Advancing Business Planning: From Planning to Entrepreneurial Learning

  • P. Kyrö
  • M. Niemi
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

The benefits of business planning and our abilities to teach it have recently been questioned from both practical and theoretical perspectives. Carrier (2005), claims that instead of conducting the traditional business planning, we should be more creative and, in teaching, too, focus more on inventing and developing business ideas. Hindle (1997) also criticises the standardised form of business planning and demands more flexibility and creativity instead of rigidity. The benefits of planning might actually rather be a myth than a fact, since planning does not necessarily improve performance. Tomas Karlsson (2005) argues that there is actually only a tenuous relationship between planning and performance. He also suggests that there is no evidence that the performance of a start-up business will improve or have more potential if the entrepreneur has made a business plan. The situation may even be the opposite, as Carter, Gartner and Reinold’s (1996) study indicated. Those having a business plan in their early start-up phase tended to stay in the intention phase longer than others. Thus, instead of helping to start the business, business planning seems rather to cause more or less delay in this process. Delmar and Shane (2004) also discovered that there was no significant relationship between the writing of a business plan and subsequent profitability. Regardless of these problems, recent Western reports indicate that the most popular approach to teaching entrepreneurship in universities is business planning (Menzies 2005).


Soft Computing Business Planning Opportunity Recognition Heuristic Evaluation Business Idea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Åhlberg M (1990) Käsitekarttatekniikka ja muuta vastaavat graafiset tiedonesittämistekniikat opettajan ja oppilaiden työvälineinä. University of Joensuu. Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan tutkimuksia No 30Google Scholar
  2. Åhlberg M (1993) Concept maps, vee diagrams and rhetorical argumentation (ra) analysis: three educational theory-based tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Paper Presented at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics. August 1-5, 1993. Cornell University. Published electronically in the Proceedings of the SeminarGoogle Scholar
  3. Åhlberg M (2001) Käsitekartat tutkimusmenetelmänä. In Valli, R. & Aaltonen, J. (toim.) Ikkunoita tutkimusmetodeihin I. (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Alanärä M (2004) Comparative analysis of business planning literature Unpublished report. University of TampereGoogle Scholar
  5. Alanärä M, Kyrö P, Niemi M, Somersalmi V (2006) New Generation Business Planning. Paper Presented at the BEPART 2006 ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  6. Axelrod R (1976) Structure of Decision, the Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrier C (2005) Pedagogical challenges in entrepreneurship education. The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context, P. Kyrö and C. Carrier, Entrepreneurship Education Series 2/2005, Hämeenlinna: University of Tampere, Research Centre for Vocational and Professional EducationGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter NM, Gartner WB, Reinolds PD (1996) Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11:151-166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidsson P, Delmar F, Wiklund J (2002) Entrepreneurship as growth; growth as entrepreneurship, in Hilt MA, Ireland RD, Camp SM, Sexton DL (Eds.) Strategic Entrepreneurship, Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Delmar F, Shane S (2004) Legimitating first: organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19:385-410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeTienne DR, Chandler GN (2004) Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: a pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3):242-257Google Scholar
  12. Drucker P (1959) Long-range planning challenge to management science, Management Science. Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences (April):238-249Google Scholar
  13. Eijnatten FM (2005) A chaordic lens for understanding entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, in Fayolle A, Kyrö P, Uljin J (Eds.) Entrepreneurship Research in Europe: Perspectives and Outcomes, Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiet JO (2001) The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2):101-117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hindle K (1997) An Enhanced Paradigm of Entrepreneurial Business Planning. Swinburne University of Technology, SwinburneGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones MV, Dimitratos P (2003) Editorial introduction: creativity, process, and time: the antithesis of “Instant International”. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(2):159-162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karlsson T (2005) Business Plans in New Ventures - An institutional perspective. JIBS Dissertation series No. 030. Jönköping International Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  18. Kyrö P (2007) A Theoretical Framework for Planning: Conducting and Evaluating Entrepreneurship Education. Presented at the EFMD 36th EISB Conference 6-8 September 2006, Southampton, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  19. Kyrö P, Niemi M (2007a) Uusia avauksia liiketoimintasuunnitelman opettamiseen. Article published in Yrittäjyyskasvatuksen monia suuntia - book by Lehtonen Heleena, Kyrö Paula and Ristimäki Kari, publication series of the School of Economics and Business Administration of University of Tampere 2007Google Scholar
  20. Kyrö P, Niemi M (2007b) Liiketoimintasuunnitelman laatimisesta - innovatiiviseen mallintamiseen. Paper presented at Yrittäjyystutkimuspäivät, Vaasa 2007Google Scholar
  21. Kyrö P, Niemi M (2007c) Advancing Teaching and Learning Business Planning, Paper Presented at the ICSB2007 World Conference in Turku, June 2007Google Scholar
  22. Kyrö P, Niemi M (2007d) Innovative Modelling for Learning Business Planning, Paper presented at the IntEnt2007 Conference in Poland, July 2007Google Scholar
  23. Kyrö P, Niemi M (2007e) An Application for Learning Business Planning, Paper to be Presented at the EFMD2007 Conference in Slovenia, autumn 2007Google Scholar
  24. Kyrö, P, Niemi, M, Somersalmi V (2006) Teaching Business Planning - Art or Science, Paper Presented at the ESU2006 Conference on summer 2006Google Scholar
  25. Kyrö P, Niskanen VA (2006a) A Novel Proactive Meta-Level Approach to Configuration of Soft-Computing Modelling, Paper Presented at the IPMU ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  26. Kyrö P, Niskanen VA (2006b) Innovativeness and a need for new configuration and modelling for Business planning. Paper presented at the 6th European Summer University 2006. Entrepreneurship in Europe, Entrepreneurship & Sustainability June 29-July 5, 2006 Dauphine University, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. Kyrö P, Niskanen VA (2006C) Modelling Innovativeness and Creativity in Business Planning. Paper Presented at the KES2006 Conference, Bournemouth International Conference Centre 9th, 10th and 11th of OctoberGoogle Scholar
  28. Lukk (2001) “The Constructive Research Approach.”
  29. Menzies TV (2005) Entrepreneurship Education at Universities Across Canada. The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context, P. Kyrö and C. Carrier (2005), Entrepreneurship Education Series 2/2005, Hämeenlinna: University of Tampere, Research Centre for Vocational and Professional EducationGoogle Scholar
  30. Niskanen VA (1998) Soft Computing Methods in Human Sciences, Faciliative Tools in Schools and Corporations, Springer, Heidelberg, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  31. Niskanen V (2007a) Business Planning Evaluation with Soft Computing. Paper Presented at the FUZZIEEE07 ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  32. Niskanen V (2007b) Application of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps to Business Planning Models. Paper presented at the IFSA ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  33. Puhakka V (2002) Entrepreneurial business opportunity recognition: Relationships between intellectual and social capital, environmental dynamism, opportunity recognition behavior, and performance. Business Administration 42. Management and OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson RB (1979) Forecasting and small business: a study of the strategic planning process. Journal of Small Business Management, 17:19-27Google Scholar
  35. Saks NT, Gaglio CM (2002) Can opportunity identification be taught? Journal of Enterprising Culture, 10(4):313-334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarasvathy SD (2001a) Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2):243-288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarasvathy S.D (2001b) Effectual reasoning in entrepreneurial decision making: Existence and bounds, Winner of the Newman Award at the 2001 Academy of Management Meeting in Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Timmons J (1994) New Venture Creation, Entrepreneurship for the Twenty-First Century. 4th edition. Irwin, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  39. Yiu L, Briggs J (2000) Conference on Chaos Theory and the Arts in the Context of Social, Economic and Organizational Development, Geneva: Centre for Socio-Economic DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  40. Zadeh L (1996) Fuzzy Logic = Computing with words. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2:103-111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zadeh L (1997) Toward a theory of fuzzy information granulation and its centrality in human reasoning and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 90(2):111-127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Kyrö
    • 1
  • M. Niemi
    • 1
  1. 1.Helsinki School of EconomicsHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations