Résumés
Résumé
Pour plusieurs aspirants entrepreneurs, trouver une « bonne » opportunité est une étape difficile. Arriver à reconnaître une opportunité nécessite, au niveau individuel, un certain nombre de connaissances et d’informations, de même qu’une certaine dose de créativité. Pour pallier ces limites individuelles, une avenue intéressante est de mettre à contribution des groupes ou une collectivité pour identifier des opportunités, ce qui permet de multiplier les connaissances et favorise la créativité. C’est le pari qui a été fait dans certains milieux, en réunissant différents groupes d’acteurs dans des démarches structurées afin de reconnaître des opportunités dans leur environnement. Bien qu’intéressantes, ces démarches posent la question suivante : le processus de reconnaissance d’opportunités peut-il être abordé comme un processus collectif ? Pour Tremblay et Carrier (2006), il s’agit d’une avenue non seulement pertinente pour la pratique, mais justifiable d’un point de vue théorique. Ceci étant dit, on connaît peu les facteurs influençant un tel processus et permettant d’en assurer le succès. Afin de répondre à cette question, une étude exploratoire par théorisation enracinée a été réalisée à partir de cinq cas de démarches collectives. Au final, l’étude a permis d’illustrer le processus collectif de reconnaissance d’opportunités et certains facteurs permettant d’en maximiser les retombées. Les résultats permettent de confirmer les rapprochements entre identification d’opportunités et créativité et offrent des repères pour orienter l’action des intervenants et conséquemment, d’améliorer les retombées de telles pratiques.
Mots-clés :
- Opportunité,
- Processus collectif,
- Créativité,
- Idéation,
- Théorisation enracinée
Abstract
For many aspiring entrepreneurs, finding a « good » opportunity is a difficult step. Getting to recognize an opportunity requires, at the individual level, a number of knowledge and information, as well as a certain amount of creativity. To overcome these individual limits, an interesting approach is to involve groups or communities to identify opportunities, thereby increasing information and generate creativity. This is the bet that has been made in some territories, bringing together different groups of actors in structured approaches to recognize opportunities in their environment. Although interesting, these approaches pose the following question : Can we address the opportunity recognition as a collective process ? For Tremblay and Carrier (2006), it is not only relevant for practice, but also from a theoretical point of view. That being said, little is known about the factors influencing this process. In order to fill this gap, an exploratory study was conducted. Using grounded theory, five cases of collective process were analyzed. The study illustrates the collective opportunity recognition process and identifies some factors influencing the success and benefits of those processes. The results confirm the links between opportunity recognition and creativity, and provide benchmarks to guide the actions of practitioners and consequently, improve the impact of such practices.
Keywords:
- Opportunity,
- Collective process,
- Creativity,
- Ideation,
- Grounded theory
Resumen
Para muchos empresarios, encontrar una « buena » oportunidad de negoció es una etapa bastante difícil. Tener la capacidad de reconocer una oportunidad necesita, al nivel individual, ciertos conocimientos e informaciones así que una dosis de creatividad. De manera a disminuir estos límites individuales, una avenida interesante es de poner a contribución grupos o colectividades para identificar las oportunidades, lo que permitirá multiplicar los conocimientos y favorecer la creatividad. Es lo que hicieron en ciertos medios, reunir grupos de actores a dentro de una gestión estructurada al fin de reconocer oportunidades a dentro de sus ambientes. Aunque interesantes, estos procesos nos trae la pregunta siguiente : El proceso de reconocimiento de oportunidades puede estar tratado como un proceso colectivo ? Para Tremblay y Carrier (2006) no es nada más que una avenida pertinente para la práctica, pero justificable de un punto de vista teórico. Esto dicho, no conocemos mucho los factores que influyen un tal proceso y que permiten asegurar el éxito. Al fin de contesta esa pregunta, un estudio exploratorio por teoría arraigada fue realizado a partir de cinco casos de procesos colectivos. Al final, el estudio permitió ilustrar el proceso colectivo de reconocimientos de oportunidades y ciertos factores que permiten maximizar los beneficios. Los resultados permiten confirmar la relación entre la identificación de oportunidades y creatividad y ofrece referencias para orientar el acción de los participantes y por consecuencia, mejorar los beneficios de estas prácticas.
Palabras clave:
- Oportunidad,
- Proceso colectivo,
- Creatividad,
- Ideas,
- Teoría fundamentada
Parties annexes
Références
- Alvarez, S.A. et Barney, J.B. (2010). Entrepreneurship and epistemology : the philosophical underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 557-583.
- Alvarez, S.A et Barney, J.B. (2007). Discovery and creation : alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 11-26.
- Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B. et Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities : the implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science, 24(1), 301-317.
- Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R.-N. et Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
- Bantel, K.A. et Jackson, S.E. (1989). Top management and innovations in bankink : does the composition of the top team make a difference ? Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 107-124.
- Baron, R.A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition : how entrepreneurs « connect the dots » to identify new business opportunities. Academy of management perspectives, 20(1), 104-119.
- Chandler, G.N., De Tienne, D. et Lyon, D.W. (2003). Outcome implications of opportunity creation/discovery processes. Dans W.D. Bygrave, C.G. Brush, J. Fiet, P.G. Greene, R.T. Harrison, M. Lerner, G.D. Meyer, J. Sohl et A. Zacharakis (dir.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (p. 398-409). Wellesley, MA, Babson College.
- Christensen, P., Madsen, O. et Peterson, R. (1994). Conceptualizing entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Dans G.E. Hills (dir.), Marketing and entrepreneurship : research ideas and opportunities. Londres, Quorum Books.
- Cohen, S.G. et Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work : group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.
- Dana, L.-P. (1995). Entrepreneurship in a remote sub-Arctic community. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,20(1), 57-72.
- Davidsson, P. (2003). The domain of entrepreneurship research : some suggestions. Dans J.A. Katz et D.A. Shepherd (dir.), Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship research (Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth) (p. 315-372). Emerald Group.
- DeKoning, A. (2003). Opportunity development : a socio-cognitive perspective. Dans J.A. Katz et D.A. Shepherd (dir.), Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship research (Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth), Bingley (p. 265-314). Emerald Group.
- De Tienne, D.R. et Chandler, G. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom : a pedagocical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 242-257.
- Dimov, D. (2007). Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 13-731.
- Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57-81.
- Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
- Etzkowitz, H. et Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovating region : toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243-255.
- Flora, J.L. (1998). Social capital and communities of place. Rural Sociology, 63(4), 481-506.
- Gaglio, C.M. (1997). Opportunity identification : review, critique, and suggested research. Dans J.A. Katz (dir.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (p. 139-202). Greenwich, JAI Press.
- Gaglio, C. et Katz, J. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification : entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16(2), 95-111.
- Gartner, W.-B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship ? Journal of Business Venturig, 5(1), 15-29.
- Glaser, B. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory ? Forum : qualitative social research. Récupéré le 20 février 2014 du site : http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs.
- Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis : emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA, Sociology Press.
- Glaser, B. et Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, Aldine.
- Hansen, D.J., Lumpkin, G.T. et Hills, G.E. (2011). A multidimensional examination of a creativity-based opportunity recognition model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(5), 515-533.
- Hansen, D.J., Shrader, R. et Monllor, J. (2011). Defragmenting definitions of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Small Business Management,49(2), 283-304.
- Herron, L. et Sapienza, H. (1992). The entrepreneur and the initiation of new business venture launch activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 49-55.
- Hills, G.E., Lumpkin, G.T. et Singh, P.R. (1997). Opportunity recognition : perceptions and beha- viors of entrepreneurs. Dans P. Reynolds (dir.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (p. 168-182). Wellesley, MA, Babson College.
- Hills, G.E., Shrader, R.C. et Lumpkin, G.T. (1999). Opportunity recognition as a creative process. Dans, P.D. Reynolds, W. D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C. Mason, G.D. Meyer, H.T. Sapienza and K. Shaver (dirs.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (p. 216-227). Wellesley, MA, Babson College.
- Joyal, A. (2002). Le développement local : comment stimuler l’économie des régions en difficulté. Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval.
- Kirzner, I.M. (1997). How markets work : desequilibrium, entrepreneurship and discovery. Londres, The institute of Economic affairs.
- Ko, S., et Butler, J.E. (2003). Alertness, bisociative thinking ability, and discover of entrepreneurial opportunities in asian hi-tech firms. Dans W.D. Bygrave, C.G. Brush, M. Lerner, P. Davidsson, G.D. Meyer, J. Fiet, J. Sohl, P.G. Greene, A. Zacharakis et R.T. Harrison (dir.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship Research (p. 421-429). Wellesley, MA, Babson College.
- Krueger, N.F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(3), 5-23.
- Lee, Y.L., Florida, R. et Acs, Z. (2004). Creativity and entrepreneurship : a regional analysis of new firm formation. Regional Studies, 38(8), 879-891.
- Lichtenstein, G.A. et Lyons, T.S. (2001). The entrepreneurial development system : transforming business talent and community economies. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(1), 3-20.
- Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Londres, Sage Publications.
- Long, W. et McMullan, W.E. (1984). Mapping the new venture opportunity identification process. Dans J.A. Hornaday, F.A. Tardley, J.A. Timmons et K.H. Vesper (dir.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA, Babson College.
- Lounsbury, M. (1998). Collective entrepreneurship : the mobilization of college and university recycling coordinators. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1), 50-69.
- Lumpkin, G.H., Hills, G.E. et Shrader, R. (2004). Opportunity recognition. Dans H.P. Welsch (dir.), Entrepreneurship : the way ahead (p. 73-90). New York, Routledge.
- Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design : an interpretative approach. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
- Miles, M.B. et Huberman, A.M. (2003). Analyse de données qualitatives (traduction de Martine Hlady-Rispal). Bruxelles, De Boeck.
- Nagasundaram, M. et Dennis, A.R. (1993). When a group is not a group : the cognitive foundation of group idea generation. Small Group Research,24(4), 463-489.
- Paulus, P.B. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity : the creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology : an International Review, 49(2), 237-262.
- Reich, R.B. (1987). Entrepreneurship reconsidered : the team as hero. Harvard Business Review, 65(3), 77-83.
- Sarason, Y., Dean, T. et Dillard, J.F. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity : a structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 286-305.
- Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation : toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-288.
- Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., Velamuri, R. et Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three views of entrepreneursial opportunity. Dans A.J. Zoltan et D.B. Audretsch (dir.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Boston, Kluwer Adademic Publishers.
- Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship. Morthampton, MA, Edward Elgar.
- Shane, S. et Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of study. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
- Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J. et Shook, C.L. (2010). The concept of « opportunity » in entrepreneurship research : past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36(1), 40-65.
- Smith, K.G. et DiGregorio, D. (2003). Bisociation, discovery, and the role of entrepreneurial action. Dans M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp et D.L. Sexton (dir.), Strategic entrepreneurship. Creating a new mindset (p. 129-150). Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
- Sternberg, R.J. et Lubart, T.I. (1999). The concept of creativity : prospects and paradigms. Dans R.J. Sternberg (dir.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- Strauss, A. et Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2e édition. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
- Stryjan, Y. (2006). The practice of social entrepreneurship: notes towards a resource-perspective. Dans C. Steyaert et D. Hjorth (dir.), Entrepreneurship as social change: A Third Movements in Entrepreneurship Book. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 35-55.
- Sudabby, R. (2006). From the editors : what grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.
- Thornburg, T.H. (1991). Group size and member diversity influence on creative performance. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(4), 324-333.
- Tremblay, M. et Carrier, C. (2006). Développement de la recherche sur l’identification collective d’opportunités d’affaires : assises et perspectives. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 5(2), 69-88.
- Tremblay, M. et Carrier, C. (2009). Pratiques collectives d’identification d’opportunités : le point de vue des acteurs du développement économique. Dans L. Temri et M. Poge (dir.), Entrepreneur et dynamiques territoriales : mélanges en l’honneur de Colette Fourcade. Cormelles-le-Royal, Management et société.
- Tumasjan, A. et Braun, R. (2012). In the eye of the beholder : how regulatory focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 622-636.
- Urban, B., Venter, R. et Shaw, G. (2011). Empirical evidence on opportunity recognition behaviours of informal traders. African Journal of Business Management, 5(24), 10080-10091.
- Vaghely, I.P. et Julien, P.-A. (2010). Are opportunities recognized or constructed ? An information perspective on opportunity identification. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 73-86.
- Ward, T.B. (2004). Cognition, creativity and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 173-188.
- Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. Designs and methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
- Yu, T.F. (1998). Economic development in latecomer economies : an entrepreneurial perspective. Development Policy Review, 16(4), 353-372.