Developing Endogenous Innovations: Corporate Entrepreneurship and Effectuation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We empirically explore the process of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) through the conceptual lens of effectuation, a theory describing how entrepreneurs innovate. In particular, we investigate how endogenous innovations emerge and evolve into new products or services. The study thus provides an alternative perspective to most CE research that assumes a causation or rational-analytic approach to innovation. We implement a qualitative, multi-case study research design with corporate innovation projects as the level of analysis. Data are from interviews as well as secondary sources and were analyzed using within and cross case analysis. Findings reveal organic stages through which ideas are shaped into viable products. Findings show important effectuation principles at work including stakeholder commitments, affordable loss thinking, and a focus on control instead of prediction. Interestingly, findings illustrate how effectuation may differ in the corporate as compared to the new venture context. Implications for the wider literature are discussed along with limitations of the research design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it