| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Last Published | Before July 04, 2022 08:34 AM | After November 08, 2023 09:29 AM |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After This paper studies the implications of an approach in which managers and entrepreneurs make decisions under uncertainty by formulating and testing theories such as scientists do. By combining the results of four Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) involving 754 start-ups and smallmedium enterprises and 10,730 data points over time, we find that managers and entrepreneurs who adopt this approach terminate more projects, do not experiment with many new ideas, and perform better. We develop a model that explains these results. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Camuffo, A., Gambardella, A., Messinese, D., Novelli, E., Paolucci, E., & Spina, C. (2021). A scientific approach to innovation management: theory and evidence from four field experiments. |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://repec.cepr.org/repec/cpr/ceprdp/DP15972.pdf |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After Identifying the most promising business ideas is key to the introduction of novel firms, but predicting their success can be difficult. We argue that if entrepreneurs adopt a scientific approach by formulating problems clearly, developing theories about the implications of their actions, and testing these theories, they make better decisions. In particular, this approach helps entrepreneurs make more precise predictions of the value of their idea and to spot new ideas with higher expected returns. We also examine the mechanisms with which the scientific approach works. Specifically, we posit that scientific entrepreneurs are more precise initially, and less precise later on because they envision new version of their business idea that are worth assessing. Using a field experiment with 250 nascent entrepreneurs attending a pre-acceleration program, we provide evidence consistent with these mechanisms. We teach the treated group to formulate the problem scientifically and to develop and test theories about their actions, while the control group follows a standard training approach. We collect 18 data points on the decision-making and performance of all entrepreneurs for 14 months. Results show that increased precision in the assessment of the value of the business idea of treated entrepreneurs raises the probability that they close their startups. Scientific entrepreneurs are also more likely to see new opportunities with higher positive outcomes which prompt them to pivot to these new ideas and perform better. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Camuffo, A., Gambardella, A., & Spina, C. (2020). Small changes with big impact: Experimental evidence of a scientific approach to the decision-making of entrepreneurial firms. |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://repec.cepr.org/repec/cpr/ceprdp/DP14909.pdf |