Volume 19, Number 2 Print ISSN 1098-8394 Online ISSN 1528-2651 JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION Editor Dr. Anne Van Ewijk Abu Dhabi University The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education is owned and published by Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc. Editorial content is under the control of the Allied Academies, Inc., a non-profit association of scholars, whose purpose is to support and encourage research and the sharing and exchange of ideas and insights throughout the world. Authors execute a publication permission agreement and assume all liabilities. Neither Jordan Whitney Enterprises nor Allied Academies is responsible for the content of the individual manuscripts. Any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of manuscripts for publication from among those submitted for consideration. The Publishers accept final manuscripts in digital form and make adjustments solely for the purposes of pagination and organization. The Journal of Entrepreneurship Education is owned and published by Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc., PO Box 1032, Weaverville, NC 28787, USA. Those interested in communicating with the Journal, should contact the Executive Director of the Allied Academies at [email protected]. Copyright 2016 by Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc., USA EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD Michael D. Meeks Joseph Aniello Louisiana State University Francis Marion University Robert M. Singh Stephanie Huneycutt Bardwell Morgan State University Christopher Newport University VijaykumarPandharinathWani Mumbai Bill Laing Educational Trust's, Institute of Walden University Engineering Benjamin C. Powell Kenneth J. Lacho Appalachian State University The University of New Orleans Dianne H. B. Welsh University of South Eugene Kaciak Carolina at Greensboro Brock Universit Laurent Josien Ganesan Ramaswamy SUNY Plattsburgh National Foundation for Entrepreneurship Development (NFED) M. Meral Anitsal Matthew P. Earnhardt Tennessee Tech University Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Archie Addo Lynnette Claire Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University University of Puget Sound Fatima Sirelkhatim Sujata Mukherjee University of Liverpoo NMIMS School of Business Management TABLE OF CONTENTS COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION: CONCEPTUAL SNAPSHOT AT A BUZZWORD…………………………………………………………………………………..…..1 Myriam Ertz, University of Quebec at Montreal Fabien Durif, University of Quebec at Montreal Manon Arcand, University of Quebec at Montreal AN OPPORTUNITY EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR INTRODUCTORY COURSES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP…………………………………………………………………..……..24 Blair Winsor, Memorial University of Newfoundland Dennis Hanlon, Memorial University of Newfoundland DEVELOPMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION PROGRAMMES FOR HEI STUDENTS: THE LEAN START-UP APPROACH……………………..…………..………...39 Arminda Paço, University of Beira Interior João Ferreira, University of Beira Interior Mário Raposo, University of Beira Interior WHEN SCIENCE MEETS ENTREPRENEURSHIP: ENSURING BIOBUSINESS GRADUATE STUDENTS UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY……..53 Moira A. Gunn, University of San Francisco ENTREPRENEURIAL SKILL ACQUISITION, PSYCHO-SOCIAL FACTORS AND YOUTH’S SELF-EMPLOYMENT IN MALAYSIA…………………………………….……..78 Isidore Ekpe, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Razli Che Razak, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan Mohammad Ismail, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Zulhamri Abdullah, Universiti Putra Malaysia IMPROVING BUSINESS PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SKILLS THROUGH A PROJECT-BASED ACTIVITY…………………………………………………89 Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya Dolors Gil-Doménech, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya Inés Alegre, IESE Business School ENTRANTS AND WINNERS OF A BUSINESS PLAN COMPETITION: DOES MARKETING MEDIA PLAY A ROLE IN SUCCESS?.............................................................98 Michael C Cant, University of South Africa AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN MULTI- DISCIPLINARY AND MULTI-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT………….………………....120 Ashwin Mehta, University of Massachusetts Eunsang Yoon, University of Massachusetts, Nitin Kulkarni, KLE Technological University, Deborah Finch, University of Massachusetts ENTREPRENURIAL COMPETENCIES OF WOMEN OWNING INFORMAL SECTOR ENTERPRISES: A CASE OF INDIA………………………………………………………….139 Sujata Mukherjee, Business Strategy and Environment School of Business Management TAILORING FUTURE AGROPRENEURS: THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES ON ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE AND INTENTIONS……………………………………………………………………...…………156 Asliza Yusoff, Universiti Sains Malaysia Noor Hazlina Ahmad, Universiti Sains Malaysia Hasliza Abdul Halim, Universiti Sains Malaysia Journal of Entrepreneurship Education Volume 19, Number 2, 2016 COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION: CONCEPTUAL SNAPSHOT AT A BUZZWORD Myriam Ertz, University of Quebec in Chicoutimi Fabien Durif, University of Quebec in Montreal Manon Arcand, University of Quebec in Montreal ABSTRACT Considerable work has focused on Collaborative Consumption (CC) from a managerial standpoint. Little academic research has been conducted into this specific concept. This paper proposes two theoretical contributions in that regard: 1) a definition of CC that enables to determine effectively whether any given resource distribution system can be labelled as CC or not; 2) the scope and limits of CC by contrasting it with other forms of exchanges. Consumers’ capacity to switch side from obtainment to provision or from “obtainer” to “provider” role constitutes the key criteria to identify a resource distribution system as being a form of CC. We define CC as the set of resource circulation systems which enable consumers to both obtain and provide, temporarily or permanently, valuable resources or services through direct interaction with other consumers or through a mediator. Collaborative Consumption is therefore a concept which stands in sharp contrast with the notion of Conventional Consumption. Conventional consumption – which underlies classic marketing thought – is a type of resource distribution system which involves passive consumers (not obtainers), who cannot, or are not given the capacity to, provide any resource or service (not providers). Incapable of engaging either in obtainment or in provision, their role is limited to that of buying – monetary exchange - and consuming organization-made resources or services, and, in the case of tangible resources, to discard them. In contrast, Collaborative Consumption involves not mere “consumers” but “obtainers” who may also be “providers”. In sum, consumers’ capacity to switch roles from provider to obtainer and from obtainer to provider, in a given resource distribution system constitutes the key distinguishing criteria between conventional consumption and CC. We also introduce the consumer process that is specific to Collaborative Consumption by emphasizing that CC involves not only delegation, such as in conventional consumption, but also empowerment and quasi-empowerment. More specifically, delegation assumes that there is a clear distinction between organizations which produce and sell goods and consumers who buy those goods produced and sold by organizations. Consumers rely on organization-made advertising, texts, logos, labels, trademarks, brands and other communication to choose among the broad array of goods or other types of resources that are offered to them. Empowerment means that consumers are empowered to collaborate directly with each other. They organize, arrange and negotiate informally the terms and conditions of the exchange of valuable resources, including goods or services. Under the concept of empowerment, consumers engage in what we call pure collaboration, where both the obtainer and the provider are consumers, such as in a secondhand purchase or sale at a flea market. As a middle-ground between delegation and empowerment, quasi-empowerment involves consumer-to-consumer exchanges that are mediated by a third-party, which is typically an organization. Under the concept of quasi-empowerment, consumers engage either in sourcing 1 Journal of Entrepreneurship Education Volume 19, Number 2, 2016 collaboration or in trading collaboration. Sourcing collaboration means that the provider provides a resource or service to the obtainer through a mediator. On the other hand, trading collaboration means that the obtainer obtains a resource from the provider through that specific mediator. INTRODUCTION According to “The Mesh Directory”, managed by business author and consultant Lisa Gansky, there are more than 9,000 online platforms across the world, which enable people and organisations to make temporarily available their private resources for others’ usage (Owyang, 2014). These platforms represented a global market worth 15 billion dollars, in 2014; 29 billion dollars, in 2015; and are expected to reach 335 billion dollars, by 2025 (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2015). Focusing on tangible goods only, the Canadian-based Kijiji Secondhand Economy Index of 2016, estimated that about 84% of consumers acquired or disposed of pre-owned goods through secondhand marketplaces (secondhand purchase and resale), gift-giving, swapping or temporary renting (out), through either online or offline exchange channels. According to the Kijiji Secondhand Economy Index of 2015, the Canadian secondhand market, alone, was estimated at 230 billion dollars, in 2015. Through co-creation, some CEOs now want customers, not only their workers, to help them define the firm’s new products and services (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). What do these practices all have in common? They form part of a rising global phenomenon called ‘Collaborative Consumption’ (CC) (Botsman and Roger, 2010) or, more colloquially, “the sharing economy” (Gansky, 2010). Despite the increasing use of the term Collaborative Consumption (CC) to denote a wide array of new Peer-to-Peer (P2P) business models or innovative technology-enabled exchanges, no consensus on the definition has yet been reached. This lack of agreement has made it difficult for scholars to determine the impact CC has for the study and practice of marketing as well as for society at large. It remains difficult to compare different studies and their results since each of them uses a different conceptualization. A clearer definition of CC could have several benefits. First, delineating the phenomenon can guide future research and produce useful contributions and recommendations for marketing practitioners who are keen on learning more about how to adapt their business model to the rising CC phenomenon. Second, a clear conceptualization avoids confusion of terms. CC is often conflated with the notion of “sharing”, as epitomized in the expression of “sharing economy” or “commercial sharing programs” (e.g. ridesharing, bikesharing, carsharing, tool-sharing, and so forth), which are also widespread in academia (Lamberton and Rose, 2012; Fishman et al., 2013; Parkes et al., 2013; Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014; Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012), starting with Yochai Benkler (2004). CC is also confounded with access-based business models which involve access to goods without transfer of their ownership (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012). Overall, a clearer conceptualization of CC will allow further useful theoretical studies on the subject. TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION Review of Previous Definitions Collaborative Consumption (CC) has been first coined by Felson and Spaeth (1978) who themselves drew upon Hawley’s (1950) theory of human ecology to theorize collaborative consumption as events requiring a high spatio-temporal concurrence and which must be analyzed 2 Journal of Entrepreneurship Education Volume 19, Number 2, 2016 in terms of human coordination and human competition. They made it clear that, from a consumer behaviour perspective, the unit of analysis is “people”, or “consumers” This early conceptualization (see Table 1) is however too broad as it could include such trivial activities as having beer with friends or using a washing machine for family laundry. Table 1 PREVIOUS DEFINITIONS OF COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION Authors Definition of collaborative Web- Offline Transfer of Free Company- (year) consumption facilitated ownership exchanges owned resources Felson and “Those events in which one or X X Spaeth more persons consume (1978) economic goods or services in the process of engaging in joint activities with one or more others” (p.614) Botsman “The rapid explosion in X X X X X and Rogers swapping, sharing, bartering, (2010) trading and renting being reinvented through the latest technologies and peer-to-peer marketplaces in ways and on a scale never possible before” (p.xv) Belk (2014) “people coordinating the X X acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation” (p.1597) Hamari et “Peer-to-peer based activity of X X X al. (2015) obtaining, giving, or sharing the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based online services” (p. 2) More recent definitions which characterize the current phenomenon have therefore been developed but each tends to overemphasize one specific aspect of CC and misses out others. First, based on the review of studies that sought to define the precise concept of “Collaborative Consumption”, there is a common tendency to consider CC as being mainly web- driven. Belk (2014), for example, considers that the common denominator to CC ventures is “an Internet facilitated ability to help people find things” (p.1598). Harvey, Smith and Golightly conflate CC with a “computer-mediated economy”. Similarly, Hamari, et al. (2015), conceive CC, primarily and even exclusively, as a technological phenomenon because Peer-to-Peer (P2P) collaboration finds its origins in open source programming, and file-sharing. Online cooperation and digital sharing formed the basis of web-facilitated exchange platforms (Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Gansky, 2010; Airgrain, 2012; Nissanoff, 2006). The technological terminology (e.g. start- ups) and metaphors (peer-to-peer) employed in the discursive construction of CC, are also explicit references to this close relationship between technology and CC (John, 2013a, p.13). Actually, the Internet enabled to increase the scale and scope of practices that are not inherently new but which have always existed before and have been given a new impetus through web technologies (Ritzer, 2015). The web technology merely increased the scope of 3 Journal of Entrepreneurship Education Volume 19, Number 2, 2016 previously geographically- or community-ascribed exchange systems. As an example, the semantic field surrounding “collaboration” has not only been used to designate strangers exchanging any type of resource from any part of the globe, but also close neighbours joining for a street-corner yard sale on a Sunday afternoon, such as in Herrmann and Soiffer’ s (1984) study on American garage sales. CC is therefore an incremental evolution rather than a discrete revolution (Ritzer, 2013). Since it accrues from previously offline-based informal exchanges, these should not be cast out of the way but rather regarded as founding practices of current CC. As such, “offline exchanges” should fit within the conceptual delimitations of CC, mainly because they are no less collaborative than Internet-facilitated modes of value exchange. The Web technology also enabled unprecedented business models to emerge. Giesler’s (2006) analysis of the Napster file-sharing platform emphasized the impact of the Web in transforming previously discrete dyadic (on-to-one) exchanges into networks of polyadic (one- to-many) and rhizomatic (many-to-many) exchanges. Informal product exchanges, resource pooling or jobbing have always existed, yet online applications such as Über or Airbnb tremendously increased both the scope and the intensity of such undeclared practices, which poses, among others, numerous legal issues. In essence, CC is not solely limited to technology- enabled exchanges. Yet, technological advances, especially Web 2.0, increased collaboration between individuals and thus the emergence of new exchange types, which conflate de facto with CC. Second, since most of CC models are based on leasing and rental schemes, CC has been related to what Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) termed ‘Access-Based Consumption’ (e.g. Belk, 2014, p.1597), which can be related to ‘commercial sharing systems’ (Lamberton and Rose, 2012), ‘product service systems’ (Tukker, 2004), ‘use rather than owning schemes’ (Leisman et al., 2013), or ‘leasing-rental agreements’ (Fisk, 1973), in which access to resources is favoured over their ownership (e.g. Ostrom and Hess, 2007). What is valuable is the service that the good offers rather than the good in itself (Varian, 2000). This approach to CC may be problematic. Focusing solely on product service systems or access-based consumption, excludes a great variety of exchanges such as secondhand purchasing, reselling or swapping, and which are also collaborative (Botsman and Rogers, 2010). Whether offline or computer-mediated, these exchange schemes have often been reported as entailing high levels of P2P cooperation and interaction (Guiot and Roux, 2010; Belk et al., 1988; Herrmann and Soiffer, 1984; Bardhi and Arnould, 2005; Sherry, 1990; Stone et al., 1996; Gregson and Crewe, 2003). The recent literature that started to examine informal and alternative consumption practices, emphasized further that technology – especially the Internet – has favoured the withering of the distinction between prototypical exchange systems (gift-giving vs. swapping vs. commodity exchange) (Arsel and Dobscha, 2011; Albinsson and Perera, 2012; Scaraboto, 2015; Harvey et al., 2014). Instead, there is a simultaneous presence and complementary interaction between different forms of resource circulation systems (Corciolani and Dalli, 2014; Scaraboto, 2015). In other terms, it makes little sense to refer to CC as being limited to temporary access-or granting of access to-resources, since collaboration between consumers can be found in permanent acquisition and disposition as well. Besides, online collaborative platforms tend to blur the frontiers between exchange paradigms anyways. A conceptualization of CC which leaves permanent disposition and acquisition aside would be at best, incomplete, and at worst, irrelevant since it would miss out a substantive portion of CC. 4 Journal of Entrepreneurship Education Volume 19, Number 2, 2016 Conceptual Delineations of Collaborative Consumption Although being predominantly performed online (Belk, 2014; Hamari et al., 2015), offline-based exchanges should not be omitted from CC. Neither should non-access based consumption schemes which involve transfer of possessions. In line with a consumer-focused approach to collaboration, what should however be clearly kept aside form CC, are resource circulation systems which exclude consumer input either at, what we call, the “provision” and the “obtainment” level. In other words, collaboration should not be merely conflated with P2P, or even online systems, but rather with consumers’ capacity of being both “providers” and “obtainers” of resources, in a given “resource circulation system”. By taking Scaraboto’s (2015) theory on hybrid economies, this means that consumers are able to “switch roles, engage in embedded entrepreneurship and collaborate to produce and access resources” (p. 166). The “resource circulation system” equates the metaphor of a “supply chain”, much inspired from the discipline of operations management and logistics. CC is therefore characterized by the fact that a consumer could be both an obtainer and a provider of a given resource. Companies have traditionally sold products and services to consumers, they now start pulling on their resources too (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Consumers were classically conceptualized in marketing as buyers whereas they have also always been pushers too (Ritzer, 2015). Consumers invite themselves in the value creation process, as consumers and not as formal workers, employees or suppliers, to successfully reconcile their personal interests. Conversely, organizations tap into the sphere of private assets and skills, as formal organizations and not as family, friends, or acquaintances, to make profits or reach other objectives. A consumer is not only a consumer anymore but also an obtainer who may have the additional opportunity to endorse, if wanted, a provider role. More specifically: 1. The obtainer is the consumer who seeks to obtain a resource or service that is provided directly by another consumer (i.e. the provider), or indirectly through the mediation of an organization known as the “mediator” (for profit or non-profit). “Obtainment” entails secondhand purchase, free receiving, swapping, accessing resources for free or for a compensation (excluding conventional consumption access), reconditioned / refurbished consumption, and to a lesser extent, recycled consumption; 2. The provider is the consumer who provides a specific resource or service either directly, to a consumer (i.e. the obtainer) or, indirectly through a “mediator”. “Provision” involves reselling, giving for free, swapping, providing access for free or in exchange of a compensation, recycling or trading in with an organization. CC may be better conceived of in a broader perspective of resource circulation systems incurring differential levels of collaborative intensity, which can be categorized as: (1) pure collaboration (P2P, or Peer-to-Peer); (2) sourcing collaboration (P2O, or Peer-to-Organization); and (3) trading collaboration (O2P, or Organization-to-Peer). 1. Pure collaboration: both the obtainer and the provider are consumers (e.g. a secondhand purchase/sale at a flea market); 2. Sourcing collaboration: the provider provides a resource or service to the obtainer through a mediator (e.g. resale of a pre-owned television set to a secondhand electronics shop); 3. Trading collaboration: the obtainer obtains a resource or service from the provider through a mediator (e.g. the consumer who purchases the television set from the secondhand electronics shop). 5