In order to increase Pet Flickers’ propensity to entrepreneurial risk taking, it is recommended that the leadership of the company be appointed based on their capacity to construe the strategic goals of the firm’s endeavors and place entrepreneurial initiatives in context. In order to improve on proactiveness, Zhao (2006) purports it is fundamental for Pet Flickers to formulate and implement rewards systems that successfully connect the activities of knowledge management, problem finding and problem solving to the success of the firm’s entrepreneurial ventures. Proactiveness may also be enhanced by ensuring that the leadership of Pet Flickers involves all members of the company in the establishment of an organizational framework that supports the autonomous performance of entrepreneurial activities from mainstream business. Drucker (2012) argues that such an approach will also ensure that Pet Flickers is safeguarded from the adverse impacts of goals that are near-term.

Ropers (2013) claims that innovativeness in Pet Flickers may be enhanced by ensuring that control systems are set in place to ascertain the alignment of all the firm’s entrepreneurial initiatives and activities to the firm’s vision and strategic context. Deakins & Freel (2009) point out that such control systems must also be successful in enabling Pet Flickers to capture and effectively manage new knowledge. Rather than remaining inclined towards waterfall techniques in enhancing cooperation and customer engagement, Burns (2011) argues that Pet Flickers may enhance innovativeness by adopting and implementing dynamic frameworks of development. Kirby (2003) reveals that Pet Flickers may maximize its entrepreneurial potential and innovation opportunities by improving on its competitive aggressiveness. Gifford (1998) asserts the company’s competitive aggressiveness may be enhanced through incorporating feedback from relevant stakeholders, for example customers, employees and suppliers, into the review of entrepreneurial initiatives.

In similar manner to any other start up entrepreneurial venture, Smith (2009) asserts that it is important for Pet Flickers to advertise market and promote its products in order to enhance brand recognition and presence in target markets. One of the recommended promotional strategies for Pet Flicker is the utilization of specialty pet show events in different parts of the United Kingdom. In such occasions, Stokes & Wilson (2010) posit that Pet Flickers will directly market its products to pet breeders and owners for purposes of increasing the firm’s customer base. Ropers (2013) reveals that Pet Flickers may also enter into a partnership with promoters and managers of specialty pet shows so that Advertisement activities may be carried out on television, dispersion of firm brochures in strategic areas such as veterinary facilities and specialty pet stores and advertisements in renowned magazines such as American Kennel Club magazine.

References

Bessant, J & Tidd, J 2007. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Chicester, Wiley.

Bragg, A & Bragg, M 2005. Developing New Business Ideas. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Burns, P 2011. Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Start-Up, Growth and Maturity (3rd Edn.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Deakins, D & Freel,  M 2009. Entrepreneurship and Small Firms, (5th Ed.). London: McGraw Hill.

Drucker, P 2012. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.

Gifford, S 1998. The Allocation Of Limited Entrepreneurial Attention. Boston [u.a.], Kluwer Acad. Publ.

Hisrich, RD & Peters, MP 2013. Entrepreneurship (9th Edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hornsby, JS, Kuratko, DF & Zahra, SA 2002, ‘Middle Managers’ Perception of the Internal

Environment for Corporate Entrepreneurship: Assessing a Measurement Scale’, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 17, pp. 49-63.

Hudson, D & Miron, W 2014, ‘Enabling Employee Entrepreneurship in Large Technology Firms’, Technology Innovation Management Review (February Issue).

Timmons, JA & Spinelli, S 2009. New Venture Creation – Entrepreneurship for 21st Century (8th  Edn.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Kirby, D 2003. Entrepreneurship. London: McGraw-Hill.

Kirzner, IM 1997. Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Australian Approach’, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 35, pp. 60-85.

Kuratko, DF, Montagno, RM & Hornsby, JS 1990, ‘Developing an Entrepreneurial Assessment Instrument for an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 11, pp. 49-58.

Morris, MH, Kuratko, DF & Covin, JG 2011. Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Entrepreneurial Development within Organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Rauch, A, Wiklund, J, Lumpkin, GT & Frese, M 2009, ‘Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestions for the Future’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 33, issue 3, pp. 761-787.

Roper, R 2013. Entrepreneurship A Global Perspective. London: Routledge.

Schumpeter, J 1947, ‘The Creative Response in Economic History’, Journal of Economic History, vol. 7, pp. 149-159.

Shane, S 2003. A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Smith, D, 2009. Exploring Innovation (2nd Edn.). London: McGraw Hill Education.

Spinelli, S 2012. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for The 21st Century (9th Edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Stokes, D &Wilson, N 2010. Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship. Andover: Cengage Learning.

Tidd, J, Bessant, J & Pavitt, K 2005. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Chicester, Wiley.

Timmons, J & Spinelli, S 2006. New Venture Creation. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Tudor, R, Runco, MA & Moger, S 2008. The Routledge Companion to Creativity. London: Routledge

Wickham, P 2006. Strategic Entrepreneurship. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

Zhao, F 2006. Maximize Business Profits Through E-Partnerships. Hershey PA: IRM Press.

Scroll to Top