Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Antecedents and consequences of cooperative entrepreneurship: a conceptual model and empirical investigation

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the perceived sufficiency of research on inter-organizational relationships, scant attention has been given to entrepreneurship fulfillment in this domain. This brings to the fore the need to advance the literature on ‘cooperative entrepreneurship’ referring, in general, to an inter-firm collaborative strategy developed principally to enhance partners’ entrepreneurial status. Therefore, stoking theoretical foundations of the cooperative entrepreneurship concept, the present study aims to identify the most important factors influencing and influenced by this strategy. A selective literature review led us to propose a conceptual model incorporating the cooperative entrepreneurship construct, its antecedents and the consequences. The results from 228 questionnaires filled in by managers serving in the automobile parts manufacturing industry provide fresh evidence for the significant positive impacts of partners’ entrepreneurial attitude, complementarity, and compatibility (as antecedents) on cooperative entrepreneurship, as well as the positive effects of cooperative entrepreneurship on firms’ agility, customer relationship management, learning, innovative, and sensing capabilities (as consequences). In addition to the proposed conceptual model, this research contributes to the literature by: conceptualizing entrepreneurial attitude at the level of business unit, identifying a number of indicators to measure cooperative entrepreneurship, and taking the dynamic capabilities perspective to propose the set of consequences. The practical implications are also discussed, especially targeting the cooperation partners’ senior managers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andresen, E., Lundberg, H., & Wincent, J. (2014). Processes in collaborative entrepreneurship: a longitudinal case study of how multiple actors exploit a radically new opportunity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 713–726.

  • Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamford, J. D., Gomes-Casseres, B., & Robinson, M. S. (2003). Mastering alliance strategy: A comprehensive guide to design, management, and organization. San Francisco: Wiley.

  • Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomqvist, K., & Levy, J. (2006). Collaboration capability–a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 2(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borch, O. J., & Madsen, E. L. (2007). Dynamic capabilities facilitating innovative strategies in SMEs. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, 1(1), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., & Schutjens, V. (2009). Mapping entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial attitudes in European regions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 7(2), 191–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottani, E. (2009). A fuzzy QFD approach to achieve agility. International Journal of Production Economics, 119(2), 380–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (2007). Entrepreneurial actions, innovation, and appropriability. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), 349–352.

  • Cartan, G., & Carson, D. (2009). Local engagement in economic development and industrial collaboration around Australia's Gunbarrel highway. Tourism Geographies, 11(2), 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

  • Cesinger, B., Hughes, M., Mensching, H., Bouncken, R., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2016). A socioemotional wealth perspective on how collaboration intensity, trust, and international market knowledge affect family firms’ multinationality. Journal of World Business, 51(4), 586–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Croce, A., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Ownership structure, horizontal agency costs and the performance of high-tech entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics, 42(2), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. L., & Holmberg, S. R. (2012). Best-fit alliance partners: The use of critical success factors in a comprehensive partner selection process. Long Range Planning, 45(2), 136–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2008). Organizational antecedents of second-order competences. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (2000). Managing market relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Foncea, M., & Marcuello, C. (2013). Entrepreneurs and the context of cooperative organizations: A definition of cooperative entrepreneur. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 30(4), 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ElKordy, M. (2014). The impact of CRM capability dimensions on organizational performance. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2(10), 128–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engau, C., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2011). Corporate response strategies to regulatory uncertainty: Evidence from uncertainty about post-Kyoto regulation. Policy Sciences, 44(1), 53–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa, M. D. M. B., & Suanes, A. M. (2011). Corporate entrepreneurship through joint venture. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 413–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5(3), 403–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Yi, Y. (1992). Assumptions of the two-step approach to latent variable modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(3), 291–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2010). Alertness, action, and the antecedents of entrepreneurship. Journal of Private Enterprise, 25(2), 145–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco, M., & Haase, H. (2012). Interfirm alliances: A collaborative entrepreneurship perspective. In Entrepreneurship–creativitiy and innovative business models (pp. 115–138). Rijeka: InTech.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco, M., & Haase, H. (2013). Firm resources and entrepreneurial orientation as determinants for collaborative entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 51(3), 680–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geib, M., Kolbe, L. M., & Brenner, W. (2006). CRM collaboration in financial services networks: A multi-case analysis. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 19(6), 591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golonka, M. (2015). Proactive cooperation with strangers: Enhancing complexity of the ICT firms' alliance portfolio and their innovativeness. European Management Journal, 33(3), 168–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, J. C., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Operations management and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1), 116–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach, chapter 29. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 691–711). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing (AIM), 20, 277–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 951–995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javalgi, R. R. G., & Todd, P. R. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, management commitment, and human capital: The internationalization of SMEs in India. Journal of Business Research, 64(9), 1004–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kars-Unluoglu, S. (2011). Organisational learning and capability development in mature medium-sized firms: An exploration from an enactment perspective. In PhD dissertation. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibler, E. (2013). Formation of entrepreneurial intentions in a regional context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(3–4), 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance competence, resources, and alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, A. H., Timenes Laugen, B., & Middel, R. (2008) Collaborative entrepreneurship: On the influence of internal and external collaboration on corporate entrepreneurial innovation. In 9th International CINet conference: Radical Challenges in Innovation Management, Valencia, Spain, 7–9 September 2008 (pp. 530–543).

  • Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(03), 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.-H., Shenkar, O., & Li, J. (2008). Cultural distance, investment flow, and control in cross-border cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1117–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leischnig, A., Geigenmueller, A., & Lohmann, S. (2014). On the role of alliance management capability, organizational compatibility, and interaction quality in interorganizational technology transfer. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1049–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2011). Toward a multi-frame integration of trust as holistic and dynamic: Ambiguity redefined as a duality of diversity-in-unity. Journal of Trust Research, 1(2), 133–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, M. (2011). Knowledge management in strategic alliances: A review of empirical evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., Miles, G., & Snow, C. C. (2005). Collaborative entrepreneurship: How communities of networked firms use continuous innovation to create economic wealth. Stanford: Stanford University press.

  • Mirić, A. A., Burton, R. M., & Petković, M. (2013). Coordinating inter-organizational learning throughout alliance evolution. In T. Ehrmann, J. Windsperger, G. Cliquet, & G. Hendrikse (Eds.), In Network Governance. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsuhashi, H., & Greve, H. R. (2009). A matching theory of alliance formation and organizational success: Complementarity and compatibility. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 975–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, B. B. (2007). Determining international strategic alliance performance: A multidimensional approach. International Business Review, 16(3), 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto, M., & González-Álvarez, N. (2016). Social capital effects on the discovery and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 507–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(4), 622–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric theory, 3, 248–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nybakk, E., & Hansen, E. (2008). Entrepreneurial attitude, innovation and performance among Norwegian nature-based tourism enterprises. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(7), 473–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panteli, N., & Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: A framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 599–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2006). From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 198–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (2000). Papers: Build a one-to-one learning relationship with your customers. Interactive Marketing, 1(3), 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radfar, R., & Rezaei-Malek, N. (2013). Improving performance of customer relationship management through applying knowledge management. International Journal of Management and Business Research, 2(2), 136–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechinhheld, F., & Sasser, W. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to service. Harvard Business Review, 68(5), 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). The customer relationship management process: Its measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2009). Overview of collaborative entrepreneurship: An integrated approach between business decisions and negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(5), 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H., & Miles, R. (2009). A model of collaborative entrepreneurship for a more humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 445–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Boeker, W. (2008). Old technology meets new technology: Complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 47–77.

  • Sanchez, L. M., & Nagi, R. (2001). A review of agile manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research, 39(16), 3561–3600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R., Cavusgil, S. T., & Aulakh, P. S. (2001). The influence of complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 358–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R., & Harrison, J. S. (2001). Research note: Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, R. H., & Swaminathan, V. (2008). Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: The moderating role of alliance context. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 471–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharifi, H., & Zhang, Z. (1999). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: An introduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shetty, P. (2004). Attitude towards entrepreneurship in organisations. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoid, M. S. M., & Kassim, N. A. (2013). Ascertaining dimensions of organizational learning capabilities (OLC) in academic library. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(7), 546–554.

  • Strandskov, J. (2006). Sources of competitive advantages and business performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 7(3), 119–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, J., Tang, Z., & Lohrke, F. T. (2008). Developing an entrepreneurial typology: The roles of entrepreneurial alertness and attributional style. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. (2005). An operations perspective on strategic alliance success factors: An exploratory study of alliance managers in the software industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(5), 469–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiessen, J. H., & Linton, J. D. (2000). The JV dilemma: Cooperating and competing in joint ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(3), 203–2016.

  • Vazquez, R., Iglesias, V., & Álvarez-gonzález, L. I. (2005). Distribution channel relationships: The conditions and strategic outcomes of cooperation between manufacturer and distributor. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 15(2), 125–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Perspective-absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Feng, H. (2012). Customer relationship management capabilities: Measurement, antecedents and consequences. Management Decision, 50(1), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, J., & Yan, L. (2016). Individual entrepreneurship, collective entrepreneurship and innovation in small business: An empirical study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 1053–1077.

  • Yusuf, Y. Y., Gunasekaran, A., Musa, A., Dauda, M., El-Berishy, N. M., & Cang, S. (2014). A relational study of supply chain agility, competitiveness and business performance in the oil and gas industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 531–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (2008). Being entrepreneurial and market driven: Implications for company performance. Journal of Strategy and Management, 1(2), 125–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 248–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, X., & Zhao, Y. (2013). The impact of alliance network structure on firm innovation capability: An empirical study of ten high-tech industries in China. Journal of Science and Technology Policy in China, 4(1), 4–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Verona, J. (2011). Understanding the human side of dynamic capabilities: Towards a holistic model, chapter 24. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Organizational learning and knowledge management. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Rua da Universidade, 4704-553, Braga, Portugal

    Arash Rezazadeh

  2. Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Farshi Moghadam St, Tehran, 1417466191, Iran

    Niloofar Nobari

Authors
  1. Arash Rezazadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niloofar Nobari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arash Rezazadeh.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Measurement

Cooperative entrepreneurship

Question: In regard to your firm’s cooperation with its partner/s, to what extent did the following factors occur or improve during the cooperation process?

1 = to no extent; 2 = to a little extent; 3 = to some extent; 4 = to a great extent; 5 = to a very great extent

Table 4 Cooperative entrepreneurship measurement
Full size table

Entrepreneurial attitude

Question: In regard to your firm’s cooperation with its partner/s, to what extent were the following reasons/ motives important in taking the decision to cooperate?

Table 5 Entrepreneurial attitude measurement (part I)
Full size table

Question: To what extend do you believe that the following characteristics of partners facilitate their entrepreneurship pursuit through cooperation?

Table 6 Entrepreneurial attitude measurement (part II)
Full size table

Complementarity

Question: To what extent were the following factors important in taking the decision to cooperate?

Table 7 Complementarity measurement
Full size table

Compatibility

Question: To what extent were the following factors important in taking the decision to cooperate?

Table 8 Compatibility measurement
Full size table

Agility Capability (adapted from Sanchez and Nagi (2001) and Sharifi and Zhang (1999))

Question: After cooperation, to what extent are these capabilities in your company improved?

  1. 1.

    Cognizant of market change ahead of rivals

  2. 2.

    Using market information to improve business performance

  3. 3.

    Responding quickly to changes in customers’ needs

  4. 4.

    Responding quickly to changes in business environments

  5. 5.

    Adapting quickly to shifts in our business goals / strategies

  6. 6.

    Improving existing technologies rapidly to meet customers’ needs based on a given product/service

  7. 7.

    Getting access to appropriate distribution channels

  8. 8.

    Managing sales’ forces

  9. 9.

    Making immediate decisions about important issues.

  10. 10.

    Carrying out the operations quickly

CRM Capability (adapted from Reinartz et al. (2004) and Wang and Feng (2012))

Question: Taking into account the situation of your company after cooperation, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?

  1. 1.

    We regularly meet customers to realize their current and potential needs for new products

  2. 2.

    We are good at creating strong relationships with key customers

  3. 3.

    We have a continual dialogue with each customer and we use well-developed methods to improve our relationships

  4. 4.

    We are good at maintaining relationship with key customers

  5. 5.

    We measure customer satisfaction systematically and frequently

  6. 6.

    We have formalized procedures for up-selling to valuable customers

  7. 7.

    We have formalized procedures for cross-selling to valuable customers

  8. 8.

    We try to systematically extend our “share of customers” with high-value customers

  9. 9.

    We have a systematic process/approach to reestablish relationships with valued lost or inactive customers, so if we find that customers are unhappy with our products/services, we take immediate action

  10. 10.

    We employ effective software and hardware technologies for CRM

Learning Capability (adapted from Shoid and Kassim (2013) and Mirić et al. (2013))

  1. 1.

    We frequently acquire knowledge about technologies and market trends from external sources.

  2. 2.

    We are able to quickly identify and acquire external knowledge (e.g. market or technology).

  3. 3.

    Employees of our unit regularly visit other branches to learn about new technologies, trends, or business models

  4. 4.

    Existing knowledge (e.g. market or technology) is readily available to each department within our business unit.

  5. 5.

    Our business unit periodically circulates codified knowledge in form of documents (e.g., reports, newsletters) to update other departments.

  6. 6.

    When something important happens (market or technological development), the whole business unit knows about it in a short period.

Innovative Capability (adapted from Faems et al. (2005) and Cohen and Levinthal (1990))

  1. 1.

    Our employees generate novel and useful ideas

  2. 2.

    Within this business unit, we have the capabilities to learn new things.

  3. 3.

    We have the capabilities to effectively develop new knowledge or insights into product development.

  4. 4.

    We are effective in transforming existing knowledge into new resources (e.g. new organizational structure, new technical equipment).

  5. 5.

    Our Employees introduce perceptible changes that lie outside the existing features of existing capabilities.

  6. 6.

    We can effectively recombine existing capabilities into ‘novel’ combinations

  7. 7.

    We are open to try new and innovative ways of doing business

Sensing Capability (adapted from Weick et al. (2005))

  1. 1.

    We quickly detect fundamental shifts in our industry (e.g. competition, technology, regulation).

  2. 2.

    We periodically monitor the potential effects of our business environment changes (e.g. regulation) on customers.

  3. 3.

    We quickly recognize new opportunities to serve our clients.

  4. 4.

    We are good at observing and anticipating technological trends.

  5. 5.

    We regularly check the quality of our functional capabilities in comparison with competition.

  6. 6.

    We pay a great attention to monitoring the changes in functional capabilities

  7. 7.

    After adapting new capabilities, we pay a great attention to monitoring the efficiency of new processes

Appendix 2

Table 9 Variables’ inter-correlations for discriminant validity assessment
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rezazadeh, A., Nobari, N. Antecedents and consequences of cooperative entrepreneurship: a conceptual model and empirical investigation. Int Entrep Manag J 14, 479–507 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0470-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0470-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation