Keywords

Collective Entrepreneurship, Business Opportunities, Key Success Factors and Difficulties Encountered.

Introduction

According to Shane and Venkataraman (2000), Entrepreneurship is “A process by which opportunities are discovered, evaluated and exploited to create future products and services.” This process depends on several qualities specific to each entrepreneur, particularly his knowledge and previous experiences. Starting from this definition, many researchers such as Krizner (1997); Shane and Venkataraman (2000); Gartner and Hills (2003); De konning (2003); Verstreate and Saporta (2006); have focused their attention on this opportunity and have developed models or approaches to better understand it. However, theirs works are based more on the individual rather than the collective dimension of entrepreneurship and are interested either in the process of identifying business opportunities (Chelly, 2004), or in the variables that influence the creation of business opportunities (Cooney, 2005; Vyakaramen & Handelberg, 2005). However, in recent years, reality has shown that the business opportunities created are the result of teams, we speak of team entrepreneurship, collective entrepreneurship (Cyrine Ben Hafaiedh, 2006) “collective dimensions take precedence over individuals throughout the entrepreneurial process”, Verstraete (2006) and “the proportion of new businesses created by teams is constantly increasing”, Mircea-Gabriel Chirita (2010). Also, few works present the key success factors of collective entrepreneurship (Cyrine Ben Hafaiedh, 2006; Meyer, 2020) and the difficulties that can result from a dysfunction of entrepreneurial teams before or after the initiation of the entrepreneurial process (Boncler & Coll, 2006; Yan, 2017). Hence the central question of this research is:

What are the key success factors and difficulties encountered by entrepreneurs in the development of business opportunities in the context of collective entrepreneurship?

This research is divided into three parts:

The first part, theoretical framework, consists of discussing the challenges of collective entrepreneurship while highlighting the entrepreneurial opportunity, its determinants as well as the different approaches developed. It is also about presenting the key factors conditioning the success of collective entrepreneurship and the obstacles that arise during the meeting of co-entrepreneurs. The second part presents the methodology and the process of data collection and analysis adopted with the Nvivo 7 software. The third part presents the results, limitations and solutions.

Theoretical Framework

Business Opportunity Recognition

The search for opportunity is central in entrepreneurship (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). For a very long time, entrepreneurship was considered to be "the discipline which is more relevant to other disciplines such as economics and management or the humanities and social sciences" Verstraet (2002). More recent definitions have focused more on the characteristics of entrepreneurship as defined by Bruyat (1993); Filion (1997) who consider that “entrepreneurship is an innovative discipline that goes beyond its primary vocation, the creation of companies for be characterized by innovation and the creation of value ”. Churchill and Muzyka (1994), emphasize that “Entrepreneurship involves an act undertaken by a motivated individual who innovates by creating value through the identification and development of opportunities and the transformation of the latter into a viable product or service. ". According to these definitions, we notice that the business opportunity is seen as a new trend in entrepreneurship whose identification is exploited through the process of value creation and the combination of resources which both require the presence of the individual. Based on this idea, Verstraete and Saporta (2006) define opportunity as "The result of a transformation process into a business start-up". This tendency is confirmed by the quote from De Bono (1978) who considers that "the entrepreneurial opportunity is one possible means of action among others but which represents the most relevant solution to follow". From these definitions, we can see that identifying the opportunity is seen as a central part of entrepreneurship. However, in order to provide some answers to the following question: "Why do some individuals recognize business opportunities while others do not? ", we refer to the work of Shane and Venkatarman (2000) who put into perspective the factors that stimulate the process of identifying business opportunities. Indeed, Yu (2001); Dimov (2003) note that the entrepreneurial opportunity depends in part on prior knowledge in general and the information held by the entrepreneur in particular.

Hayek (1945) shows that information asymmetry is at the origin of entrepreneurship and therefore of the identification of business opportunities. Likewise, Venkatarman (1997) argued that the study of desirability must revolve around the information that individuals possess and how they treat it. Shane and Venkataraman (2000) show that previous knowledge brought by entrepreneurs is a starting point for triggering the opportunity and identifying a business opportunity. This idea is well illustrated by Amine Chelly (2007) who considers that experiences are subdivided into three categories: professional experiences which provide access to a larger pool of knowledge and more varied information (Venkatarman, 1997) ; entrepreneurial experiences which provide the entrepreneur with the know-how, practical knowledge and procedural knowledge necessary to properly assimilate a useful opportunity and create a business (Huybens et al., 1993) and the associative and entrepreneurial experience where the entrepreneur assumes responsibilities, shares points of view, discusses the decisions necessary to identify business opportunities. According to different approaches to the business opportunity, knowledge and previous experiences help to improve the chances of success of an entrepreneurial project.

1. The classical approach: the business opportunity relies mainly on entrepreneurial vigilance which is defined, according to Krizner (1997) as being "the capacity of an entrepreneur to identify, without research, opportunities which have been previously overlooked. here ". Here, the business opportunity is objective and random, relying on market conditions to form business opportunities that are unrecognizable.

2. The integrated approach: the identification of the business opportunity is considered a multi-step process influenced by several factors and is most often complex (Gartner and Hills, 2003); the process of identifying business opportunities only occurs with the interaction of the entrepreneur and his social integration, which implies that a change of perspective is necessary to give another dimension to the very nature of the business opportunity.

3. The constructivist approach: the business opportunity is built in a social environment where the entrepreneur's personality and experience are relevant for obtaining information and / or resources, Chabaud and Joseph (2003).

Emergence of Collective Entrepreneurship and diversity of definitions

Entrepreneurial projects are more and more numerous and complex and the classic vision of the entrepreneur as defined by Joseph Schumpeter (1928); Low and McMillan (1988); Filion (1997); Baronet (1996); Danjou (2000) considering the entrepreneur as an isolated individual creating his own business is questioned by researchers. Today, business opportunities are the initiative of a group of individuals coming together to create a business together. This is why in recent years, significant work has continued to develop to understand the emergence of this new entrepreneurial phenomenon.

Two main lines of research emerge: on the one hand, studies that emphasize the reasons for collective entrepreneurship and the factors explaining the transition from individual strategy to collective strategy and its importance in identification of business opportunities (Moreau, 2005); on the other hand, studies which focuse on the conditions necessary for the success of this collective dimension, namely -the common intentionality that must prevail between the different entrepreneurs in order to explore the potential of an entrepreneurial project (Pell, 2000), the interaction and cooperation that entrepreneurs require to share values linked to cooperation (Oliver, 1997), the collective productivity resulting from teamwork which turns out to be more important than that generated by a solidarity entrepreneur (Devillard, 2003), - communication which must be respected by the various entrepreneurs, - cohesion which depends on the degree of trust established between the members as well as the degree of efficiency of its functioning - and complementarity, ownership and shared responsibility (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).These conditions must be met in order to ensure the success of collective entrepreneurship. Although this panoply of work, it is clear that there is no consensus on the definitions proposed among researchers. The Table 1 below presents a synthesis of some academic works which have proposed definitions with interesting arguments.

Collective Entrepreneurship: Key Success Factors and Difficulties Encountered

The analysis of the literature dedicated to the process of identifying business opportunities shows that it occupies a privileged place in the field of collective entrepreneurship requiring the intervention of a certain number of factors to better serve their understanding. These factors - information, creativity, social network and capital - are considered not only as key success factors in the collective identification of business opportunities but also as necessary supports to overcome the difficulties encountered during the detection of these business opportunities shows in Table 1.

Table 1:Definitions Of Collective Entrepreneurship
Author and date	Proposed definition	Argument
Cooper & Daily (1997)	“Collective entrepreneurship can be defined quite simply as the action of a group of people involved in the creation and management of a new business”.	The performance of the business opportunity is influenced by the composition of the entrepreneurial team.
Mourdoukoutas (1999)	"Collective entrepreneurship is the discipline that gives the opportunity and motivation to a group of individuals to share and combine ideas by discovering and exploiting new business opportunities".	The importance of the business opportunity in the process of identifying entrepreneurial opportunities.
Aldrich et Martinet (2001)	"Collective entrepreneurship is the ability to combine different forms of capital, it is the ability to combine knowledge and resources by integrating human, social and financial capital in a given environmental context."	Collective productivity goes beyond the individual configuration.
Sénicourt (2003), Boncler,  Hlady and Verstraete (2006)	"Collective entrepreneurship does not exclusively devote a single individual to creating a business"	The creation of a business is initiated by the association of a group of individuals.
Bares & Jacquot (2009)	“Collective entrepreneurship is a discipline that has made it possible to highlight, on the one hand, the diversity of profiles and skills of the members of an entrepreneurial team and, on the other hand, their influence on the vision and the outcome of the creation project”.	collective entrepreneurship is necessary to ensure the survival of the newly created enterprise
Jun &Li (2017)	“Collective entrepreneurship is the seat of many interactions where each member acts and reacts in relation to the others in a situation of interdependence”.	The entrepreneurial team is a place of exchange where a common spirit is created.

Key Success Factors

Consistency of information

According to Mourdoukoutas (1999) the discovery and exploitation of new business opportunities depend on the consistency of the information collectively held, collective creativity techniques and the functioning of a social network. Also, Labbe (2008) considers that information, in general, and knowledge, in particular, are understood, not as a process but as a stock that helps the project leaders to take decision levers and to overcome the complexity, the uncertainty inherent in any dissolution of a collectively created project. Chabaud et al. (2002) show that access to consistent information between different entrepreneurs provides significant support for adapting the “feedback” function and pooling individual information that facilitates the triggering of an opportunity and avoids any risk of conflict. Thus, it seems appropriate to first identify the importance of the consistency of the information collectively gathered in the identification of the entrepreneurial opportunity. This brings us to a first proposition:

Proposition 1: The greater the number of interacting individuals in the process of identifying an opportunity is important, the more the sources of information differ and the field of specific knowledge multiplies.

Creativity

Creativity consists in organizing information, bringing out new ideas and evoking a better conceptual combination to reduce costs as well as the problems observed during the constitution of an entrepreneurial team (Tremblay & Carrier 2007). De Tienne and Chandler (2004) attribute an important role to creativity in the process of creating entrepreneurial opportunities since it maximizes the use of knowledge and information to make collective dynamics more suitable. This brings us to the second proposition:

Proposition 2: Creativity plays a determining role in identifying the entrepreneurial opportunity from a collective perspective.

Social network

Arenius and De clercq (2005), Aldrich and Zimmer (1986) are among the researchers who consider the entrepreneur as a privileged actor in the process of identifying opportunities. However, this actor is characterized by a limited cognitive capacity that can only be corrected thanks to the social network. De Koening (2003) considers that the presence of the entrepreneur on a social network allows the successful exploitation of an opportunity. His research has shown that social networks positively influence the quality of contacts within an entrepreneurial group as well as creativity and the identification of business opportunities. This brings us to the third proposition:

Proposition 3: the presence of the entrepreneur on a social network makes it possible to trigger collective action to identify an opportunity.

The difficulties of setting up collective entrepreneurship

Diversity, heterogeneity in knowledge and experience

Cox et al. (1991) and Jackson (1992) define diversity as being the difference in terms of race, gender, rationality, origin, ethnicity and may also be due to a difference in visions and behaviors of entrepreneurs ». This idea was also advanced by Harison and S'in's (2006) who show that “diversity is a set of differences between individuals capable of producing disagreements and of negatively affecting work efficiency and organizational growth. ". Sujin et al. (2007) use the same idea to show that the heterogeneity between a set of individuals leads to a dysfunction at the level of the team responsible for identifying an entrepreneurial opportunity and it can cause interaction problems leading to discrepancies and even hampering the triggering of this opportunity.

Likewise, et al. (1999); Tsui et al. (1992) and Laurent Pujol and Frediric.C (2007) state that heterogeneity in knowledge and experience generates difficulties between entrepreneurs , collectively gathered, who do not see the point of working together because of the distance between social categories which causes difficulties of understanding between them. This brings us to a fourth proposition:

Proposition 4: Diversity, heterogeneity in knowledge and experience does not guarantee the correct identification and exploitation of business opportunities at the level of the collective team

Conflicts within the entrepreneurial team

The work of Jehn (1997) shows that "conflict is an awareness by the parties involved of their differences or the incompatibility of their desires”. D’Alessendro (2009) qualifies “conflict as a feeling of hostility to listening to one or more people or to a difference of values.” Morineau (1998) suggests that "conflict arises when the desire of one entrepreneur is hampered by that of others". Thus conflicts weaken the ability of a team to work together because the objectives of different entrepreneurs are incompatible and lead them to oppose each other. There are different types of conflicts within the entrepreneurial team:

1. Cognitive conflicts generating new ideas facilitating the collective identification of business opportunities, Haiyang Li and Junli (2009);

2. Emotional conflicts due to mistrust and hostility between a group of entrepreneurs hindering the triggering of business opportunities, Jehn (1998);

3. Conflicts of needs originating from the needs of the different members of an entrepreneurial team in pursuit of a common task and the achievement of a collective target, Amason & Sapienza (1997)

4. Conflicts of values causing disturbances at the level of communication, collective decision-making, Hasley et al. (2003).

Proposition 5: Conflict has a negative effect on the triggering of an entrepreneurial opportunity.

Methodology

Qualitative Analysis

Thematic analysis

Thematic analysis based on Nvivo 7 software is the preferred version in our research work. Indeed, Paillé and Mucchielli (2003) define thematic analysis as being “a qualified and versatile analysis that can be carried out inductively, starting from the generated corpus of themes, or even, deductively, having, prior to 'analysis, identified the themes to be identified”. Tesch (1990) adds that thematic analysis based on the Nvivo software to describe a qualitative approach enables a better understanding of the themes to be studied and facilitates their analysis. The Nvivo7 software is defined according to Stéphanie (2008) as being “a toolbox allowing the implementation of different qualitative analysis techniques (inductive approach / deductive approach, it is similar to paper-pencil analysis, by classifying, organizing information and then by researching this information arranged ”.The Nvivo 7 software allowed us to analyze the data collected using a data decontextualization/recontextualization process. The decontextualization of data, according to Frediric Deschenaux (2005), consists in developing a new structure by dividing the textual set of interviews, creating themes or categories called in the language of Nvivo "nodes" necessary for the treatment of the different criteria of the same theme (tree of nodes) grouping together these extracts in the form of codes and dealing with the subject. As for the recontextualization of data, it is carried out by grouping the decontextualized codes. Our analysis is subdivided into three parts according to the themes addressed. The answers provided by the five interviewees and analyzed by the Nvivo 7 software are coded in binary form (1/0):1: Criterion confirmed; 0: Criterion invalidated shows in Table 2.

Table 2: Interview Guide
Themes	Sub themes	Objectives
Collective entrepreneurship	-Motivation of the entrepreneur -Orientation towards collective strategy.	Understand the motives and reasons or causes behind the adoption or rejection of collective entrepreneurship.
Key success factors	-Consistency of information -Creativity -Social networks	Identify the key factors of success constituting a crucial asset for already established companies and a support of success for companies in the process of creation
Difficulties of setting up collective entrepreneurship	-Diversity, heterogeneity in knowledge and experience -Conflicts within the entrepreneurial team	Identify the difficulties encountered before and after the detection of the entrepreneurial opportunity and their impact on the success of collective entrepreneurship

Sample

A qualitative study was carried out with 5 entrepreneurs who have experienced collective entrepreneurship and belonging to different business sectors in order to have a heterogeneous and varied sample. A semi-structured interview is used to collect data. The average duration of each interview was an hour and a half. The interviews were registered on microcassettes and retranscribed in order to be analyzed with the software NVivo7. Two types of entrepreneurs are considered: those who exploit new entrepreneurial opportunities and those who are already installed in the market shows in Table 3.

Table 3:Sample
Entrepreneur/Company name	Caracteristic	Sector
E1 : Kaouther « Aghalba »	future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit	oil-mill
E2 : Olfa « Okba  »	future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit	canning  factory
E3 : Ghassen « Snail»	future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit	snail farming
E4 : Helene « Helene Confection »	entrepreneurs already installed	garment factory
E5 : Ahmed « Endipa »	entrepreneurs already installed	Food

   

Results and Discussion

The results are presented according to the two types of entrepreneurs considered.

Collective Entrepreneurship

Motivation of the entrepreneur

Future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit:

The idea of undertaking collectively is rejected by the entrepreneurs from the companies "Aghalba", "Okba " and "Ghassen" shows in Figure 1.

Entrepreneurs already Established

The two experienced companies are characterized by a collective policy favoring teamwork: these companies represent 2/5 of the total sample and their entrepreneurs are loyal to collective entrepreneurship. These two entrepreneurs (Helene and Ahmed) opted, for the creation of their company, to collectively identify business opportunities in order to benefit from each other's strengths and to exchange experiences thus confirming the quote from Aldrich and Martinez (2001) who state that “collective entrepreneurship is the ability to combine different forms of capital: it is the ability to combine knowledge and resources by integrating human, social and financial capital in a given environmental context” shows in Figure 2.

Orientation towards Collective Strategy

Future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit:

Many entrepreneurs are reluctant and will not agree to partner with other people for many reasons. For example, we cite the lack of confidence in collective investment mentioned by the entrepreneur "Kawther", the interpersonal conflicts mentioned by "Olfa" weakening the potential of the entrepreneurial team and the uselessness of joining forces with other people referred to by "Ghassen" shows in Figure 3.

Entrepreneurs already established:

Hélène Confection is a company that promotes collective strategy to identify and exploit business opportunities in order to share responsibilities and exchange ideas which has led to its success and sustainability. For the Endipa company, it was created collectively with the aim of benefiting from the synergies of the group shows in Figure 4.

Key Success Factors

Consistency of information

Future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit: Information is not a valuable asset for new businesses. Indeed, the company "Aghalba" is not founded on the coherence of the information collectively held and its entrepreneur sees useless the meeting of several entrepreneurs for the collection of the information necessary for the identification of the business opportunities. Likewise, the entrepreneur of the company "Okba" relies on information collected individually. For the third company "Snail" the realization of an entrepreneurial opportunity does not necessarily require the coherence of collective information shows in Figure 5.

Entrepreneurs already established:

To ensure the survival of a business, consistency of information remains one of the most relevant supports for the success of the entrepreneurial opportunity. This idea is expressed by the company "Helene" and "Endipa" whose creators believe that the information collectively held is useful to give an economic and human surplus; this perfectly matches the work of Paturel and ben Hfaidhedh (2006); shows in Figure 6.

Creativity

Future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit: For the first company "Aghalba" creativity is essential for identifying business opportunities, but it is difficult to put into practice. For the second company « Okba », creativity techniques are considered to be a lever for efficiency, but the problem lies in choosing the appropriate techniques to bring out the benefits of innovation and creativity. For the third company.

Helene confection », the entrepreneur totally rejects the idea of collective entrepreneurship while emphasizing individual abilities and talents in generating new opportunities shows in Figure 7.

Entrepreneurs already established:

Collective creativity techniques are valued by all entrepreneurs with the exception of the entrepreneur "Ghassen" who is only interested in the individual dimension. It is also important to note that only the company "Helene Confection" uses collective creativity techniques to unleash new entrepreneurial opportunities shows in Figure 8.

Efficiency

Social networks

Future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit: For the company "Aghalba" and "Okba", the difficulty of working in a group is due to the problem of choosing partners. For the company "Snal", the idea of working individually entrepreneurial is harmful. It thus appears clearly that future entrepreneurs complain about the difficulty of setting up collective entrepreneurship because of the lack of collective spirit shows in Figure 9.

Entrepreneurs already established:

Functioning as a social network is a valuable asset for already established companies where there is a favorable atmosphere and confidence shows in Figure 10.

Difficulties of Setting up Collective Entrepreneurship

Collective entrepreneurship can meet some obstacles hindering the good triggering of business opportunities, Tremblay and Carrier (2006). These difficulties are mainly due to the diversity of knowledge and experiences and the resulting interpersonal conflicts.

Diversity, Heterogeneity in Knowledge and Experience

Future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit:

The identification of new entrepreneurial opportunities causes problems that weaken the potential of collective entrepreneurship, if they are heterogeneous. It should be noted that the diversity of knowledge and experience is an obstacle inhibiting the emergence and successful implementation of a new entrepreneurial opportunity, particularly for new promoters (Aghalba, Okba and Snail companies) shows in Figure 11.

Entrepreneurs already established:

While the heterogeneous knowledge and experiences of the members of the entrepreneurial team are a handicap for new promoters, they are a valuable asset for old ones. (Helene and Endipa companies) shows in Figure 12.

Conflicts within the Entrepreneurial Team

Future entrepreneur with new entrepreneurial opportunities to exploit

Entrepreneurs who reported difficulty managing heterogeneous knowledge and experiences within their teams say they are vulnerable to conflicts arising from this diversity. (Aghalba, Okba and Snail companies).

Entrepreneurs already Established:

For the company "Helene Confection", conflicts exist but constitute a source of new ideas giving meaning to collective action. As for the company "ENDIPA", it supports the negative effect of conflicts. on the process of exploiting business opportunities. The analyzes of the responses of the entrepreneurs interviewed show that it is very difficult to manage or resolve the conflicts emanating from the diversity of knowledge and experiences of the coentrepreneurs for both new promoters and old ones with the exception of the “Helene Confections” company which has succeeded in taking advantage of conflicts to innovate.

Solutions for the Success of the Collective Enterprise

Collective entrepreneurship appears to be a new form of entrepreneurship which requires the provision of a number of mechanisms to set up a new management method, focused on innovation and aimed at reducing costs and an improvement in the social work climate :

Support

Support is by definition "a physical, psychological and professional presence of a worker in an adaptation or social integration phase in order to ensure the smooth running of the project creation phase". (Cuzien and Fayolle, 2004). This mechanism is arousing growing interest in the creation of businesses based on a good assessment and appropriate training in order to renew the collective entrepreneurship system in practice.

State

Contribution to the creation of new entrepreneurial opportunities is based on the primordial role of the state which consists of: ensure the development priority of newly created companies while strengthening entrepreneurship training (Universities, Grandes Ecoles, Training); facilitate the integration of the new promoter into the business world and provide the best necessary means of financing.

The collective intention to undertake

The implementation of entrepreneurship presupposes a commitment to increase entrepreneurial intention in order to better engage in the entrepreneurial act (Boisson 2006). Thus, it is necessary to integrate a collective attempt in order to be able to carry out a collective identification of opportunities.

Conclusion

Collective entrepreneurship is a new area of research and the panacea for promoters wishing to collectively identify business opportunities by relying on the consistency of information, collective creativity techniques and functioning in social networks, constituting the key factors for the success of collective entrepreneurship. However, this field is still in an embryonic stage and faces many difficulties such as interpersonal conflicts arising from the heterogeneity of the experiences and knowledge of entrepreneurs. Also the difficulties encountered before or after the collective detection of the entrepreneurial opportunity are harmful because of the diversity of knowledge and experiences and unresolved conflicts for the majority of entrepreneurs.

Acknowledgement

1. The researchers extend their thanks and gratitude to the Deanshili of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research at Dar Al Uloom University for their suliliort and funding of this study.

References

1. Aldrich, H., &amli; Zimmer C. (1986). Entrelireneurshili Through Social Networks»,In D.L. Sexton et R.W. Smilor (dir.), The Art and Science of Entrelireneurshili, Ballinger.
2. Aldrich. H.E.T., &amli; Martinet, M.A. (2001). Many are called but few are chosen .an evolutiory liersliective for the study of entrelireneurshili. Entrelireneurshili: Theory and liractice, 25.
3. AmasonA. C., &amli; etSaliienzah J. (1997). The effects of toli management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495-516.
4. Amine, C.H. (2000).L’Identification et le déveloliliement d’oliliortunité entrelireneurial. AIMS.
5. Arenuis, li., &amli; De clercq. A. (2005). Network-based aliliroach on oliliortunity recognition. Small Business Economics, 24, 249-265.
6. Ariane Deluz,(1968). Dililômes d'Etudes Suliérieures de Géogralihie lirésentés en. liersée, 77, 368-380.
7. Baronet, J. (1996). L’Entrelireneurshili, Un Chamli à la Recherche d’Une Définition. Une Revue Sélective de la Littérature sur l’Entrelireneurshili.
8. Belkacem, H. (2004). Entrelirendre en Tunisie. Edition de l’Agence de l’Industrie.
9. Bergb, B.L.(2003). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 5nd Edition, Allyn&amli; Bacon.
10. Brechet, J. (1994). Du lirojet d’Entrelirendre Au lirojet d’Entrelirise. Revue Française de Gestion, 5-14.
11. Bruyat, C.(1993). Création D’entrelirises: Contributions Eliistémologiques et Modélisation. Thèse De Doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Université Grenoble II.
12. Churchill, C., &amli; Muzyk, F. (1994). Defining and Concelitualizing Entrelireneurshili: A lirocess Aliliroach», In Marketing and Entrelireneurshili. Quorum Books, 11-23.
13. Cooney, M. (2005). What is An Entrelireneurial Team? International Small Business Journal, 23(2005).
14. Cox, T., Lobel, S.E.T., &amli; Mcleod, li. (1991). Effects of ethnic grouli cultural differences on coolierative and comlietitive behavior on a grouli task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827-847.
15. Cyrine Ben Hfaiedh(2006). Entrelireneuriat en equilie: liositionnement dans le Chamli de l’Entrelireneuriat Collectif. Revue de l’Entrelireneuriat, 5.
16. D’Alessendro, (2004).Un lieu En Controverser: Une Controverse Qui Fait Lieu. Norois.
17. Daniel Boulet (1969). Étude economique des cooliératives agricoles de liroduction en Tunisie. Centre de Recherches Agronomiques du Méditation d'Économie Rurale de Montliellier.
18. Danjou I. (2000). L’Entrelireneuriat: Un Chamli Fertile à la Recherche de Son unité. Cahier de Recherche, Centre de Déveloliliement des Entrelirises et d’Entrelireneuriat.
19. De BonoE. (1978).Oliliortunities. New York, lienguin Books.
20. De Koning, A. (2003). Oliliortunity Develoliment: A Socio-Cognitive liersliective », In J. Katz, D. Sheliherd (dir.) Advances in Entrelireneurshili, Firm Emergence and Growth, 6, Oxford: JAI liress/Elsevier, 265-314.
21. Dedier Ch S., &amli; Elhinger et V. lierret,(2002). Entrelireneuriat et Réseaux d’Accomliagnement; Le Cas Des liéliinières et Incubateurs les Réseau. Dimensions Stratégique et Organisationnelles.
22. Desroche, Henri. (1976). Le lirojet Cooliératif : Son Utoliie et sa liratique, Ses Aliliareils et Ses Réseaux, Ses Esliérances et Ses Déconvenues. Éditions Économie et Humanisme.liaris.
23. Devillard, D. (2003). La Dynamique Des Equilies. Edition d’organisation 2 édition.
24. Didier Chabaud, &amli; Joselih Ngijol, (2003). La Reconnaissance des Oliliortunités de Marché liar l’Entrelireneur: Faut –il Changer de liersliective?, AIMS.
25. Dimov, li. (2003). The nexus of individual and oliliortunity: oliliortunity recognition as a learning lirocess. Frontiers of Entrelireneurshili Research.
26. Filion, J. (1997). Le Chamli de l’Entrelireneuriat : Historique, Evolution, Tendances. Revue Internationale des lietite et Moyenne Entrelirises liME, 10, 129-172.
27. Bares, F., &amli; Thierry Jacquot,(2009). La dynamique entrelireneuriale en lihase lirojet : contribution à travers l’analyse d’une équilie de jeunes dililômés. Revu de l'Entrelireneuriat, 8.
28. Deschenaux, F. (2005). Introduction à l’Analyse Informatisées à l’aide du Logiciel QSR Nvivo.2.», Les Cahiers liédagogiques de l’Association liour la recherche qualitative.
29. Gabriel Gagnon (1974). Cooliératives, liolitique et Déveloliliement. Revue Sociologie et sociétés, 6(2), 87-100.
30. Gartner, W.B., &amli; Bird, B.J., et Starr, J.A, (1992). Acting as if; Differentiating Entrelireneurial From Organizational Behavior. Entrelireneurshili Theory and liractice, 16(3), 13-31.
31. Gartner, Garter, Hills. (2003). The Language of Oliliortunity», in STEYAERT, C. et HJORTH, D. (dir), New Movements in entrelireneurshili, 103-124.
32. Harison, A., &amli; Sinh, li. (2006). What is Diversity and Haw should it be Measured? Hand books.
33. Hayek, F. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530.
34. Herron, A., &amli; et Robinson,.B, (1193). A Structural Model of the Effects of Entrelireneurial Haracteristics on Venture lierformance. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 281-294.
35. Huybens, N., &amli; Bonami Met Durbille.li. (1993). la Formation d’Adultes Insérés dans un Contexte lirofessional: Evaluation de l’Efficacité liédagogique Organisationnelle », Revue Gestion6, 173-198.
36. Jackson, S. (1992). Consequences of grouli comliosition for the interliersonal dynamics of strategic. Issue lirocessing. In li. Shrivastava, A. Huff, &amli; J. Dutton (Eds.): Advances in Strategic Management, 345-382.
37. Jackson, S., &amli; May K et Whitney K. (1995). Understanding the Dynamics of Diversity in Decision-Making Teams », In R. Guzzo, E. Salas, and Associates (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 204-261.
38. Jacque cherel, (1964). Les Unités Cooliératives de liroduction du Nord Tunisien. liersée, 18, 235-254, (1964).
39. Jehn, K. (1992). The imliact of intergrouli conflict on effectiveness: A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of conflict», Unliublished Doctoral Dissertation ,Northwestern University Graduate School of Management, Evanston.
40. Jehn,.K. (1998). Qualitative Analyses of Conflict Tylies and Dimensions in Organizational Grouli. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
41. Boncler, J., &amli; Verstraete, M.H. (2006). Entrelirendre Ensemble: Cadrage Théorique des Notions d’Entrelireneuriat, d’Equilie Dirigeante et d’Equilie Entrelireneuriale. Revue de l’Entrelireneuriat, 5(2).
42. Johanisson, B.(2002). Entrelireneurshili as A Collective lihenomenon. Working lialier, Scandinavian Institute of Research in Entrelireneurshili (SIRE).
43. Katzenbach J et Smith, D. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creading the Height lierformance Organization », Harvard Business School lires.
44. Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrelireneurial discovery and the comlietitive market lirocess: An Austrian Aliliroach. Journal of Economic Association, 35(1), 66-85.
45. Laurent liujol et Frediric, C,(2007). De la Comliétence Individuelle à la Comliétence Collective : Influence des lirocessus d’Identification Sociale et le Rôle du Manager », Document Accelité liour liublication dans D. Retour, T. liicq et C. Defélix , « Le Carré de la Gestion des Comliétences : Comliétences Individuelles, Collectives, Stratégiques et Environnementales, Vuibert, coll. AGRH.
46. Low M.B. et Macmillan.I, (1998). Entrelireneurshili: liast Research and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161.
47. Mariliier Tremblay, &amli; Carrier, C.(2006). Déveloliliement de la Recherche sur l’Identification Collective d’Oliliortunités d’Affaires: Assises et liersliective. Revue de l’Entrelireneuriat, 5(2), 69-88.
48. Labbe, M.(2008). Le lirocessus liour la Création d’Entrelirise d’Evaluation liar un Cadrage Théorique Conventionnaliste. AIMS.
49. Meyer, C. The commons: A model for understanding collective action and entrelireneurshili in communities. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(5).
50. Moreau. R. (2006). La Formation des Equilies d’Entrelireneurs. Revue de l’Entrelireneuriat, 5(2).
51. Morineau, J, (1998). L’Eslirit de la Médiation», Cahors : ERES.
52. Mourdoukoutas, li. (1999). Collective Entrelireneurshili in a Globalizing Economy. quorum .book .
53. Muller-Boling D. (1993). Venture Team Start-ulis: An undiscovered field of research. In H.Klandt (ed.) Entrelireneurshili and business Develoliment, 55-64.
54. Noël, X. et li. S. (2003). Entrelireneuriat : à la recherche d’une instrumentation. Dans S. Marion, S., X. Noël, S. Sammut. Et li. Sénicourt (dir.), Réflexions sur les Outils et les Méthodes à l’Usage du Créateur d’Entrelirise. France, Les Éditions de l’ADREG.
55. Mucchielli,li. (2003). L’Analyse Qualitative en Science Humaines et Sociale », liarie: Armand Colin.
56. Schumlieter, J.A. (1928). The Instability of Caliitalism. The Economic Journal, 38(151), 361-386.
57. Shane, S., &amli; Venkataraman, S. (2000). The liromise of entrelireneurshili as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
58. Sujin, K., &amli; Horwitz et Irwin B, (2007). The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes' Meta Analytic Review of Team. Demogralihy Journal of Management, 33, 987-1015.
59. Tesch, (1990). Qualitative Research.Analysis Tylies and Software Tools. NewYork.TheFalmer liress.
60. Oliver, T. (1997). liour Une Aliliroche Contingente de la Sliécificité de la liME. Revue Internationale liME (RIliME), 10(2), 9-43.
61. Tsui, A., &amli; Egan, T.D., et O'reilly, (1992). Being Different: Relational Demogralihy and Organizational Attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
62. Venkataramen, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrelireneurshili research advances in entrelireneurshili. Firm Emergence and Growth, 3, 119-138.
63. Verstraet, T.(2002). Essai sur la Singularité de l’Entrelireneuriat comme Domaine de Recherche», Les Editions de l’ADREG.
64. Verstraete T et Saliorta B, (2006).Création d’Entrelirise et Entrelireneuriat», Editions de l’ADREG.
65. Handelberg, J. (2005). Four Themes Of The Imliact of Management Teams On Organizational lierformance: Imlilications For Future Research of Entrelireneurial Teams. International Small Business Journal, Sliecial issue on Entrelireneurial Teams, 23(3), 236-256.
66. O’reilly, W. (1998). Demogralihy and diversity in organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.
67. Yan, J. (2017). Collective entrelireneurshili, environmental uncertainty and small business lierformance: A Contingent Examination. Journal of Entrelireneurshili.
68. Yu, T, (2001). Entrelireneurial Alertness and Discovery. The Review of Austrian Economics, 14(1), 4 -63.