Advertisement

From Entrepreneurial Orientation to Innovation: The Mediating Role of Information System—Case of Tunisian SMEs

  • Samah Chemli Horchani
  • Mahmoud Zouaoui
Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 10/1)

Abstract

The object of the entrepreneur passes necessarily through the development of an entrepreneurship shared by all. The achievement of this object supports the introduction of an information system mobilizing technology impregnate by the environment in which the business operates. The objective of this study is to present a state of the literature on entrepreneurship, innovation and information systems. Therefore, we propose a conceptual model on entrepreneurship-innovation link. To provide more information, empirical investigation covering two cases of Tunisian SMEs. The observatory study, conducted through internships in companies, allowed us to see the evolution of the model after 30 years of operation. The analysis reveals important interactions between the various components of the proposed model. Overall, the study will provide relevant knowledge about the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on innovation, in particular through the information system.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial orientation Radical innovation Incremental innovation Information system Environment 

References

  1. Ammar, A. (2003). L’impact de l’ERP sur la prise de décision [The impact of ERP on decision-making]. In 8èmeColloque de l’Association Information et Management (AIM) (pp. 1–10). France: SIM.Google Scholar
  2. Astebro, T., Braunerhjelm, P., & Brostrôm, A. (2013). Does academic entrepreneurship pay? Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 281–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bah, T. (2009). La transition cédant-repreneur: Une approche par la théorie du deuil [The transferor-taker transition: An approach by the theory of mourning]. Revue Française de Gestion, 194(4), 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreyre, P. Y. (1980). Typologie des innovations [Typology of innovations]. Revue Française de Gestion, 27, 9–15.Google Scholar
  6. Bartoli, A., Hermel, P., & Mérigot, J. G. (1989). Le développement de l’entreprise: Nouvelles conceptions et pratiques [Business development: New designs and practices]. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  7. Barton, L. (1992). Core capability and core rigidity: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhupatiraju, S., Normale, O., Triulzi, G., & Verspagen, B. (2012). Knowledge flows analyzing the score literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology studies. Research Policy, 41, 1205–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boumedjaoud, D. (2016). Reprise d’entreprises et poursuite d’opportunités: Nouvelles perspectives de recherche [Business recovery and pursuit of opportunities: New research perspectives]. In XXVe Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique (pp. 1–30). Tunis: AIMS.Google Scholar
  10. Boyer, R., & Freyssenet, M. (2000). Les modèles productifs [Productive models]. Paris: La Découverte. Google Scholar
  11. Broustail, J., & Fréry, F. (1993). Le management stratégique de l’innovation [Strategic management of innovation]. Paris: Éditions Dalloz.Google Scholar
  12. Bruyat, C., & Julien, A. P. (2001). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corbel, P. (2009). Technologie, innovation, stratégie: De l’innovation technologique à l’innovation stratégique [Technology, innovation, strategy: From technological innovation to strategic innovation]. Paris: Gualino.Google Scholar
  14. Coriat, B., & Weinstein, O. (1999). La théorie évolutionniste de la firme. In M. Basle (Ed.), Approches évolutionnistes de la firme et de l’industrie [The evolutionary theory of the firm, in Evolutionist approach of the firm and the industry] (pp. 3–25). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  15. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16, 7–25.Google Scholar
  17. Crozier, M. (1970). La société bloquée [The blocked society]. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  18. Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). L’acteur et le système: Les contraintes de l’action collective [The actor and the system: The constraints of collective action]. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  19. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.Google Scholar
  20. Daneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (1992). The virtual corporation. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. De La Ville, V. I. (2000). La recherche idiographique en management stratégique: Une pratique en quête de méthode? [Idiographic research in strategic management: A practice in search of a method?]. Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 3(3), 73–99.Google Scholar
  23. Druker, P. (1985). Entrepreneurship and innovation: Practices and principles. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  24. Dumoulin, R., & Simon, E. (2005). Stratégie de rupture et PME: La réplication impossible [Break strategy and SMEs: Impossible replication]. Revue Française de Gestion, 2(5), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Durand, T. (2000). L’alchémie de la competence [The alchemy of competence]. Revue Française de Gestion, 127, 84–102.Google Scholar
  26. Fayolle, A., & Verstraete, T. (2005). Paradigmes et entrepreneuriat [Paradigms and entrepreneurship]. Revue de l’entrepreneuriat, l4(1), 33–52.Google Scholar
  27. Flynn, D., & Foster, L. (1984). Management information technology: Its effects on organizational form and function. MIS Quarterly, 8(4), 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fowler, S. W., Wilcox, K. A., Marsh, S. J., & Victor, B. (2000). Beyond products: New strategic imperatives for developing competencies in dynamic environments. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 3(4), 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fulk, J., & De Sanctis, G. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organizational forms. Organization Science, 6(4), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 883–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haines, V. Y., & Petit, A. (1997). Conditions for successful human resource information system. Human Resource Management, 36, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hermann, A., Gassmann, O., & Eisert, U. (2007). An empirical study of the antecedents for radical product innovations and capabilities for transformation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24, 92–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Janssen, F. (2009). Entreprendre: Une introduction à l’entrepreneuriat, Petites entreprises et entrepreneuriat [Entrepreneurship: An introduction to entrepreneurship, small business and entrepreneurship]. Paris: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  35. Johannessen, J. A., Olsen, B., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2001). Innovation as newness: What is new, how new, and new to whom? European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Julien, A. P., & Marchesnay, M. (1996). L’Entrepreneuriat [Entrepreneurship]. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  37. Kalika, M., & Kefi, H. (2004). Evaluation des systèmes d’information: Une perspective organisationnelle [Evaluation of information systems: An organizational perspective] (No. hal-00155610).Google Scholar
  38. Karray-Driss, Z. (2001). Coopération technologique des firmes et compétences pour innover: Une modélisation des choix appliquée à l’industrie française [Technological cooperation of firms and skills to innovate: A modeling of choices applied to French industry]. Doctoral dissertation, Toulouse 1.Google Scholar
  39. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(Fall), 37–50.Google Scholar
  40. Le Bars Anne, A. (2001). Innovation sans recherche: Les compétences pour innover dans les PME de l’agro-alimentaire [Innovation without research: Skills for innovation in agribusiness SMEs]. Doctoral dissertation, Grenoble 2.Google Scholar
  41. Lebraty, J. F. (2002). Une vision cognitive des systèmes d’aide à la décision. In F. Rowe (Ed.), Faire de la recherche en systèmes d’information [A cognitive vision of decision support systems, in Do research in information systems] (pp. 103–127). Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
  42. Leroy, F., & Ramanantsoa, B. (1997). The cognitive and behavioural dimensions of organizational learning in a merger: An empirical study. Journal of Management Studies, 34(6), 871–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lumpkin, T. G., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lumpkin, T. G., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mack, M. (1995). L’organisation apprenante comme système de transformation de la connaissance en valeur [The learning organization as a system of knowledge transformation in value]. Revue Française de Gestion, 105, 43–48.Google Scholar
  46. McClelland, D. C. (1972). Opinions predict opinions: So what else is new? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 325–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer, H., & Utterback, J. (1992). Core competencies, product families and sustained business success. In Sloan school of strategic management. [PDF] Montréal: ICRMT. Accessed February 1992, from https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2400/SWP-3410-25771050.pdf
  48. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (2003). Analyse des données qualitatives [Analysis of qualitative data]. Paris: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  49. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29, 770–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, G. S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lensfor studying technology in organizations. Organizational Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pin, R., Métais, E., & Dumoulin, R.. (2003). Vers Un Dépassement De L’antinomie Entre Rupture Et Continuité: Le Cas Valéo [Towards an exceeding of the antinomy between breaking and continuity: The Valéo case]. In XIIème Conférence de l’Association Internationale du Management Stratégique (pp. 1–24). Carthage: AIMS.Google Scholar
  54. Powell, T., & Dent-Micallef, A. (1997). Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Powell, T., & Dent-Micallef, A. (1998). Technologies de l’information: Nécessités stratégiques ou sources d’avantage concurrentiel ? Une étude empirique dans le secteur de la distribution automobile aux Etats-Unis [Information technology: Strategic needs or sources of competitive advantage? An empirical study in the car distribution sector in the United States]. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 39–64.Google Scholar
  56. Puhakka, V. (2010). Versatile and flexible use of intellectual capital in entrepreneurial opportunity discovery. Journal of Management Research, 2(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  57. Puthod, D. (1998). Un modèle d’exploitation des pôles de compétences dans le contexte de l’organisation et de la décision [An operating model of competence centers in the context of the organization and the decision]. VIIe Conférence de l’Association Internationale du Management Stratégique (pp. 26–28). Louvain-La-Neuve: AIMS.Google Scholar
  58. Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2010). Management et orientation entrepreneuriale: Deux concepts si différents? Management & Avenir, 39(9), 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reix, R. (2004). Systèmes d’information et management des organisations [Information systems and organization management]. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
  60. Ross, J., Mathis Beath, C., & Goodhue, D. (1996). Develop long term competitiveness through IT assets. Sloan Management Review, 38, 31–42.Google Scholar
  61. Roussel, P., & Wacheux, F. (2005). Management des ressources humaines: Méthodes de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales [Human resources management: Research methods in humanities and social sciences]. De Boeck Supérieur.Google Scholar
  62. Roy, P. (2010). Les nouvelles stratégies concurrentielles [New competitive strategies]. La Découverte.Google Scholar
  63. Schumpeter, A. J. (1936). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital credit, Interest and business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schumpeter, A. J. (1954). History of economic analysis. New York: Allen&Unwin.Google Scholar
  65. Schumpeter, J. A., & Perroux, F. (2008). Théorie de l’évolution économique: Recherches sur le profit, le crédit, l? intérêt et le cycle de la conjonctureconjoncture [Theory of economic evolution, research on profit, credit, interest and the business cycle]: Introduction. J.-M. Tremblay. Quebec: Collection Science Sociale (pp. 1–224). Accessed October 21, 2008, from  https://doi.org/10.1522/cla.pef.pen
  66. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, l25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  67. Spanos, E. Y., & Lioukas, S. (2001). An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: Contrasting Porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 907–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stephan, A. (2014). Are public research spin-offs more innovative? Small Business Economics, 43(2), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stolper, W. F. (1994). Joseph Alois Schumpeter: The public life of a private man. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Tarondeau, J. C. (1994). Recherche et développement [Research and development]. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
  71. Tarondeau, J. C. (1998). Le management des savoirs [Knowledge management]. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  72. Teece, D. (1998). Capturing value from technological innovation: Integration, strategic partnering, and licensing decisions. Interface, 18, 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tushman, T., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wang, Y., Lo, H. P., & Yang, Y. (2004). The constituents of core competencies and firm performance: Evidence from high-technology firms in China. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(4), 249–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Warnier, V. (2003). Trajectoire de compétences stratégiques et dynamiques inter firmes dans un secteur: Le cas de l’industrie de dentelle [Trajectory of strategic competences and inter-firm dynamic in a sector: The case of the lace industry]. In XIIème conférence de l’Association Internationale du Management Stratégique (pp. 1–25). Carthage: AIMS.Google Scholar
  76. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneur venture. Entrepreneurial Journal, 10(1), 43–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samah Chemli Horchani
    • 1
  • Mahmoud Zouaoui
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Management Science’s of Tunis FSEGT, URISO, Department ManagementUniversity of Tunis El-ManarTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations