Introduction
1Entrepreneurship focuses on the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities in the process of business start-up, creation and growth. Entrepreneurial dynamism can be considered as key to economic renewal and growth (Shane, 2012; Lewrick et al., 2010). Innovation relates to the development, adoption and exploitation of value-added activities in economic and social areas; a key factor for competitiveness and growth (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Lewrick et al., 2010).
2Several researches have investigated how entrepreneurs detect and exploit opportunities (Baron, 2008; Ucbasaran et al., 2010) as well as how innovation might influence their ventures (Ireland et al., 2003; Kuratko and Audretsch, 2009). The extant literature shows that there is little empirical work being conducted on the interaction of innovation and entrepreneurial activity (Marcotte, 2011; Anokhin and Wincent, 2012). Furthermore, the conceptual relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation according to several scholars remains inconclusive (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999; Zhao, 2005; Brem, 2011). Since few researches have targeted how entrepreneurs use innovation in their activities, there is a need to investigate the role of innovation in entrepreneurship in developing countries. We considered Morocco as a suitable field of research. Morocco is a developing country that has undergone several reforms and has witnessed significant growth during the last decades.
3Therefore, the aim of this paper is to investigate how Moroccan entrepreneurs make use of innovation in their entrepreneurial activities. In doing so, our research makes novel contributions to the field. First, it provides more data on innovative actions of entrepreneurs in a developing country, which is an under-researched area in general. Second, it provides insight into the obstacles faced by entrepreneurs in that context, which is often neglected in literature.
4To answer our research questions, we adopted a qualitative approach using an interview guide with entrepreneurs and top managers. We asked questions about entrepreneurs’ innovation issues and processes, and the obstacles to these practices.
5The remainder of this paper is structured as follows; the extant literature on innovation and entrepreneurship is presented. This review of the literature identified our main research question. Following this, we describe the methodology used for the case study analysis. Next, we present the main findings of the case study investigation in the next section. Finally, the conclusions and the implications deriving from the study are discussed in the last section.
Literature review
Innovation and entrepreneurship linkage
6Over the last decades, entrepreneurship has become established as a legitimate field of research and managerial practice (Hoskisson et al., 2011). Shane and Venkataraman (2000, p. 218) define entrepreneurship as “an activity that involves the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organizing, markets, process, and raw materials through organizing efforts that previously had not existed.” Although the extant literature has generated a large number of entrepreneurship’s definitions (Lucke et al., 2007; Welter and Lash, 2008) a unanimous definition of entrepreneurship within the scientific community is still lacking, and the concept is often used loosely (Iversen et al., 2005).
7Likewise, there is also a significant ambiguity regarding innovation as a theoretical concept. The views and approaches to define innovative activity diverge widely (Lassen, 2007). An accepted definition of innovation is proposed by Crossan and Apaydin (2010, p. 1155): “Innovation is the production or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and establishment of new management systems. It is both a process and an outcome.”
8Entrepreneurship and innovation are regarded as important tools for competitive advantage in a rapidly changing international business environment (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; O’Connor, 2013). Entrepreneurship focuses on the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities in the process of business start-up, creation and growth (Shane, 2012; Lewrick et al., 2010). Innovation relates to the development, adoption and exploitation of value-added activities in economic and social areas; a key factor for competitiveness and growth (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Lewrick et al., 2010).
9Consequently, several researches have investigated how entrepreneurs detect opportunities and make use of them (Baron, 2008; Ucbasaran et al., 2010) as well as the entrepreneurship-innovation linkage (Ireland et al., 2003; Kuratko and Audretsch, 2009; Zhao, 2005).
10From another perspective, there has been a growing interest in the use of corporate entrepreneurship as a means for corporations to enhance the innovative abilities of their employees and, at the same time, increase corporate success through the creation of new corporate ventures (Khanfar, Loudon, and Mujtaba, 2010).
11Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) can be considered as a vital component for successful organizational performance and renewal (Khanfar et al., 2010). Entrepreneurs in many cases create new firms to commercialize new knowledge and thus promote innovation (Audretsch, 1995; Acs et al., 2009).
12The conceptual relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation remains ambiguous and there is an overlap of process and outcome in the definitions of both concepts (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999; Zhao, 2005; Brem, 2011). From a process perspective, entrepreneurship is contextualised on opportunities, whereas innovation is contextualised on the innovation process, from idea generation through product development to commercialisation.
Entrepreneurship, opportunity and innovation in literature
13In literature, entrepreneurial processes and particularly entrepreneurial orientation (EO), were proposed to conceptualise the activities undertaken by entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) are defined as the processes, practices and decision-making activities that lead to new entry (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) or as an organizational culture of enhancing wealth through innovation and exploitation of opportunities (Nasution et al., 2011).
14In his pioneering work, Schumpeter (1950) equated entrepreneurship with innovative activity. Therefore, the role of entrepreneur is to generate a new idea to the firm to improve either its products or its processes. In this perspective, the entrepreneur is a person who has conceived of a creative idea or has recognized the value of one that has been invented elsewhere (Schumputer, 1950). The recognition of the value of a creative concept is a precondition to innovation. Later on, Kirzner (1979) amended this view by lessening the role of innovation and proposing a complementary notion of opportunity alertness as a key attribute of entrepreneurs.
15Thus, literature offers two main perspectives in opportunity research that could inform entrepreneurship research: (i) opportunity creation and (ii) opportunity discovery (Alvarez and Barney, 2007). According to Buenstorf (2007) and Alvarez et al. (2010, 2013) the roots of the creation view lie in Schumpeter’s work, while the discovery view has its origins in Kirzner’s approach.
16The proponents of opportunity creation argue that opportunities are created endogenously by entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial firms through explorative and innovative action (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Eckhardt and Shane, 2003). In this sense, according to Alvarez et al. (2013), opportunities have no objective existence, that is, no existence independent of the intuitions and innovations of entrepreneurial individuals or firms.
17On the other hand, the opportunity discovery view presupposes that opportunities exist out there and need only to be discovered by an entrepreneur in order to be exploited (Sarason, Dean, and Dillard, 2006). In discovery theory, entrepreneurs are assumed to be quite different from non entrepreneurs and, as a result, are able to detect an opportunity where others would not (Alvarez and Barney, 2007).
18The issue of reconciliation between the various approaches to entrepreneurship has given rise to interesting debates. For example, in analyzing the creation and discovery views, Zahra (2008) emphasized the importance of contextual variables and depicted a virtuous cycle in which discovery and creation enrich each other. On the other hand, Korsgaard (2013) argued that, from a conceptual point of view, reconciliation between these views is still problematic and there are complexities inherent in both approaches.
19Empirically, there is a scarcity of researches targeting innovative actions of entrepreneurs. Despite the vast innovation literature base, evidence of the application of Schumpeterian and/or Kirznerian perspective is rather limited (Hsu et al., 2014) and we know little about how entrepreneurship might influence innovation (Villa and Bruno, 2013). The empirical findings of researches diverge widely. For example, De Jong and Marsili (2011) empirically demonstrated the coexistence of the two forms of entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. According to the authors, Schumpeterian entrepreneurs actively searched for innovations, the Kirznerian ones speculated on the already existing opportunities that can be exploited through new business venturing, regardless of the resulting innovative value of these opportunities. Notwithstanding, in some cases when entrepreneurship and innovation indicators were measured, some findings suggest a negative relationship between the two concepts (Marcotte, 2011; Anokhin and Wincent, 2012).
20From another perspective, several researches investigated the entrepreneurship innovation linkage by adopting macroeconomic approach. For instance Qian and Haynes (2013) examined small business innovation research program (SBIR) in the U.S to evaluate its efficacy and its impact on economic development. Corona-Trevino (2016) studied entrepreneurship in an open national innovation system (ONIS) to assess how highly developed the Mexican ONIS is. The research of Huggins and Thompson (2015) was based on the network theory to propose a conceptual model incorporating knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth. Modrego et al. (2015) tested empirically a model of regional innovation based on the matching of research and entrepreneurial skills in Chile. Hsu et al. (2014) used a blended view of corporate entrepreneurship and operations capability as enablers of innovation. The authors’ survey used data on ASEAN countries and found positive link between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation.
21Few studies adopted microeconomic perspective and researches are still emerging in this area. De la Vega (2016) examined corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship orientation and innovative outcomes and how they affect firm performance of SME in Colombia. The research has found out strong links between innovation, EO and firm performance. Matejun (2016) analyzed the role of technology entrepreneurship in the development of innovativeness of SME in Poland. The findings suggest positive link between entrepreneurship and innovation.
22This literature review suggests that extant research on innovation and entrepreneurship linkage remains inconclusive and there is substantial divergence on key issues. Entrepreneurship and innovation are complex concepts that necessitate further elucidation and empirical research to establish conceptual models and explanatory theories (Wiengarten et al., 2013). How entrepreneurs harness innovation to stimulate their entrepreneurship activities and ventures remains under researched area in literature. Most researches used quantitative approach and few used qualitative case studies. Furthermore, research on developing countries is scarce and particularly studies on African countries are lacking.
23Therefore, in order to fill literature gaps, our research questions can be formulated as follows:
- RQ1. How do entrepreneurs exploit opportunities and innovation?
- RQ2. What type of obstacles hampers entrepreneurs’ innovation initiatives?
24A field research is necessary. Morocco is a developing country and it seemed to be an appropriate research field because of its central position in the European and African markets. Moreover, Morocco currently receives 33% of its direct investments from the multinational firms that have turned toward North Africa (UNCTAD, 2014) and has concluded free trade agreements with the United States, the European Union, Turkey, and Canada, all of which seems to indicate that this country is increasingly being integrated into the global economy.
25According to the global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM, 2015), the Moroccan rate of participation in entrepreneurial activity is very high (Just over 9% of the adult population was actively trying to start a new business in 2009 and almost 7% owned a “baby” business less than 42 months old). This data indicates dynamism in entrepreneurship activity in Morocco.
Methodology
26In this study, qualitative research was undertaken to gain a deeper understanding of how entrepreneurs use innovation in their activities.
27Based on the five steps proposed by Stuart et al. (2002), a summary of the empirical work is provided in Table 1.
28The case study analysis comprised the following four steps: (1) case study selection and classification, (2) interview protocol, (3) data collection, and (4) analysis and interpretation.
Case study method
Case study method
Data gathering
29As suggested by Flyvbjerg (2001), the cases for small samples need to be selected on the basis of the expectations for their information content in order to maximize the utility of the information. A preliminary sample was thus formed by drawing from a database on Moroccan companies. This database has been compiled from a previous research on entrepreneurship initiatives of Moroccan companies. Our selection criteria were as follows:
- The companies had to be actively engaged in innovative ventures and activities (i.e introducing new products and services, new marketing approaches); and
- The companies had to be of different size, in different industry sectors, and of different ages (years of establishment).
30A preliminary sample of 31 companies was selected as the output of this phase. Subsequently, we contacted these companies by phone and e-mail to determine their willingness to participate in the study. We followed the principle of information saturation to define the number of interviews we had to do (Strauss, 1987). Ultimately, we were able to interview 9 entrepreneurs that agreed to participate in this case study (see Table 2).
31These semi-structured interviews lasted an average of one hour and were undertaken by the researchers themselves. Interviews were conducted individually, by phone, or face-to-face, and were transcribed. We agreed to maintain company anonymity to encourage openness in the responses (companies are labeled with letters from A to H in the tables).
32We developed an interview guide to define the main themes to discuss with top managers. We asked questions about managers’ innovation issues and processes, and the obstacles to these practices. The objective of this interview guide was to capture the variety of respondents’ innovation practices and the factors that influence such practices. In particular, our interview guide covered the following topics: (1) presentation of the company (activities, sites, size, and so on); (2) definition and vision for entrepreneurship activities (in general and for the company); (3) innovative actions implemented by the company (if relevant); (4) reasons for implementing innovative actions in the company (if relevant); (5) assessment of the opportunity exploitation in the company: results and difficulties (if relevant).
Characteristics of Moroccan companies interviewed*
Characteristics of Moroccan companies interviewed*
*Company size is estimated by turnover and number of employees.33Our sample is composed of 3 small companies, 4 large companies and one medium company. The entrepreneurs interviewed operate in several sectors: primary (agriculture), secondary (packaging, metal industries) and tertiary (electricity, tourism, real estate, publicity). With the exception of the cases A, B and E who have relatively old age, most of the companies have been created recently.
34All cases examined were interested in innovative projects, allocated resources to innovations, and adopted strategic vision with respect to innovation and entrepreneurship. They also shared an open attitude to new ideas and new ventures.
35Interview data were recorded and transcribed. The data were analyzed by reading the transcripts to draw out key themes adding layers of detail to the analysis. A thematic content analysis on the collected discourses was performed using this method (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
36We classified the emerging themes into three main categories, which were defined as: (i) Innovative practices (ii) Importance of innovation in entrepreneurship and (iii) Obstacles to innovation.
Findings
Innovative practices
37According to interviewees innovations initiatives comprise:
- Product innovations—introduction of a good or service offered by the company that is new or significantly improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses. This includes significant improvements in technical specifications, components and/or materials and functional characteristics.
- Process (including marketing process) innovations—the implementation of a new or significantly improved production, marketing or delivery method. This includes significant changes in techniques, equipment, IT, software and also includes marketing solutions such as product placement, product promotion or pricing.
- Organization and management innovations—the implementation of a new organizational or management concepts and methods in the firm’s business practices, workplace organisation or external relations of the company.
- Technology innovations—the implementation of new (or improved) technologies that are developed and brought into use. This includes solutions in research, development, demonstration, and deployment of various technologies.
38Overall, we notice that Moroccan entrepreneurs seem to follow a pattern of innovation similar to what previous researches have described in other contexts. These findings are in line with previous researches on innovation practices (Sagar and van der Zwaan, 2006; Damanpour and Aravind, 2012).
Innovative practices
Innovative practices
39The firms that initiated all or most categories of innovation include cases A, B, D and G. Companies like C, F and H had only innovation in two categories (product, process) and (process, management) while E had only one innovation linked to technology.
40The results indicate that the firms that were able to initiative innovation in product, process, management and technology were mostly large companies (A, B, D and G) while small and medium firms had innovation limited to 2 or 1 category. Although the scope of innovation cannot be assessed thoroughly nor compared easily between firms as sectors, organizational and contextual conditions vary, we note that these results might indicate an influence of companies’ size on their innovation initiative. The results of previous studies (e.g. Dutta, Lanvin, Wunsch-Vincent, 2015) indicate that the level of innovativeness in SMEs is lower than the level presented by large enterprises, and engagement in innovation and implementing innovative solutions decreases with the size of the company. One of the major weaknesses of small businesses in this regard is a significant shortage of resources, both financial and other than financial (as compared to large enterprises), which limits the scope of operations, level of marketing, research and development, investment activities and, as a result the level of innovation (Qian, Marcus, Li, 2014; Block, Fisch, Hahn, Sandner, 2015).
41The table 4 summaries the approaches to opportunity deployment of the cases:
Approach to opportunity of examined cases*,**
Approach to opportunity of examined cases*,**
*OD : opportunity discovering**OC : opportunity creation
42According to the interviewees’ responses, we find three categories of entrepreneurs: the ones who relate to the Schumpeterian model based on OC or the Kirznerian model based on OD and the ones who combine the two models (entrepreneurs who actively search for innovations and who exploited already existing opportunities).
43We note that “pure” OC concerns two cases (H and C). These cases relate to entrepreneurs in recent small size companies operating in tertiary sector (services).
44Cases that assert exploiting opportunities based on OC and OD conjointly concern four cases (A, B, E and F). These are companies with different sizes: small; medium and large but they operate in industrial sector.
45The “pure” OD concerns the third group of firms (D and G) who are large firms established several years ago and active in industrial and service sectors.
46These results might suggest that size, age and specific characteristics influence opportunity exploitation and innovation. These findings are in line with previous researches that demonstrated the influence of contextual aspects on innovation and entrepreneurship (De la Vega, 2016; Matejun, 2016).
Importance of innovation in entrepreneurship
47The interviewees were asked to describe how important innovation is for their entrepreneurship activities (Table 5).
Importance of innovation for case studies
| Cases | Innovation and entrepreneurship’s linkage | Importance of innovation for entrepreneurial activity |
|---|---|---|
| A | “Innovation has helped us a lot in our entrepreneurship by enabling us to build a strong brand and corporate reputation” | “Being innovative is essential to become an entrepreneur” |
| B | “Innovation is the major key of growth… we haven’t stopped developing our business by innovating in new ventures” | “Being innovative is a prerequisite to become an entrepreneur” |
| C | “In terms of creativity and knowledge, the innovative tools have enabled us to have a better cooperation with our partners and to better understand our customers’ needs” | “Being innovative is not a prerequisite to become an entrepreneur. A company might provide new products and services but there are other firms who provide services similar to existing offer on the market” |
| D | “Innovation has helped us to become competitive” | “Entrepreneurship necessitates innovation” |
| E | “Entrepreneurship and innovation are closely linked. The project idea is often generated by innovation tools” | “Entrepreneurship does not necessarily requires innovation” |
| F | “Innovation helps in promoting our entrepreneurial activities” | “Being innovative stimulates new horizons” |
| G | “Innovation generated a growth in clients orders and helped us to differentiate our offer” | “Innovation is not a perquisite to entrepreneurship” |
| I | “There is a crucial influence of innovation in our activity. The concept itself of ecotourism was unheard of in Morocco before we launched our venture” | “Innovation is absolutely necessary” |
Importance of innovation for case studies
48The interviewees’ responses stress the importance of innovation for entrepreneurs. The linkage between the two concepts seems to be substantial and significant according to several entrepreneurs. Innovativeness is seen as one of the key factors in achieving success and increasing effectiveness of Moroccan examined cases. It seems that innovation might allow firms companies to build a permanent competitive advantage, mostly through such positive effects as: increasing quality and effectiveness, limiting costs, increasing customer loyalty, internationalization of operations of modernizing management processes and methods. These findings confirm previous researches on innovation (Cassiman, Golovko, Martínez-Ros, 2010; Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, Bausch, 2011).
49Innovation is a key for growth and competitiveness according to three cases (B, D and F). Nevertheless, there are cases of entrepreneurs who think that it is not necessary to be innovative to become a successful entrepreneur (C, E and G).
50Overall, these results seem to indicate the ambiguous nature of entrepreneurship and innovation linkage. Although the interviews acknowledged that these concepts are distinctive and different, several entrepreneurs state that innovation and entrepreneurship overlap sometimes in terms of objectives and processes.
Obstacles to innovation
51The interviewees were asked to describe the obstacles that hinder innovation in their entrepreneurship activities (Table 6).
Obstacles to innovation of Moroccan companies interviewed
Obstacles to innovation of Moroccan companies interviewed
52The interviewees’ responses indicate two types of obstacles to innovation: internal and external. Most of the obstacles are internal (lack of funding, costs, lack of strategy, lack of capabilities).
53The main obstacles to innovation are luck of funding and costs which indicates the inherent difficulties of firms and entrepreneurs in Morocco to fund their projects. There are also external obstacles related to fear of change and lack of stimulating innovation culture. According to several interviewees, their innovative actions are hampered by lack of involvement from the other partners in the process (personnel, customers, suppliers…). This change resistance is what compels some entrepreneurs to limit the scope of their innovation because they cannot implement it fully or fulfill some of their plans. From another perspective, the lack of partners’ involvement that was cited as an obstacle to innovative initiatives of examined cases highlights the need of inter-firm cooperation in order to develop successful innovation. Indeed, the impact of partners’ collaboration in initiating more elaborate innovation has been demonstrated in previous researches (Braun, 2015). Ultimately, these results indicate the complex nature of obstacles hindering innovation of the examined cases.
Discussion
54Regarding RQ1 i.e. How do entrepreneurs exploit opportunities and innovation? The findings indicate three types of entrepreneurs: “pure” OC, pure” OD and cases that assert exploiting opportunities based on the combination of OC and OD. These findings confirm the previous results of de Jong and Marsili (2011). Furthermore, we found out that innovation plays a major role for entrepreneurs, which confirms also the findings of previous researches (Zhao, 2005; Matejun, 2016; De la Vega, 2016).
55Concerning RQ2 i.e. What obstacles hinder entrepreneurs’ innovation initiatives? The findings indicate two types of obstacles internal and external. Lack of funds, high costs, lack of core capabilities and appropriate cultural/environmental conditions seem to hinder innovation initiatives of entrepreneurs. Overall, several obstacles are linked to the lack of companies’ capabilities necessary for innovation and entrepreneurship. According to Schumpeter (1954) the actors that drive innovation and the economy are companies that have the resources and the capital to invest in research and development. Therefore, the Schumpeterian perspective considers firms as an idiosyncratic bundle of core capabilities that need to be tapped and deployed to enhance innovation prowess. Therefore, the lack of such capabilities and resources can only hinder innovation initiatives of companies.
56The lack of appropriate innovation culture constitutes one of the obstacles mentioned by the examined cases. The issue of innovation culture has always been ambiguous. Organizational culture has a profound influence on entrepreneurial activities and innovation in organizations. Culture is a primary determinant of entrepreneurship and innovation (Herbig et al., 1994). Organizational culture also has an important impact on entrepreneurship and innovation (Slevin and Covin, 1990). In extant literature, organizational culture has been defined in different ways. Broadly, it could be defined as the rooted values and beliefs that are shared by people in an organization (Zhao, 2005). Organizational culture can affect entrepreneurship and innovation through socialization processes that influence workplace behavior, and through structures, policies, and procedures that are shaped by the basic values and beliefs of the organization (Martin and Terblanche, 2003). Ahmed (1998) viewed innovation as an environment and a culture that drives value creation in an organization. Slevin and Covin (1990) emphasized the importance of an appropriate organizational culture in developing effective entrepreneurial and innovation behavior to address market dynamics. Overall, there is a need to assess how Moroccan companies have developed an organizational culture that promotes and rewards new ideas and new ways of doing business. Many elements regarding hierarchy and the management structure of the organizations and how they affect innovation can be studied.
57Based on our findings and extant literature (Schumpeter and Kirzner models of entrepreneurship conceptualization), we present the following conceptual model:
Innovation and entrepreneurship conceptual model
Innovation and entrepreneurship conceptual model
58Entrepreneurship orientation is associated with individual and organizational attributes, such as autonomy, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness, innovativeness, and risk taking (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) all of which have important implications for innovation. EO supports innovation in organizations, and innovation promotes new entry or new venture creation—a vehicle for commercialization of innovations. Accordingly, the process of entrepreneurship is widely considered to stimulate competition and drive innovation (Audretsch and Thurik, 2001; Acs 2002, 2006; Powell, 2007; Huggins and Williams, 2011).
Conclusion
59This paper provides insights about the innovative initiatives of Moroccan entrepreneurs and the main obstacles to them. The results of this paper could be of great help to entrepreneurs in Morocco and elsewhere. With regards to entrepreneurship, the following areas should be considered by Moroccan entrepreneurs:
- Creating an organizational culture based on knowledge,
- Creating an attitude of openness to knowledge and new solutions among employees,
- Listening to ideas submitted by employees and implementing them,
- Lowering obstacles preventing the implementation of changes and ideas coming from outside the company.
60With regards to the area of integration of science and business, focus has to be placed on organizing teamwork in cooperation with employees of research and development institutions, ensuring that employees can access knowledge (project databases, experts) required to perform the tasks they are entrusted with and building networks allowing for the exchange of knowledge between employees, scientific institutions and organizations that support the transfer of technologies. With regards to effects of technology and innovation, focus can be placed on such aspects as: analyzing the environment with regards to demand for products and services which the company could supply, analyzing entities present in the market (clients, suppliers, competitors, etc.) in order to obtain information required to implement new technologies and receive feedback from clients concerning the implemented products/services. The area of internal technological and innovation potential should be enhanced through the following actions:
- Identification of the needs of the company with regards to knowledge, competence, technology;
- Determining the current state of knowledge in the enterprise and gaps in intellectual resources;
- Building the company’s own research back office;
- Implementing procedures of document tasks and projects that are underway at a given moment;
- Promoting and rewarding knowledge sharing;
- Determining the manner of storing, codifying, protecting knowledge and criteria of providing access to such knowledge.
61We developed a conceptual model to investigate further entrepreneurial innovation and the main obstacles to such initiatives. It would be interesting to test our conceptual model of entrepreneurial innovation in other contexts. Further research should explore how entrepreneurs use innovation as a source of competitive advantage. There are two main limitations to the findings presented in this paper. First, given the research methodology, the empirical study was undertaken on a small sample of Moroccan entrepreneurs. Because this study is qualitative, further statistical support is needed to justify wider generalization of its findings. Also, the possibility of generalizing the present findings to countries beyond Morocco is limited by the fact that data were collected exclusively there. Indeed, the practices and obstacles that we explored may change across countries because entrepreneurial innovation may be bound to cultural contingencies. Studies might therefore do well to investigate entrepreneurial innovation in developing countries other than Morocco to increase the external validity of the results.
62Despite these limitations, we do think that the validity of the obtained results is not in doubt.
63Furthermore, the analysis presented in this paper is based on semi structured interviews aiming to analyse the current innovative practice of entrepreneurs. A longitudinal study aiming to explore how innovative entrepreneurship evolves over the years would be complementary to our work.
Bibliographie
References
- Acs, Z.J. (2006). How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations 1 (1), p. 97-107.
- Acs, Z.J. (2002). Innovation and the Growth of Cities, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
- Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., Braunerhjelm, P. and Carlsson, B. (2009). The Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 32(1), p. 15-30.
- Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 1 (1), p. 30-43.
- Alvarez, S. A. and Barney. J. B. (2007). Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (1–2), p. 11-26.
- Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B. and Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: The implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science 24 (1), p. 301-317.
- Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B. and Young, S. L. (2010). Debates in entrepreneurship: Opportunity formation and implications for the field of entrepreneurship. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (2nd ed., pp. 23-46). New York: Springer.
- Anokhin, S. and Wincent, J. (2012). Start-up rates and innovation: a cross-country examination. Journal of International Business Studies 43(1), p. 41-60.
- Audretsch, D. B. and Thurik, A. R. (2001). What is new about the new economy: Sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and Corporate Change 10, p. 267-315.
- Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and Industry Evolution, Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review 33, p. 328–40.
- Block, J. H., Fisch, C. O., Hahn. A. and Sandner, P. G. (2015). Why do SMEs File Trademarks? Insights from Firms in Innovative Industries. Research Policy 44 (10) p. 1915-1930.
- Brazeal, D. V., and Herbert, T. T. (1999). The Genesis of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24(1), p. 29-45.
- Brem, A. (2011). Linking innovation and entrepreneurship—literature overview and introduction of a process-oriented framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 14, p. 6-35.
- Buenstorf, G. (2007). Creation and pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities: An evolutionary economics perspective. Small Business Economics 28, p. 323-327.
- Cassiman, B., Golovko, E., Martínez-Ros, E. (2010). Innovation, Exports and Productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization 28 (4), p. 372-376.
- Corona-Treviño, L. (2016). Entrepreneurship in an open national innovation system (ONIS): a proposal for Mexico. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 5, p. 22, DOI 10.1186/s13731-016-0049-5
- Crossan, M. and Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovations: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies 47(6), p. 1154-1191.
- Damanpour, F. and Aravind, D. (2012). Organizational Structure and Innovation Revisited: From Organic to Ambidextrous Structure, [in:] M. Mumford (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity, Elsevier—Academic Press, London.
- De Jong, J. P. and Marsili, O. (2015). The distribution of Schumpeterian and Kirznerian opportunities. Small Business Economics 44(1), p. 19-35.
- De la Vega, R. (2016). Corporate Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Innovative Outcomes: Shedding Some Light on the Effect of the Focus of Innovation, United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Conference Proceedings, Boca Raton.
- Dutta, S., Lanvin, B. and Wunsch-Vincent, S. (eds.). (2015). The Global Innovation Index 2015. Effective Innovation Policies for Development, Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva.
- Eckhardt, J. T. and Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management 29, p. 333-349.
- Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
- Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). (2015). Global Report, online: http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/gem/Documents/GEM%202015-2016%20Global%20Report.pdf
- Herbig, P., Golden, E. J. and Dunphy, A. (1994). The relationship of structure to entrepreneurial and innovative success. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 12 (9), p. 37-48.
- Hoskisson, R. E, Covin, J., Volberda, H. W. and Johnson, R. A. (2011). Revitalizing Entrepreneurship: The Search for New Research Opportunities. Journal of Management Studies (48) 6, p. 1141-1168.
- Hsu, C., Tana, K., Jayaramb, J. and Laosiri hong thong, T. (2014). Corporate entrepreneurship, operations core competency and innovation in emerging economies. International Journal of Production Research 52 (18), p. 5467-5483.
- Huggins, R. and Williams, N. (2011). Entrepreneurship and regional competitiveness: the role and progression of policy. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(9/10), p. 907-932.
- Huggins, R. and Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory. Small Business Economics 45 (1), p. 103-128.
- Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A. and Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, (29), p. 963-89.
- Iversen, J., Jorgensen, R., Malchow-Moller, N. and Schjerning, B. (2005). Defining and Measuring Entrepreneurship, Centre for Economic and Business Research.
- Khanfar, N., Loudon, D., and Mujtaba, B. G. (2010). Santorini Restaurant: One Entrepreneur’s Start-Up Adventure. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 1(2), p. 70-74.
- Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
- Kirzner, I. (1989). Discovery, Capitalism, and Distributive Justice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Creative and/or alertness: a reconsideration of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur, The Review of Austrian Economics 11 (1-2), p. 5-17.
- Korsgaard, S. and Anderson, A. R. (2011). Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation, International Small Business Journal 29 (2), p. 135-151.
- Kuratko, D. and Audretsch, D. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: exploring different perspectives of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33, p. 1-17.
- Lassen, A. H. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship: an empirical study of the importance of strategic considerations in the creation of radical innovation. International Research Journal 5(2), p. 109-131.
- Lewrick, M., Maktoba, O. and Williams, R. (2010). Growing market strengths. Management of innovation in high-growth SMEs. in: Nwankwo, S., Gbadamosi, A. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship marketing. Principles and practice of SME marketing, Routledge, p. 196 -210.
- Luke, B., Verreynne, M. -L. and Kearins, K. (2007). Measuring the benefits of entrepreneurship at different levels of analysis. Journal of Management & Organization 13, p. 312-330.
- Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21 (1), p. 135-72.
- Marcotte, C. (2011). Country entrepreneurial profiles: assessing the individual and organizational levels of entrepreneurship across countries. Journal of Enterprising Culture 19 (2), p. 169-200.
- Martin, E. C. and Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), p. 64-74.
- Matejun, M. (2016). Role of technology entrepreneurship in the development of innovativeness of small and mediumsized enterprises. Management 20 (1), p. 167-183.
- Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. 2d Edition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
- Modrego, F., McCann, P., Foster, W. E., and Olfert, M. R. (2015). Regional entrepreneurship and innovation in Chile: A knowledge matching approach. Small Business Economics 44(3), p. 685–703.
- Nasution, H. N., Mavondo, F. T., Matanda, M. J. and Ndubisi, N. O. (2011). Entrepreneurship: Its relationship with market orientation and learning orientation and as antecedents to innovation and customer value. Industrial Marketing Management 40(3), p. 336-345.
- O’Connor, A. (2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Firm Venturing 28, p. 546-563.
- Powell, B. (2007). The environment of productive entrepreneurship: evidence from Asia and the Pacific Rum. Indian Journal of Economics & Business, p. 79-92.
- Qian, G., Marcus, A. and Li, L. (2014). Should Small Exporting Technology Enterprises Use Niche, Strategic Alliances, or Both? International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development 13 (1), p. 21-36.
- Qian, H. and Haynes, K. E. (2014). Beyond innovation: The Small Business Innovation Research program as entrepreneurship policy. Journal of Technology Transfer 39, p. 524-543.
- Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J. and Bausch, A. (2011). Is Innovation always beneficial? a Meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing 26 (4), p. 441-457.
- Sagar, A. D. and van der Zwaan, B. (2006). Technological Innovation in the Energy Sector: R&D, Deployment, and Learning-by-Doing. Energy Policy 34 (17), p. 2601-2608.
- Sarason, Y., Dean, T. and Dillard, J. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing 21, p. 286-305.
- Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Theory of Economic Development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles. A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York and London: McGraw-Hill.
- Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of Economic Analysis. London: Allen and Unwin.
- Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Brother Publishers, New York, NY.
- Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 37, p. 10–20.
- Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25(1), p. 217.
- Slevin, D. P. and Covin, J. G. (1990). Juggling entrepreneurial style and organizational structure- How to get your act together. Sloan Management Journal, p. 43-53.
- Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Stuart, I., Mccutcheon, D., Handfield, R., Mclachlin, R. and Samson, D. (2002). Effective case research in operations management: a process perspective. Journal of Operations Management 20 (5), p. 419-33.
- Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M. and Flores, M. (2010). The nature of entrepreneurial experience, business failure and comparative optimism. Journal of Business Venturing 25, p. 541-55.
- United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2014). World Investment Report, United Nations Publications, available at <unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf>
- Villa, A., and Bruno, G. (2013). Promoting SME Cooperative Aggregations: Main Criteria and Contractual Models. International Journal of Production Research 51 (23-24), p. 7439-7447.
- Welter, F. and Lasch, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship research in Europe: Taking stock and looking forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32 (2), p. 241-248.
- Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B., Cheng, E. and Chavez, R. (2013). Taking an innovative approach to quality practices: exploring the importance of a company’s innovativeness on the success of TQM practices. International Journal of Production Research 51 (10), p. 3055-3074.
- Zahra, S. A. (2008). Being Entrepreneurial and Market Driven: Implications for Company Performance. Journal of Strategy and Management 1 (2), p. 125-142.
- Zhao, F. (2005). Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 11 (1), p. 25-41.
Mots-clés éditeurs : innovation au Maroc, entrepreneuriat, orientation entrepreneuriale au Maroc, Innovation
Mise en ligne 20/03/2020
https://doi.org/10.3917/proj.025.0027
