Small Bus Econ
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00387-z
Identifying innovative opportunities
in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach
and empirical test
Dan Cohen & Dan K. Hsu & Rachel S. Shinnar
Accepted: 8 July 2020
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Opportunity identification is often considered
the very first step in the entrepreneurial process, and is
therefore frequently included in entrepreneurship education programs. In this paper, we examine a unique
teaching method (IDEATE), rooted in experiential
learning and aimed at developing novice learners’ skills
for opportunity identification. Using an experimental
design, we compare the innovativeness of opportunities
identified by undergraduate students enrolled in
introductory-level entrepreneurship courses at a southeastern university. Findings show that the opportunities
identified by the students in the IDEATE group were
significantly more innovative than those identified by
students in the passive search group. In addition, student
perceptions of fit with entrepreneurship increased for the
passive search training group but not for the IDEATE
group. We discuss the implications for entrepreneurship
education, research, and practice.
D. Cohen
Wake Forest’s Center for Entrepreneurship, Winston-Salem, NC
27106, USA
e-mail: cohenda@wfu.edu
D. K. Hsu
Department Management & Marketing, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA
e-mail: dan.hsu@ndsu.edu
R. S. Shinnar (*)
Department of Management, Appalachian State University,
Boone, NC 28608-2089, USA
e-mail: shinnarrs@appstate.edu
Keywords Opportunity identification .
Entrepreneurship education . Experiential learning
JEL Classification L26 . M13
1 Introduction
Entrepreneurship education seeks to grow more entrepreneurs, but more importantly, better entrepreneurs,
helping novice entrepreneurs become experts (Krueger
2007). For this purpose, entrepreneurship education
programs often seek to give students the right tools to
analyze their environments with an entrepreneurial
mindset (Costa et al. 2018) and strengthen their ability
to identify innovative opportunities (Chang et al. 2014;
Costa et al. 2018; DeTienne and Chandler 2004; Morris
et al. 2013; Saks and Gaglio 2002) so that the business
venture can survive and continue to grow. When it
comes to entrepreneurship courses in higher education,
however, students typically lack the domain expertise,
industry experience, and personal networks (Hägg and
Kurczewska 2018) that experienced entrepreneurs rely
upon to successfully identify innovative opportunities
(Baron 2006). Consequently, the spectrum of opportunities students identify tends to be relatively narrow,
resulting in less innovative opportunities, such as “another bar.”
To address this practical challenge, we introduce a
unique teaching method dedicated to the opportunity
identification process and aimed at developing active,
systematic search that is likely to yield more innovative
D. Cohen et al.
business opportunities, especially among inexperienced
entrepreneurs and/or entrepreneurship students. The
teaching method we have developed (titled IDEATE)
includes six steps (labeled: Identify, Discover, Enhance,
Anticipate, Target, and Evaluate) and is rooted in experiential learning. Béchard and Grégoire (2005) stress
that teaching models should be designed based on the
desired learning outcomes. IDEATE was thus developed to engage learners in active search, which is a
systematic search that extends beyond their existing
knowledge and capabilities (Baron 2006; DeTienne
and Chandler 2004). This is significantly different from
passive search methods, also termed “fortuitous discovery” (Dew and Sarasvathy 2016), that are pervasive in
entrepreneurship education (Baron 2006; DeTienne and
Chandler 2004; Sarasvathy 2001). In passive search,
opportunities are recognized as a result of the individual’s existing knowledge and capability to operate at a
heightened state of sensitivity to his/her immediate environment. In active search or IDEATE, on the other
hand, learners acquire and develop new expertise and
capabilities in opportunity identification as well as opportunity evaluation.
While innovative opportunities have the potential to
make significant contributions to economic development, they are not necessarily “better” than some less
innovative opportunities from the entrepreneur’s perspective. For instance, many entrepreneurs want to start
a business that suits their family situation (Gupta et al.
2009; Justo et al. 2015) rather than pursue an innovative
business. Other entrepreneurs may have strong intentions to start a lifestyle business rather than a growthoriented one (Weber et al. 2015). As such, Hsu et al.
(2019) argue for the importance of fit between the focal
business opportunity and the personal needs of the
entrepreneur. Innovative opportunities may not fit all
prospective entrepreneurs’ needs. As IDEATE is a rigorous method and intends to foster innovative opportunities, it is not made for everyone. To have a balanced
view on IDEATE, we also examine the effect the IDEATE method has on the individual’s perception of fit
with entrepreneurship (Hsu et al. 2019).
Our hypotheses are built on McMullen and Shepherd’s (2006) two-stage conceptual model, which encompasses an attention stage focused on the assessment
of a third-person opportunity (i.e., a possible opportunity for someone else) and an evaluation stage focused on
the assessment of a first-person opportunity (i.e., a possible opportunity for me). We propose that perceptions
regarding what constitutes a first-person or a thirdperson opportunity can be shaped by the opportunity
identification process. Using a natural experiment, we
compare IDEATE and passive search in terms of the
individual’s fit perception and the learning outcomes.
Learning outcomes are assessed through the innovativeness of the opportunities identified by students at a
southeastern university, who were enrolled in six sections of an introductory-level entrepreneurship course
taught using the two teaching methods. Of the six sections, three used a passive search approach, and the
remaining three sections were taught using the IDEATE
method. We suggest that the IDEATE method teaches
learners how to actively pursue opportunities and is
more likely to result in innovative opportunities, even
among entrepreneurship students with little experience
and/or domain expertise. By following the six-step IDEATE process, students are able to identify innovative
opportunities and perceive those opportunities as feasible. Thus, students convert a “third-person opportunity”
(an opportunity for someone else) (McMullen and
Shepherd 2006) that addresses a significant consumer
problem into a “first-person opportunity” (an opportunity for me), something they feel they are capable of
pursuing. We therefore expect that IDEATE will decrease individual perception of fit with entrepreneurship, because IDEATE provides a more realistic view
of how an innovative business opportunity can be identified, which may not fit the focal person’s personal
needs.
The research question we seek to answer in this
inquiry is as follows: How can the IDEATE method,
compared to passive search methods, help student entrepreneurs develop more innovative ideas despite lacking domain expertise, industry experience, and a professional network? How does this teaching method impact
their perceptions of fit with an entrepreneurial career?
The foremost contribution of this research is the new
teaching method for opportunity identification in entrepreneurship education and its demonstrated effectiveness in terms of the innovativeness of opportunities
learners identify. IDEATE is especially well suited for
inexperienced entrepreneurship students and can address the frustration many entrepreneurship educators
face in terms of the limited innovativeness of opportunities their students identify. Furthermore, IDEATE is a
good complement to existing methods in entrepreneurship education. By introducing IDEATE, we respond to
scholars’ call for future studies to explore how different
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
teaching methods yield varying outcomes, as it pertains
to entrepreneurship education and subsequent entrepreneurial behavior (Krueger 2007; Nabi et al. 2017;
Pittaway and Cope 2007). Finally, we found that IDEATE suppressed learners’ perception of fit with entrepreneurship. Since perceived fit is an important motivational driver of the entrepreneurship career choice
(Markman and Baron 2003), IDEATE may reduce the
likelihood that individuals enter entrepreneurship with
unrealistic expectations of fit. This is a second important
contribution, as the goals of entrepreneurship education
should be to develop entrepreneurial skills and abilities
and also provide a realistic view of an entrepreneurial
career (Hsu et al. 2019).
Before offering a review of the relevant literature, we
describe the IDEATE teaching method itself. We then
explore the opportunity identification literature, describing the passive and active search approaches and their
relationship with the IDEATE teaching method. In addition, we discuss perceived fit with an entrepreneurial
career. Next, we outline our methodology and discuss
our findings. We conclude with a discussion of the
implications for entrepreneurship education, especially
teaching opportunity identification through active rather
than passive search methods. We offer some suggestions for areas of future research as well.
1.1 IDEATE method
The strength of the IDEATE teaching method is measured as a function of the outcomes it is expected to
generate (i.e., more innovative opportunities). The six
distinct steps of the IDEATE framework are discussed
here and illustrated in Appendix Table 5 and Fig. 1. In
the first step, labeled “Identify,” learners are taught how
to identify a problem worth solving, thereby solving a
pain point—a “migraine headache” problem—rather
than a matter of inconvenience or a “nice-to-have” item
(e.g., selling aspirin rather than vitamins). This is done
by coaching learners to distinguish between valuable/
innovative opportunities and less innovative opportunities so they can begin to develop proficiency in
distinguishing between the two. Challenges to generating innovative opportunities, such as identifying problems for very small markets or problems that are really
feature enhancements to existing products, are
discussed. Instructors list several of these exemplars
(e.g., an app that alerts students when the gym is less
crowded or the virtual student ID card that replaces the
frequently misplaced physical card) and stress why the
problem is not as valuable or innovative. Instructors also
use examples of opportunities that have gotten traction
in the market to reinforce what makes opportunities
valuable and innovative. This exercise is repeated to
ensure learners understand the difference between a
“migraine headache” problem and a problem addressing
a matter of inconvenience or a “nice-to-have” item. For
example, ProducePay, a startup hatched in a university
accelerator program, helps farmers in Latin America and
the USA with cash flow challenges and recently raised
$190,000,000 in debt capital (Shieber 2019). Clearly,
farmers have a “migraine headache” problem with significant cash flow challenges given the length of time
and expense necessary to get produce in the hands of
customers. The “Identify” step also begins the opportunity identification process. Students are tasked with
searching for “migraine headache” problems and must
generate a first batch of 10 opportunities to address the
problems noted.
The second step, labeled “Discover,” focuses on
where and how to actively search for opportunities: in
fertile areas or problem-rich environments. Classroom
exercises encourage learners to explore activities they
are passionate about. When students become intricately
involved in activities, it is natural for them to begin to
notice “migraine headache” problems or unmet customer needs. Students are also encouraged to probe their
own life experiences, such as studying abroad, to help
them uncover opportunities they have been exposed to
in their own environments that might have appeal in
other markets. The most famous example is Starbucks’
founder Howard Schultz’s discovery of espresso cafes
in Italy. Upon returning to the USA, Schultz was unable
to find the same quality coffee, which led him to build
Starbucks into a global brand on that simple premise.
While this step can be similar to the process of passive
search, IDEATE learners are prompted by exercises to
map out activities they are passionate about, experiences
they have encountered in other markets, and areas where
they may have developed domain expertise to come up
with a second set of 10 opportunities to specifically
address “migraine headache” problems. IDEATE differs from passive search by prompting less experienced
entrepreneurs in a manner that coaxes ideas forward in a
way that may not be necessary for more experienced
entrepreneurs.
In the third step, learners are taught ways to “Enhance” opportunities (e.g., adding an innovative twist)
D. Cohen et al.
The IDEATE Model
ATTENTION: RECOGNIZE THROUGH ACTIVE SEARCH
IDENTIFY
Students develop proficiency in
determining what makes ideas
valuable. Ideas stem from
‘migraine headache’ problems.
Poor ideas are problems of minor
inconvenience.
DISCOVER
ENHANCE
ANTICIPATE
Students learn where and how to
actively search for opportunities
by adding an innovative twist.
Students learn how to improve
quality of opportunities by adding
an innovative twist.
Change is progenitor of high
quality opportunities. Nascent
entrepreneurs learn to anticipate
future needs by examining
relevant change in the
environment.
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION
TARGET
Learners must be able to answer
the question, “To whom am I
should they buy
from me?”
EVALUATE
Learners use an evaluation tool to
score, select,
and defend their most valuable
opportunities.
Fig. 1 The IDEATE model
to create a more valuable solution for potential customers. The key to this section is to teach learners how
to improve the innovativeness of opportunities in order
to make them more valuable. Instructors propose a real
scenario that describes an existing product or service
that students are not familiar with and then ask learners
to increase the value proposition of that product or
service. After completing the task, learners are told
how the entrepreneur actually improved the product.
Once several examples of ways to improve opportunities generated by others are discussed, learners are asked
to enhance opportunities they have searched for and
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
create an additional cluster of 10 opportunities. An
example of the enhancement approach comes from
SnappyScreen (Robinson 2016), a startup created in a
university accelerator program. The founder noted that
her friends were paying to get a spray tan and wondered
if that technology could be enhanced to spray on sunscreen in a perfect amount to protect from sunburn.
SnappyScreen is now in market and available at resorts
in the Caribbean, as well as Florida, Texas, and California (Robinson 2016).
In the fourth step, labeled “Anticipate,” specific types
of change likely to yield future entrepreneurial opportunities are discussed. There are four types of change
known to be fertile ground for entrepreneurial opportunity (Shane 2003): social and demographic change,
technological change, political and regulatory change,
and changes in industry structure. For each type of
change, students are prompted with specific examples
and then have to anticipate customer needs that will
result from these changes. For instance, one prompt
for social and demographic change is the aging population in the USA. Students are asked to generate opportunities emerging as a result of this specific change.
Another prompt for social change is the fact that millennial college graduates are delaying marriage and
living at home longer. Students have to identify opportunities for that particular prompt. Subsequently, students are asked to research each of these areas of change
and anticipate what opportunities will likely emerge that
are worth pursuing. While students have remarked that
this section alone can account for 100 or more valuable
opportunities, they only have to generate a fourth set of
10 new opportunities at this point. An example of a
company created based on an opportunity identified
through anticipation of demographic change is
Eversound. Eversound (Hofherr 2019) is a technology
company that addresses seniors’ problem with hearing
loss. Eversound’s founder knew that America’s aging
population would likely be challenged by hearing loss
and responded by provided specialized headphones that
helped hearing-impaired seniors hear movies shown in
assisted living facilities. Eversound recently raised
$5,000,000 and is scaling across the country.
The fifth step focuses on the way to “Target,” by
exploring the customer base most likely to want to
purchase and support a new opportunity. This helps
develop clarity as to who the customer is and why he/
she might buy the proposed product or service. The
exercises in this section begin by asking learners to
describe—in detail—the target market customer for various products. Then, after sharpening their focus,
learners turn their attention back to their own opportunities and describe their target market customers. Having just completed the “Enhance” and “Anticipate”
steps, students are prompted to consider other needs
these target market customers may have as an additional
source of 10 new opportunities. At the conclusion of the
fifth step, students should have a list of 50 opportunities.
An example of effective targeting is BigBelly Solar.
BigBelly, known for solar-powered trash and recycling
containers placed prominently in cities around the
world, was intimately familiar with city governments,
including what their needs were and how they operated.
When 5G technology was announced, many cities did
not want more items placed on crowded city streets.
BigBelly saw an opportunity and initiated contracts to
incorporate the 5G into their products so that additional
devices were not necessary. BigBelly’s familiarity with,
and understanding of, the target market customers represented an opportunity to create a new and valuable
revenue stream.
The sixth and final step is “Evaluate,” in which
learners complete a rubric to score, select, and defend
identified opportunities. The evaluation involves a simple multiplication exercise based on a two-part rubric.
Part one is a quick evaluation tool that asks students to
estimate, on a scale from 1 to 5, the degree to which the
problem they are solving is a “migraine headache”
problem rather than a simple matter of inconvenience.
This score is then multiplied by a rating from 1 to 5
based on their personal passion for each opportunity.
This evaluation rubric includes criteria used by venture
capitalists that have been empirically proven to increase
selection of valuable ideas. Students conduct this evaluation of the first 50 opportunities identified (10 ideas
for each of the preceding five sections) and then, after
being fully indoctrinated in the IDEATE method, they
are tasked with generating 50 additional opportunities to
reach their total of 100 opportunities identified. Namely,
they go through the first five steps of the IDEATE
method a second time so as to identify these additional
50 new opportunities.
The multiplication exercise described above is used
to select the top 10 opportunities of the total list of 100.
These 10 opportunities are then more deeply evaluated
by conducting an internet search (e.g., Google Search)
to explore whether others are occupying this same competitive space. If the online search yields competition (a
D. Cohen et al.
common occurrence), the learner needs to show meaningful differentiation in the product or service offering
relative to this competition. The evaluation process also
examines important issues such as profit potential, size
of target market, and the ability to protect the opportunity from competitors via barriers to entry.
A final step in the “Evaluate” phase (after the 100
ideas are culled to the 10 most valuable ones) calls for
students to engage in customer discovery, where they
interview selected target market customers to gain
deeper insights into the nature of their problem and their
interest in solving it. The feedback obtained through the
“customer discovery” process serves to pare down the
top 10 ideas to the final three opportunities. Students are
required to submit a description of these three opportunities (ranked from first to third) as a graded assignment.
The literature in support of the six distinct steps included
in IDEATE is discussed in the following sections and
summarized in Appendix Table 6.
2 Literature review
2.1 Entrepreneurship education
Béchard and Grégoire (2005) propose that entrepreneurship is best learned through experiential
methods, because experiential learning modifies
students’ cognitive structures and ways of thinking. This is especially important for opportunity
recognition (Corbett 2005), in which learners’ ability to discover what others do not discover is key
(Costa et al. 2018). Costa et al. (2018) argue that
entrepreneurship education goals are best achieved
through programs that focus on cognitive training
and experiential learning methodologies. In experiential learning approaches to entrepreneurship education, students are asked to identify opportunities, evaluate those opportunities, and present them
to others to seek feedback. Through this process,
they gain experience and engage in reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation (Kolb 1984), which advances their
learning.
The IDEATE method described above emphasizes
the development of students’ ability to think critically
about the world around them. Indeed, entrepreneurship
educators are urged to reduce the gap between classroom learning and real-world requirements through
experiential learning (Kassean et al. 2015). Honig
(2004) suggests that engaging students in more complex, nonlinear thinking could achieve this goal by using
active problem solving in real-life settings (Nabi et al.
2017). In this way, students are active participants in the
co-construction of their knowledge. Course content is
primarily defined by the problems competent actors are
asked to solve in real-life scenarios. Learning is not
limited by what the teacher knows, thinks, or does;
rather, “teaching is conceived as a strategic means to
instruct students how to organize the resources at their
disposal” (Béchard and Grégoire 2005, p. 116).
The question whether opportunities are discovered or
created is still debated (Alvarez and Barney 2007;
Ramoglou and Tsang 2016). In this study, we embrace
the opportunity recognition perspective, which depends
on individual cognition and pattern recognition within a
given context (Shane 2003). Because opportunity recognition is arguably the first stage in the entrepreneurial
process, it is critical that entrepreneurship education
programs train students in recognizing and enhancing
opportunities. Krueger (2007) agrees that problem identification should precede other tasks, because students
must first assess what tasks would solve the client’s
perceived problem. Both opportunity and problem identification can be enhanced by individual cognition
through experiential learning (Kolb 1984).
According to Kolb (1984), experiential learning consists of creating knowledge by transforming experience
related to four key learning processes: experience (feeling), reflective observation (watching), abstract conceptualization (thinking), and active experimentation (doing). Experiential learning has the potential to impact
students’ abilities to engage in real-life opportunity recognition (Corbett 2005; Pittaway and Cope 2007). Given the general consensus that opportunities arise from
changes in the environment (Baron 2006; Gregoire et al.
2009; Shane 2003), teaching individuals how to critically think about the events and/or changes that surround
them is important. Kassean et al. (2015, p. 701) find
empirical support for the notion that “promoting the
learning process in entrepreneurship education should
focus on real-world experience, action, and reflective
processes to engage students in authentic learning,
which should lead to greater entrepreneurial abilities.”
This study focuses on the IDEATE method, which
teaches opportunity recognition and is strongly rooted
in actual target market needs and conditions, thus
strongly linking it to the “real world.”
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
2.2 Opportunity identification in entrepreneurship
education
As a first step, it is important to discuss what the term
“opportunity” encompasses, as its operationalization
has been multifaceted (Davidsson 2015; Smith et al.
2009). Davidsson (2015) distinguished among three
constructs often aggregated under the “opportunity”
label. The first is “External Enablers…such as regulatory changes, technological breakthroughs, and demographic shifts—which may trigger and affect outcomes
of a variety of new venture creation attempts”
(Davidsson 2015, p. 676). It differs from the other two
conceptualizations, which are New Venture Ideas and
Opportunity Confidence (Davidsson 2015). New Venture Ideas are “imagined future ventures…combinations of product/service offerings, markets, and means
of bringing these offerings into existence” (Davidsson
2015, p. 676). Opportunity Confidence refers to “the
subjective attractiveness—or lack thereof—of a stimulus (External Enabler or new Venture Idea) as the basis
for entrepreneurial activity” (Davidsson 2015, p. 676).
In this paper, we rely on the first definition and conceptualize opportunity as resulting from contextual changes. Once learners identify opportunities, they acquire
tools to come up with a specific venture idea about
which they feel confident. This process takes place as
students progress through the six steps of IDEATE
described above.
We acknowledge that the quality of business opportunities can be assessed by different factors, innovativeness being just one of those. Nascent entrepreneurs
identify innovative opportunities in different ways
(Vaghely and Julien 2010) and different approaches
exist to strengthen opportunity identification skills
(Costa et al. 2018; DeTienne and Chandler 2004) as
well as assess opportunity viability (Costa et al. 2018)
and innovativeness (DeTienne and Chandler 2004). Indeed, Vogel (2017) discussed the importance for
disentangling venture ideas from venture opportunities,
suggesting that opportunities should be seen as emerging from the continuous shaping and refining of ideas.
Vogel (2017) stresses the importance of developing
skills for intentional opportunity identification, in which
the individual is actively engaged in originating venture
opportunities by applying cognitive tools. Novice entrepreneurs are disadvantaged in their ability to identify
high-potential opportunities, because they lack work
and domain experience. They may therefore pursue,
with great passion, an opportunity that is of limited
potential. Generating more innovative opportunities,
however, can be taught. For example, when novice
entrepreneurs were given idea-generating sets, they
identified more (and higher potential) opportunities if
they focused their attention on specific information
channels related to their prior knowledge (Fiet and
Patel 2008). By systematically using consideration sets,
individuals become (and remain) more aware of potential opportunities (Fiet and Patel 2008).
2.3 Passive search versus active search
A seminal piece by DeTienne and Chandler (2004)
presents a method aimed at strengthening opportunity
identification skills among novice entrepreneurs. This
method, referred to as the “Securing, Expanding, Exposing and Challenging (SEEC)” approach, focuses on
“matching external stimuli with individual specific
knowledge and capabilities” (DeTienne and Chandler
2004, p. 245). The SEEC approach asks aspiring entrepreneurs to secure opportunities they identify and/or
problems they encounter in their everyday lives. This
is in line with passive search (DeTienne and Chandler
2004) in which opportunities are identified as a result of
the individual’s existing knowledge and capability to
operate at a heightened state of sensitivity to his/her
immediate environment. Saks and Gaglio (2002) report
on a similar method, where practicing entrepreneurs are
asked to use a structured walking exercise in which they
must report on what they see or hear people saying
about what they want or desire. Sarasvathy’s (2001)
respected concept and teaching method—effectuation—embraces the idea of opportunity creation. These
approaches, while all aligned with experiential learning
methods, differ from IDEATE in their approach to opportunity “attention and evaluation.” This two-stage
conceptual lens developed by McMullen and Shepherd
(2006) provides a useful tool to contrast active and
passive search.
The passive search approach seeks to develop entrepreneurial creativity as a way to uncover opportunities.
For example, the SEEC approach—tested with university students (DeTienne and Chandler 2004)—instructs
students to first list the problem identified in an opportunity register and then come up with potential solutions. Next, problems are examined in an effort to find
multiple solutions via brainstorming, brain writing, and
other creative approaches to solving problems.
D. Cohen et al.
Entrepreneurship students take part in different in-class
exercises aimed at critical and innovative thinking. Ultimately, students select the opportunity they deem best
and present it in peer-evaluated elevator pitches.
DeTienne and Chandler (2004) found this method to
result in participants generating a greater number of
opportunities that were also more innovative compared
with the opportunities generated before the training.
Thus, in this and other passive search approaches, the
attention to opportunities occurs in one’s immediate
context, and opportunity evaluation is conducted
through peer evaluations.
As indicated by DeTienne and Chandler (2004),
the passive search approach is suitable for generating
opportunities that contain less uncertainty and are
easier to implement. A characteristic of this method
is that it does not require systematic investigative
talent. This characteristic results in passive search
favoring those with domain expertise and industry
experience (Baron 2006; Gielnik et al. 2014), both
of which students typically lack. Research evidence
supports the notion that experienced entrepreneurs
are more likely than others to identify opportunities
when engaging in passive search (Marvel 2013).
Shepherd and DeTienne (2004) show that individuals
possessing prior knowledge regarding customer
problems identify more opportunities that are also
more innovative. Thus, experienced entrepreneurs
are more likely to just come across opportunities
accidentally (Marvel 2013). This is, however, not
the case among novice entrepreneurs, who usually
lack work experience and domain expertise (Hägg
and Kurczewska 2018), resulting in opportunities
that are myopic or simple issues of inconvenience
tied to their immediate life experiences rather than
“migraine headache” problems. In entrepreneurship
education, if a novice learner is asked to employ the
passive search approach, he/she is likely to identify
an opportunity that is convenient but not very innovative. This occurs because the opportunities identified through passive search typically result from the
individual’s existing knowledge and capability to
operate at a heightened state of sensitivity to his/her
immediate environment. However, as explained
above, students often lack this ability and domain
knowledge. We therefore suggest that the active
search method is particularly well suited for inexperienced individuals or novice entrepreneurs, such as
undergraduate students in our case, to identify
innovative opportunities, because active search compensates for lacking or limited entrepreneurial experience (Gielnik et al. 2014)
Finally, while an empirically proven and robust approach, the SEEC method (DeTienne and Chandler
2004) was tested with a sample of senior undergraduate
students with an average age of 24 and some work
experience (on average holding 2.9 jobs of three months
or longer). The average undergraduate student tends to
be younger and have less work and domain experience.
In addition, the spread of evidence-based entrepreneurship and the emergence of evaluation tools such as the
business model canvas suggest that other methods may
be needed. In this study, we seek to demonstrate the
benefits of applying the IDEATE method to the opportunity identification part of entrepreneurship education
by assessing the innovativeness of opportunities students identify. We suggest that IDEATE is more suitable for inexperienced, novice entrepreneurs and can
thus serve as a supplement or precursor to passive search
approaches such as the SEEC (DeTienne and Chandler
2004).
2.4 First- versus third-person opportunities
Business opportunities are qualitatively different (Shane
2003) and the variances in the nature of opportunities
may affect the process by which they are identified
(Smith et al. 2009). Some opportunities are more likely
to be identified through systematic search, while others
are identified through prior experience. Indeed, opportunity identification often reflects relatively sophisticated skills (Gaglio 2004), and experienced entrepreneurs
are better at connecting the dots (Baron 2006) and
identifying opportunities (Arentz et al. 2013), as compared with novice entrepreneurs. Highly successful entrepreneurs are able to identify and focus on opportunities that offer the highest growth potential while managing uncertainty (McMullen and Shepherd 2006). The
goal of IDEATE is to help learners think like an experienced entrepreneur. This is especially important in the
context of a rapidly changing business world with technological advancements, demographic changes, and
shifting consumer demands.
In IDEATE, learners are sensitized to conditions like
social and demographic change, technological change,
legal and regulatory change, and changes in industry
structure that create fertile ground for opportunities
(Shane 2003). In passive search, the attention span is
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
limited to one’s immediate environment and day-to-day
life. Opportunities identified this way often address
issues of inconvenience (Blank and Dorf 2013) rather
than significant problems, referred to as “migraine headache” problems, that are fertile ground for entrepreneurial opportunities. McMullen and Shepherd (2006) categorize these as “third-person opportunities,” namely
opportunities for “someone else.” They propose a twostage model in which an individual may first recognize a
third-person opportunity based on his/Fher existing
knowledge. In the second stage, the individual may
transform the third-person opportunity into a firstperson opportunity (i.e., the opportunity for “me”), depending on the amount of perceived uncertainty and the
extent to which the person is willing to bear the uncertainty. For individuals who do not have much domain
knowledge or expertise, the identified first-person opportunities are usually perceived as having less uncertainty and being easier to implement, but they are also
likely to be less innovative (Sarasvathy 2001).
To identify innovative third-person opportunities
(McMullan and Boberg 2013), the person’s domain
knowledge and cognitive skills must be developed. To
transform such a third-person opportunity into an innovative first-person opportunity, the person must acquire
new skills and information to reduce uncertainty and the
amount of risk perceived so that he/she can act upon it
(McMullen and Shepherd 2006). The real-life tasks and
challenges included in IDEATE provide the learner with
opportunities to do so, thereby working through
McMullen and Shepherd’s (2006) two stages to derive
innovative first-person business opportunities. Specifically, the “Identify” section of IDEATE teaches learners
how to differentiate between a third-person opportunity
(an opportunity for someone else) and a first-person
opportunity (an opportunity for me). In both IDEATE
and passive search approaches, the focus is on spotting
and solving a problem. In IDEATE, however, the focus
is on identifying what factors make opportunities more
worthy of exploitation (Shane 2003). Entrepreneurs typically start ventures they are familiar with, such as retail
or restaurants (Shane 2003) instead of ventures that have
greater potential but may be less familiar, such as software. The IDEATE method helps students become familiar with a wider set of opportunities. In the Discover,
Anticipate, and Enhance phases, students learn where to
find a much broader spectrum of problems to solve. A
key to the conversion from third person to first person
are the “Target” and “Evaluate” steps, during which
nascent entrepreneurs develop the knowledge necessary
to evaluate an opportunity in a manner similar to experienced entrepreneurs (Baron and Ensley 2006) with a
focus on profit potential, market size, and customer
interest. Thus, they become familiar with higherpotential problems that are more likely to be valuable
if exploited, and they have the knowledge necessary to
evaluate and select the opportunities most worth pursuing rather than simply going after a proximal
opportunity.
The passive search approach works through the two
stages in a different way compared with IDEATE. First,
individuals may not recognize a third-person opportunity if they do not have related domain knowledge
(McMullen and Shepherd 2006). For those who do
recognize it, they may perceive the third-person opportunity to be beyond their existing knowledge and therefore too risky, and thus forgo transforming it into a firstperson opportunity. Consequently, after using passive
search through the two-stage process, inexperienced
individuals without much domain knowledge are usually left with first-person opportunities that are not very
risky and also not innovative.
The student learners in the six entrepreneurship
courses surveyed in this study (the treatment and control
groups) were required to write a reflection paper at the
end of the semester. While we did not systematically
analyze the comments in those papers, we share sample
comments from these assignments which offer some
insight into the differences between the experience of
students in the IDEATE sections and the passive search
sections. For example, a student taught in the IDEATE
method stated:
When I first began the IDEATE book, I was
skeptical due to the sheer volume of quality ideas
the book called for; One-hundred quality ideas
seemed impossible for my untrained brain to handle. I saw my first 100 ideas take shape over time,
some inspired by other ideas and the farther along
I went, the stronger the ideas became. My original
ideas consisted of petty conveniences that I
thought would change the short term, but as I
continued into the book, the method emphasized
migraine problems: an area I have just began to
grasp. The IDEATE method is cyclical, a continuous search for creativity and a quest for improvement. This process pulled strings in my brain that
D. Cohen et al.
are not exercised in regular classes, forcing the
user to question everything and focus on problem,
rather than the solution… After using the IDEATE method, I now have a stronger sense of what
makes ideas valuable.
In contrast, a student taught the passive search method stated:
At first I didn’t think that I would be able to find
many ideas. I don’t consider myself overly creative. When we learned about noticing and recording problems, it seemed more achievable to me. I
learned to notice things that bothered me, even if
they were kind of minor. The first step is to notice.
I also paid attention to my own complaints about
things and the complaints of others to record problems. Then we did some group work in class to
brainstorm solutions to these problems. That was
fun and made class go by quickly. It was also fun
to come up with possible solutions to a lot of
problems we all seem to encounter, such as getting
better food options on campus.
These two student reflections address some of the
strengths and weaknesses of IDEATE and passive
search. They are supportive of our argument that, because IDEATE requires novice learners to acquire new
knowledge and develop new expertise, it is more likely
than passive search to facilitate the likelihood that they
will identify third-person opportunities and transform
them into first-person opportunities that are more innovative. As a result, students taught in the IDEATE
method will identify more innovative business opportunities (with more significant potential for growth and
possibility for wealth generation) compared with the
opportunities identified by the students taught in the
passive search approach. We thus propose that:
Hypothesis 1: Compared to the individuals trained in
the passive search approach, those trained in the IDEATE method will generate more innovative
opportunities.
Our argument above is built on the capacity for
IDEATE to transform third-person opportunities into
first-person opportunities (McMullen and Shepherd
2006). However, individual differences should not be
ignored in this process. The process of transformation is
cognitively challenging and may not fit everyone’s
need, particularly novices who have formulated their
view of entrepreneurship based on social norms
(Salancik and Pfeffer 1978). Such a view or perception
may not be realistic. By engaging novice learners in
real-life problems, challenges, feedback and rejections,
IDEATE should be able to mitigate unrealistic perceptions about entrepreneurship among inexperienced individuals. We therefore examine the effect of IDEATE on
perceived fit with entrepreneurship (Hsu et al. 2019).
2.5 Perceived entrepreneurship fit
The construct of personal fit with entrepreneurship has
been shown to be an important driver of intention to start
a business (Hsu et al. 2019; Lee et al. 2011). Different
content dimensions of fit include demands-abilities fit,
needs-supplies fit, personality fit, and value fit (Kristof
1996; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Hsu et al. (2019) drew
on fit theory to anchor perceived entrepreneurship fit on
needs-supplies fit, because doing so is consistent with
self-determination theory (Greguras and Diefendorff
2009; Ryan and Deci 2000) and serves to differentiate
the construct from entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Consequently, the construct of perceived entrepreneurship fit
is defined as the match or compatibility between personal needs and what the entrepreneurship process can
offer as perceived by the individual (Hsu et al. 2019).
The fit perception can differ from person to person and
time to time based on the social information received
and processed. For experienced entrepreneurs, perception of fit with entrepreneurship may be very close to
reality, as they have experience and know what the
entrepreneurial process can offer. For novices, who do
not have prior experience, perceptions of fit may come
from friends, family members (who may or may not be
entrepreneurs), social networks, or the media, all of
which can be very different from reality.
Earlier, we suggested that individuals with limited
domain knowledge using passive search will likely arrive at first-person opportunities (McMullen and
Shepherd 2006), because those are perceived as involving less uncertainty. That is, these individuals go
through the two stages to find first-person opportunities,
innovative or not, that fit their existing knowledge.
While those first-person opportunities are typically
more myopic, they are often viewed as being achievable
by novice learners. Therefore, perceived entrepreneurship fit of novice entrepreneurs should increase after
passive search. IDEATE, however, is different in that
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
it requires novice learners to acquire new knowledge to
reduce perceived uncertainty and convert a third-person
opportunity that solves a “migraine headache” problem
into an innovative, first-person opportunity. The process
is cognitively challenging, designed to take novice
learners out of their zone of familiarity, and may not
fit a novice learner’s personal needs. In fact, many
individuals, such as undergraduate students, have strong
needs for financial security (e.g., paying off student
loans), which may be jeopardized by the inherent uncertainty associated with third-person opportunities that
are typically more complex in nature compared with
first-person opportunities. While the IDEATE method
distills, and one could argue reduces, uncertainty related
to these third-person opportunities, they are still less
familiar to novice learners than first-person opportunities. For individuals being taught in the IDEATE method, perceived fit with entrepreneurship could thus decrease. Conversely, for individuals who have strong
needs for self-fulfillment (Hsu et al. 2019) and see the
uncertainty inherent in the opportunity transformation
process as exciting, IDEATE could strengthen perceived entrepreneurship fit. Therefore, whether going
through an IDEATE training would increase or decrease
perceived entrepreneurship fit among novice learners is
not intuitively obvious. In the excerpts below, drawn
from student reflection papers, we offer an example of
how passive search can increase perceived fit while
IDEATE’s impact is not as obvious.
A student in the IDEATE section wrote:
Although the task of coming up with 100 opportunities seems nothing short of mountainous at
first, it is divided in batches which makes it slightly more reasonable. With each iteration of batches,
I could see my ideas improving. The method helps
streamline a way of thinking that makes it possible
to come up with ideas that have actual potential
rather than ideas that just sound cool. There are
definitely times when it's not easy to think of big
ideas and at times it was really stressful!
A student from the passive search section shared:
We had fun doing the idea part of our class. We
were taught to record problems that we encountered rather than just complain about them. Then
we would share the problems we recorded in small
groups and we would all come up with possible
solutions to these problems. It was kind of cool to
come up with a lot of solutions to problems we all
experience on campus. For instance, we have all
lost our student ID cards multiple times and we
came up with so many ways to solve this problem.
This approach of simply spotting and solving
problems in my own world made entrepreneurship
seem more doable to me.
All in all, the passive search approach may enhance
the fit perception of novice learners, because it is developed to help aspiring entrepreneurs find a business
opportunity that fits their current situation (Sarasvathy
2001). Since the IDEATE method provides a more
realistic view of what entrepreneurship entails (e.g.,
more challenging and involving failure), an individual’s
perceived fit with entrepreneurship after receiving this
training should not increase as much as it would under
the passive search teaching method. Therefore, we propose that:
Hypothesis 2: At the conclusion of the program,
perceived entrepreneurship fit among the individuals
trained in the IDEATE method will increase to a lesser
extent than among those trained in the passive search
approach.
3 Methodology
3.1 Sample and procedure
Since we argue that IDEATE is particularly suitable for
teaching novice entrepreneurs, we used a sample of
undergraduate students to test this proposition. Undergraduate students usually do not have much entrepreneurial or industry experience, and thus can be considered a sterile sample of individuals, inexperienced in the
entrepreneurial process (Hsu et al. 2017b). Another
benefit of employing undergraduate students is that they
lack occupational bias that may contaminate research
findings (Davidsson 2004; Hsu et al. 2017b).
We utilized a natural experiment in which the experimenter does not establish the perturbation but instead
selects sites where the perturbation is already running or
has run (Diamond 1986). A natural experiment “find(s)
a naturally occurring comparison group to mimic the
passive search group” (Harrison and List 2004, p. 11).
The strength of a natural experiment is that it takes place
in its natural context and thus has the strongest realism
(i.e., reflecting individual choices in real-life situations)
D. Cohen et al.
among experimental studies (Diamond 1986; Harrison
and List 2004; Hsu et al. 2017b).
A curriculum change was being implemented involving a redesign in the entrepreneurship program at a
southeastern university in the USA. We took advantage
of this exogenous event to examine six sections of the
same introductory-level undergraduate entrepreneurship
course, mandatory for the entrepreneurship curriculum,
in two consecutive semesters: the semester before and
the semester after the curriculum change was approved
and implemented. Therefore, the exogenous event, the
curriculum change, created the two experimental groups
that were qualitatively similar (e.g., both groups are
undergraduate students in an entrepreneurship program
taking a mandatory entrepreneurship course), yet split
between two semesters.
In the first semester, three sections of the course were
offered. The first module of the course pertained to
opportunity identification, which was based on the passive search approach and took about five weeks (corresponding with 10 class meetings of 75 minutes of instruction each), all of which were dedicated to opportunity identification. In the semester after the curriculum
change was approved, the instructors were asked to
teach opportunity identification using the IDEATE
method for the same amount of time (the first five weeks
in the semester, which is equal to 10 class meetings of
75 minutes of instruction). Instructors received a full day
training, delivered by the IDEATE method creator, as to
how to use it in the classroom. The time dedicated to
each of the six IDEATE components was not prescribed
so that individual instructors could spend more or less
time on each of the six steps based on students’ needs.
The course and the teaching materials were the same,
taught by the same three instructors for both semesters
(for example, Instructor #1 taught section 101 in the first
semester and the same section in the second semester).
The major difference was the teaching method of opportunity identification.
In both semesters, students were surveyed at the
beginning of the course (T1) and at the end of the
opportunity identification module (T2). A total of 192
students participated in the study at T1, and 187 students
participated at T2 due to some attrition between T1 and
T2. Student responses at T1 and T2 were matched for
the final analysis. After accounting for attrition and
removing missing values, the final sample contained
149 respondents (73 in the passive search group and
76 in the IDEATE group), of which 82 (55%) were
female, and 60 (40.3%) had an entrepreneur in their
immediate family. The average age was 20.4, ranging
from 19 to 24.
In any natural experiment, while the naturally occurring event creates experimental groups that should be
qualitatively similar, study participants are not randomly
assigned into experimental groups by the researchers.
Hence, there might be individual difference between
experimental groups. We therefore compared the
between-group differences in age, family business background, gender, ethnicity, baseline entrepreneurial selfefficacy (Zhao et al. 2005), entrepreneurial passion
(Cardon et al. 2013), entrepreneurial intention (Liñán
and Chen 2009), and mindset (Dweck 2015). No significant difference (t = − 1.58, − 0.87, 0.60, − 1.23, − 0.21,
− 0.98, − 0.22, − 0.67, respectively, n.s.) was found.
Thus, the IDEATE group and the passive search group
seemed to be comparable. Nevertheless, two control
variables were still included to account for alternative
explanations. Those variables are discussed below.
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Study variables
The IDEATE variable is a dummy variable, where “0”
was assigned to the passive search group (students in the
first semester) and “1” was assigned to the IDEATE
group (students in the second semester). The questionnaire used at T1 and T2 included several items
pertaining to perceived entrepreneurship fit and demographic information. The level of innovativeness of the
opportunities identified was assessed at the end of the
opportunity development phase (T2). At T2, students
were required to select the three most promising opportunities they identified and submit those as part of a
graded course assignment. We adopted and extended
DeTienne and Chandler’s (2004) approach by using
three independent raters to evaluate opportunities.
The first rater had a four-year degree and was a
student entrepreneur who has raised capital for two
ventures. The second rater was an MBA student. Both
were instructed to conduct a Google Search for each
opportunity (e.g., compare it with any existing products
found on the internet) to assess the level of innovation.
Based on the search results, the two raters used an index
developed by Fiet (2002) and adapted by DeTienne and
Chandler (2004) to rank more than 400 opportunities
(three opportunities by each of the 149 study
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
participants) on a 6-point Likert scale. The scale points
were as follows: “1 = Not innovative at all/no apparent
innovation,” “2 = A product or service identical to an
existing product/service offered to an underserved market,” “3 = A new application for an existing product/
service with little/no modification of a minor change to
an existing product,” “4 = A significant improvement to
an existing product/service,” “5 = A combination of two
or more existing products/services into one unique new
product/service,” and “6 = Extremely innovative: a newto-the-world product/service, a pure innovation or creation.” The third rater who, as a university professor
teaching entrepreneurship and management courses
with six years of industry experience, could be considered an expert rater used the same index for ratings.
The three raters were “blind” to the source of the
opportunities and had no way of knowing whether an
opportunity originated from a student in the treatment or
passive search group. To assess agreement among the
three raters, we used LeBreton and Senter’s (2008)
revised standards for interrater agreement, which was
calculated using SPSS based on a mean-rating (k = 3),
absolute-agreement, two-way mixed effects model.
With an interclass coefficient of .71, the agreement level
fell into the category of “Strong Agreement.” We used
the mean of a rater’s scores on the three opportunities
rather than the highest score, because the average innovativeness of the three opportunities should better demonstrate an individual’s overall ability to develop innovative opportunities. We then averaged the three raters’
scores to form the “Index of Opportunity
Innovativeness.”
Perceived entrepreneurship fit was adapted from Hsu
et al.’s (2019) three-item, 7-point Likert scale, ranging
from “1” (strongly disagree) to “7” (strongly agree), and
measured twice, at both T1 and T2. Cronbach alphas
were .81 and .85 for T1 and T2, respectively.
3.2.2 Control variables
As discussed earlier, although undergraduate students
are a relatively homogeneous group offering a “sterile”
sample (Hsu et al. 2017b), individual differences which
may confound results still exist. For this reason, we
controlled for gender (“1” = “male”; “2” = “female”)
and entrepreneurial family, which assessed whether the
respondent had an entrepreneur in his/her immediate
family (e.g., self, parents, and/or siblings). This variable
was coded as “1” for those who did not have any
entrepreneurs in their immediate family and “2” for
those who reported having an entrepreneur in their
immediate family.
4 Analyses and results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. While level of
innovativeness should range from 1 to 6 (the end points
of the Likert scale), the maximum value in the data was
only 3.67. This was because students selected and submitted three opportunities, and very few students had
high innovativeness on all three opportunities identified.
The correlation between the IDEATE measure and degree of innovativeness of opportunities was fairly strong
(ρ = .306; p < .01). This indicated that, when nothing
was controlled for, there was a positive relationship
between the two variables, providing preliminary support for H1.
To further test H1, we performed OLS (see Table 2).
Model 1 contained the two control variables. Model 2
added the independent variable and the IDEATE training versus the passive search training. The IDEATE
treatment strongly and positively predicted innovativeness of opportunities (β = .309, p < .01). Additionally,
IDEATE uniquely explained 10% of the variance
(ΔR2 = .10) in innovativeness of opportunities, thus fully supporting H1.
Given the way natural experiments work, group assignment is not as random as in a controlled, randomized experiment. There might be unobserved variables
that could confound our study results. Researchers suggest that only a variable that is correlated with the
predictor rather than the dependent variable may confound the results or provide alternative explanations for
the relationship between the predictor and the outcome
variable (Schjoedt and Bird 2014; Spector and Brannick
2011). In our case, the predictor, or the independent
variable, is the control group that received the passive
search training versus the group that was taught using
the IDEATE approach, which was created by the naturally occurring curriculum change. It did not seem to us
that there was a variable that could clearly affect who
would receive IDEATE and who would not, because
students were not aware of the ongoing proposal of
curriculum change. In addition, both the correlation
matrix (i.e., without any control variables) and regression models (with controls) showed that IDEATE
strongly predicts innovativeness of opportunities.
D. Cohen et al.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Min
Max
Mean
S.D.
1
2
3
4
1. Gender1
1
2
1.55
0.50
2. Entre. family2
1
2
1.40
0.49
3. IDEATE
0
1
0.51
0.50
− .056
− .066
5. Perceived fit at T1
1
7
5.16
1.10
− .170*
.206*
.096
6. Perceived fit at T2
1
7
5.31
1.01
− .106
.243**
− .002
.664**
6. Innovativeness of opportunities
1
3.67
1.80
0.52
.107
− .039
.306**
− .007
5
.054
1
− .051
2
*p < .05; **p < .01. N ranges from 149 to 187 due to missing values. Gender is coded as 1 = male vs. 2 = female. Entrepreneurial family is
coded as 1 = no vs. 2 = yes
Consequently, alternative explanations for the effect of
IDEATE on the innovativeness of opportunities should
be less of a concern.
To test H2, whether the increase in perceived entrepreneurship fit before and after the opportunity identification module would be different for the IDEATE group
and the passive search group, we performed pairedsample t tests in SPSS (see Table 3). There was no
significant difference between perceived entrepreneurship fit before and after the IDEATE module, while the
difference between perceived fit before and after the
passive search training was positive and significant
(t = 2.671, p < .01). To examine whether the difference
between the IDEATE group and the passive search
group was significant, we created the variable of “difference between perceived entrepreneurship fit before
and after training” by subtracting perceived fit at T1
from perceived fit at T2 for each participant. We then
performed independent sample t tests to compare the
between-group differences (see Table 4). Table 4 shows
Table 2 Regression models of IDEATE and innovativeness of
opportunities
Model 1
While it is impossible to substitute for domain expertise,
which takes years to develop, the IDEATE method
accelerates the understanding of what makes opportunities valuable or not (Identify), where valuable opportunities are likely to be found (Discover and Anticipate),
how to make ideas more innovative or valuable (Enhance), and how to evaluate and select the best ideas
(Target and Evaluate). As such, students are prompted
with exemplars, scenarios, exercises, and assignments
designed to strengthen their knowledge about opportunity identification. Experienced entrepreneurs do this
passively, and perhaps instinctively, via recognizing
patterns and “connecting the dots,” which reveal valuable opportunities (Baron 2006). Given that domain
Table 3 Paired-sample t tests for pre- and post-experiment perceived P-ENT fit
Gender1
.109
.099
Entre. Family2
− .045
− .025
Independent variable
Variables
N
Mean
Std. deviation
t test
.509
Perceived P-ENT fit (IDEATE group)
IDEATE
ΔR2
5 Discussion
Model 2
Control variables
R2
that the increase between perceived fit before and after
the training was larger for the passive search group than
for the IDEATE group. However, the between-group
difference was statistically significant only at the marginal level (t = 1.67, p < .10), offering partial support for
H2.
.309**
.013
.11**
.10**
Dependent variable: innovativeness of opportunities. Values
shown as standardized coefficients. N = 149. **p < .01. 1 Gender
is coded as 1 = male vs. 2 = female. 2 Entrepreneurial family is
coded as 1 = no vs. 2 = yes
Before the training
77
5.30
1.00
After the training
77
5.31
1.06
Perceived P-ENT fit (passive search group)
Before the training
73
5.03
1.18
After the training
73
5.32
.98
**p < .01
2.671**
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
Table 4 Independent sample t tests for increases in perceived PENT fit between groups
Variables
N
Average
increase
Std.
t test for equality
deviation of means
Difference between the increases of perceived P-ENT fit
IDEATE
group
Passive
search
group
+
77 .14
.82
73 .85
.91
1.67+
p < .10
expertise has not developed in the case of most students,
the IDEATE method systematically guides the active
search for valuable opportunities. By integrating focus
on real customers and by utilizing proven active search
techniques (Fiet and Patel 2008), IDEATE more realistically replicates the entrepreneurial experience and accelerates cognition in comparison with passive search
methods. In a similar vein, albeit from a different discipline, a recently enacted approach to teaching surgical
residents has shifted from simulation to practicing the
surgical techniques on cadavers (Kuhl et al. 2013),
because it accelerates cognitive capabilities due to the
closer approximation to a real surgical experience.
Our results show a significant correlation between the
IDEATE teaching method and the innovativeness of the
opportunities participants identified. We were also able to
show that the individuals taught in the sections using the
IDEATE approach identified opportunities that were more
innovative than the opportunities identified by those in the
control sections (taught using the passive search approach).
Thus, we can say that the IDEATE approach is effective in
strengthening novice entrepreneurs’ skills in identifying
innovative opportunities. While what we measured in this
study is the level of innovativeness of opportunities, we
would expect that because learners are guided to address
significant (i.e., “migraine headache”) consumer problems,
they would identify opportunities that could potentially be
more scalable and more likely to result in growth-oriented
businesses.
Our findings offer several key takeaways for teaching
opportunity identification. First is the notion that it is
possible to help less experienced individuals identify
innovative business opportunities. Many believe the
ability to spot and exploit innovative ideas is an inherent
trait rather than a skill that can be developed. Second,
our findings demonstrate the value of applying active
search methods like IDEATE, when it comes to teaching opportunity identification to novice entrepreneurs.
Given their limited domain and industry experience,
novice entrepreneurs may have a more difficult time
distinguishing problems of mere inconvenience from
real “migraine headache” problems. Developing systematic, active search skills as included in IDEATE
can especially benefit this group. This does not mean
that passive search cannot yield innovative opportunities; it is, however, more suitable for experienced individuals. Finally, and more importantly, because IDEATE involves a more rigorous opportunity identification process which requires learners to also evaluate
their opportunities (rather than simply identifying them),
it can potentially reduce some of the uncertainty and risk
associated with venture creation. Of course, every new
venture involves a certain degree of uncertainty and risk;
however, an entrepreneur who goes through the evaluation phase of IDEATE will be more informed on the
value of continuing to pursue a specific opportunity.
The importance of identifying valuable opportunities
cannot be underestimated. Many small businesses fail each
year. The Bureau of Labor statistics indicates that about
34% of new firms fail within the first two years, and 56%
fail within the first four years (Knaup 2005). This high
failure rate is possibly driven, at least partially, by entrepreneurs pursuing opportunities that were poorly selected,
not sufficiently different from existing products and/or
service, and/or not well validated prior to business launch.
There is significant value in preparing nascent entrepreneurs to cope with a rapidly changing environment. Compared with large corporations, small firms are more vulnerable to market shifts and macroeconomic downturns
(Feldman and Bolino 2000). It is therefore imperative for
entrepreneurs to be equipped to “read” the environment
and predict trends as well as carefully validate the opportunities they identify. This is valuable not just in terms of
starting a business but also in terms of sustaining an
existing business for the long term.
The key difference between IDEATE and passive
search approaches to teaching opportunity recognition
lies in the “Attention” and “Evaluation” stages included
in McMullen and Shepherd’s (2006) two-stage conceptual model. In IDEATE, the attention span extends
beyond the individual’s immediate environment and
day-to-day life to consider conditions like social and
demographic change, technological change, legal and
regulatory change, and changes in industry structure that
create fertile ground for opportunities. This is especially
D. Cohen et al.
valuable for inexperienced individuals who are less
likely to be aware of these changes and the opportunities
they hold. A second unique aspect of IDEATE lies in
the way in which opportunities are evaluated. IDEATE
requires that opportunities be evaluated by seeking feedback directly from a carefully selected target market. By
obtaining real-world feedback on their identified opportunities, learners are able to truly assess the innovativeness of the identified opportunity. As our results indicate, those individuals in our sample who were taught in
the IDEATE method were able to identify more innovative opportunities compared with their peers taught in
a method aligned with passive search.
The second part of our investigation examined the
impact the IDEATE teaching method had on learners’
perceived entrepreneurship fit. We found no significant
difference in the perceived fit level at the beginning
compared with the end of the opportunity identification
module for those trained in the IDEATE method. On the
other hand, for the individuals taught in the passive
search approach, there was a significant increase in
perceived fit from the beginning to the end of the opportunity identification module. It is possible that because the IDEATE approach can involve more disappointment when the feedback from the target market
fails to validate one’s identified opportunity, some individuals perceive less fit with an entrepreneurial career.
Similarly, the challenging tasks, feedback, and possible
rejections in IDEATE will likely reduce individuals’
overconfidence or unfounded optimism. This is in comparison with the individuals in the passive search group,
who were simply asked to identify opportunities in their
immediate environment and were not required to go
through all the components included in the IDEATE
method to validate their opportunity with an actual
target market. For example, “vapor testing 1 ”
1
“Vapor testing,” a cost-effective way to get market validation, consists of testing an idea with a targeted group of customers. For example,
Elon Musk, founder of Tesla, had an idea of building affordable, funto-drive, electric vehicles for the masses. At the idea stage, Musk
realized that he did not have the economies of scale necessary to build
a cost-effective electric vehicle. Thus, he targeted a smaller, more
affluent target market and “vapor tested” the Model S sports sedan
(Satell 2018). In the case of Tesla, Musk tested customer interest and
willingness to purchase the Model S with nothing more than a drawing.
Rather than spending millions to produce the car to see if it would sell,
Musk targeted the most likely buyers and asked them to pre-order the
vehicle by placing a $1000 deposit on the car. By securing billions of
dollars in pre-orders through successful targeting, Musk validated his
idea and moved into the production phase with more confidence and
less risk.
opportunities is a process that can be challenging and
disappointing when one’s identified opportunity—
thought to have significant potential—is rejected by
the target market. Again, we believe this is a positive
outcome, because it exposes nascent entrepreneurs to a
more realistic image of the entrepreneurial experience.
An individual’s fit perception may affect his/her career identity in the long run. The entrepreneurial identity
is salient and often takes a strong position in a hierarchy
of different identities such as spouse, sibling, musician,
athlete, or any other myriad identities that people manage (Murnieks and Mosakowski 2007). In most cases,
nascent entrepreneurs have not fully developed an entrepreneurial identity (Cohen 2016). They may want to
become an entrepreneur; however, for the identity to
fully form, their status as an entrepreneur needs to be
validated by a meaningful other (Markowska 2014),
such as a venture capitalist making an investment or
an important customer placing a significant order. The
rigorous nature of the IDEATE method yields opportunities that are more innovative than passive search
methods and have earned some measure of validation
by being vetted by target market customers, thus making
the formation of an entrepreneurial identity more likely
for those who choose to pursue an entrepreneurial career. Because identity is a pathway to passion, IDEATE
may be a catalyst to the development of entrepreneurial
passion (Cohen 2016).
6 Limitations
One limitation stems from our sample. While our sample consisted of students from various majors, all were
enrolled in an entrepreneurship program in which the
course sections offered were a required component. In
addition, many select the entrepreneurship program to
pair with a less “pragmatic” major in an effort to improve their employment prospects. A very small proportion of graduates actually pursue ventures immediately
after graduation. This may have introduced some selfselection bias into our findings in terms of their initial
levels of perceived fit with an entrepreneurial career.
Indeed, achievement motivation may play a key role in
the development of expert performance (Baron and
Henry 2010). Thus, those who are already motivated
may benefit to a greater extent from the IDEATE method compared with those who are less motivated. We
would recommend repeating this study with other
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
students, such as those in an engineering program or
other discipline, who may be more intrinsically motivated to pursue an entrepreneurial career immediately post
graduation. Correspondingly, Thrane et al. (2016) identify the value of orienting entrepreneurship education
towards broader student groups beyond the traditional
business school context.
A second limitation stems from our method, because
the instructors and their teaching styles in the different
sections may have affected our results. In our experiment, we held instructor difference as a constant across
the two experimental groups by having the same instructors teach the same sections of the same course across
the two semesters. Consequently, the instructor difference should not nullify our study results. As in all
experimental studies, however, whether our findings
can apply to other instructors is still in question. A
replication of the study with different instructors in the
future would be worthwhile. In addition, we would like
to acknowledge that not all entrepreneurs want to establish a high-growth business. Some may prefer starting a
lifestyle business and do not have high growth aspirations (Weber et al. 2015). This relates to the above
discussion of fit perceptions, in that not all entrepreneurs
enter entrepreneurship for the same reasons. Educators
should recognize these different motivations. While this
study focused on identifying innovative opportunities,
which could be expected to potentially lead to highgrowth, scalable business opportunities, we would be
remiss not to recognize that this is not every entrepreneur’s goal. Nevertheless, even with a lifestyle entrepreneurial venture that is relatively smaller in scale, identifying an innovative opportunity and validating it may
contribute to long-term success. Because of this research
method, we cannot differentiate which of the six distinct
steps of IDEATE leads to the difference in outcome. We
assess IDEATE as a whole and are unable to identify the
impact of each of the distinct six steps. While in this
particular paper our goal was to test the IDEATE method and show its effectiveness, future studies could potentially explore the impact of each of the six steps
separately.
A final limitation is rooted in our use of a natural
experiment rather than a randomized, controlled experiment. While a natural experiment enjoys stronger realism and external validity, its weakness is that the experimental groups created by the natural event may not be
qualitatively equivalent in a strict sense. That is, the
random assignment by the natural event may not be
perfect and unobserved confounding factors are still
possible.
7 Implications for practice
From the academic perspective, we suggest that IDEATE is a valuable approach to teaching ideation, especially well suited for inexperienced individuals or novice entrepreneurs. As such, IDEATE can serve as a
supplement or precursor to passive search approaches
such as the SEEC (DeTienne and Chandler 2004).
While passive search is very suitable for practicing
entrepreneurs who have domain expertise and
entrepreneurial experience, it is less effective with
entrepreneurship students who typically lack both. An
additional advantage of the IDEATE approach from an
instructional perspective is that it takes the burden off
faculty for being experts in multiple domains. Indeed,
Robinson et al. (2016) recommend that entrepreneurship education become less teacher-led and more student-centered, focusing on experiential learning. We do
not intend to suggest that expertise among faculty members teaching entrepreneurship is unimportant. In our
effort to assist novice entrepreneurs towards becoming
experts, having experts as educators is essential
(Krueger 2007). However, the advantage offered by
the IDEATE approach is that part of the feedback on
the innovativeness and growth potential of the identified
opportunities is provided directly from the relevant target market, rather than from classmates or course instructors. This occurs as part of the “Target” phase of
IDEATE, in which students have to describe a specific
target market and create a prototypical customer profile.
This helps the students develop their opportunity more
clearly, as they have the customer in mind during this
phase. Furthermore, as part of the “Evaluate” phase of
IDEATE, participants test the value of the opportunities
they identify (their product or service) with real customers. Therefore, the burden of determining the innovativeness and potential of an opportunity no longer
relies exclusively on feedback from peers or from the
instructor, who may be limited by his/her area of expertise. Indeed, finding suitable faculty and mentors remains a challenge in delivering credit-yielding, experiential entrepreneurship academic offerings (Mandel and
Noyes 2016). Implementing IDEATE could support
less experienced faculty in doing so. Furthermore, from
the students’ perspective, being able to demonstrate
D. Cohen et al.
actual demand for a product or service, even if only
based on a prototype or model, can significantly impact
aspiring entrepreneurs’ ability to raise capital (as exemplified in Elon Musk’s “vapor test” for the Model S
sports sedan discussed above).
In terms of implications for practicing entrepreneurs,
our findings support the notion that IDEATE can be a
valuable tool for practicing entrepreneurs in their efforts to
sustain their business. Change is constant in today’s business world. This includes social and demographic change,
technological change, political and regulatory change, and
changes in industry structure. These changes demand that
businesses adjust and adapt in order to survive. As the
above-mentioned example of BigBelly Solar demonstrates,
even successful businesses can benefit from carefully scanning their environment to identify new opportunities to
diversity and grow. IDEATE can thus also serve current
business owners who want to identify new opportunities
and evaluate those opportunities carefully. While our paper
focused on student learners, IDEATE can also be effective
if applied by entrepreneurs who want to grow a business
by identifying changes to their specific environment which
represent opportunities for new products and/or services as
well as new markets.
8 Conclusions and avenues for future research
While entrepreneurship education seeks to grow more
entrepreneurs, there is an additional underlying desire to
prepare nascent entrepreneurs to become better entrepreneurs who will create and sustain successful business. The
ability to identify the right opportunity is arguably the first
step in the entrepreneurial process. Individuals who are
able to see patterns and identify high-potential opportunities are more likely to develop those into successful businesses. While learning from case studies and others’ success has undeniable value, hands-on experience through
experiential learning can further develop cognitive abilities
essential for opportunity identification. In this paper, we
offer evidence as to the effectiveness of an innovative
approach to teaching opportunity identification that can
be integrated into existing entrepreneurship courses. The
IDEATE approach teaches aspiring entrepreneurs how to
identify and test innovative opportunities, which is necessary for business startup, and arguably also valuable for
sustaining a business in the long term. We believe that both
IDEATE and passive search have strengths along with
weaknesses. Passive search approaches to teaching
opportunity identification may be quite effective with experienced individuals; however, they may render a disservice to students, because they do not integrate ways for
real-world opportunity validation. Without validating an
identified opportunity with the actual target market it aims
to serve, individuals may perceive entrepreneurship to be
easier than it actually is. By being more realistic, the
IDEATE approach exposes the challenges entrepreneurs
are likely to face in the “real world” early on in the startup
process. The demanding nature of the IDEATE method,
on the other hand, could frustrate or discourage aspiring
entrepreneurs who may be more interested in lifestyle or
less scalable ventures, something that instructors using this
method should not ignore.
Experiential learning as a teaching method in entrepreneurship education is extensively supported (Costa
et al. 2018; DeTienne and Chandler 2004; Kassean et al.
2015). Our study adds value in that it demonstrates that
not all experiential learning approaches yield the same
results by showing the added value of IDEATE in terms
of the innovativeness of opportunities learners identified. Passive search is also rooted in experiential learning and can similarly impact opportunity identification
among more experienced individuals. However, passive
search typically lacks the attention and evaluation components inherent to the IDEATE approach, which represent more active problem solving in real-life situations
(Nabi et al. 2017). Active search highlights forces of
change (social and demographic change, technological
change, political and regulatory change, and changes in
industry structure) as “fertile ground” for “migraine
headache” problems. This allows even inexperienced
learners with limited work or domain expertise to explore a broader set of customer needs emerging from
these changes. Furthermore, the validation component
of IDEATE comes from actual customers rather than
classmates or faculty which makes this approach a more
realistic approximation of entrepreneurship.
A possible avenue for future research would be to
examine the sustainability of the effects of the IDEATE
training versus the passive search approaches. Those
who participated in this study could be contacted in
the future (post graduation) to examine whether—
among those who actually became entrepreneurs—the
individuals who were taught in the IDEATE method
were able to identify more innovative opportunities and
became more successful compared with their peers
taught in the passive search approach. In their
longitudinal study, Kavanagh and Hisrich (2010)
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
followed entrepreneurs for seven years, from the opportunity identification stage to having an established company. Their results show a clear, positive link between
the quality of the opportunity and the strategic potential
of a new venture. It would also be valuable to explore
whether IDEATE can be applied to teams who co-create
and co-found ventures. Because the entrepreneurial process is often a collaborative one, it would be valuable to
explore whether IDEATE can be equally successful in
identifying more innovative opportunities among
groups of co-creators as it is with individuals.
While our study focused on entrepreneurship students,
the ability to become skilled in opportunity identification is
important to anyone who desires to pursue an entrepreneurial career. Furthermore, the ability to identify innovative, high-potential opportunities is relevant not only for
those seeking to become business owners. In a global and
rapidly changing business world, many large organizations
want to hire employees who have an entrepreneurial
mindset and are skilled at identifying trends as well as
future growth opportunities (Hsu et al. 2017a). Therefore,
we believe that the IDEATE approach can be valuable
beyond the field of entrepreneurship education and can
also contribute to individuals who have no intention to start
a business or become entrepreneurs but, rather, will be
entrepreneurial and identify new opportunities on behalf of
the organizations by which they are employed. Finally,
while this specific study examined IDEATE in a university
course setting with bi-weekly class meetings, we believe
that IDEATE is sufficiently versatile to be offered in a
condensed format as part of professional development
programs or workshops. The effectiveness of such a model
could be explored in future studies as well.
Appendix A
Table 5 IDEATE framework
Skills/
exercises
IDEATE description
IDEATE in action: how to use the
method
Contrast with passive search
Step 1:
Learners are taught how to identify a
• Instructors discuss several examples of Learners are instructed to look for
Identify
problem worth solving—solving a
“migraine headache” vs. nice-to-have
problems in their day-to-day life.
probpain point, a “migraine headache”
problems.
lems
problem, rather than a matter of in• Learners are instructed to generate 10
worth
convenience or a “nice-to-have” item
opportunities to address headache
solving
(e.g., rather sell aspirin than vitamins)
problems.
and distinguish between exemplars:
More innovative vs. less innovative
opportunities.
Step 2:
Discovery focuses on teaching the
• Learners are encouraged to probe their Learners note and record problems
Discovery
learners to actively search for
own life experiences, such as studying
encountered daily, either by
opportunities in problem-rich enviabroad, to generate 10 opportunities
themselves or by others in their
ronments that they are passionate
they have been exposed and are
immediate surroundings.
about.
passionate about that might have
appeal in other markets.
• Some questions for the learners to
consider:
• What activities are you passionate
about? Are there any potential
business opportunities?
• What places in the world have you
visited? Did you notice any interesting
business opportunities?
• Do you have areas of expertise?
Step 3:
Learners expand their research to either • Instructor proposes a real scenario that Learners suggest a solution to the
Enhance
enhance existing opportunities already
describes an existing product or
problem mostly based on their existing
present in the market by adding an
knowledge. Brainstorming might be
D. Cohen et al.
Table 5 (continued)
Skills/
exercises
IDEATE description
IDEATE in action: how to use the
method
Contrast with passive search
innovative twist or create novel, new
service that the learners are not
considered a form of enhancing
business models. A key component of
familiar with.
opportunities.
the “Enhance” step, is to create value • Learners are tasked to improve and
for all: Value for the entrepreneur(s),
increase the value that product or
for the customer(s) and for any
service.
suppliers who would help the startup • Repeat the task for several rounds.
operate.
• Learners research to generate 10
opportunities by improving existing
products or service.
Step 4:
A key source for valuable opportunities • Instructors discuss the forces of change. Learners are instructed to look for
Anticipate
stems from four forces of change:
• Learners research to generate 10 in
opportunities in their everyday life.
Social and demographic,
response to those forces of change.
The approach does not instruct
technological, political and regulatory,
learners on how to anticipate future
and industry structure change (Shane
trends rooted in major forces of
2003). The IDEATE method utilizes
change.
exercises designed to examine these
changes and anticipate how these
changes might impact customers and
create new opportunities.
Step 5:
Identify who the target customer is and • Instructors use real-life examples to
While some passive search methods also
Target
why he/she should buy the product or
discuss target customers and customer
instruct learners to identify target
service. Instruct learners to consider
needs.
customers, other passive search
the following question: “If the identi- • Learners are instructed to consider what
methods, such as effectuation, do not.
fied opportunity is a new invention or
customer they will be targeting and
technology, who would be the early
what the customer wants and then
adopters?”
generate 10 opportunities for the target
customers.
Step 6:
Evaluation serves to narrow ideas down • After the fifth step, learners should have Validation and feedback on the identified
a list of 50 opportunities.
opportunity is generated through
Evaluto the top 10. It includes addressing
• Learners are asked to generate 50
student presentations of elevator
ate
questions such as:
additional opportunities to reach the
pitches to an audience of peers and
I: How large is the “migraine headache”
total of 100 opportunities.
course instructors, who may or may
problem?
not be in the target market.
Are you addressing the root cause of the • Learners are asked to estimate the
degree to which the problem they are
“migraine headache” problem or a
solving is a “migraine headache”
mere symptom?
problem rather than a simple matter of
Are people willing to pay for your
inconvenience.
solution?
• Learners are also asked to rate their
D: Is this an area of passion for you?
personal passion for each opportunity:
Can you leverage your knowledge,
Multiply the two ratings/scores and
network, or other assets?
rank the opportunities.
Does the solution capitalize on current
trends that may lead to a new market? • Conduct Internet research for the top 10
opportunities to verify the
E: Is there an opportunity to expand on
this idea to make it grow past what it is
innovativeness and originality.
now?
Are you building value for all
stakeholders (beyond the customer)?
A: Does the idea take into account
anticipated social, demographic,
technological, political, regulatory,
or industry changes?
Is the idea forward-looking and part of a
growing market?
Is the solution one that is likely to have a
lot competitors?
T: Do you know who the buyer is?
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
Table 5 (continued)
Skills/
exercises
IDEATE description
IDEATE in action: how to use the
method
Contrast with passive search
Is the buyer an attractive customer (has
purchasing power, isn’t price
sensitive, needs your
product/service}?
E: Is the idea unique and difficult for
others to imitate?
Is there a clear path to earning revenue
and creating a profitable venture?
Appendix B
Table 6 IDEATE literature review summary. Opportunity identification and entrepreneurial education
Authors
Construct conceptualization
Findings and implications
Arentz et al.
Opportunity identification
2013
Baron and
Evaluation and opportunity recognition
Ensley 2006
Experienced entrepreneurs evaluate opportunities in a different
manner than nascent entrepreneurs.
Baron 2006
Opportunity arises from changes in the environment.
Opportunity recognition capability
Experienced entrepreneurs are better at identifying opportunities.
Baron 2006
Opportunity recognition for nascent entrepreneurs Nascent entrepreneurs lack key factors that result in pattern
Gielnik et al.
recognition.
2014
Béchard and
Efficacy of experiential learning in entrepreneurship Experiential learning modifies students’ cognitive structures and
Grégoire
ways of thinking.
2005
Blank and Dorf Opportunity recognition
Significant problems, AKA “migraine headache” problems, are
2013
fertile ground for opportunities.
Corbett 2005
Experiential learning and opportunity recognition
How experiential learning impacts real-world capability in spotting
opportunities.
Impact of experiential learning on opportunity
recognition
Experiential learning helps modify students’ cognitive structures in
a manner that illuminates opportunities.
Costa et al.
2018
Entrepreneurship education via focus on cognitive
structures and experiential learning
Students are taught to view world via entrepreneurial lens to spot
opportunities and develop improved opportunity recognition
skills.
Davidsson
2015
Nexus of opportunity recognition
Multiple ways to conceive of opportunities exist: external
enablers/changes drive opportunities.
DeTienne and
Chandler
2004
Opportunity recognition capability
Passive search method: students identify issues in immediate
environment.
Improving opportunity recognition skills
SEEC method teaches students how to spot valuable opportunities.
Passive search
Passive search allows opportunities for discovery as a result of the
individual’s existing knowledge.
Fiet and Patel
2008
Impact of previous knowledge on opportunity
identification
Systematically search of previous experience leads to more prolific
in generating ideas.
Gaglio 2004
Opportunity identification
Opportunity identification often reflects sophisticated skills.
Gielnik et al.
2014
Active search method efficacy for nascent
entrepreneurs
High levels of active search compensated for little entrepreneurial
experience.
Gregoire et al.
2009
Opportunity recognition capability
Opportunity arises from changes in the environment.
D. Cohen et al.
Table 6 (continued)
Authors
Construct conceptualization
Findings and implications
Hägg and
Novice entrepreneurs and opportunity recognition Novice entrepreneurs identify opportunities that are convenient and
Kurczewska
lack innovation.
2018
Honig 2004
Experiential learning via complex, critical thinking Complex, nonlinear critical thinking closes the gap between
academic and practical learning.
Kassean et al.
2015
Entrepreneurial learning approaches
Entrepreneurial education focuses on real-world experience, action,
and reflective processes.
Kolb 1984
Experiential learning via reflective observation,
abstract conceptualization and active
experimentation
Opportunity recognition as starting point for
entrepreneurship education
Learning outcomes in entrepreneurship enhanced via feeling,
watching, thinking and doing.
Krueger 2007
Marvel 2013
Passive search and opportunity recognition
Teaching opportunity recognition skills is important, because it is
the starting point of entrepreneurship.
Experienced entrepreneurs are more likely to just come across
opportunities accidentally.
McMullan and Cognitive skills and opportunity recognition
Boberg 2013
Role of cognition and prior knowledge necessary to develop
innovative third-person opportunities.
McMullen and Cognitive skills and domain expertise
Shepherd
2006
First- versus third-person opportunities
New skill and information acquisition necessary to reduce
uncertainty and perceived risk
Inexperienced individuals without much domain knowledge
typically pursue first-person opportunities that are not very risky
or innovative.
Experienced entrepreneurs and opportunity
recognition
Experienced entrepreneur can convert third-person opportunities to
first-person opportunities.
Nabi et al.
2017
Problem solving skill development
Real-life situations are utilized to enhance problem solving
capabilities.
Pittaway and
Cope 2007
Experiential learning and opportunity recognition
Experiential learning impacts real-world capability in spotting opportunities.
Saks and
Ideation gleaned from others’ experience
Gaglio 2002
Students report on what they see and/or hear people saying about
what they want or desire
Sarasvathy
2001
Identified first-person opportunities usually perceived as less
uncertain/risky and easier to implement—also likely to be less
innovative.
Effectuation and opportunity recognition
Effectuation via opportunity creation
Approaches aligned with experiential learning.
Opportunity recognition
Broader set of experiences helps increase the innovativeness of
opportunities.
Opportunity recognition capability
Opportunity arises from changes in the environment.
Individual cognition and pattern recognition within a context develop opportunity recognition capabilities.
Smith et al.
2009
Opportunity recognition and experience
Some opportunities are more likely to be identified through
systematic search, while others are identified through prior
experience.
Vaghely and
Julien 2010
Opportunity recognition skill approaches
Nascent entrepreneurs can follow multiple approaches to develop
opportunities.
Vogel 2017
Venture opportunities and venture ideas
Differentiating between venture opportunities and venture ideas:
opportunities emerge from refined ideas.
Shane 2003
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
References
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation:
alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.
Arentz, J., Sautet, F., & Storr, V. (2013). Prior-knowledge and
opportunity identification. Small Business Economics, 41(2),
461–478.
Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: how entrepreneurs ‘connect the dots’ to identify new
business opportunities. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 20, 104–119.
Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as
the detection of meaningful patterns: evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management
Science, 52, 1331–1344.
Baron, R. A., & Henry, R. A. (2010). How entrepreneurs acquire
the capacity to excel: insights from research on expert performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 49–65.
Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship education research revised: the case of higher education.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1),
22–43.
Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2013). The startup owner’s manual (first
edition) K & S Ranch, Inc. Publishers.
Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C.
(2013). Measuring entrepreneurial passion. Conceptual foundations and scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing,
28(3), 373–396.
Chang, W. L., Liu, W. G. H., & Chiang, S. M. (2014). A study of
the relationship between entrepreneurship courses and opportunity identification: an empirical survey. Asia Pacific
Management Review, 19(1), 1–24.
Cohen, D. A. (2016). Igniting the fire: the impact of anticipatory
entrepreneurial passion on effort and affect in nascent entrepreneurs. PhD diss., Case Western Reserve University.
Corbett, A. C. (2005). Experiential learning within the process of
opportunity identification and exploitation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29, 473–491.
Costa, S. F., Santos, C. S., Wach, D., & Caetano, A. (2018).
Recognizing opportunity across campus: the effects of cognitive training and entrepreneurial passion on the business
opportunity prototype. Journal of Small Business
Management, 56(1), 51–75.
Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship (Vol. 5).
New York: Springer.
Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a re-conceptualization. Journal of
Business Venturing, 30, 674–695.
DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: a pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 242–257.
Dew, N., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2016). Exaptation and niche construction behavioral insights for an evolutionary theory.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(1), 167–179.
Diamond, J. (1986). Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. In J. Diamond & T. J.
Case (Eds.), Community ecology (pp. 3–22). New York:
Harper & Row.
Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset.
Education Week, 35(5), 20–24.
Feldman, D. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2000). Career patterns of the
self-employed: career motivations and outcomes. Journal of
Small Business Management, 38(3), 53–67.
Fiet, J. O. (2002). The systematic search for entrepreneurial
discoveries. West-Port, CT: Quorum Books.
Fiet, J. O., & Patel, P. C. (2008). Entrepreneurial discovery and
constrained, systematic search. Small Business Economics,
30, 215–229.
Gaglio, C. M. (2004). The role of counterfactual thinking in the
opportunity identification process. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 28(6), 533–552.
Gielnik, M. M., Kramer, A. C., Kappel, B., & Frese, M. (2014).
Antecedents of business opportunity identification and innovation: investigating the interplay of information processing
and information acquisition. Applied Psychology, 63(2),
344–381.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy
different needs: linking person-environment fit to employee
commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465–477.
Gregoire, D. A., Barr, P., & Shepherd, D. (2009). Cognitive
processes of opportunity recognition: the role of structural
alignment. Organization Science, 21(2), 331–591.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009).
The role of gender stereotyping in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 397–417.
Hägg, G., & Kurczewska, A. (2018). Who is the student entrepreneur? Understanding the emergent adult through the pedagogy and andragogy interplay. Journal of Small Business
Management. Published online https://doi.org/10.1111
/jsbm.12496.
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal
of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.
Hofherr, J. (2019). This tech company wants to help people with
hearing loss-and they just raised $5M to do so.
BuiltInBoston.com. Retrieved January 10, 2020 from
https://www.builtinboston.com/2019/02/13/eversoundraises-5m
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of
contingency-based business planning. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 258–273.
Hsu, D. K., Burmeister-Lamp, K., Simmons, S. A., Foo, M. D.,
Hong, M. C., & Pipes, J. D. (2019). “I know I can, but I don’t
fit”: perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention.
Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 311–326.
Hsu, K. D., Shinnar, R. S., Coffey, B., & Powell, C. B. (2017a).
Intentions to reenter venture creation: the effect of entrepreneurial experience and organizational climate. International
Small Business Journal, 35(8), 928–948.
Hsu, D. K., Simmons, S. A., & Wieland, A. M. (2017b).
Designing entrepreneurship experiments: a review, typology
and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods,
20(3), 379–412.
Justo, R., DeTienne, D. R., & Sieger, P. (2015). Failure or voluntary exit? Reassessing the female underperformance hypothesis. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(6), 775–792.
Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Ligouri, E., & Winkel, D. E.
(2015). Entrepreneurship education: a need for reflection,
D. Cohen et al.
real world experience and action. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Behavior and Research, 21(5), 690–708.
Kavanagh, P. F., & Hisrich, R. D. (2010). The relationship between the quality of the idea and strategic potential of a new
venture: a longitudinal study of five Irish campus companies.
Managing Global Transitions, 8(3), 261–284.
Knaup, A. E. (2005). Survival and longevity in the business
employment dynamics data, Monthly Labor Review,
Available at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/ressum.
pdf, Accessed May 15, 2018.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the
source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, JJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C.
(2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: a metaanalysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group,
and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2),
281–342.
Krueger, N. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence
of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31(1), 123–138.
Kuhl, D. A., Risucci, D. A, Bowyer, M. W., & Luchette, F. (2013).
Advanced surgical skills for exposure in trauma: a new
surgical skills cadaver course for surgery residents and fellows. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 74(2),
664–670.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions
about interrater reliability and interrater agreement.
Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.
Lee, L., Wong, P. K., Foo, M. D., & Leung, A. (2011). Journal of
Business Venturing, 26(1), 124–136.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross–cultural
application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3),
593–617.
Mandel, R., & Noyes, E. (2016). Survey of experiential entrepreneurship education offerings among top undergraduate entrepreneurship programs. Education + Training, 58(2), 164–
178.
Markman, G. D., & Baron, A. B. (2003). Person entrepreneurship
fit: why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs
than others. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2),
281–301.
Markowska, M. (2014). ‘The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree’:
the entrepreneurial university as nurturer of entrepreneurial
values. In A. Fayolle and D. T. Redford (Rds.) Handbook on
the Entrepreneurial University Cheltenham (pp. 209-224).
Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA.
Marvel, M. R. (2013). Human capital and search-based discovery:
a study of high tech entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 371(2), 403–419.
McMullan, C. A., & Boberg, A. L. (2013). The relative effectiveness of projects in teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 14–24.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action
and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneurs.
Academy of Management Review, 3, 132–152.
Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., Fu, J., & Singhal, S. (2013). A
competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: conceptual and empirical insights. Journal of Small
Business Management, 51(3), 352–369.
Murnieks, C. Y. & Mosakowski, E. (2007). Who am I? The quest
for an ‘entrepreneurial identity.’ Babson College
Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).
Nabi, G., Liñán, R., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A.
(2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher
education: a systematic review and research agenda.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(2),
277–299.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a
systematic review of the evidence. International Small
Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.
Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2016). A realist perspective of
entrepreneurship: opportunities and propensities. Academy of
Management Review, 41(3), 410–434.
Robinson, M. (2016). This giant sunscreen sprayer fixes the most
annoying part of summer. BusinessInsider.com. Retrieved
January 10, 2020 from https://www.businessinsider.
com/revolutionary-sunscreen-booth-2016-6
Robinson, S., Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L., & Krueger, N. F.
(2016). New horizons in entrepreneurship education: from
teacher-led to student-centered learning. Education +
Training, 58(7/8), 661–683.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Saks, N. T., & Gaglio, C. M. (2002). Can opportunity identification be taught? Journal of Enterprising Culture, 10(4), 313–
347.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 224–253.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation. Toward a
theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2),
243–263.
Satell, G. (2018). Why some of the most groundbreaking technologies are a bad fit for the Silicon Valley funding model.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 7, 2018 from
h t t p s : / / h b r . o r g / 2 0 1 8 / 0 4/ w h y - s o m e - o f - t h e - m o s t groundbreaking-technologies-are-a-bad-fit-for-the-siliconvalley-funding-model.
Schjoedt, L., & Bird, B. (2014) Control variables: use, misuse and
recommended use. In Handbook of research methods and
applications in entrepreneurship and small business. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: the
individual-opportunity nexus. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2004). Prior knowledge,
potential financial reward and opportunity identification.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 91–112.
Shieber, J. (2019). ProducePay nabs $190 million debt financing
for its purchasing programs for farmers. TechCrunch.com.
Retrieved January 7, 2020 from https://techcrunch.com/2019
/12/10/producepay-nabs-190-million-debt-financing-tolend-to-farmers/
Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: a new approach and empirical test
Smith, B. R., Matthews, C. H., & Schenkel, M. T. (2009).
Differences in entrepreneurial opportunities: the role of tacitness and codification in opportunity identification. Journal
of Small Business Management, 47(1), 38–57.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban
legends. The misuse of statistical control variables.
Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305.
Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., & Neergaard, H. (2016).
The promise of entrepreneurship education:
reconceptualizing the individual-opportunity nexus as a conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education.
International Small Business Journal: Researching
Entrepreneurship, 34(7), 905–924.
Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P. A. (2010). Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective on
entrepreneurial opportunity identification. Journal of
Business Venturing, 25(1), 73–86.
Vogel, P. (2017). From venture idea to venture opportunity.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 943–971.
Weber, P., Geneste, L. A., & Connell, J. (2015). Small business
growth: strategic goals of owner preparedness. Journal of
Business Strategy, 36(3), 30–36.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role
of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.