MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2570325716

Understanding the Common Causes of Small Business Failures: A Qualitative Study

2011· article· en· W2570325716 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Gordon Hunter

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueFirm Innovation and Growth
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSmall businessMarketingVariety (cybernetics)BusinessOrder (exchange)Product (mathematics)Value (mathematics)EconomicsFinance
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

IntroductionThe small sector represents an important segment of most economies. In Canada, for instance, approximately 30% of the Gross Domestic Product is generated by about 1.0 million businesses with fewer than 100 employees (Industry Canada, 2008). These small businesses employ 5.0 million individuals representing 48% of the private sector labour force. Further, Industry Canada (2008) has determined that about 25% of small businesses (those employing fewer than 100) remain in operation after 9 years. Zontanos and Anderson (2004) note, in general that over two thirds of small businesses close within the decade they opened. This project investigated aspects related to why small businesses fail.Small differs from large companies in many ways (Forsman, 2008). There are and knowledge limitations. Thong et al (1994) employ the concept of resource poverty to suggest that managers of small businesses must continually conduct their affairs with limited resources. Further, small businesses tend to rely on a few customers. Again, because of limited size and the consequent lack of market power the small must depend on a small customer base (Zontanos & Anderson, 2004). Also, employees of small businesses must be multi-skilled in order to perform a number of varied tasks.There are many ways of defining a small business. A variety of criteria have been employed such as, total or net worth, annual sales, and value of products. Usually, however, number of employees is used because the previously mentioned data may not be made available from a privately held small business. An interesting definition of a small was developed by the Wiltshire Committee.... a in which one or two persons are required to make all the critical management decisions. (Wiltshire Committee, 1971, p.7).This definition was employed here in general. These businesses are privately held and do not have publically traded stock. The research participants who were interviewed based their comments on experience with the critical decision makers of the at an important juncture in the life of the business.The goal of this project was to document the opinions of bankruptcy professionals and consultants relating to their experience working with small businesses that have failed or were potentially heading towards failure. Confidential one-on-one interviews were conducted to document research participant's interpretations. A qualitative approach was adopted, employing narrative inquiry to document these interpretations. The interview transcripts were analyzed to . identify emerging themes.The main objective of this investigation was to describe those aspects which contribute to the failure of small businesses. After a review of literature on the topic, the method adopted for this investigation is presented. This is followed by a discussion of results by identifying issues categorized by controllable and uncontrollable as they relate to small failure. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the contribution of this investigation.Literature ReviewA review of the available literature about small failures reveals a number of categories, such as basic definitions, liabilities, poor management, and the resource-based view of the firm.A number of articles address the basic definitions surrounding this area of research. Watson (2003) discusses different definitions of small failure. One is discontinuance of ownership (Bruderl et al, 1992; Churchill, 1952; Ganguly, 1985; Hutchinson et al, 1938; Phillips & Kirchoff, 1989; Stewart & Gallagher, 1986; and Watson & Everett, 1999) where the is sold to someone else. Another definition is discontinuance of business (Bates, 1995; Bates & Nucci, 1989; Birley, 1986; Cooper et al, 1988; Dekimpe & Morrison, 1991; Dunne et al, 1989; Hamilton, 1984; Price, 1984; Reynolds, 1987; Stanworth, 1995; and Tauzell, 1982). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,026
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,139

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0260,042
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0150,014
Communication savante0,0070,011
Science ouverte0,0040,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,214
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,050 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations16
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Applied Management and EntrepreneurshipMême sujetFirm Innovation and GrowthTravaux en français237 207