1. A Constructivist Approach for
Technology-based Entrepreneurship
XXIII ISPIM Conference
Barcelona – June 20th
Ferran Giones (1), Zhao Zhou (2), Dr. Francesc Miralles (1), Dr. Bernhard Katzy (2)
(1) La Salle – Ramon Llull University
(2) CeTIM – Leiden University

2. Agenda
• Introduction
• Background
• Literature Review
• Method & Data
• Results
• Conclusions
2

3. Introduction
• Technology-based entrepreneurship driver of economic
growth and social wealth.
• Dominant entrepreneurship models fail to provide reliable
guidelines for uncertainty-rich Tech-based entrepreneurship.
• Alternative theoretical perspectives for entrepreneurial
opportunities emergence aim to mitigate this gap.
• This research explores through the lenses of the constructivist
view how opportunities became objective in six case studies.
3

4. Background
• Mechanisms to support entrepreneurial opportunities not
working well with tech-based entrepreneurship:
• Institutionalized view of how entrepreneurship works based on
industrial era assumptions (Honig & Karlsson 2004).
• Evidences of entrepreneurship promotion policies mixed results
(Shane 2009).
• What is different in Technology-based entrepreneurship?
• A priori technology-related uncertainty conditions entrepreneur
action (Teece 2010, McMullen & Shepherd 2006), in a process of plan
and action (Baker et al. 2003).
• Difficulties to clearly identify the objective opportunity.
4

5. Literature Review
• Competing perspectives on opportunity identification:
• Discovery perspective: objective opportunities exist available to those that
can see them (Alvarez & Barney 2007).
• Alternative perspectives: propose that opportunities emerge through
entrepreneurs action in their social context (Klein 2008)
• The constructivist view as an alternative perspective (Wood
& McKinley 2010) to study opportunity objectification:
• Opportunity origin (initial idea) description combines elements from given
social context and individual perceptions.
• Consensus among knowledgeable peers drives to opportunity emergence.
• This research explores the social interaction processes in the
opportunity objectification following the constructivist view.
5

6. Method & Data
• Method:
• Exploratory objective
• Inductive approach based on a multiple-case study with 6 technology-
based entrepreneurs.
• Sample:
• Cases in telecom (2), electronics (2) and software (2).
• Entrepreneur profiles: novice (4) and experienced (2), academic
researchers (2) and technology managers (4).
• Data collection & analysis:
• Interviews and secondary sources collected in 2009-2011.
• Stories: from first thoughts initial idea to the objective opportunity.
• Individual case stories and cross-case comparison.
6

7. Results (1/3)
• Opportunity construction process in technology-based
entrepreneurship seen to combine structure and individual
elements (as suggested in Wood & McKinley 2010)
• Idea origin in a given social structure triggers a process of iteration
with knowledgeable peers using their pre-existent network.
“I’ve been many years doing research on asynchronous circuits…it has
began to be important as the mobile devices market has developed”
(Powchip founder).
• Regardless of potential mismatch between entrepreneur knowledge and
experience and venture idea (not explained by “discovery perspective”)
• Emergence explained entrepreneur’s social action (oriented
consensus building processes) as they perceive to have the ability to
make things happen (as described in “constructivist view”) :
“I started working from scratch for a new technological solution, changing
everything” (Winet founder).
7

8. Results (2/3)
• Iteration with knowledgeable peers:
• Entrepreneur relies on already existing network of direct personal
ties (Newbert & Tornikoski 2010), without a planned peer selection
mechanism:
“talking with an entrepreneur in integrated circuits that I knew from prior
research projects” Winet Founder.
• Different patterns of action observed in experienced entrepreneurs:
• Pre-existent network includes both technology research and market
knowledge peers:
“it was my previous business partner that insisted on exploring together
the changes that internet and digital TV would produce” DigiTV Founder.
• Experienced entrepreneurs seen to be aware of the mechanisms
to accelerate idea refinement (in line with Dew et al. 2009 and
Politis 2008).
8

9. Results (3/3)
• Consensus building
• Strategizing the social exchange (consistent with “constructivist
view”):
• Technology assessment: obtaining “encouraging feedback from the
conversations with colleagues and experts” (Hying founder).
• Market sensemaking (Weick et al. 2005): “You cannot get stuck in an idea
and stop listening to the or looking at the market” (DigiTV founder).
• Produces gains in social legitimacy (as in Tornikoski 2009) to further
advance in the consensus building process and mitigate stakeholders’
uncertainty perception:
“A third party evaluates the technology and raises the confidence level on
the idea” (Powchip founder).
• Resulting in a process of transformation where entrepreneurs and
stakeholders perceptions evolve together to reach opportunity
objectification (as suggested by Wood & McKinley 2010).
9

10. Conclusions
• Institutionalized models of entrepreneurship do not hold well
with Tech-based entrepreneurship.
• Constructivist view (Wood & McKinley 2010) enriches the
opportunity “discovery perspective” uncovering the social
construction processes in the opportunity emergence.
• Results suggest the need for promotion policies that take into
account the “social construction” of opportunities:
• Provide support to iteration & consensus building processes.
• Consider the benefits of social construction processes as opportunity
emergence accelerator.
10