Abstract
The generation of new markets is an emerging area of interest among researchers working in the traditions of evolutionary economics. And true to those traditions, the current study incorporates empirical evidence from psychology and cognitive science to develop micro-foundations for evolutionary theories of new market generation. In this paper we present an in-depth analysis of how expert entrepreneurs use effectual logic to conceptualize the creation of new markets. Our results challenge received wisdom based on search and selection processes and move beyond combinatorial ideas to develop instead a “transformational” view of market genesis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a detailed exposition of the logic and its connections to economics and social philosophy, see Sarasvathy (2007).
Two sources were utilized to identify possible expert entrepreneurs for the study: (1) A list of the one hundred most successful entrepreneurs from 1960 to 1985, compiled by the venture capitalist, David Silver (Silver 1985); and, (2) The list of national winners of the Entrepreneurs of the Year awards, compiled by Ernst & Young. Together, the two sources drew their members from a pool that included virtually every major new company created by an entrepreneur in the U.S. from 1960 till 1996. Both publications used several evaluation procedures and qualification criteria to select their lists from the complete populations of entrepreneurial companies in their respective times. Thus the sample of expert entrepreneurs used in this study was drawn from a population of entrepreneurs who were independently verified as having a track record that suggests a high level of entrepreneurial competence and expertise.
We used the helix process described in Ericsson and Simon (1993:280) to generate the coding scheme. This process calls for repeated circles of coding scheme items generated along a particular axis, such as the three axes of general expertise, market creation, and new venture creation in our study. One member of the research team began listing specific items of the coding scheme from four randomly selected protocols, two from experts and two from novices. Thereafter, the same researcher added items to the list from other protocols and refined the list in an iterative fashion until the coding scheme converged into a complete and coherent instrument for analyzing all the protocols. Two other members of the research team then used the coding scheme to independently code the protocols.
References
Abernathy W, Utterback J (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol Rev 80(7):40–47
Bala V, Goyal S (1994) The birth of a new market. Econ J 104:282–290
Basalla G (1988) The evolution of technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bettman JR, Sujan M (1987) Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. J Consum Res 14(2):141–154
Buchanan JM, Vanberg VJ (1990) The market as a creative process. Econ Philos 7:167–186
Charness N (1989) Expertise in chess and bridge. In: Klahr D, Kotovsky K (eds) Complex information processing: the impact of Herbert A. Simon. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, p 459
Crowley P (2002) Good lobster traps make good fences. Newsweek, 29 April 2002
Dew N (2003) Lipsticks and razorblades: how the auto ID center used pre-commitments to build the internet of things. Dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Dew N, Sarasvathy SD, Ventakaraman S (2004) The economic implications of exaptation. J Evol Econ 14:69–84
Dosi G (1997) Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological change. Econ J 107(444):1530–1547
Dosi G, Winter SG (2000) Interpreting economic change: evolution, structures and games. LEM Working paper series. July 2000
Dosi G, Malerba F, Teece D (2003) Twenty years after Nelson and Winter’s an evolutionary theory of economic change: a preface on knowledge, the nature of organizations and the patterns of organizational changes. Ind Corp Change 12(2):147–148
Economist (2005) Odd bedfellows, striking results. Technology Quarterly, in The Economist, December 10–16, 2005:7–8
Endres M, Woods CR (2010) Schumpeter’s ‘conduct model of the dynamic entrepreneur’: scope and distinctiveness. J Evol Econ 20:583–607
Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1980) Verbal reports as data. Psychol Rev 87:215–251
Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. MIT Press, Cambridge
Fagiolo G, Dosi G (2003) Exploitation, exploration and innovation in a model of endogenous growth with locally interacting agents. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 14:237–273
Gavetti G, Levinthal D, Rivkin JW (2004) Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy. Strateg Manage J 26(8):691–712
Geroski PA (2002) The evolution of new markets. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Goldenberg J, Lehmann DR, Mazursky D (2001) The idea itself and the circumstances of its emergence as predictors of new product success. Manage Sci 47(1):69–84
Goodman N (1978) Ways of worldmaking. Hackett, Indianapolis
Harmeling S, Oberman S, Venkataraman S, Stevenson HH (2004) That my neighbor’s cow might live: effectuation, entrepreneurship education and economic development in Croatia. In: Bygrave WD (ed) 2005. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2004: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual entrepreneurship research conference. Babson, Wellsley, MA
Harper DA (1996) Entrepreneurship and the market process: an enquiry into the growth of knowledge. Routledge, London
Harting T (2004) Entrepreneurial effectuation in a corporate setting: the case of Circuit City’s Carmax unit. In: Bygrave WD (ed) 2005. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2004: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual entrepreneurship research conference. Babson, Wellsley, MA
Hayek FA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. Am Econ Rev 35(4):519–530
Hayek FA (1960) The constitution of liberty. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Hayek FA (1978) Competition as a discovery procedure. In: New studies in philosophy, politics, economics and the history of ideas. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Isenberg DJ (1986) Thinking and managing: a verbal protocol analysis of managerial problem solving. Acad Manage J 29(4):775–788
James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1993) RWG: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol 78(2):306–309
Johnson EJ (1988) Expertise and decision under uncertainty: process and performance. In: Farr MJ (ed) The nature of expertise. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 209–228
Karniol R (1985) What will they think of next? Transformation rules used to predict other people’s thoughts and feelings. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(5):932–944
Kirzner IM (1979) Perception, opportunity, and profit: studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. University of Chicago, Chicago
Klepper S, Simons K (1997) Technological extinctions of industrial firms: an inquiry into their nature and causes. Ind Corp Change 6(2):379–460
Koestler A (1964) The act of creation. McMillan, New York
Kotler P (1991) Marketing management. Prentice Hall, New York
Lakoff G, Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Harper Collins, New York
March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87
Metcalfe JS (1998) Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. Routledge, London
Metcalfe JS (2004) The entrepreneur and the style of modern economics. J Evol Econ 14:157–175
Miller KD, Folta TB (2002) Option value and entry timing. Strateg Manage J 23:655–665
Mokyr J (1998) Evolutionary phenomena in technological change. In: Ziman J (ed) Technological innovation as an evolutionary process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Montgomery H, Svenson O (1989) A think aloud study of dominance structuring in decision processes. In: Montgomery H, Svenson O (eds) Process and structure in human decision making. Wiley, Chichester
Moreau F (2004) The role of the state in evolutionary economics. Camb J Econ 28(6):847–874
Mowery D, Rosenberg N (1979) The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Res Policy 8(2):102–153
Mukhopadhyay T, Vicinanza SS, Prietula MJ (1992) Examining the feasibility of a case-based reasoning model for software effort estimation. MIS Q 16(2):155–171
Nelson R, Winter S (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Phelps RH, Shanteau J (1978) Livestock judges: how much information can an expert use? Organ Behav Hum Perform 21(2):209
Poincare H (1908) Mathematical creation. In: Ghiselin B (ed) The creative process. University of California Press, Berkeley
Qin Y, Simon HA (1990) Laboratory replication of scientific discovery processes. Cogn Sci 14:281–312
Riahi-Belkaoui A (1989) Behavioral accounting. Greenwood, Westport
Romer PM (1994) The origins of endogenous growth. J Econ Perspect 8:3–22
Sarasvathy SD (2007) Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Edward Elgar, Cheltenhamd
Sarasvathy SD, Dew N (2005) New market creation through transformation. J Evol Econ 15:533–565
Sarasvathy SD, Kotha S (2001) Dealing with Knightian uncertainty in the new economy: the real networks case. In: Butler J (ed) Research on management and entrepreneurship, vol 1. IAP Inc, Greenwich, pp 31–62
Sarasvathy SD, Simon HA, Lave LB (1998) Perceiving and managing business risks: differences between entrepreneurs and bankers. J Econ Behav Organ 33(2):207–226
Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Shane S (2001) Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organ Sci 11(4):448–469
Shanteau J, Grier M, Johnson J, Berner E (1991) Teaching decision-making skills to student nurses. In: Baron J, Brown RV (ed) Teaching decision-making to adolescents. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Silver DA (1985) Entrepreneurial megabucks: the 100 greatest entrepreneurs of the last 25 years. Wiley, New York
Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69:99–118
Stigler GJ (1961) The economics of information. J Polit Econ 69(3):213–225
Usher PA (1929) A history of mechanical inventions. McGraw-Hill, New York
Webb NG (1975) Correlating the teaching of mathematics and science. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 6(1)
Weitzman ML (1998) Recombinant growth. Q J Econ 113(2):331–360
Winter SG, Kaniovski YM, Dosi G (2003) A baseline model of industry evolution. J Evol Econ 13:355–383
Witt U (2003) Economic policy making in evolutionary perspective. J Evol Econ 13(2):77–94
Young R (1988) Cognitive processes in argumentation: an exploratory study of management consulting expertise. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Management Communication Association, Los Angeles, CA
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer at the Journal of Evolutionary Economics for many helpful comments that helped us improve this paper. The usual disclaimers apply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A: Research instrument
Appendix A: Research instrument
1.1 A.1 Introduction
In the following experiment, you will solve two decision problems. These problems arise in the context of building a new company for an imaginary product. A detailed description of the product follows this introduction.
Although the product is imaginary, it is technically feasible and financially viable. The data for the problems have been obtained through realistic market research—the kind of market research used in developing a real world business plan.
Before you start on the product description and the problems, I do need one act of creative imagination on your part. I request you to put yourself in the role of the an entrepreneur building a company—i.e., you have a little money of your own to start this company, and whatever experience you have to date.
Throughout the experiment you should talk aloud the thoughts you are having. Please start by reading aloud the following instructions.
1.2 A.2 Description of the product
You have created a computer game of entrepreneurship. You believe you can combine this game with some educational material and profiles of successful entrepreneurs to make an excellent teaching tool for entrepreneurship. Your inspiration for the product came from several reports in the newspapers and magazines about increasing demand for entrepreneurship education; and the fact that a curriculum involving entrepreneurship even at the junior high or high school level induces students to learn not only business-related topics but math and science and communication skills as well.
The game part of the product consists of a simulated environment for starting and running a company. There are separate sub-simulations of markets, competitors, regulators, macroeconomic factors and a random factor for “luck”. The game has a sophisticated multi-media interface—for example, a 3D office where phones ring with messages from the market, a TV that will provide macroeconomic information when switched on, and simulated managerial staff with whom the player (CEO) can consult in making decisions. At the beginning of the game, the player can choose from a variety of businesses the type of business he/she wants to start (For example: manufacturing, personal services, software etc.) and has to make decisions such as which market segment to sell to, how many people to hire, what type of financing to go for, etc. During the game, the player has to make production decisions such as how much to produce, whether to build new warehouses or negotiate with trucking companies, etc.; marketing decisions such as which channels of distribution to use, which media to advertise in and so on; management decisions involving hiring, training, promoting and firing of employees, and so on. There is an accounting subroutine that tracks and computes the implications of the various decisions for the bottom line. The simulation’s responses to the player’s decisions permit a range of possible final outcomes—from bankruptcy to a “hockey stick”.
You have taken all possible precautions regarding intellectual property. The name of your company is Entrepreneurship, Inc. The name of the product is Venturing.
1.2.1 A.2.1 Problem 1: Identifying the market
Before we look at some market research data, please answer the following questions—one at a time: (Please continue thinking aloud as you arrive at your decisions)
-
1.
Who could be your potential customers for this product?
-
2.
Who could be your potential competitors for this product?
-
3.
What information would you seek about potential customers and competitors—list questions you would want answered.
-
4.
How will you find out this information—what kind of market research would you do?
-
5.
What do you think are the growth possibilities for this company?
1.2.2 A.2.2. Problem 2: Defining the market
In this problem you have to make some marketing decisions.
Based on secondary market research (published sources, etc.), you estimate that there are three major segments who are interested in the product:
Segment | Estimated total size |
---|---|
Young adults between the ages of 15 and 25 | 20 Million |
Adults over 25 who are curious about entrepreneurship | 30 Million |
Educators | 200,000 institutions |
The estimated dollar value of the instructional technology market is $1.7 Billion | |
The estimated dollar value of the interactive simulation game market is $800 Million | |
Both are expected to grow at a minimum rate of 20% p.a. for the next 5 years |
The following are the results of the primary (direct) market research that you have completed.
Survey #1
—Internet users were allowed to download a scaled down version (Game stops after 15 min of playing) of the prototype and were asked to fill out a questionnaire
-
You get 600 hits per day.
-
300 of them actually download the product.
-
You have 500 filled out questionnaires so far.
Willing to pay ($) | Young adults (%) | Adults (%) | Educators (%) |
---|---|---|---|
50–100 | 45 | 26 | 52 |
100–150 | 32 | 38 | 30 |
150–200 | 15 | 22 | 16 |
200–250 | 8 | 9 | 2 |
250–300 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Survey #2:
The prototype was demonstrated at 2 Barnes & Noble and 3 Borders Bookstores
Willing to pay ($) | Young adults (%) | Adults (%) | Educators (%) |
---|---|---|---|
50–100 | 51 | 21 | 65 |
100–150 | 42 | 49 | 18 |
150–200 | 7 | 19 | 10 |
200–250 | 0 | 8 | 7 |
250–300 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Survey #3:
Focus Group of educators (high school and community college teachers and administrators) The educators who participated in the focus group find the product exciting and useful—but want several additions and modifications made before they would be willing to pay a price of over $150 for it. As it is, they would be willing to pay $50–80 and would demand a discount on that for site licenses or bulk orders.
Both at the bookstore demo and the focus group, participants are very positive and enthusiastic about the product. They provide you good feedback on specific features and also extend suggestions for improvement. But the educators are particularly keen on going beyond the “game” aspect; they make it clear that much more development and support would be required in trying to market the product to them. They also indicate that there are non-profit foundations and other funding sources interested in entrepreneurship that might be willing to promote the product and fund its purchase by educational institutions.
Based on your market research, you arrive at the following cost estimates for marketing your product.
Internet | $20,000 upfront + $500 per month thereafter |
Retailers | $500,000 to 1 M upfront and support services and follow-up thereafter |
Mail order catalogs | Relatively cheap—but ads and demos could cost $50,000 upfront |
Direct selling to schools | Involves recruiting and training sales representatives except locally |
Competition
None of the following four possible competitors combine a simulation game with substantial education materials—you are unique in this respect.
Company | Product | Description | Price | Sales |
---|---|---|---|---|
per unit | ($) | |||
Maxis | Sim City | Urban planning simulation | 29.95 | 30 M |
Microprose | Civilization | Civilization building simulation | 50.00 | 20 M |
Sierra on-line | Caesar | City building simulation | 59.95 | 18 M |
Future endeavors | ScholasticTreetop | CD-ROMs of scholastic books | n/a | 1 M |
(New co. < 1 year old) | ||||
The game companies are making a net return of 25% on sales |
At this point, please take your time and make the following decisions: (Please continue thinking aloud as you arrive at your decisions)
-
1.
Which market segment/segments will you sell your product to?
-
2.
How will you price your product?
-
3.
How will you sell to your selected market segment/segments?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S.D. et al. On the entrepreneurial genesis of new markets: effectual transformations versus causal search and selection. J Evol Econ 21, 231–253 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-010-0185-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-010-0185-1