We advance our understanding on effectuation by looking at the three important principals “What I know”, “Who I know” and “Who Am I” and linking it with the international opportunity discovery in internationalisation. “What I know” refers to a knowledge base that developed from the entrepreneur personal experience and exposure from different environment. These entrepreneurs will enact international opportunities through their tacit knowledge which lead them to penetrate the new market (Shepherd and DeTienne, 2005; Rebecca and Fischer, 2011). Meanwhile, “Who I know” refers to network-building with an interest partners to generate resources and control the environment. As the internationalisation process goes beyond the initial stage, an effective approach to networking is to accommodate only self-selecting partners who does not give important to the goal and instead of working based on their personal interest (Schweizer et al., 2010). Prashantham and Dhanaraj (2010) state that the networks will not be highly restricted and it will be more openminded and open-end trajectory. “Who am I” in effectuation refers to an individual traits or characteristics.

Methodology

Data Collection and Preparation

To develop a model that explains the network relationship from a Malaysia context, we have developed a series of inductive interviews with the entrepreneurs using the guideline developed by Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (1981:1994). Our main target was Malaysia SMEs and specifically Malay entrepreneurs who provide a major contribution to the country’s growth (i.e. firms with fewer than 250 employees). These entrepreneurs have established their business in the international market. SMEs contribute to almost 99.2 percent of total business establishments in Malaysia. In 2015, SMEs had an average of 6.1 percent in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) compared to 7.6 percent in 2014. SME contribution to GDP increased to 36.5 percent in 2015. The main sectors that contributed to GDP growth were mining and quarrying and construction. The country’s political system, physical infrastructure and advance technology offer SMEs a better environment to start their business on a small scale. Malaysian SMEs export has declined to 17.6 percent of total exports. The establishment of the National SME Development Council (NSDC) in 2004 has made the SME Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased and surpassed on overall GDP. Also, with the introduction of a new policy, Tenth Malaysia Plan (TMP) made the SME has continued to rise and support the overall growth of the country.

We identified two entrepreneurs that have established in international market and internationalised rapidly. The numbers of companies were reasonable for this study and going beyond this might occur theoretical saturation and avoiding data asphyxiation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pettigrew, 1990). We have chosen the companies or entrepreneur from snowballing technique. The entrepreneur have been selected as a key participant due to their direct approach and hands-on experience working with different stakeholders and engaged with the outside people. They have certain level of knowledge and engaged with a strong level of commitment with networks (McCartan-Quinn and Carson, 2003). We also obtained data from company Web pages, articles from newspapers and other industrial publication.

The companies were selected using purposeful/theoretical sampling following guidance provided by Eisenhardt (1989); Locke (2000) and Patton (1990). The basic assumption of this theoretical sampling is to select the cases that predict the similar pattern or outcome or predict the contrasting result but providing with justification (a “theoretical replication” as explained by yin (2003). Explanation is essential for theoretical replication where it helps to answer the queries of “why”. We have included the explanation building to describe the process and sequence of the network relationship connection with the process of opportunity discovery.

We have interviewed the entrepreneur using semi-structured interview technique but very much open-ended protocol. Also, we have makes sure that we have interviewed a knowledgeable person which has specific knowledge on internationalisation, assured anonymity and confidentiality. The interview was recorded and included multiple probes in the interview protocol follow Huber and Power (1985)’s approach.

The data involved with the explanation of actions and activities between network relationship and the process of international opportunity. As explained by Langley (1999), Yin (2003) this data used narrative approach. The main focus of this research is before the internationalisation on how the entrepreneur discovers the international opportunity.

Case Description

The case study concerns two high-tech Malaysian SMEs, LTech Company and Tech Venture and their interviews were conducted between 2015 until 2017. LTech Company is a partnership company originally established in 2002 to provide a technical support for oil and gas industry. The company was established and run with strong entrepreneurial roots. The entrepreneur has used the similar business idea in both domestic and international markets. Within the two years of establishment, the company started to expand its business into other Asian countries including Indonesia and Thailand. Mr G constantly looking for a new opportunity and his entrepreneurial skills and visions helped the company to enter some other countries. He did his bachelor study in University of South Wales and once back to Malaysia he immediately started his own business. He had some technical knowledge where he had worked as a technical person in some local companies in Australia. At that time, the country’s technology based industry were uncompetitive due to low technological level, insufficient people with technology skills, poor infrastructure and many other things which limits the opportunity for new company (Interview, founder, 2015, 2016). Changes, however, emerged from the early-20s where the government has encouraged more small companies to think about different strategies to make as a global level company (Interview, founder, 2015, 2016).

Tech Venture is owned by a Malay entrepreneur is a leading tech company in Malaysia that offers the cloud technology and technological supporting tools for the business development such as GIRA and CRM. The company was established in 2004 with the ten employees. Within two years of business establishment, the company has expanded in many countries including India, Singapore and Thailand. Mr N is very optimistic and pragmatic about his business. He has done his undergraduate in Malaysian University but took executive program a short-term course in United States (US). Tech Venture was the one of the first company in Malaysia that expanded nationally and internationally and first company launch its own products to support the company. The company worked together with other companies in both local and overseas markets to increase the choices of supporting innovation to support the business. In fact, in 2007 the company was identified as one of best technology company by government. The entrepreneur emphasised the social networks that he often established when he went to the international market as a key success for a Tech Venture international expansion (Interview, founder, 2015, 2016).

Results And Discussion

Our main research question is how the entrepreneurs from Malaysian high-tech SMEs are able to discover and exploit their international opportunities. Also: how does Sarasvathy’s logical way of thinking (causation and effectuation) influence their cognitive processes in their first international opportunity decision? In this study, we identified several key antecedents that support the process of international opportunity discovery. The results were divided into three sets of means which proved crucial for these companies to perceive their international opportunities. These three means, which are also known as key principles in effectuation in Sarasvathy’s (2001) paper, are listed below:

1) “Who I am.”

2) “What I know.”

3) “Whom I know.”

The following represents a detailed discussion of these means to see how the entrepreneurs use their existing resources and capabilities from the time preceding internationalization until the time the first international opportunity presents itself. It should be made clear at this point that due to its scope, this analysis is only based on the study of individuals and not on a study of their companies.

International opportunity discovery and “Who I Am” in effectuation

This section is an attempt to describe and analyze the opportunity process and entrepreneur as a key actor and their impacts and the subsequent dynamics that moved the process of opportunity discovery forward. It naturally implies time and dynamism, which the entrepreneur tends to structure into meaningful parts. The first effectuation principal, “who I am”, refers to an individual’s personal characteristics, traits, tastes and abilities to deal with any uncertainty concerning changes in the international market (Sarasvathy, 2001). Both entrepreneurs before start the business developed his own vision, building relationship and looking for opportunities within the context. These positive attitudes have motivated the founders to effectively seek out the new ideas, possibilities, and moreover interact with people which can be considered as important part of the process sensing the initial idea. Both of them had held a strong position in their previous jobs, which they considered an influencing factor in their readiness to welcome new suggestions or ideas from anyone in their company or external sources. For them “vision” is about strategic planning. In LTech company, Mr G said he “always see his idea from both big and small picture to make the idea better”. He stressed about some questions that always in his mind. For example, where is the direction the industry is moving? What are the challenges for this company and how to tackle day to day job responsibilities? Once he answered these questions than he will take a crucial decision for the business. Meanwhile, Mr N from Tech Venture Vision is an attitude that made him to dream and visualise his initial idea and planned his strategies accordingly. His vision has driven him to start a business especially to have determination to succeed as an entrepreneur. Mr G however described himself as more pragmatic instead of risk-averse. He believes that being optimistic and pragmatic attitude is important for a business. He shared his experience.

“We saw potential in the chaos, but for us it does not make sense to calculate and clearly recognise our position in next 2 or 3 years. For instance, inflation is a major concern for any business and it was keep coming and going, the local market was fluctuating regularly but we were still optimistic that time about our future.”(Interview, founder, 2015-2017)

The interviewee states emphatically that the entrepreneur’s characteristics is crucial for a business success especially in taking a risk about new opportunities or idea. The vision, risk taking and optimistic characteristics help the entrepreneur to constantly analyse the market, identify potential knowledge and build a bases for the business. IE literature has explained the entrepreneur’s characteristics as an important elements for making a decision on the internationalisation process (Jones et al., 2011; Oviatt and McDougall, 2000). The findings has acknowledged by (Oviatt and McDougall, 2005). They highlighted the individual characteristics and cognitive process as fundamental to determining the speed of internationalisation. They have categorised the entrepreneur with innovative and risk-taking attitude as strategist entrepreneur which speed up the international opportunity process. In particular, the characteristics of the entrepreneur are the formative relevance of previous international experience or market experience. It helps them to create a source of motivation or reaction towards the opportunities to become a global player and increase the ability to sensing the opportunities (Madsen & Servais, 1997).

International opportunity discovery with “What I know” in effectuation

Mr. G and Mr N ability to detect the international opportunities was built on a solid foundation of expertise and different experiences. Both entrepreneurs had an experience in the international markets for few years and had spent considerable time in foreign countries before starts their business respectively. Experience that gained from Australia and US, a factor that have increased the confident level for both entrepreneurs and eventually led them to come up with the initial idea. The exposure which was different from Malaysia allows them to be more critical about understanding other markets, culture and how to begin a business in multiple countries. For Mr G his former knowledge and experience in the I.T. business (IT management) triggered within him the idea to develop a product innovation, i.e. machine to support oil and gas industry. Mr G said,

“I actually had the dream to start a tech company.. until now I don’t believe that I have one. One thing I realised is I was keep on searching for the idea within my field... Never think about going out of it… Probably it is because of my experience. But one thing I really want to make it as a global product…There is no substitute for the knowledge that I personally gained from overseas especially in Australia for almost four to five years. We actually made some contacts there.” (Interview, founder, 2016).

The most important lesson learned from is employed existing means such as individual’s previous experience and knowledge to sensing the opportunities that the entrepreneur aware of especially in their environment. Human information processing helps the entrepreneur to visualise their idea in a normative way. The information often linked with several sources and form a new business opportunities. The information gained from the experience can be readily applied for making a decision or action. The findings can be associated with other findings in the field of entrepreneurship (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Eckhardt and Shane, 2003). Shane and Venkataraman (2000) were one of the first that found the link between existing experience and knowledge as a key for the opportunity identification. Following the study of (Vaghely and Julien, 2010) on how existing knowledge help to recognise the international opportunity, this study provide a new finding from Malaysia which supports the existing concepts that explain the existing knowledge or experience as crucial for first international opportunity discovery.

International Opportunity discovery and “Who I know” in effectuation

The relationship variable was included in the internationalisation studies before the introduction of effectuation where the entrepreneur tend to develop and survive through various kinds and levels of relationships including family, friends and business relationships. We argued that the reliance on the relationship is an entrepreneurial behaviour. The founders in the case implemented collaborative approach through their personal networks such as friends who have business in other countries. The company is believed established in various countries because of trusted partners. The case analyses from these companies also reveal that personal networks, expressed in terms such as “friend” and “CEO”, were utilized when discussing a time period prior to any commencement of internationalization, usually in the context of evaluating the initial ideas that the entrepreneur raises. Interestingly, the founders claimed that they often “seek advice or suggestions” from people they know before. Most of their people have certain level of interest on the business and they help to improve the initial idea of the opportunity. Any information which had assisted their transition into the global marketplace can be explained in terms of advice or information given about the general market; whether regulatory, business practices, culture and customs, or any general knowledge gained from the valuable experience of acquaintances. It helped to faster the international decisions especially in determining the first international opportunity. Mr G and N, shared their experience respectively of the importance of personal networking in improving his international idea:

sat down with my friend in a coffee shop and talked to him for few hours just to understand how to run a business in overseas. He shared a lot of information such as how to sell a product, marketing stuff, how the customer behaves in certain countries, potential problems and so many things…”(Interview, founder,, 2016)

“…We actually joint with our customer AirLa Company which helped us to increase our access to different market. I remember talked to their CEO when they first become our customer and he helped a lot in terms of idea and improvement in our product which faster our decision” (Interview, founder, 2017)

It is confirmed that network relationship plays a crucial role in shaping the international opportunities with the knowledge accumulated through network relationship. The knowledge about customer, competitors, market and product has a strong implication on developing an international opportunity. The importance of different types of network relationships in developing international opportunity have been highlighted in internationalisation studies (Belso-Martinez, 2006; Blomstermo et al., 2004; Chetty et al., 2000). Since Jones and Coviello (2005) argued about time of the international opportunity discovery the personal network is arguably one of the most important time-based variables in internationalisation research. The interviewee however claimed that they are not ready to take a risk on opportunity and thus to deal with uncertainties, they tend to relied on personal network which developed through trust and long-term commitment. The findings support the new research call from Schweizer et al. (2010) and Andersson (2011) for new research from other part of the world. As per our knowledge, the initial opportunity discovery speed is improved by an effectual approach because it supported by people who we know and interested in business which reduce the risk and help to search for the right partners. The fast decision to internationalise and from the trustable person allows the entrepreneur to reduce the liability of foreigness and immediately react to an opportunity (Sarasvathy et al., 2014; Galkina and Chetty, 2015).

Conclusions

This study strongly addressed both for theory and management that the effectuation is perfectly worked for technology based SMEs in Malaysia which often facing unstable and changing business conditions. The success of high-tech SMEs in Malaysia to speed their opportunity discovery is due to the resources that they obtained. The cases above are one of the important evidence that shows that some entrepreneurs in Malaysia can find the first international opportunity quickly than others through the effectuation logic. Both entrepreneurs was an experienced individuals and have spent many years in overseas which eventually quicker the time to sense the first international opportunity. Their entrepreneurial characters such as visionary and risk-taking allowed them to keep searching for a new opportunity and eventually they succeed in their international objective. It seems that effectuation logics is the only way for these entrepreneurs to enhance their internationalisation especially through the resources, processes and capabilities that increase the ability to sense the initial international opportunity (Darley et al., 2013; Darley and Blankson, 2008). Also, the success of these companies does not solely due to entrepreneur as a focal actor but also their personal relationship with other actors who were interested in the business. The partner’s commitment and interest allowed the entrepreneur to gained essential knowledge about market and identified potential customers. The causation through planned approach was used after they established in their business. It is believed that the international opportunity discovery built through the existing resources such as networks, personal sensemaking through entrepreneurial characteristics and previous international experience.

Our study strongly support the effectuation as a main theory that support the process of internationalisation (Sarasvathy, 2001:2008; Chetty and Wilson, 2003), as exemplified by studies such as Galkina and Chetty (2015), and Chetty et al. (2015). This study provides an empirical evidence from the developing market to understand how the effectuation works in other part of the world with different setting. Until now, the effectuation model does not explicitly break it down into each principal and see how each principal influences the processes in internationalisation. This actually makes our study richer especially when link effectuation with the international opportunity discovery speed and contribute to both effectuation and IE.

Finally, as both a shortcoming and a future agenda, scholars in the field should give more attention to the moderating influence in such as cultural impact and institutional impact on the effectuation principals which promise to provide a frutiful discussion for scholars in internationalization process. We did not address the influence of culture which seems important for the countries in developing market. It will be fascinating to observe people from different entrepreneurial mind-set and their cultural based effectuation decisions which we left out in our study. In this study we only targeted international opportunity discovery speed as main outcome but future research can focus on overall international speed or entry mode which can be very promising as a future agenda. Similarly, we do not factor in the density and intensity of relation decisions or entrepreneur personality traits that affect these; these are all fruitful avenues for future work.

References

1. Acedo, F., & Florin, J. (2006). An entrepreneurial cognition perspective on the internationalization of SMEs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 49-67.
2. Acedo, F., & Jones, M. V. (2007). Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition: Insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic firms. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 236-252.
3. Andersson, S. (2011). International entrepreneurship, born globals and the theory of effectuation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(3), 627-643.
4. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
5. Belso-Martinez, J.A. (2006). Why are some Spanish manufacturing firms internationalizing rapidly? The role of business and institutional international networks. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(3), 207-226.
6. Blomstermo, A., Eriksson, K., & Sharma, D., (2004). Domestic experience in the internationalization process. Journal of International Entrepreneur.
7. Chandra, Y., Styles, C., & Wilkinson, I. (2009). The recognition of first time international entrepreneurial opportunities: evidence from firms in knowledge-based industries. International Marketing Review, 26(1), 30-61.
8. Chandra, Y., & Coviello, N. (2010). Broadening the concept of international entrepreneurship: Consumers as international entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 45, 228-236.
9. Chetty, S.K., & Wilson, H.I.M. (2003) Collaborating with competitors to acquire resources. International Business Review, 12(1), 61-81
10. Chetty, S., & Blankenburg Holm, D. (2000). Internationalisation of small to medium-sized manufacturing firms: A network approach. International Business Review, 9(1), 77-93
11. Chetty, S., Ojala, A., & Leppaaho, T. (2015). Effectuation and foreign market entry of entrepreneurial firms. European Journal of Marketing, 49(9/10), 1436-59
12. Coviello, N.E., & Jones, M.V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 485-508.
13. Darley, W.K. & Blankson, C. (2008). African culture and business markets: Implications for marketing practices. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 23(6), 374-383.
14. Darley, W.K., Luethge, D.J., & Blankson, C. (2013). Culture and international marketing: A SubSaharan African context. Journal of Global Marketing, 26, 188-202.
15. De Carolis, D.M. & Saparito, P. (2006). Social capital, cognition and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 41-56.
16. Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S.D., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: differences between experts and novices. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 287-309.
17. Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S.D., & Wiltbank, R. (2011). On the entrepreneurial genesis of new markets: effectual transformation versus causal search and selection. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(2), 231-253.
18. Eckhardt, J., & Shane, S.A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333-349.
19. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
20. Ellis, P.D. (2011). Social ties and international entrepreneurship: Opportunities and constraints affecting firm internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 99-127.
21. Gabrielsson, P., & Gabrielsson, M. (2013). A dynamic model of growth phases and survival in international business-to-business new ventures: the moderating effect of decision-making logic. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8), 1357-1373.
22. Galkina, T., & Chetty, S. (2015). Effectuation and networking of internationalizing SMEs. Management International Review, 55, 647-676.
23. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (2009). The uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411-1431
24. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, L. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm-A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitment. Journal of international Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32.
25. Jones, M.V., & Dimitratos, P. (2003). Editorial introduction. Creativity, process, and time: The antithesis of ‘instant international’. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 159-162.
26. Jones, M.V., Coviello N., & Tang, Y.K. (2011). International Entrepreneurship research (1989-2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 632-659
27. Kalinic, I., Sarasvathy, S.D., & Forza, C. (2014). Expect the unexpected: Implications of effectual logic on the internationalization process. International Business Review, 23(3), 635-647.
28. Kiss, A.N., Danis, W.M., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2012). International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 266-290.
29. Knight, G.A., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124-141.
30. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 4, 691-710.
31. Locke, E.A. (2000). Motivation, cognition, and action: An analysis of studies of task goals and knowledge. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 408-429.
32. Madsen, T.K., & Servais, P. (1997). The internationalization of born globals: An evolutionary process?’ International Business Review, 6(6), 561-583.
33. Mainela, T., & Puhakka, V. (2009). Organizing new business in a turbulent context: Opportunity discovery and effectuation for IJV development in transition markets. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 111-134.
34. Mc Cartan-Quinn, D., & Carson, D. (2003). Issues which impact upon marketing in the small firm. Small Business Economics, 21(2), 201-213.
35. McDougall, P.P. (1989). International versus domestic entrepreneurship: New venture strategic behavior and industry structure. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 387-400.
36. McDougall, P.P., Oviatt, B.M., & Shrader, R.C. (2003). A comparison of international and new ventures, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, (1), 59-82.
37. Moen, O., & Servais, P. (2002). Born global or gradual global? Examining the export behavior of small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of International Marketing, 10(3), 49-72.
38. Muzychenko, O., & Liesch P.W. (2015). International opportunity identification in the internationalisation of the firm. Journal of World Business, 50(4), 704-717.
39. Oviatt, B.M., & McDougall, P.P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45-64.
40. Oviatt, B.M., & McDougall, P.P., (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 537–553.
41. Pettigrew, A.M. (1990). Longitudinal lield research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1, 267-292.
42. Prashantham, S., & Dhanaraj, C. (2010). The dynamic influence of social capital on the international growth of new ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 967–94.
43. Read, S., Song, M., & Smit, W. (2009b). A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6), 573–587.
44. Rennie, M.W. (1993). Born global. The McKinsey Quarterly, (4), 45-53.
45. Rialp, A., Rialp, J., & Knight, G.A. (2005). The phenomenon of early internationalizing firms: What do we know after a decade (1993-2003) of scientific inquiry? International Business Review, 14, 147-166.
46. Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013) Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition: The role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 154-169.
47. 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.
48. Sarasvathy, S.D., & Dew, N. (2008). Effectuation and over-trust: Debating Goel and Karri. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 727-737.
49. Sarasvathy, S.D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 113-135.
50. Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J. G., & Bhagavatula, S. (2014). An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship: overlaps, challenges and provocative possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 71-93
51. Schweizer, R., Vahlne, J-E., & Johanson, J. (2010). Internationalization as an entrepreneurial process. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 343-370.
52. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
53. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4), 448-469.
54. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-226.
55. Shane, S., &Venkataraman, S. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: A response to Zahra and Dess, Singh, and Erikson. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 13-16.
56. Shepherd, D.A., & DeTienne, D.R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29, 91-112.
57. 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.
58. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3(1), 119-138.
59. Wiltbank, R., Read, S., Dew, N., & Sarasvathy, S.D. (2009). Prediction and control under uncertainty: Outcomes in angel investing. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2), 116-133.
60. Yin, R. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58-65.
61. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
62. Zahra, S.A., & George, G. (2002). International entrepreneurship: The current status of the field and future research agenda. Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating a New Mindset, 255-288.