Innovative Entrepreneurship Morocco

Entrepreneurship orientation and innovation linkage: the
case of Moroccan firms

Ilias Majdouline, Jamal El Baz, Fedwa Jebli
Dans Projectics / Proyéctica / Projectique 2020/1 (n°25), pages 27 à 45
Éditions De Boeck Supérieur
ISSN 2031-9703
ISBN 9782807393868
DOI 10.3917/proj.025.0027
© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)
Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse

https://www.cairn.info/revue-projectique-2020-1-page-27.htm
Découvrir le sommaire de ce numéro, suivre la revue par email, s’abonner...

Flashez ce QR Code pour accéder à la page de ce numéro sur Cairn.info.
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le
cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque
forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est
précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.
Entrepreneurship orientation and innovation linkage: The case of Moroccan firms
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ORIENTATION
AND INNOVATION LINKAGE:
THE CASE OF MOROCCAN
FIRMS
Ilias Majdouline
Research Professor, Universiapolis
Jamal El Baz
Associate Professor, Ibn Zohr University
Fedwa Jebli
Assistant Professor, Université Internationale de Rabat

et peu de recherches ont marocains afin de cerner
RÉ SUM É ciblé les pays en dévelop la thématique de l’orien
pement. En particulier, la tation entrepreneuriale
Plusieurs recherches ont recherche sur l’innovation et sa relation avec l’inno
examiné comment les entrepreneuriale dans les vation. L’analyse des cas
entrepreneurs détectent pays africains est en émer d’entrepreneurs met en
et exploitent les oppor gence. En prenant le Maroc évidence différentes atti
tunités (e.g. Baron, 2008; comme terrain d’étude, le tudes et approches de l’in
Ucbasaran et al., 2010) but de cette recherche est novation entrepreneuriale
et comment l’innovation d’analyser comment les des entreprises au Maroc.
influence leurs entreprises entrepreneurs marocains Sur la base des résultats
(e.g. Ireland et al., 2003; déploient l’innovation dans obtenus, nous présente
Kuratko et Audretsch, leurs activités entrepre rons une discussion de
2009). Cependant, la neuriales. Notre démarche leurs implications ainsi
recherche empirique s’est empirique est basée sur qu’un modèle conceptuel
focalisée en grande par une approche qualitative proposé et nous discute
tie sur le contexte des pays à travers des entretiens rons également les limites
avancés ou émergents avec des entrepreneurs issues de notre recherche.
Mots-clés : entrepreneuriat, Innovation, orientation entrepreneuriale au Maroc,

innovation au Maroc
proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 27

ILIAS MAJDOULINE, JAMAL EL BAZ, FEDWA JEBLI
countries and few re entrepreneurship orien

ABSTRACT searches targeted devel tation and innovation’s
oping countries. Research linkage. The case study
Several researches have on entrepreneurial inno analysis depicts different
investigated how entrepre vation in African coun attitudes and approaches
neurs detect and exploit tries is particularly scarce. to entrepreneurial inno
opportunities (Baron, Therefore, the aim of this vation by the companies
2008; Ucbasaran et al., paper is to investigate how in Morocco. Based on our
2010) as well as how inno Moroccan entrepreneurs findings we discuss the
vation influences their ven make use of innovation main results including a
tures (Ireland et al., 2003; in their entrepreneur conceptual model devel
Kuratko and Audretsch, ial activities. In this study, oped for further examina
2009). However, empirical qualitative research was tion as well as the limits to
research focused mainly undertaken to gain a our research.
on the context of advanced deeper understanding of
Keywords: entrepreneurship, Innovation, qualitative study, semi-structured inter

views, model
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship focuses on the discovery, evaluation and exploitation
of opportunities in the process of business start-up, creation and growth.

Entrepreneurial dynamism can be considered as key to economic renewal
and growth (Shane, 2012; Lewrick et al., 2010). Innovation relates to the devel
opment, adoption and exploitation of value-added activities in economic
and social areas; a key factor for competitiveness and growth (Crossan and
Apaydin, 2010; Lewrick et al., 2010).
Several researches have investigated how entrepreneurs detect and exploit
opportunities (Baron, 2008; Ucbasaran et al., 2010) as well as how innovation
might influence their ventures (Ireland et al., 2003; Kuratko and Audretsch,
2009). The extant literature shows that there is little empirical work being con
ducted on the interaction of innovation and entrepreneurial activity (Marcotte,
2011; Anokhin and Wincent, 2012). Furthermore, the conceptual relation
ship between entrepreneurship and innovation according to several scholars
remains inconclusive (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999; Zhao, 2005; Brem, 2011).
Since few researches have targeted how entrepreneurs use innovation in their
activities, there is a need to investigate the role of innovation in entrepreneur
ship in developing countries. We considered Morocco as a suitable field of
research. Morocco is a developing country that has undergone several reforms
and has witnessed significant growth during the last decades.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to investigate how Moroccan entrepre
neurs make use of innovation in their entrepreneurial activities. In doing so,
our research makes novel contributions to the field. First, it provides more
data on innovative actions of entrepreneurs in a developing country, which
28 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

is an under-researched area in general. Second, it provides insight into the

obstacles faced by entrepreneurs in that context, which is often neglected in
literature.
To answer our research questions, we adopted a qualitative approach using
an interview guide with entrepreneurs and top managers. We asked questions
about entrepreneurs’ innovation issues and processes, and the obstacles to
these practices.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows; the extant literature
on innovation and entrepreneurship is presented. This review of the literature
identified our main research question. Following this, we describe the meth
odology used for the case study analysis. Next, we present the main findings
of the case study investigation in the next section. Finally, the conclusions and
the implications deriving from the study are discussed in the last section.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Innovation and entrepreneurship linkage
Over the last decades, entrepreneurship has become established as a legiti
mate field of research and managerial practice (Hoskisson et al., 2011). Shane
and Venkataraman (2000, p. 218) define entrepreneurship as “an activity that
involves the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to intro
duce new goods and services, ways of organizing, markets, process, and raw

materials through organizing efforts that previously had not existed.” Although
the extant literature has generated a large number of entrepreneurship’s def
initions (Lucke et al., 2007; Welter and Lash, 2008) a unanimous definition of
entrepreneurship within the scientific community is still lacking, and the con
cept is often used loosely (Iversen et al., 2005).
Likewise, there is also a significant ambiguity regarding innovation as a
theoretical concept. The views and approaches to define innovative activity
diverge widely (Lassen, 2007). An accepted definition of innovation is proposed
by Crossan and Apaydin (2010, p. 1155): “Innovation is the production or adop
tion, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and
social spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets;
development of new methods of production; and establishment of new man
agement systems. It is both a process and an outcome.”
Entrepreneurship and innovation are regarded as important tools for com
petitive advantage in a rapidly changing international business environment
(Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; O’Connor, 2013). Entrepreneurship focuses on
the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities in the process of
business start-up, creation and growth (Shane, 2012; Lewrick et al., 2010).
Innovation relates to the development, adoption and exploitation of value-
added activities in economic and social areas; a key factor for competitiveness
and growth (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Lewrick et al., 2010).

Consequently, several researches have investigated how entrepreneurs

detect opportunities and make use of them (Baron, 2008; Ucbasaran et al.,
2010) as well as the entrepreneurship-innovation linkage (Ireland et al., 2003;
Kuratko and Audretsch, 2009; Zhao, 2005).
From another perspective, there has been a growing interest in the use of
corporate entrepreneurship as a means for corporations to enhance the inno
vative abilities of their employees and, at the same time, increase corporate
success through the creation of new corporate ventures (Khanfar, Loudon, and
Mujtaba, 2010).
Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) can be considered as a vital component
for successful organizational performance and renewal (Khanfar et al., 2010).
Entrepreneurs in many cases create new firms to commercialize new knowl
edge and thus promote innovation (Audretsch, 1995; Acs et al., 2009).
The conceptual relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation
remains ambiguous and there is an overlap of process and outcome in the def
initions of both concepts (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999; Zhao, 2005; Brem, 2011).
From a process perspective, entrepreneurship is contextualised on opportuni
ties, whereas innovation is contextualised on the innovation process, from idea
generation through product development to commercialisation.
Entrepreneurship, opportunity and innovation

in literature
In literature, entrepreneurial processes and particularly entrepreneurial orien

tation (EO), were proposed to conceptualise the activities undertaken by entre
preneurs. Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) are defined as
the processes, practices and decision-making activities that lead to new entry
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) or as an organizational culture of enhancing wealth
through innovation and exploitation of opportunities (Nasution et al., 2011).
In his pioneering work, Schumpeter (1950) equated entrepreneurship with
innovative activity. Therefore, the role of entrepreneur is to generate a new
idea to the firm to improve either its products or its processes. In this perspec
tive, the entrepreneur is a person who has conceived of a creative idea or has
recognized the value of one that has been invented elsewhere (Schumputer,
1950). The recognition of the value of a creative concept is a precondition to
innovation. Later on, Kirzner (1979) amended this view by lessening the role of
innovation and proposing a complementary notion of opportunity alertness as
a key attribute of entrepreneurs.
Thus, literature offers two main perspectives in opportunity research that
could inform entrepreneurship research: (i) opportunity creation and (ii) oppor
tunity discovery (Alvarez and Barney, 2007). According to Buenstorf (2007) and
Alvarez et al. (2010, 2013) the roots of the creation view lie in Schumpeter’s
work, while the discovery view has its origins in Kirzner’s approach.
The proponents of opportunity creation argue that opportunities are created
endogenously by entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial firms through explorative

and innovative action (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Eckhardt and Shane, 2003).
In this sense, according to Alvarez et al. (2013), opportunities have no objective
existence, that is, no existence independent of the intuitions and innovations of
entrepreneurial individuals or firms.
On the other hand, the opportunity discovery view presupposes that oppor
tunities exist out there and need only to be discovered by an entrepreneur in
order to be exploited (Sarason, Dean, and Dillard, 2006). In discovery theory,
entrepreneurs are assumed to be quite different from non entrepreneurs and,
as a result, are able to detect an opportunity where others would not (Alvarez
and Barney, 2007).
The issue of reconciliation between the various approaches to entrepre
neurship has given rise to interesting debates. For example, in analyzing the
creation and discovery views, Zahra (2008) emphasized the importance of con
textual variables and depicted a virtuous cycle in which discovery and creation
enrich each other. On the other hand, Korsgaard (2013) argued that, from a
conceptual point of view, reconciliation between these views is still problem
atic and there are complexities inherent in both approaches.
Empirically, there is a scarcity of researches targeting innovative actions
of entrepreneurs. Despite the vast innovation literature base, evidence of the
application of Schumpeterian and/or Kirznerian perspective is rather limited
(Hsu et al., 2014) and we know little about how entrepreneurship might influ
ence innovation (Villa and Bruno, 2013). The empirical findings of researches
diverge widely. For example, De Jong and Marsili (2011) empirically demon
strated the coexistence of the two forms of entrepreneurship in the Netherlands.
According to the authors, Schumpeterian entrepreneurs actively searched for
innovations, the Kirznerian ones speculated on the already existing opportu

nities that can be exploited through new business venturing, regardless of the
resulting innovative value of these opportunities. Notwithstanding, in some
cases when entrepreneurship and innovation indicators were measured, some
findings suggest a negative relationship between the two concepts (Marcotte,
2011; Anokhin and Wincent, 2012).
From another perspective, several researches investigated the entre
preneurship innovation linkage by adopting macroeconomic approach. For
instance Qian and Haynes (2013) examined small business innovation research
program (SBIR) in the U.S to evaluate its efficacy and its impact on economic
development. Corona-Trevino (2016) studied entrepreneurship in an open
national innovation system (ONIS) to assess how highly developed the Mexican
ONIS is. The research of Huggins and Thompson (2015) was based on the net
work theory to propose a conceptual model incorporating knowledge spill
overs, entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth. Modrego et al. (2015)
tested empirically a model of regional innovation based on the matching of
research and entrepreneurial skills in Chile. Hsu et al. (2014) used a blended
view of corporate entrepreneurship and operations capability as enablers of
innovation. The authors’ survey used data on ASEAN countries and found pos
itive link between corporate entrepreneurship and innovation.
Few studies adopted microeconomic perspective and researches are still
emerging in this area. De la Vega (2016) examined corporate entrepreneurship,

entrepreneurship orientation and innovative outcomes and how they affect

firm performance of SME in Colombia. The research has found out strong links
between innovation, EO and firm performance. Matejun (2016) analyzed the
role of technology entrepreneurship in the development of innovativeness of
SME in Poland. The findings suggest positive link between entrepreneurship
and innovation.
This literature review suggests that extant research on innovation and
entrepreneurship linkage remains inconclusive and there is substantial diver
gence on key issues. Entrepreneurship and innovation are complex concepts
that necessitate further elucidation and empirical research to establish con
ceptual models and explanatory theories (Wiengarten et al., 2013). How entre
preneurs harness innovation to stimulate their entrepreneurship activities and
ventures remains under researched area in literature. Most researches used
quantitative approach and few used qualitative case studies. Furthermore,
research on developing countries is scarce and particularly studies on African
countries are lacking.
Therefore, in order to fill literature gaps, our research questions can be for
mulated as follows:
RQ1. How do entrepreneurs exploit opportunities and innovation?
RQ2. What type of obstacles hampers entrepreneurs’ innovation initiatives?
A field research is necessary. Morocco is a developing country and it
seemed to be an appropriate research field because of its central position
in the European and African markets. Moreover, Morocco currently receives
33% of its direct investments from the multinational firms that have turned
toward North Africa (UNCTAD, 2014) and has concluded free trade agreements

with the United States, the European Union, Turkey, and Canada, all of which
seems to indicate that this country is increasingly being integrated into the
global economy.
According to the global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM, 2015), the
Moroccan rate of participation in entrepreneurial activity is very high (Just over
9% of the adult population was actively trying to start a new business in 2009
and almost 7% owned a “baby” business less than 42 months old). This data
indicates dynamism in entrepreneurship activity in Morocco.
METHODOLOGY
In this study, qualitative research was undertaken to gain a deeper under
standing of how entrepreneurs use innovation in their activities.
Based on the five steps proposed by Stuart et al. (2002), a summary of the
empirical work is provided in Table 1.
The case study analysis comprised the following four steps: (1) case study
selection and classification, (2) interview protocol, (3) data collection, and
(4) analysis and interpretation.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Data Stage 5

Research Instrument Data Analysis Dissemination
Question Development Gathering
RQ1. How do Case study of 8 Semi- Crosscase Construct
entrepreneurs exploit Entrepreneurs structured analysis validity,
opportunities and interviews, external
innovation? company validity
RQ2. What type of reports, and reliability
obstacles hampers articles in
entrepreneurs’ press and
innovation initiatives? websites
Table 1. Case study method
Data gathering
As suggested by Flyvbjerg (2001), the cases for small samples need to be
selected on the basis of the expectations for their information content in order
to maximize the utility of the information. A preliminary sample was thus
formed by drawing from a database on Moroccan companies. This database
has been compiled from a previous research on entrepreneurship initiatives of
Moroccan companies. Our selection criteria were as follows:
–– The companies had to be actively engaged in innovative
ventures and activities (i.e introducing new products and
services, new marketing approaches); and
–– The companies had to be of different size, in different indus
try sectors, and of different ages (years of establishment).

A preliminary sample of 31 companies was selected as the output of this
phase. Subsequently, we contacted these companies by phone and e-mail to
determine their willingness to participate in the study. We followed the prin
ciple of information saturation to define the number of interviews we had to
do (Strauss, 1987). Ultimately, we were able to interview 9 entrepreneurs that
agreed to participate in this case study (see Table 2).
These semi-structured interviews lasted an average of one hour and were
undertaken by the researchers themselves. Interviews were conducted indi
vidually, by phone, or face-to-face, and were transcribed. We agreed to main
tain company anonymity to encourage openness in the responses (companies
are labeled with letters from A to H in the tables).
We developed an interview guide to define the main themes to discuss with
top managers. We asked questions about managers’ innovation issues and
processes, and the obstacles to these practices. The objective of this interview
guide was to capture the variety of respondents’ innovation practices and the
factors that influence such practices. In particular, our interview guide covered
the following topics: (1) presentation of the company (activities, sites, size, and
so on); (2) definition and vision for entrepreneurship activities (in general and
for the company); (3) innovative actions implemented by the company (if rele
vant); (4) reasons for implementing innovative actions in the company (if rel
evant); (5) assessment of the opportunity exploitation in the company: results
and difficulties (if relevant).

Case Activity Profile Size* Year of Inter-

establish- viewee
ment
A Dairy An agricultural cooperative Large 1987 CEO
products founded in 1987 that specializes in (29 years)
agriculture and dairies sector. The
company is located in southern
Morocco and distributes its products
throughout the country. It has a
capital of 14 million Euros and
employs over 3,300 people.
B Poultry The company launched one of the Large 2000 CEO
industry first modern slaughterhouses in (16 years)
Morocco. With an investment of 1.2
million Euros in advanced technol
ogy, the firm plant yields more than
1500 chickens a day. The company
delivers its products to retail shops,
hotels and restaurants.
C Publicity A publicity and event organization Small 2013 CEO
public limited company. The (3 years)
company takes actively part in
organizing several national arts and
music festivals.
D Packag A Moroccan packaging company Large 1959 CEO
ing with a capital of 5 million Euros (57 years)
and 500 employees that specializes
in manufacturing citrus and

vegetables packaging. It exports to
Europe, North America, Scandinavia
and Africa.
E Electric The firm is specializing in electrical Medium 2008 CEO
ity installation. The company’s work (12 years)
force is currently of 130 people.
F Metal The company specializes in the Small 2010 CEO
industry manufacture and sale of aluminum. (6 years)
The personnel of the company are
15 people and its capital is 10000
Euros.
G Real A real estate company that belongs Large 2007 CEO
estate to a large Holding of 14 subsidiaries (9 years)
devel and 43 agencies whose turnover
opement exceeds 650 million Euros.
H Tourism Created in 2009, this company aims Small 2009 CEO
to promote ecotourism by enabling (5 years)
tourists to discover southern
Moroccan culture coupled with
environmental protection.
*Company size is estimated by turnover and number of employees.
Table 2. Characteristics of Moroccan companies interviewed

Our sample is composed of 3 small companies, 4 large companies and one

medium company. The entrepreneurs interviewed operate in several sectors:
primary (agriculture), secondary (packaging, metal industries) and tertiary
(electricity, tourism, real estate, publicity). With the exception of the cases A,
B and E who have relatively old age, most of the companies have been created
recently.
All cases examined were interested in innovative projects, allocated
resources to innovations, and adopted strategic vision with respect to innova
tion and entrepreneurship. They also shared an open attitude to new ideas and
new ventures.
Interview data were recorded and transcribed. The data were analyzed by
reading the transcripts to draw out key themes adding layers of detail to the
analysis. A thematic content analysis on the collected discourses was per
formed using this method (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
We classified the emerging themes into three main categories, which were
defined as: (i) Innovative practices (ii) Importance of innovation in entrepre
neurship and (iii) Obstacles to innovation.
FINDINGS
Innovative practices

According to interviewees innovations initiatives comprise:
1. Product innovations—introduction of a good or ser
vice offered by the company that is new or significantly
improved with respect to its characteristics or intended
uses. This includes significant improvements in technical
specifications, components and/or materials and func
tional characteristics.
2. Process (including marketing process) innovations—the
implementation of a new or significantly improved produc
tion, marketing or delivery method. This includes signifi
cant changes in techniques, equipment, IT, software and
also includes marketing solutions such as product place
ment, product promotion or pricing.
3. Organization and management innovations—the imple
mentation of a new organizational or management con
cepts and methods in the firm’s business practices,
workplace organisation or external relations of the com
pany.
4. Technology innovations—the implementation of new (or
improved) technologies that are developed and brought
into use. This includes solutions in research, development,
demonstration, and deployment of various technologies.

Overall, we notice that Moroccan entrepreneurs seem to follow a pattern of

innovation similar to what previous researches have described in other con
texts. These findings are in line with previous researches on innovation prac
tices (Sagar and van der Zwaan, 2006; Damanpour and Aravind, 2012).
A B C D E F G H
Product innovation * * * * * *
Process innovation * * * * * * *
Management/organizational innovation * * * * *
Technology innovation * * * *
Table 3. Innovative practices
The firms that initiated all or most categories of innovation include cases
A, B, D and G. Companies like C, F and H had only innovation in two categories
(product, process) and (process, management) while E had only one innovation
linked to technology.
The results indicate that the firms that were able to initiative innovation in
product, process, management and technology were mostly large companies
(A, B, D and G) while small and medium firms had innovation limited to 2 or
1 category. Although the scope of innovation cannot be assessed thoroughly
nor compared easily between firms as sectors, organizational and contextual
conditions vary, we note that these results might indicate an influence of com
panies’ size on their innovation initiative. The results of previous studies (e.g.
Dutta, Lanvin, Wunsch-Vincent, 2015) indicate that the level of innovativeness
in SMEs is lower than the level presented by large enterprises, and engage
ment in innovation and implementing innovative solutions decreases with the

size of the company. One of the major weaknesses of small businesses in this
regard is a significant shortage of resources, both financial and other than
financial (as compared to large enterprises), which limits the scope of opera
tions, level of marketing, research and development, investment activities and,
as a result the level of innovation (Qian, Marcus, Li, 2014; Block, Fisch, Hahn,
Sandner, 2015).
The table 4 summaries the approaches to opportunity deployment of the
cases:
A B C D E F G H
« Pure » OD * *
« Pure » OC * *
Both * * * *
*OD : opportunity discovering

**OC : opportunity creation
Table 4. Approach to opportunity of examined cases
According to the interviewees’ responses, we find three categories of entre

preneurs: the ones who relate to the Schumpeterian model based on OC or the
Kirznerian model based on OD and the ones who combine the two models

(entrepreneurs who actively search for innovations and who exploited already
existing opportunities).
We note that “pure” OC concerns two cases (H and C). These cases relate
to entrepreneurs in recent small size companies operating in tertiary sector
(services).
Cases that assert exploiting opportunities based on OC and OD conjointly
concern four cases (A, B, E and F). These are companies with different sizes:
small; medium and large but they operate in industrial sector.
The “pure” OD concerns the third group of firms (D and G) who are large
firms established several years ago and active in industrial and service sec
tors.
These results might suggest that size, age and specific characteris
tics influence opportunity exploitation and innovation. These findings are in
line with previous researches that demonstrated the influence of contex
tual aspects on innovation and entrepreneurship (De la Vega, 2016; Matejun,
2016).
Importance of innovation in entrepreneurship

The interviewees were asked to describe how important innovation is for their
entrepreneurship activities (Table 5).
Cases Innovation and entrepreneurship’s Importance of innovation

linkage for entrepreneurial activity

A “Innovation has helped us a lot in “Being innovative is essential to
our entrepreneurship by enabling become an entrepreneur”
us to build a strong brand and
corporate reputation”
B “Innovation is the major key of “Being innovative is a prerequisite to
growth… we haven’t stopped become an entrepreneur”
developing our business by
innovating in new ventures”
C “In terms of creativity and “Being innovative is not a prerequisite
knowledge, the innovative tools to become an entrepreneur. A
have enabled us to have a better company might provide new products
cooperation with our partners and services but there are other
and to better understand our firms who provide services similar to
customers’ needs” existing offer on the market”
D “Innovation has helped us to “Entrepreneurship necessitates
become competitive” innovation”
E “Entrepreneurship and innovation “Entrepreneurship does not
are closely linked. The project necessarily requires innovation”
idea is often generated by
innovation tools”
F “Innovation helps in promoting “Being innovative stimulates new
our entrepreneurial activities” horizons”

G “Innovation generated a growth “Innovation is not a perquisite to

in clients orders and helped us to entrepreneurship”
differentiate our offer”
I “There is a crucial influence of “Innovation is absolutely necessary”
innovation in our activity. The
concept itself of ecotourism was
unheard of in Morocco before we
launched our venture”
Table 5. Importance of innovation for case studies
The interviewees’ responses stress the importance of innovation for entre

preneurs. The linkage between the two concepts seems to be substantial
and significant according to several entrepreneurs. Innovativeness is seen
as one of the key factors in achieving success and increasing effectiveness of
Moroccan examined cases. It seems that innovation might allow firms compa
nies to build a permanent competitive advantage, mostly through such positive
effects as: increasing quality and effectiveness, limiting costs, increasing cus
tomer loyalty, internationalization of operations of modernizing management
processes and methods. These findings confirm previous researches on inno
vation (Cassiman, Golovko, Martínez-Ros, 2010; Rosenbusch, Brinckmann,
Bausch, 2011).
Innovation is a key for growth and competitiveness according to three cases
(B, D and F). Nevertheless, there are cases of entrepreneurs who think that it
is not necessary to be innovative to become a successful entrepreneur (C, E
and G).
Overall, these results seem to indicate the ambiguous nature of entrepre

neurship and innovation linkage. Although the interviews acknowledged that
these concepts are distinctive and different, several entrepreneurs state that
innovation and entrepreneurship overlap sometimes in terms of objectives
and processes.
Obstacles to innovation
The interviewees were asked to describe the obstacles that hinder innovation
in their entrepreneurship activities (Table 6).
A B C D E F G H
Internal Lack of funding * * * *
Limited R&D budget *
High cost of innovation * *
Lack of strategy *
Lack of skills and capabilities * * *
External Fear of change from actors involved *
Lack of suitable innovation culture * * *
Table 6. Obstacles to innovation of Moroccan companies interviewed

The interviewees’ responses indicate two types of obstacles to innovation:

internal and external. Most of the obstacles are internal (lack of funding, costs,
lack of strategy, lack of capabilities).
The main obstacles to innovation are luck of funding and costs which indi
cates the inherent difficulties of firms and entrepreneurs in Morocco to fund
their projects. There are also external obstacles related to fear of change
and lack of stimulating innovation culture. According to several interviewees,
their innovative actions are hampered by lack of involvement from the other
partners in the process (personnel, customers, suppliers…). This change
resistance is what compels some entrepreneurs to limit the scope of their
innovation because they cannot implement it fully or fulfill some of their plans.
From another perspective, the lack of partners’ involvement that was cited as
an obstacle to innovative initiatives of examined cases highlights the need of
inter-firm cooperation in order to develop successful innovation. Indeed, the
impact of partners’ collaboration in initiating more elaborate innovation has
been demonstrated in previous researches (Braun, 2015). Ultimately, these
results indicate the complex nature of obstacles hindering innovation of the
examined cases.
DISCUSSION
Regarding RQ1 i.e. How do entrepreneurs exploit opportunities and innovation?
The findings indicate three types of entrepreneurs: “pure” OC, pure” OD and
cases that assert exploiting opportunities based on the combination of OC and

OD. These findings confirm the previous results of de Jong and Marsili (2011).
Furthermore, we found out that innovation plays a major role for entrepre
neurs, which confirms also the findings of previous researches (Zhao, 2005;
Matejun, 2016; De la Vega, 2016).
Concerning RQ2 i.e. What obstacles hinder entrepreneurs’ innovation ini-
tiatives? The findings indicate two types of obstacles internal and external.
Lack of funds, high costs, lack of core capabilities and appropriate cultural/
environmental conditions seem to hinder innovation initiatives of entre
preneurs. Overall, several obstacles are linked to the lack of companies’
capabilities necessary for innovation and entrepreneurship. According to
Schumpeter (1954) the actors that drive innovation and the economy are com
panies that have the resources and the capital to invest in research and devel
opment. Therefore, the Schumpeterian perspective considers firms as an
idiosyncratic bundle of core capabilities that need to be tapped and deployed
to enhance innovation prowess. Therefore, the lack of such capabilities and
resources can only hinder innovation initiatives of companies.
The lack of appropriate innovation culture constitutes one of the obsta
cles mentioned by the examined cases. The issue of innovation culture has
always been ambiguous. Organizational culture has a profound influence on
entrepreneurial activities and innovation in organizations. Culture is a pri
mary determinant of entrepreneurship and innovation (Herbig et al., 1994).
Organizational culture also has an important impact on entrepreneurship and

innovation (Slevin and Covin, 1990). In extant literature, organizational culture

has been defined in different ways. Broadly, it could be defined as the rooted
values and beliefs that are shared by people in an organization (Zhao, 2005).
Organizational culture can affect entrepreneurship and innovation through
socialization processes that influence workplace behavior, and through struc
tures, policies, and procedures that are shaped by the basic values and beliefs
of the organization (Martin and Terblanche, 2003). Ahmed (1998) viewed inno
vation as an environment and a culture that drives value creation in an organi
zation. Slevin and Covin (1990) emphasized the importance of an appropriate
organizational culture in developing effective entrepreneurial and innova
tion behavior to address market dynamics. Overall, there is a need to assess
how Moroccan companies have developed an organizational culture that pro
motes and rewards new ideas and new ways of doing business. Many elements
regarding hierarchy and the management structure of the organizations and
how they affect innovation can be studied.
Based on our findings and extant literature (Schumpeter and Kirzner mod
els of entrepreneurship conceptualization), we present the following concep
tual model:
New
entry
Entrepreneurship

orientation Opportunity Opportunity
Discovery Creation
Innovation Obstacles
Influence
Figure 1. Innovation and entrepreneurship conceptual model
Entrepreneurship orientation is associated with individual and organiza

tional attributes, such as autonomy, proactiveness, competitive aggressive
ness, innovativeness, and risk taking (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) all of which
have important implications for innovation. EO supports innovation in organi
zations, and innovation promotes new entry or new venture creation—a vehicle
for commercialization of innovations. Accordingly, the process of entrepre
neurship is widely considered to stimulate competition and drive innova
tion (Audretsch and Thurik, 2001; Acs 2002, 2006; Powell, 2007; Huggins and
Williams, 2011).

CONCLUSION
This paper provides insights about the innovative initiatives of Moroccan entre
preneurs and the main obstacles to them. The results of this paper could be of
great help to entrepreneurs in Morocco and elsewhere. With regards to entre
preneurship, the following areas should be considered by Moroccan entrepre
neurs:
–– Creating an organizational culture based on knowledge,
–– Creating an attitude of openness to knowledge and new
solutions among employees,
–– Listening to ideas submitted by employees and imple
menting them,
–– Lowering obstacles preventing the implementation of
changes and ideas coming from outside the company.
With regards to the area of integration of science and business, focus has to
be placed on organizing teamwork in cooperation with employees of research
and development institutions, ensuring that employees can access knowledge
(project databases, experts) required to perform the tasks they are entrusted
with and building networks allowing for the exchange of knowledge between
employees, scientific institutions and organizations that support the transfer
of technologies. With regards to effects of technology and innovation, focus
can be placed on such aspects as: analyzing the environment with regards to
demand for products and services which the company could supply, analyzing
entities present in the market (clients, suppliers, competitors, etc.) in order to
obtain information required to implement new technologies and receive feed

back from clients concerning the implemented products/services. The area of
internal technological and innovation potential should be enhanced through
the following actions:
–– Identification of the needs of the company with regards to
knowledge, competence, technology;
–– Determining the current state of knowledge in the enter
prise and gaps in intellectual resources;
–– Building the company’s own research back office;
–– Implementing procedures of document tasks and projects
that are underway at a given moment;
–– Promoting and rewarding knowledge sharing;
–– Determining the manner of storing, codifying, protecting
knowledge and criteria of providing access to such knowl
edge.
We developed a conceptual model to investigate further entrepreneurial
innovation and the main obstacles to such initiatives. It would be interesting
to test our conceptual model of entrepreneurial innovation in other contexts.
Further research should explore how entrepreneurs use innovation as a source
of competitive advantage. There are two main limitations to the findings pre
sented in this paper. First, given the research methodology, the empirical study
was undertaken on a small sample of Moroccan entrepreneurs. Because this

study is qualitative, further statistical support is needed to justify wider gen

eralization of its findings. Also, the possibility of generalizing the present find
ings to countries beyond Morocco is limited by the fact that data were collected
exclusively there. Indeed, the practices and obstacles that we explored may
change across countries because entrepreneurial innovation may be bound to
cultural contingencies. Studies might therefore do well to investigate entre
preneurial innovation in developing countries other than Morocco to increase
the external validity of the results.
Despite these limitations, we do think that the validity of the obtained
results is not in doubt.
Furthermore, the analysis presented in this paper is based on semi struc
tured interviews aiming to analyse the current innovative practice of entrepre
neurs. A longitudinal study aiming to explore how innovative entrepreneurship
evolves over the years would be complementary to our work.
REFERENCES
Acs, Z.J. (2006). How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations 1 (1), p. 97-107.
Acs, Z.J. (2002). Innovation and the Growth of Cities, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., Braunerhjelm, P. and Carlsson, B. (2009). The Knowledge Spillover
Theory of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 32(1), p. 15-30.
Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Manage-
ment 1 (1), p. 30-43.

Alvarez, S. A. and Barney. J. B. (2007). Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of
Entrepreneurial Action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (1–2), p. 11-26.
Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B. and Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: The
implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research.
Organization Science 24 (1), p. 301-317.
Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B. and Young, S. L. (2010). Debates in entrepreneurship: Opportunity for
mation and implications for the field of entrepreneurship. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.),
Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (2nd ed.,
pp. 23-46). New York: Springer.
Anokhin, S. and Wincent, J. (2012). Start-up rates and innovation: a cross-country examination.
Journal of International Business Studies 43(1), p. 41-60.
Audretsch, D. B. and Thurik, A. R. (2001). What is new about the new economy: Sources of growth
in the managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and Corporate Change 10, p. 267-315.
Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and Industry Evolution, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management
Review 33, p. 328–40.
Block, J. H., Fisch, C. O., Hahn. A. and Sandner, P. G. (2015). Why do SMEs File Trademarks?
Insights from Firms in Innovative Industries. Research Policy 44 (10) p. 1915-1930.
Brazeal, D. V., and Herbert, T. T. (1999). The Genesis of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 24(1), p. 29-45.
Brem, A. (2011). Linking innovation and entrepreneurship—literature overview and introduction of
a process-oriented framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Manage-
ment 14, p. 6-35.
Buenstorf, G. (2007). Creation and pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities: An evolutionary
economics perspective. Small Business Economics 28, p. 323-327.

Cassiman, B., Golovko, E., Martínez-Ros, E. (2010). Innovation, Exports and Productivity. Interna-
tional Journal of Industrial Organization 28 (4), p. 372-376.
Corona-Treviño, L. (2016). Entrepreneurship in an open national innovation system (ONIS): a proposal
for Mexico. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 5, p. 22, DOI 10.1186/s13731-016-0049-5
Crossan, M. and Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovations:
a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies 47(6), p. 1154-1191.
Damanpour, F. and Aravind, D. (2012). Organizational Structure and Innovation Revisited: From
Organic to Ambidextrous Structure, [in:] M. Mumford (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity,
Elsevier—Academic Press, London.
De Jong, J. P. and Marsili, O. (2015). The distribution of Schumpeterian and Kirznerian opportuni
ties. Small Business Economics 44(1), p. 19-35.
De la Vega, R. (2016). Corporate Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Innovative
Outcomes: Shedding Some Light on the Effect of the Focus of Innovation, United States Association
for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Conference Proceedings, Boca Raton.
Dutta, S., Lanvin, B. and Wunsch-Vincent, S. (eds.). (2015). The Global Innovation Index 2015.
Effective Innovation Policies for Development, Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World
Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva.
Eckhardt, J. T. and Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management
29, p. 333-349.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). (2015). Global Report, online: http://www.babson.edu/
Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/gem/Documents/GEM%202015-2016%20
Global%20Report.pdf
Herbig, P., Golden, E. J. and Dunphy, A. (1994). The relationship of structure to entrepreneurial and
innovative success. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 12 (9), p. 37-48.
Hoskisson, R. E, Covin, J., Volberda, H. W. and Johnson, R. A. (2011). Revitalizing Entrepreneurship:
The Search for New Research Opportunities. Journal of Management Studies (48) 6, p. 1141-1168.
Hsu, C., Tana, K., Jayaramb, J. and Laosiri hong thong, T. (2014). Corporate entrepreneurship,
operations core competency and innovation in emerging economies. International Journal of
Production Research 52 (18), p. 5467-5483.

Huggins, R. and Williams, N. (2011). Entrepreneurship and regional competitiveness: the role and
progression of policy. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(9/10), p. 907-932.
Huggins, R. and Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network
theory. Small Business Economics 45 (1), p. 103-128.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A. and Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the
construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, (29), p. 963-89.
Iversen, J., Jorgensen, R., Malchow-Moller, N. and Schjerning, B. (2005). Defining and Measuring
Entrepreneurship, Centre for Economic and Business Research.
Khanfar, N., Loudon, D., and Mujtaba, B. G. (2010). Santorini Restaurant: One Entrepreneur’s
Start-Up Adventure. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 1(2), p. 70-74.
Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press.
Kirzner, I. (1989). Discovery, Capitalism, and Distributive Justice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Creative and/or alertness: a reconsideration of the Schumpeterian entrepre
neur, The Review of Austrian Economics 11 (1-2), p. 5-17.
Korsgaard, S. and Anderson, A. R. (2011). Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation,
International Small Business Journal 29 (2), p. 135-151.
Kuratko, D. and Audretsch, D. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship: exploring different perspectives
of an emerging concept. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33, p. 1-17.
Lassen, A. H. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship: an empirical study of the importance of strategic
considerations in the creation of radical innovation. International Research Journal 5(2), p. 109-131.
Lewrick, M., Maktoba, O. and Williams, R. (2010). Growing market strengths. Management
of innovation in high-growth SMEs. in: Nwankwo, S., Gbadamosi, A. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship
marketing. Principles and practice of SME marketing, Routledge, p. 196 -210.

Luke, B., Verreynne, M. -L. and Kearins, K. (2007). Measuring the benefits of entrepreneurship at
different levels of analysis. Journal of Management & Organization 13, p. 312-330.
Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21 (1), p. 135-72.
Marcotte, C. (2011). Country entrepreneurial profiles: assessing the individual and organizational
levels of entrepreneurship across countries. Journal of Enterprising Culture 19 (2), p. 169-200.
Martin, E. C. and Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity
and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), p. 64-74.
Matejun, M. (2016). Role of technology entrepreneurship in the development of innovativeness of
small and mediumsized enterprises. Management 20 (1), p. 167-183.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods.
2d Edition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Modrego, F., McCann, P., Foster, W. E., and Olfert, M. R. (2015). Regional entrepreneurship and
innovation in Chile: A knowledge matching approach. Small Business Economics 44(3), p. 685–703.
Nasution, H. N., Mavondo, F. T., Matanda, M. J. and Ndubisi, N. O. (2011). Entrepreneurship: Its
relationship with market orientation and learning orientation and as antecedents to innovation
and customer value. Industrial Marketing Management 40(3), p. 336-345.
O’Connor, A. (2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting
government and economic purposes. Journal of Firm Venturing 28, p. 546-563.
Powell, B. (2007). The environment of productive entrepreneurship: evidence from Asia and the
Pacific Rum. Indian Journal of Economics & Business, p. 79-92.
Qian, G., Marcus, A. and Li, L. (2014). Should Small Exporting Technology Enterprises Use Niche,
Strategic Alliances, or Both? International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development
13 (1), p. 21-36.
Qian, H. and Haynes, K. E. (2014). Beyond innovation: The Small Business Innovation Research
program as entrepreneurship policy. Journal of Technology Transfer 39, p. 524-543.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J. and Bausch, A. (2011). Is Innovation always beneficial? a Meta-
analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business
Venturing 26 (4), p. 441-457.

Sagar, A. D. and van der Zwaan, B. (2006). Technological Innovation in the Energy Sector: R&D,
Deployment, and Learning-by-Doing. Energy Policy 34 (17), p. 2601-2608.
Sarason, Y., Dean, T. and Dillard, J. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and
opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing 21, p. 286-305.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Theory of Economic Development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit,
interest and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles. A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the
Capitalist Process. New York and London: McGraw-Hill.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of Economic Analysis. London: Allen and Unwin.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Brother Publishers,
New York, NY.
Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the promise of
entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 37, p. 10–20.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review 25(1), p. 217.
Slevin, D. P. and Covin, J. G. (1990). Juggling entrepreneurial style and organizational structure-
How to get your act together. Sloan Management Journal, p. 43-53.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stuart, I., Mccutcheon, D., Handfield, R., Mclachlin, R. and Samson, D. (2002). Effective case
research in operations management: a process perspective. Journal of Operations Management
20 (5), p. 419-33.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M. and Flores, M. (2010). The nature of entrepreneurial
experience, business failure and comparative optimism. Journal of Business Venturing 25,
p. 541‑55.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2014). World Investment Report, United
Nations Publications, available at <unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf>
Villa, A., and Bruno, G. (2013). Promoting SME Cooperative Aggregations: Main Criteria and Con
tractual Models. International Journal of Production Research 51 (23-24), p. 7439-7447.
Welter, F. and Lasch, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship research in Europe: Taking stock and looking
forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32 (2), p. 241-248.
Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B., Cheng, E. and Chavez, R. (2013). Taking an innovative approach to
quality practices: exploring the importance of a company’s innovativeness on the success of TQM
practices. International Journal of Production Research 51 (10), p. 3055-3074.
Zahra, S. A. (2008). Being Entrepreneurial and Market Driven: Implications for Company
Performance. Journal of Strategy and Management 1 (2), p. 125-142.
Zhao, F. (2005). Exploring the synergy between entrepreneurship and innovation. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 11 (1), p. 25-41.
Ilias MAJDOULINE est professeur d’entrepreneuriat et gestion de projet dans de

nombreux établissements au Maroc et en Europe. Il est également Directeur de
l’Ecole Polytechnique de l’Université Internationale d’Agadir/Universiapolis au
Maroc. Il a publié ses travaux dans de nombreux ouvrages collectifs et revues
internationales.
Jamal EL BAZ est professeur habilité en Logistique et SCM à l’université Ibn Zohr
au Maroc. Ses travaux de recherches ont été publiés dans de nombreuses revues

à comité de lecture en Logistique et Management.
Fedwa JEBLI est professeur en Gestion des Ressources Humaines à l’université

Internationale de Rabat. Ses axes de recherche portent sur la gestion des
ressources humaines et le management des organisations.

Innovative Entrepreneurship Morocco

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Innovative Entrepreneurship Morocco

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Entrepreneurship orientation and innovation linkage: the

case of Moroccan firms

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse

Découvrir le sommaire de ce numéro, suivre la revue par email, s’abonner...

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

Mots-clés : entrepreneuriat, Innovation, orientation entrepreneuriale au Maroc,

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 27

countries and few re­­ entrepreneurship orien­

Keywords: entrepreneurship, Innovation, qualitative study, semi-structured inter­

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

28 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

is an under-researched area in general. Second, it provides insight into the

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 29

Consequently, several researches have investigated how entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurship, opportunity and innovation

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

30 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 31

entrepreneurship orientation and innovative outcomes and how they affect

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

32 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Data Stage 5

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 33

Case Activity Profile Size* Year of Inter-

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

*Company size is estimated by turnover and number of employees.

Table 2. Characteristics of Moroccan companies interviewed

34 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

Our sample is composed of 3 small companies, 4 large companies and one

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 35

Overall, we notice that Moroccan entrepreneurs seem to follow a pattern of

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

*OD : opportunity discovering

According to the interviewees’ responses, we find three categories of entre­

36 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

Importance of innovation in entrepreneurship

Cases Innovation and entrepreneurship’s Importance of innovation

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 37

G “Innovation generated a growth “Innovation is not a perquisite to

The interviewees’ responses stress the importance of innovation for entre­

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

38 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

The interviewees’ responses indicate two types of obstacles to innovation:

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 39

innovation (Slevin and Covin, 1990). In extant literature, organizational culture

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

Entrepreneurship orientation is associated with individual and organiza­

40 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 41

study is qualitative, further statistical support is needed to justify wider gen­

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

42 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 23/11/2023 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 41.143.72.195)

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 43

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 27

countries and few re entrepreneurship orien

Keywords: entrepreneurship, Innovation, qualitative study, semi-structured inter

28 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 29

30 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 31

32 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 33

34 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 35

*OD : opportunity discovering

According to the interviewees’ responses, we find three categories of entre

36 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 37

The interviewees’ responses stress the importance of innovation for entre

38 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 39

Entrepreneurship orientation is associated with individual and organiza

40 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 41

study is qualitative, further statistical support is needed to justify wider gen

42 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 43

44 projectique / projectics / proyéctica – n° 25

proyéctica / projectics / projectique – n° 25 45