子谦译文｜创业教什么：六种主流创业理论的对比研究

Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean startup, and design thinking
效果逻辑理论与发现驱动型规划、规范性创业方法、商业计划、精益创业方法和设计思维的比较
子谦译文
英文原文作者： 亚沙尔 · 曼苏里 马丁 · 拉凯乌斯
文章来源：www.idunn.no
翻译：高文、朱燕空
Abstract :There has been a growing interest among entrepreneurs and students in explicit guidance for entrepreneurial action. Both scholars and practitioners have responded to this demand by suggesting a variety of entrepreneurial methods. This has led, however , to a prolife ration of relatively unrelated methods with varying degrees of rigor and relevance. In an attempt to organize and bring clarity to the range and diversity of entrepreneurial methods, this article compares effectuation with five other entrepreneurial methods along nine conceptual dimensions. Through the application of two conceptual frameworks, core underpinnings of each method are highlighted. In addition to revealing similarities and differences between the methods, the study identifies somekey implications for theory, practice, policy, and education. The strengths of effectuation on a theoretical level could be used to develop other entrepreneurial methods.Conversely, the strengths of other entrepreneurial methods could be used to shore up the potential weaknesses of effectuation,such as a lack of behavioral tactics and limited applicability in later stages of venture development. Findings from this article can thus aid entrepreneurship scholars and practitioners to improve their prescriptions and can create new avenues for developing entrepreneurial methods.
摘要：创业者和学生对创业行为的明确指导越来越感兴趣，因此越来越多的学者和从业者都通过提出各种创业方法来回应这一需求，不过这也导致了一些缺乏严谨性和相关性的方法的比率的激增。为了组织和明确创业方法的范围和多样性，本文从九个概念维度比较了效果逻辑理论与其他五种不同的创业方法。通过应用两个概念框架，突出每种方法的核心基础，除了揭示这些方法之间的异同外，还研究确定了一些理论、实践、政策和教育的关键含义。理论上，效果逻辑理论的优势可以用来发展其他创业方法，反过来，其他创业方法的优势也可以用来弥补它的潜在弱点， 例如缺乏行为策略和在创业发展的后期阶段的有限适用性。因此，本文的发现可以帮助创业者和从业者改进他们的方法，并为发展创业方法开辟新的途径。
Keywords :Entrepreneurial methods. Prescriptive theories. Effectuation. Comparison . Rigor and relevance
关键词： 创业方法 规范性理论 效果逻辑理论 严谨性和相关性

Introduction引言
Prescriptive methods have recently attracted considerable interest in the field of entrepreneurship (Jones and Penaluna 2013). Methods are principles of thought and action that guide the theoretical and practical aspects of human action (cf. Neck and Greene 2011; Mansoori 2017; Romme and Endenburg 2006). A main sourceof prescriptions for entrepreneurs is the widespread scholarly effort to empirically describe and categorize entrepreneurial processes (cf. Romme 2016) and then to transform the results into prescriptive methods (Denyeret al. 2008) for how entrepreneurs should reason and behavein order to create value. A prominent example of an entrepreneurial method is effectuation, presented as a set of heuristics any entrepreneur could use to develop a new venture in the face of uncertainty (Sarasvathy 2001). Another main source of prescriptions for entrepreneurs stems from expert entrepreneurs themselves, who have distilled their personal and idiosyncratic experiences into relatively coherent prescriptive advice. A widespread example is the lean startup methodology, Prescribing that entrepreneurs formulate and test venture hypotheses through interacting with customers (Ries 2011).
在最近的创业领域内，规范型方法引起了人们很大的兴趣。方法是指导人类行动的理论和实践方面的行动原则。创业方法的一个主要来源是广泛的学术努力，即以实证方式描述和分类创业过程，然后将结果转化为规定的方法，说明创业者应该如何推理和行为秩序，进而创造价值。创业方法的一个突出的例子是效果逻辑理论，作为一套启发式的方法，任何创业家都可以在不确定性的情况下创办新的企业。创业者方法的另一个主要来源创业者他们自己，将自己的个人和特殊经验提炼成相对连贯的规范性建议，常见的例子就是精益创业方法，创业者通过与客户的互动来制定和测试风险假设。
Prescriptive methods of entrepreneurship have been criticized, however, for their lackof rigor and relevance. Practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods have met with criticism for lacking theoretical rigor (Wood 2000), which has led to undesirable consequences, such as entrepreneurs giving up prematurely (Heitmann 2014). Scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methodshave been said to lack both practical relevance (Frank and Landstrm 2016) and theoretical rigor (Arend et al. 2015). One shortcoming of methods is a lack of trust worthiness due to the context-specific nature of entrepreneurship and thus the limited applicability of largely untested prescriptions. Another frequently cited shortcoming is a lack of practical usefulness dueto limited concrete actionable advice (Wolf and Rosenberg 2012). An illustrative example is a recent debate concerning effectuation, which has been cast as an underdeveloped theory lacking practical managerial tools and with the potential to lead to dangerous practices among entrepreneurs (Arend et al. 2015). The concern has been that it could tempt entrepreneurs to ignore the risks of competition and to neglect the need for even the most rudimentary planning practices.
然而，规范性创业方法由于缺乏严谨性和相关性而广受批评，以从业者本身为基础的创业方法因缺乏理论严谨性而糟受到批评，这就导致了一些不良后果，比如一些创业者过早的放弃。以学术基础的创业方法被认为既缺乏实践相关性，也缺乏理论严谨性，这个方法的一个缺点是缺乏信任价值，这是受创业的特定背景影响，因此很大程度上限制了大部分未经测试的方法的适用性；另一个经常被提及的缺点是缺乏实用性，因此那些具体可行的建议有限，一个实例就是最近关于效果逻辑理论的辩论，有人认为它是一个欠成熟的理论，是一个缺乏实用性的管理工具，有可能会导致创业者产生危险的行为。更令人担忧的是，它甚至可能会诱使创业者忽视竞争的风险、甚至是最基本的规划做法的必要性。
In an attempt to further the development of the field of entrepreneurial methods, this article compares effectuation in a highly detailed manner with five other entrepreneurial methods. Similarities, differences, strengths, weaknesses, overlaps, and gaps are explored along nine key conceptual dimensions. This process helps organize the field of entrepreneurial methods in a more comprehensible way for both scholars and practitioners. Increased clarity and visibility across the range of entrepreneurial methods may serve as a source of inspiration for work to improve existing entrepreneurial methods as well as to develop new ones. Thus, this article lays a foundation for proponents of entrepreneurial methods to use in future work. Proponents of practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods could increase the theoretical rigor of their prescriptions by drawing on scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods. Similarly, proponents of scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods could use this comparison to increase their practical relevance by drawing on practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods. Works that build on the comparison conducted here can serve as a bridge between different prescriptive endeavors in entrepreneurship thatare developed in relative isolation.
为了进一步发展创业方法领域，本文对效果逻辑理论与其他五种创业方法从九个关键的概念维度从相似性、差异性、优势、劣势、重叠和差距等方面进行了非常详细的比较和探讨，这个过程有助于学者和从业者以更容易理解的方式组织创业方法领域。各种创业方法的清晰度和可见度的提高可以作为一种灵感来源， 促进和改进现有的创业方法并开发新的方法。因此，本文为创业方法的支持者在未来的工作中运用奠定了基础。以实践为基础的创业方法的支持者可以通过借鉴学术基础的创业方法来提高他们方法的理论严谨性。同样，以学术为基础的创业方法的支持者可以利用这种比较，通过借鉴以实践为基础的创业方法来增加其实际意义。在以比较基础上开展的工作，可以作为在相对孤立的情况下开发的不同规范性创业努力之间的一座桥梁。
In order to avoid bias toward any one particular entrepreneurial method, a conceptual framework is developed through an in-depth analysis of effectuation and five other purposefully selected entrepreneurial methods. These are discovery-driven planning (McGrath and MacMillan 1995), prescriptive entrepreneurship (Fiet 2008), business planning (Steinhoff 1971), the lean startup ethodology (Ries 2011), and designthinking (Brown2008). Choices ofentrepreneurial methods were based on the following: citation analysis, appearance on entrepreneurship courses’syllabi (see footnote in Section 2.3), perceived alignment with the definition of entrepreneurial method, and informal inquiries with a number of experienced entrepreneurship researchers around frequency of use in their educational practices. Three entrepreneurial methods with Scholarly origins were included alongside three methods introduced by practitioners. The conceptual framework consists of nine dimensions and is used as a means to elucidate similarities and differences. The discussion will then delve more deeply into the subject of effectuation, contrasting it to the five other entrepreneurial methods.
为了避免偏向任何一种特定的创业方法，本文通过深入分析效果逻辑理论和其他五种有意选择的创业方法之后，建立了一个概念框架，它们分别是发现驱动型规划、规范性创业、商业规划、精益创业方法和设计思维。这些创业方法的选择是基于以下几点：引文分析、创业课程的大纲(见2.3节中脚注)；创业方法定义的一致性，以及一些经验丰富的创业研究人员就其教育领域实践中的有关使用频率而进行的非正式调研。除了这三种由从业者介绍的方法外，还有三种具有学术渊源的创业方法，这个概念框架包括九个维度，用来阐述它们之间的相同点和不同点。接下来的讨论将更深入地探讨效果逻辑理论这一主题，并将其与其他五种创业方法进行对比。
The article proceeds as follows. First, previous liter ature in relation to prescriptive work in entrepreneurship is presented. Then the framework of nine conceptual dimensions is developed in three steps and used for an in-depth comparison between effectuation and five other Established entrepreneurial methods. A number of issues arising from this comparison are discussed, followed by an articulation of implications for theory, practice, policy, and education.
这篇文章的内容如下：首先，介绍了以往与创业规范性工作有关的研究。然后，分三步和根据不同用途构建九大概念维度的框架，并将其与其他五种创业方法进行深入比较，讨论了从这种比较中产生的问题，并阐述了其对理论、实践、政策和教育的影响。

Literature review文献综述
2.1 Descriptive and prescriptive theories of action
行动的描述性和规范型理论
Action theories can be divided into two different types: descriptive and prescriptive (Tsang 1997). Descriptive theories are often highly empirical and describe how individuals think and act in different situations. They frequently outline logical consequences, such as “under condition C, following action A leads to outcome O”(Parsons et al. 1965). By providing such propositions, they allow for predictingthe outcome ofspecificactions when particular conditions are in place. Descriptive theories are judged by their empirical validity, that is, the extent to which they are consistent with the observed behavior (Bell et al. 1988; Tietz 1992).
行动理论可以分为两种不同的类型：描述性的和说明性的。描述性理论通常是高度经验主义的，描述个人在不同的情况下如何思考和行动。他们经常概述逻辑结果，比如“在条件C下，若采用A方案，就会导致结果O”。通过提供这样的命题，它们允许在特定条件出现时预测特定行动的结果。描述性理论是依据其经验的有效性来判断的，即它们与所观察到的行为在多大程度上是一致的。
Prescriptive theories help people decide what to do and how to think in a particular context (Cross and Sproull 2004). A key feature of prescriptive theories is that they are intended to influence and change the behavior of actual people (Bell et al. 1988; March and Smith 1995). Therefore, they often include propositions such as ”inorder to arriveat outcome O under condition C, do action A” intended to improve the quality of human judgment and decision-making. Prescriptive theories are often appreciated for their pragmatic value, in that they help individuals to excel in practice (Bell et al.1988; Tietz 1992). While descriptive theories come in the passive form of “if …
then” propositions, prescriptive theories come in the active form of “in order to …do this^”(Argyris and Schn 1974).
规范性理论帮助人们决定在特定的环境下该做什么以及如何思考，它的一个重要特征是旨在影响和改变实际人群的行为。因此，它们通常包括诸如“为了在条件C下达到结果O，就得做A”之类的命题，以提高人类判断和决策的质量。规范性理论常因其实用价值而受到赞赏，因为它们可以帮助个人在实践中脱颖而出。描述性理论以“如果……那么”命题的被动形式出现，而规范性理论通常以“为了……做这个”的主动形式出现。
2.2Methods as prescriptive theories of action
规范性行为理论的方法
In everyday as well as scientific language, a number of terms and their synonyms have been used to discuss prescriptive theories of action. Some examples are heuristics (Baker and Nelson 2005; Sarasvathy 2001), guidelines (Sull 2004), principles (Ries 2011), approach and techniques (McGrath and MacMillan 1995), framework (Blankand Dorf 2012), practice (Dean and Bowen 1994), process and procedure (Ackoff 1981), model (Fiet 2007), and method (Brown 2008; Ries 2011; Sarasvathy and Venkataraman 2011). For the sake of clarity, the term “method” will be used from this point going forward to address prescriptive theories of action. The term “method” was also chosen because of its ubiquity in academic circles and the fact that it connotes the guiding of actions, giving it both theoretical and practical relevance, and allowing it to function as a unifying term. Although the term “method”is common both in everyday life and scientific discourse, the many different definitions of the term can create confusion and hamper effective communication, warranting the establishment of a clear definition (D’Abate et al. 2003).
在日常语言和科学语言中，许多术语和它们的同义词都被用来讨论规范的行为理论，比如启发式方法、指引式方法、原则、方法和技术、框架图、 实践、 过程和流程、模型和方法。为了明确起见，今后我们将使用“方法”一词来阐述行动的规范性理论。之所以选择“方法”一词还因为它在学术界无处不在：它意味着对行动的指导，使其具有理论和实践的相关性，并可作为一个统一的术语发挥作用。尽管“方法”一词在日常生活和科学论述中都很常见，但对该词的许多不同定义可能会造成混淆，进而阻碍有效的交流，因此就有必要建立一个明确的定义。
Landa (1999, p. 346) conceptualizes method as “a structured system of instructions and/or actions for achieving some goal.” March and Smith (1995) refer to methods as a set of steps necessary to carryout a task. Vincenti (1990) describes a method as a design apparatus that entails various ways of thinking, judging, and eventually doing. In line with this, Dimov (2016, p. 25) suggests that methods can be proposed “in the form of design propositions or principles on the basis of review and synthesis of prior research findings.”Neck et al.(2014, p. 11) define method as “a way of thinking and acting built on a set of assumptions using a portfolio of practices to encourage creating.” By synthesizing definitions for the purpose of this article, a method is defined here as a coherent set of related principles and guidelines of thought and action that help to structure the theoretical and practical aspects of arriving at a set goal (cf. Mansoori 2017). Based on this, an entrepreneurial method is further defined as a coherent set of related principles and guidelines of thought and action that help to structure the theoretical and practicala spects of entrepreneurship (cf. Neck and Greene 2011;Sarasvathy and Venkataraman 2011).
Landa将方法概念化为“一个可以实现某些目标的结构化的指令和/或行动系统，”March和Smith将方法视为执行一项任务所必需的一系列步骤。Vincenti将方法描述为一种设计装置，它包含了各种思考、判断和最终实现的方式。基于这一点，Dimov建议可以这样定义方法：在回顾和综合之前的研究结果的基础上，以设计命题或原则的形式。Neck等人将方法定义为“它是一种建立在一系列的假设的基础上，使用一系列的实践组合来鼓励创造的思考和行动的方式。”为了本文的目的，通过综合各种定义，本文将“方法”定义为：它是一套连贯的思想和行动的相关原则和指导方针，用来帮助构建实现既定目标的理论和实践方面。在此基础上，创业方法就被进一步定义为一套连贯的思想和行动的相关原则和指导方针，帮助构建创业的理论和实践方面。
2.3Entrepreneurial methods
创业方法
Following the proposed definition of entrepreneurial method, several preexisting methods can be classified as such. While some of them are not labeled as methods in the existing literature, the definition used here would qualify them as entrepreneurial methods. This may be the first effort to include methods such as these under the broad heading of entrepreneurial methods, as defined in this article. Although there may be several ways to present the methods, the focus in this section is to provide a brief historical trajectory of their emergence, diffusion, and arrival at the current stage.
根据上面的创业方法的定义，可以将几种已有的方法归类为创业方法。虽然有些方法在现有的文献中并没有被标为方法，但根据这里的定义还是将它们定义为创业方法。这可能是第一次有人尝试将这些方法纳入到本文所定义的创业方法的大标题之下，虽然可能有几种方法来介绍这些方法，但本节的重点是展示它们的出现、扩散和到达当前阶段的简要历史轨迹。
Business planning emerged as a prominent collection of principles and guidelines in the early 1960s and attained widespread acceptance in the 1970s (Ackoff 1981; Porter 1980). It was mainly used to structure the operations of existing firms and guide strategic decisions, but throughout the years, it also served as a useful tool to sign allegitimacy. Therefore, entrepreneurs began using it as a communication tool to attract investment (Karlsson and Honig 2009). The prevailing bias of venture capitalists and other funding agencies a t the time put business planning at the forefront of the agenda for aspiring entrepreneurs (Upton et al. 2001). Numerous “manual books” were published to demonstrate what business planning processes looked like and how aspiring entrepreneurs should go about conducting them. To complement the business planning approach and to adapt it to the conditions of high uncertainty assumed by entrepreneurs, scholars such as McGrath and MacMillan (1995, 2000) proposed a new set of guidelines for using planning strategies in entrepreneurship. These were grounded in a philosophy of incremental development rather than a grand, long-term (often five-year) plan that was formulated before any entrepreneurial activity was even initiated. In their book entitled The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty, they championed experimenting with entrepreneurs’ subjective beliefs and assumptions around doing business that had been taken for granted in business planning practices.
商业计划在1960年代早期作为一个重要的原则和指导方针而出现，并在1970年代获得广泛接受。它主要用于构建公司的业务和指导战略决策。但多年来，它慢慢成为了一个表明忠诚度的有用的工具，因此创业者开始把它作为一种交流工具来吸引投资。当时，风险投资家和其他融资机构普遍存在将商业计划置于有抱负的创业者议程的前面的偏见，并出版了大量的“手册”来展示商业规划流程是什么样的，以及对有抱负的创业者该如何实施这些流程。为了补充商业规划方法，并使其适应创业者所假设的高度不确定性的条件，McGrath和MacMillan等学者提出了一套新的指导方针，用于在创业中使用规划策略。这些都是基于渐进式发展的理念，而不是在任何创业活动开始之前制定的宏大、长期(通常是五年)计划。在他们的《创业思维：在不确定时代持续创造机会的策略》一书中，他们尝试支持创业者的主观信念和假设，这些在商业规划实践中被认为是理所当然的。
This opened up space for theories that emphasized “designing”new business activities rather than “planning”for them. In 2001, Saras Sarasvathy proposed five principles that served to guide the actions of expert entrepreneurs in creating successful businesses (2001). She postulated that these five principles could be conceived of as best practices and , therefore, could be learned by aspiring entrepreneurs (Sarasvathy and Venkataraman2011). Additionally, Baker and Nelson (2005) appropriated the concept of bricolage from sociology and applied it to entrepreneurship, packaging it as a set of guiding principles that entrepreneurs could use when faced with resource scarcity. In the meantime, the notion of experiment ation(Thomke1998,2003), implicitly touched upon as part of effectuation and bricolage, began to gain traction. Books and research articles that advocated similar experimental approaches to business development acquired a modicum of popularity (Fiet 2002; Pfeffer and Sutton 2006; Sull 2004). They concluded that a high degree of uncertainty can only be effectively and actively reduced through an experimental process that converts assumptions to facts. Furthermore, they argued for making decisions grounded in information gathered fromcarefully crafted experiments. Building on this idea, prescriptive entrepreneurship (Fiet 2008) offered a set of systematic theoretical guidelines for discovering opportunities amid the growing scholarly interest in the construct of opportunity. The guidelines projected a competing logic to the alertness perspective and offered new avenues for entrepreneurs to discover latent and/or create newopportunities in their surroundings.
这为那些强调“设计”而不是“规划”新的商业活动的理论开辟了新的空间。2001年，萨拉斯·萨拉斯瓦西（Saras Sarasvathy）提出了五项原则，以指导创业专家建立成功企业的行动。她认为这五个原则可以被视为最佳实践，因此，有抱负的创业者可以学习。另外，贝克和纳尔逊从社会学中借鉴了“拼凑”的概念，将其包装为一套原则并将其应用于创业上，指导创业者在面对资源缺乏时使用，与此同时，作为效果理论和“拼凑”的一部分而隐含地涉及的实验概念，开始受到关注。那些提倡对创业发展采取类似实验方法的书籍和研究文章也获得了些许的普及。因此，他们得出结论：只有通过将假设转化为事实的实验过程，才能有效且积极地减少高度的不确定性。此外，他们主张根据从精心制作的实验中收集的信息来做出决策，在这个理论的基础上，为越来越多的对机会构建感兴趣的学者提供了一套系统的理论指导。
该指导为警觉性视角提供了一种相互竞争的逻辑，并为创业者提供了在其周围发现潜在、或创造新机会的新途径。
The methods of scholarly origin outlined above did not seem to diffuse much outside academic circles (Arend et al. 2015; Frank and Landstrm 2016). It was instead, often the practitioner-grounded counterparts whose ideas were to reach a wider audience (Abrahamson 1991). Design thinking as a set of managerial guidelines started to gain momentum around 2006 (Rauth 2015). Designers Tim Brown, Roger Martin, and David Kelly of Stanford d.school and IDEO (a global designcompany) began to advocate for the applicationof design thinking in business and entrepreneurial contexts (Martin 2009), even claiming that they could revolutionize management education (Dunne and Martin 2006). Large firms such as Procter & Gamble adopted design thinkingand incorporated many of its keyideas intotheir processes (Leavy 2010). Some startup communities followed suit and used design thinking to structure their business activities (Sonalkar et al. 2016). In 2011, EricRies extrapolated from his own startup experiences and formulated a method he labeled “the lean startup methodology”(Ries 2011). The ideas were not new (e.g., Murray and Tripsas 2004) but were repackaged to appeal to the software industry. This was the first successful attempt to appropriate ideas reminiscent of experimental approaches to the context of entrepreneurship by a practitioner. Before Ries, Steve Blank had proposed similar ideas (Blank 2007), but he did not enjoy the same level of popularity and recognition as Ries. The lean startup methodology began to spread rapidly through hotbeds of entrepreneurship, such as Silicon Valley, and quickly reached a global audience among entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship practitioners. Other practitioners joined the emerging movement and added nuances and texture to the proposed guidelines (Blank and Dorf 2012; Furr and Ahlstrom 2011; Maurya 2012). Blank (2013) claims that, at the current moment, the lean startup methodology is the most popular entrepreneurial method around, with a striking range of entrepreneurs, incubators, accelerators, and entrepreneurship programs whose agendas are based on its fundamental principles. While scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods have indeed attracted some attention, practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods appear to have reached the broadest audience among entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship practitioners 1.
上述学术起源的方法似乎并没有在学术圈之外扩散太多。相反，那些以实践为基础的同行，他们的想法收获了更广泛的受众。设计思维作为一套管理指南，在2006年左右开始获得推动。斯坦福大学设计学院(Stanford d.school)和IDEO(一家全球设计公司)的设计师蒂姆·布朗(Tim Brown)、罗杰·马丁(Roger Martin)和大卫·凯利(David Kelly)开始倡导将设计思维应用到商业和创业环境中，他们甚至声称可以彻底改变管理教育学，像宝洁这样的大公司开始采用设计思维，并将许多关键思想融入到他们的流程中。一些创业社区紧随其后，用设计思维来组织他们的业务活动。2011年，Eric Ries从自己的创业经历中总结出一种他称之为“精益创业方法论”的方法。这些想法并不新鲜，而是被重新包装来吸引软件业。
这是一个从业者第一次成功地将实验性的想法融入到创业的环境中。在Ries之前，Steve Blank也提出了类似的想法，但他的方法并没有像Ries的方法那样受到广泛的欢迎和认可，结果精益创业方法开始在硅谷这样的创业天堂迅速传播，并迅速在全球创业者和创业从业者中获得了广泛的关注。其他从业者也加入了这一新兴运动，并为拟议的指导方针添加了细微差别。Blank声称，目前精益创业方法是最受欢迎的创业方法，众多创业者、孵化器、加速器和创业项目的议程都基于其基本原则。虽然学术基础的创业方法确实引起了一些关注，但以实践为基础的创业方法似乎在创业者和从业者中获得了最广泛的受众。
1. A witness to this claim is the presence of the lean startup methodology (Ries 2011), customer development (Blank and Dorf 2012), and design thinking (Brown 2009) books on Amazon’s top 20 business books list, and the corresponding absence of books on more scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods. Another witness to this claim is an online review the authors conducted of syllabi of the top ten entrepreneurship programs worldwide according to the Eduniversal master’s program ranking website. Business planning was mentioned at seven of the ten programs, the lean startup methodology and its siblings business model generation andcustomer developmentwere mentioned at six of them , and design thinking was mentioned as reading essentials at five of them. Of the scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods, only effectuation was mentioned, and only at one of the programs.
注释1：亚马逊前20名商业书籍排行榜上的《精益创业方法论》、《客户发展》和《设计思维》等书籍都证明了这一观点，而与此相应，关于更具学术基础的创业方法的书籍却相对缺乏。另一个能证明这种说法的证据是，根据Eduniversal硕士课程排名网站上，作者对全球十大创业课程大纲进行了在线审查：10个项目中有7个提到了商业计划，6个提到了精益创业方法及其兄弟商业模式生成和客户开发，5个提到了将设计思维作为学生的必读内容。在以学术为基础的创业方法中，只提到了效果逻辑理论，而且只有一个项目中提到。
2.4A three-tier framework for prescriptions of entrepreneurial methods 创业方法的三层框架
An organizing framework constituted of three levels was recently proposed by Mansoori (2015). The framework consists of the three levels of logic, model and tactics (see Fig. 1). Logic touches on issues that need to be dealt with at a higher level of thought and ognition; model acts as an intermediate level bridging thought and action, facilitating the transfer of entrepreneurial knowledge from prescribers to those seeking advice; and tactics concern the tools and practical strategies at a lower level of action and interaction. Mansoori(2015, 2017)claims that this framework can be used for severa purposes, such as guiding the design and development of effective entrepreneurial methods, improving the comprehensibility of advice given to entrepreneurs, and facilitating the comparisons of different entrepreneurial methods in more structured ways. The framework can act as a bridge between scholars and practitioners, validating that entrepreneurial methods have the potential to connect ideas and actions in pragmatic ways. Given that scholars have been lamenting the gap between theory and practice (Frank and Landstrm 2016; Rynes et al. 2001; Weick 2001; Banks et al. 2016; Van de Ven and Johnson 2006), this new role for entrepreneurial methods could gain prominence and attention (Mansoori 2017).
最近Mansoor提出了一个由三个层次构成的组织框架，该框架由逻辑、模型和策略三个层次组成(见图1)。逻辑涉及需要在更高层次的思维和认知上处理的问题；模型是沟通思想和行动的桥梁，促进了创业者知识从处方者角色向咨询者角色的转移；而策略则是指在较低的行动和互动层面上的工具和实用策略。Mansoori称，该框架可以用于多个目的，如指导有效的创业方法的设计和开发，提高创业者对建议的理解能力，并以更结构化的方式促进不同的创业方法的比较。该框架可以作为学者和从业者之间的桥梁，验证创业方法有可能以务实的方式将想法和行动联系起来。鉴于学者们一直在哀叹理论与实践之间的差距，这种新的创业方法可能会获得显著的关注。
While the work of Mansoori(2015) is the first framework of its kind in the field of entrepreneurial methods,there have been similar frameworks in other fields. Among others, research areas such as firm strategy (Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2010), business research (Bryman and Bell 2007), management ideas (Rauth 2015), language teaching-learning (Anthony1963; Richards and Rodgers 2014), and total quality management (Dean and Bowen 1994) have all benefited from conceptual frameworks that organize the abstract and concrete aspects of their theories. These examples demonstrate the versatility of these kinds offrameworks and suggest that a similar framework might be appliedto entrepreneurial methods. As such, Mansoori’s (2015) three-tiered framework, shown in Fig. 1, will be used in this article to compare six entrepreneurial methods,and a more detailed account of it will now follow.
虽然Mansoori的作品是创业方法领域的第一个此类框架，但在其他领域也有类似的框架。其他研究领域，如公司战略，商业研究，管理理念，语言教学和全面质量管理等都受益于这个概念框架，它将抽象的理论和具体执行方面相组织起来。这些例子说明这类型的框架是具有通用性的，并建议可以将类似的框架应用于创业方法方面。因此，如图1所示，本文将使用Mansoori的三层框架理论来比较六种创业方法，并将对其进行更详细的说明。
The higher level of logic represents an overarching way of thinking that guides entrepreneurial action and acts as a reference point in regard to the theoretical foundations of methods (cf. McMullen and Shepherd 2006). The higher level deals with fundamental issues, imparting a clear logic to the entrepreneurial methods that helps entrepreneurs relate cognitively to the entrepreneurial process (cf. Baron 2004). It also frames the entrepreneurial method, acting as an orienting device, with the capacity to guide activities throughout the various stages of the entrepreneurial process. Therefore, the overarching logic sets the stage for entrepreneurial thinking and provides somegeneral rules and principles.
最高层次的逻辑代表了引导创业行动的一种总体思维方式，是方法理论基础的参考点。最高的层次处理基本问题，理清创业方法的逻辑，帮助创业者在认知上提高与创业过程的关联性。它还明确了创业方法的框架，作为一种定向手段，具有在创业过程的各个阶段指导活动的能力。因此，总体逻辑为创业思维奠定了基础，并提供了一些通用规则和原则。
The middle level of model gives entrepreneurs a way to conveniently visualize the entrepreneurial process and establish key terms that can be used in discussions between prescribers and entrepreneurs. This aspect of the model can facilitate endeavors through simple explanations that entrepreneurs can apply to their own unique venture activities, thus accelerating the inter subjective and normative diffusion of the entrepreneurial method (cf. Rogers 1983).
中间层次的模型为创业者提供了一种可以方便地将创业过程可视化的方法，并建立可以在创造者和创业者之间讨论时使用的关键术语。这一方面，该模型的可以通过简单的解释来提升努力，创业者可以将其应用于自己独特的创业活动，从而加速创业方法的主观性和规范性方面扩散。
The lower level of tactics prescribes activities, exercises, and practices in line with the overarching logic and the summarizing model.They are often detailed and specify the context of use and the outcomes of action. Therefore, they are implementation-oriented, geared toward accomplishing immediate objectives and important tools for influencing practice (Romme 2003).
最低层次的策略按照总体逻辑和总结模型规定活动、练习和实践。它们通常是详细的，并具体说明使用的背景和行动的结果。因此，它们是以实施为导向的，面向实现直接目标和影响实践的重要工具。
Tactics tie the abstract nature of the logic to the tangible realm of entrepreneurial practice, which give rise to what can be considered outcome by outsiders.

Furthermore, they can be effectively documented by observational studies since they are closest to the sphere of concrete action.
策略将逻辑的抽象本质与创业实践的有形领域联系在一起，从而产生了可以被外人认可的结果。此外，由于它们最接近具体行动的范围，因此又可以通过观察性研究有效地加以记录。

Developing a conceptual framework in three step
通过三步建立一个概念性的框架
While the framework in Fig. 1 allows for a general three-tiered comparison across entrepreneurial methods, an in-depth comparison on a more fundamental level would necessitate a more fine-grained analysis. A framework has been developed here for this very purpose and involves a comparative analysis in three steps. In the first step, Mansoori’s (2015) three-tiered framework allowed for the mapping of six entrepreneurial methods onto the three levels: logic, model, and tactics. In these condstep, these levels were compared, resulting in the summary shown in Table 1. In the third and final step, a more fine-grained framework consisting of nine conceptual dimensions applicable to the six entrepreneurial methods was developed. It was subsequently employed in another comparative analysis (see Section 4). These nine conceptual dimensions were inductively generated by reviewing existing literature on six entrepreneurial methods; information extracted from the literature was viewed as quasi-empirical data.
虽然图1中的框架允许对各种创业方法进行一般的三级比较，但在更基本的层面上进行深入比较则需要进行更细致的分析。为此，本文开发了一个框架，包括分三个步骤进行比较分析。第一步，Mansoori的三层框架允许将六种创业方法映射到三个层次：逻辑、模型和策略；第二步，对这些数据进行修正，从而得到如表1所示的结果；第三步，也就是最后一步，构建一个更细致的、适用于六种创业方法的九个概念维度。随后，它也会被用于另一项比较分析(见第4节)。这九个概念维度是通过审查通过关于六种创业方法的现有文献归纳得出的。从文献中提取的信息被视为准经验数据。
3.1Step 1: analyzing six entrepreneurial methods across three levels
跨三个层次分析六种创业方法
Effectuation emphasizes controlling the future rather than predicting it (Sarasvathy 2003). On a higher level of logic, effectuation “is rooted in the realization that human beings cause the future and, therefore, the future can be controlled and/or created through consensual human action”(Sarasvathy 2009, p. 27). Effectuation claims to address a logic of control (Sarasvathy 2001),promoting the idea that entrepreneurs’ tasks are not limited to unearthing latent opportunities patiently waiting to be discovered. They also involve the actual creation of opportunities through a social process (Sarasvathy and Dew 2005a). Therefore, entrepreneurs begin with the universe of possible outcomes that can be created with the available means at their disposal (Sarasvathy 2001) and focus on continuous interactions with a committed network of stakeholders. On the middle level of model, five heuristics form the backbone of the effectual decision-making logic. Sarasvathy (2001) proposes these heuristics as follows: (1) starting the process by asking oneself who you are, what you know, and whom you know; (2) limiting risk by calculating how much one can afford to lose; (3) embracing the surprise factor and trying to use it as a leverage; (4) reducing uncertainty by obtaining commitment from early partners; and (5) focusing on activities withinone’s control rather than trying to predict the unknown future (Sarasvathy 2001). These five heuristics form a cycle to guide progress through the steps of the effectuation logic. On the lower level of tactics, effectuation offers a number of tools, such as means inventory, affordable loss assessment template, and effectual ask to uncover available resources. These can aid in the assessment of risks involved in venture creation activities. They can also guide the formation of the network of stakeholders and inform how to control the outcomes of a particular endeavor (Dew et al. 2018; Read et al.2016）.
效果理论强调控制未来而不是预测未来。在最高层次的逻辑上，实现“人类创造了未来，因此，未来可以通过人类的共识行为被控制和/或创造”这一认识。效果逻辑理论声称解决了这样的控制逻辑，即提倡创业者的任务不应局限于发掘耐心等待被发现的潜在机会，它还包括通过社会过程实际创造机会。因此创业者从他们可以使用的现有手段创造的可能结果开始，并专注于与坚定的利益相关者网络的持续互动上。在模型的中间层次，五种启发式方法形成了有效决策逻辑的主干。萨拉斯瓦斯提出了如下的启发法：(1)通过提问自己你是谁、你知道什么、你认识谁来开始这个过程；(2)通过计算自己可以承受多大的损失来限制风险；(3)拥抱惊喜因素并试图利用它作为杠杆；(4)获得早期合作伙伴的承诺来减少不确定性；(5)专注于自身范围内能控制的活动，而不是试图预测未知的未来。
这五种启发式形成了一个循环，指导效果逻辑理论各个步骤的进展。在最低层次的策略中，效果逻辑理论提供了许多工具，如资产清单、可承受的损失评估模板和有效性要求来发现可用的资源。这些可以帮助评估创业活动所涉及的风险，还可以指导利益相关者形成网络，并告知他们如何控制特定努力的结果等。
Discovery-driven planning is an approach that combines business planning with learning through a series of steps that reveal key discoveries (McGrath and MacMillan 2000). On the higher level of logic, discovery-driven planning posits that uncertainty can be reduced by “systematically converting assumptions to knowledge and by redirecting its activities in the face of emerging understanding”(McGrath and MacMillan 2000, p. 243). Proponents of discovery-driven planning maintain that, while conventional planning approaches are helpful in certain situations, they may be useless or even lead to disastrous outcomes in conditions of high uncertainty. Dysfunctional outcomes are largely due to reliance on untested assumptions. To manage the uncertainty, on the middle level of model, discovery-driven planning provides six areas of guidelines: (1) framing the desired business idea; (2) benchmarking the parameters that promise a successful outcome; (3) strategic translation of operations by specifying relevant organizational deliverables; (4) documenting, testing, and evisiting previously held or newly formed assumptions; (5) managing key milestones to reflect on actions taken and planning subsequent milestones; and (6) finding creative ways to run operations with a minimum amount of resources until major assumptions are tested(McGrath and MacMillan 2000). On the lower level of tactics, tools and techniques such as reverse income statement, targeted experiments, and assumptions checklists are offered.

发现驱动计划是一种将商业计划与通过揭示关键发现的一系列步骤进行学习相结合的方法。在逻辑的最高层次上，发现驱动的规划假设，不确定性可以通过“系统地将假设转换为知识，并在面对新的理解时重新定向其活动”来减少。发现驱动规划的支持者认为，虽然传统的规划方法在某些情况下是有用的，但在高度不确定性的情况下它们可能是无用的，甚至会导致灾难性的后果，这个失调的结果很大程度上是由于依赖于未经检验的假设而导致的。因此，为了管理这种不确定性，在模型的中层，发现驱动的计划提供了六个方面的指导原则：(1)构建理想的商业思想；(2)对承诺的成功结果的参数进行基准检验；(3)通过规定相关的组织可交付成果，对业务进行战略转换；(4)记录、检验和访问以前持有的或新形成的假设；(5)管理关键里程碑事件，以反映已采取的行动，并规划后续里程碑；
(6)在主要假设得到验证之前，用最少的资源找到最有创造性的方法来运营。在最低层次的战略，工具和技术，如反向收益表，有针对性的实验，和假设检查表提供。
Prescriptive entrepreneurship comprises a set of research-based guidelines outlining what entrepreneursshould do in order to improve their odds of success in wealth creation (Fiet2008). On the higher level of logic, prescriptive entrepreneurship’s rationale is that “entrepreneurial discovery depends on a fit between an entrepreneur’s prior, specific knowledge, and a particular venture idea, which may be discovered Systematically”(Fiet 2008, p. 190). Grounded in Bayesian learning, prescriptive entrepreneurship posits that entrepreneurs are only able to discover venture ideas that correspond to their “epistemic structure” (Fiet 2008, p. 26). Therefore, entrepreneurs should begin by systematically focusing on constrained prior experience, in other words on their acquired generaland specific knowledge. In this context, “systematic”refers to how entrepreneurs “predetermine, based on their specific knowledge, how to search" (Fiet et al. 2013, p. 894) and “constrained” refers to the idea that entrepreneurs might derive more benefit from limiting searches to familiar information channels as opposed to the unbound scanning of the alertness perspective (cf.Kirzner 1997). On the middle level of model, Fiet(2008) highlighted five steps for a prescriptive model: (1) introspection about prior, specific, and general knowledge; (2) selecting information channels in accordance with own prior knowledge; (3) confining the search to the most preferred information channels; (4) searching for signals and quickly responding to them; and (5) interpreting feedback based on socio-cognitive factors. The goal of this process is to discover relevant signals in the form of informational cues about the environment (Fiet 2007). On the lower level of tactics,prescriptive entrepreneurship remains abstract. It offers theoretical notions such as information channels and consideration sets, but it does not provide ways for using them in practice, rendering implementation challenging.
规范性创业包括一套基于研究的指导方针，概述了创业者该做什么，以提高他们创造财富的概率。在最高层次的逻辑上，规范性创业理论的基本原理是“创业者的发现依赖于他们的经验、特定知识和特定的创业想法之间的匹配度，这可能是个系统地发现”。在贝叶斯学习的基础上，规范性创业假设，创业者只能发现与他们的“认知结构”相对应的创业想法。因此，创业者应该从系统地关注受先前受限的经验开始，换句话说，就是关注他们获得的一般性和特定的知识。在这方面,“系统”是指创业者如何“根据他们的具体知识预先确定如何搜索”，而“受限”是指创业者可能因受益更多而将搜索限制在熟悉的渠道，而不是从机敏性角度的无限制扫描中获得更多受益的想法。在模型的中层，Fiet强调了规范性模型的五个步骤：(1)对现验知识、特定知识和一般知识的反思；(2)根据自己的先验知识选择信息渠道；
(3)将搜索范围限制在用户最优选的信息渠道；(4)搜索信号并做出快速响应；(5)基于社会认知因素来解释反馈，这一过程的目标是以环境信息线索的形式发现相关信号。在最低层次的策略中，规范性创业方法仍然是抽象的，它提供了一些理论概念，比如信息通道和考虑因素等概念，但没有提供它们在实践中的使用方法，这就给实施带来了挑战。
Business planning is defined as “a process of ascertaining a series of potential courses to be taken by the firm, determining the firm’s position as a result of each potential course, comparing and weighing this position for all actions, and, on the basis of the evaluation, selecting the course of action to be followed” (Steinhoff 1971, p. 3). On the higher level of logic, the business plan should offer solutions to “a set of dependent and independent functional problems”(Ackoff 1981, p. 52). The business plan is the formal statement outlining the process of business planning. It is constructed around several functions in the internal organization and several other external factors that influence the entrepreneurial process. Business plans deal with issues such as customers, market objectives, risks, financial plans, management team, and milestone schedules (Draman1995; Delmarand Shane2004). They also include strategies such as cost minimization, and performance and sales maximization (Utterback and Abernathy 1975), differentiation, cost leadership, and focus (Porter 1980; Delmar and Shane 2003). On the middle level of model, there are a number of steps commonly associated with a business planning process: defining the business, developing its mission, setting goals and objectives, crafting a strategy to achieve the objectives, identifying the required resources, establishing a resource acquisition and allocation plan, executing the strategy, evaluating performance, and initiating corrective adjustments (Draman 1995; Steinhoff 1971). Onthe lower level of tactics, approaches such as market research (Hong et al. 2013), focus groups, SWOT analysis, PEST model, 7S model, financial prognosis, and nominal ranking assist entrepreneurs in the process.
商业计划的定义是”确定公司将采取的一系列可能的方针，然后再根据每一个可能的方针确定公司的立场，对所有行动进行比较和权衡，并根据评价选择应遵循的行动方针的过程”。在最高层次的逻辑上，商业计划应该提供“一组相关和独立的功能问题”的解决方案。商业计划是概述商业计划过程的正式声明，它是围绕着公司内部的几个职能和影响创业过程的其他几个外部因素而构建。商业计划涉及包括客户、市场目标、风险、财务计划、团队管理和里程碑时间表等问题。它还包括诸如成本最小化、性能和销售最大化、差异化、成本领先和关注点等战略化内容。中间层次的模型，包括一些通常与业务规划过程相关的步骤：比如确定业务，发展使命，设置目标和目的，制定策略来实现目标，确定所需的资源，制定资源获取和分配计划，执行战略，评估业绩和启动纠正调整策略等。在最低层次的策略中，市场研究、焦点小组、SWOT分析、PEST模型、7S模型、财务预测和名义排名等方法帮助创业者执行这个过程。
The lean startup methodology is “a set of practices for helping entrepreneurs increase their oddsof building successful startups” (Ries 2011, p. 20). On the higher level of logic, the lean startup methodology is founded on “the realization that although human judgment may be faulty, we can improve our judgment by subjecting our theories to repeated testing” (Ries 2011, p. 150).Such repeated testing or purposeful experimentation is specifically designed to provide validated learning about a new product o r service (Maurya 2012; Ries 2011). Evidence is gathered through close and constant interactions with current and potential customers and used to validate or invalidate key assumptions of the venture. On the middle level of model, the lean startup methodology provides the “build-measure-learn” diagram: (1) mapping a business idea onto testable business model assumptions (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010) and building a “minimum viable product” (MVP) that allows for collecting feedback, (2) testing the product with customers and objectively analyzing the results of the completed tests to validate or invalidate key assumptions, and (3) learning from the results and designing the next rounds of experiments. Additionally, the proponents of the lean startup methodology rely on customer development (Blank and Dorf 2012) as a guiding tool, which entails four stages of customer discovery, customer validation, customer creation, and company creation. These processes are designed to reduce uncertainty through the accumulation of detailed and accurateinfor mation. On the lower level of tactics, the lean startup Methodology relies on a set of tools that are appropriated from other domains, such as rapid prototyping (Brown 2008) and agile software development principles (Dyb and Dingsyr 2008). Tactics such as customer interviews, targeted experiments, physical prototypes, concierge, fake door tests, and A/B tests all allow for quick feedback collection and advancement of the process.
精益创业是“一套帮助创业者增加创业成功几率的方法”。在最高层次的逻辑上，精益创业的基础是“尽管人类的判断可能是错误的，但我们可以通过让我们的理论接受反复测试来改善我们的判断”。这种反复测试或有目的的实验是专门设计用来提供关于新产品或服务的验证性学习，通过与现有和潜在客户的密切和持续的互动来收集证据，并用来验证或否定公司的关键假设。在模型的中层层次，精益创业方法提供了“构建-测量-学习”图：(1)将商业理念映射到可测试的业务模型假设之上，建立一个“最小可行性产品”(MVP)并允许收集反馈；(2)与客户一起测试产品并客观分析完成的测试的结果来验证或否定关键假设；(3从结果中学习并设计下一轮实验。此外，精益创业的支持者依赖于客户开发作为指导工具，它包含四个阶段：客户发现、客户验证、客户创建和公司创建，这些过程的目的旨在通过积累详细和准确的信息来减少不确定性。
在最低水平的策略中，精益创业依赖一组从其他领域借鉴来的工具，比如快速原型和敏捷性开发原则。客户访谈、有针对性的实验、物理原型、礼宾策略、假门测试和A/B测试等策略都可以快速收集反馈信息并推进整个流程。
Design thinking is “a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity”(Brown2008,p.86). On the higher level of logic, design thinking is “the application of integrative thinking to the task of resolving the conflict between reliability and validity, between exploitation and exploration, and between analytical and intuitive thinking” (Martin 2009, p. 171). Design thinking is grounded in an iterative, nonlinear, and humancentered practice based on user research. The process begins with defining the problem that users experience, understanding it in depth, creating a possible solutionand testing it, and ends with reflecting on the results(Liedtka and Ogilvie 2011; Carlgren et al. 2016). It is through this process of creating, testing, and learning that entrepreneurs can better their initial venture ideas (Brown 2008). On the middle level of model, design thinking consists of five steps: (1) empathizing with the problem by understanding it from the perspective of users,(2)defining the problem indetail by making sense of the dispersed information, (3) brainstorming different ways the problem might be solved through generating a wide range of possible solutions and combining imaginative insights about these solutions, (4) prototyping a solution to highlight its strengths and weaknesses to identify new paths, and (5) testing the solution with users through soliciting feedback about prototypes to gain a better understanding. On the lower level of tactics, design thinking offers tools such as user interviews, physical prototypes, question ladders, innovation flowcharts, and design thinking mixtapes as aids to the process.
设计思维是“一种运用设计师的敏感性和方法，将人们的需求与技术上可行的、商业策略可以转化为客户价值和与市场机会相匹配的学科。在逻辑的最高层次上，设计思维是“应用整合思维来解决可靠性与有效性、开发与探索、分析思维与直觉思维之间的冲突的”。设计思维是基于用户研究的迭代、非线性和人性化的实践，这个过程始于用户体验到的问题，再深入理解它并创建一个可能的解决和测试方案，最后是对结果的反思。正是通过这种创造、测试和学习的过程，创业者才能更好地完善他们最初的创业想法。在模型的中层，设计思维包括五个步骤：(1)从用户的角度来专注于作品的问题并深刻理解它；(2通过对分散信息的感知来定义问题；(3)通过不同方法生成一个的可能的解决方案,，并结合对这些解决方案的想象见解来解决这个问题；(4)原型化一个解决方案，并突出其优点和缺点，以确定新的途径；
(5)通过征求用户对原型方案的反馈来测试解决方案，以获得更好的理解。在最低层次的策略中，设计思维提供了用户访谈、物理原型、问题阶梯、创新流程图和设计思维集锦等工具，作为整个过程的辅助。
3.2Step 2: comparing six entrepreneurial methods across the levels of logic, model, and tactics
从逻辑、模型和策略三个层面比较六种创业方法
For the level of logic, Table 1 illustrates several critical assumptions about the nature of the venture creation process, specified through theoretical and philosophical axioms. Examples include the notion of uncertainty (McKelvie et al. 2011), the view of the future in relation to the level of skepticism of the predictability of outcomes (Tetlockand Gardner 2016) , and the nature of the process as discovery or creation (Alvarez and Barney 2007). All the entrepreneurial methods that were reviewed explicitly or implicitly address the logic of their prescriptions. For example, business planning employs scenario building as a way to “predict” the future, while effectuation relies on heuristics for controlling present conditions while creating future ones. Knowledge and evidence are other notions central to the level of logic in almost all of the surveyed entrepreneurial methods. It is through the process of knowledge gathering by interacting with the external world that entrepreneurs engage in a process of learning (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) and eventually reduce the uncertainty they face.
在逻辑层面上，表1从理论和哲学原理方面对关于创业创造过程本质的几个关键假设加以说明，比如不确定性的概念、与结果可预测性的怀疑程度相关的未来观点，以及发现或创造过程的本质。所有被审查过的创业方法，或明或暗地都涉及到其处方的逻辑。例如，商业计划使用场景构建作为“预测”未来的一种方式，而效果逻辑理论依靠启发式方法，创造未来的条件的同时并控制当前的条件。知识和证据是几乎所有被调查的创业方法中逻辑层面的核心概念，而创业者正是通过与外部世界互动的知识收集过程来进行学习，并最终减少他们所面临的不确定性。
For the level of model, Table 1 shows that a number of models prescribe procedural steps that represent the iterative nature of the entrepreneurial process. Such models can be conceived of as summarizing heuristics or algorithms. In some models—such as the lean startup methodology, effectuation, and design thinking—there are a clear order and feedback loops as part of their prescriptions. These methods all present explicit models with iterations for how to make progress toward the realization of entrepreneurial objectives. Business planning provides a clear sequence for necessary activities but is designed to be used at the start of the process or in a predefined cycle (i.e., the annual planning cycle). Nevertheless, it serves as an important model, enumerating specific steps and areas of focus. Several models refer to the involvement of external stakeholders. For instance, the lean startup methodology suggests that informed decisions can be achieved through frequent interactions with external stakeholders, such as customers, partners, suppliers, and investors (Ries 2011;Klein 2013). Similarly, design thinking outlines steps for collecting user feedback in order to improve the quality of ideas and to refine them in line with the feedback received.
在模型层面上，表1显示了许多模型规定的程序步骤，这些步骤代表了创业过程的迭代性质，这种模型可以当做是对启发式方法或算法的总结。在一些模型中，比如精益创业、效果逻辑理论和设计思维，有一个清晰的顺序和反馈循环作为他们的处方的一部分，这些方法都为如何实现创业目标提供了明确的迭代模型。商业计划为必要的活动提供了一个明确的顺序，但它的目的是在流程开始时或在一个预先确定的周期(即年度计划周期)中使用。尽管如此，作为一个重要的模型，它还列举了一些具体步骤和重点领域。一些模型涉及到外部利益相关者的参与，例如精益创业，通过与外部利益相关者如客户、合作伙伴、供应商和投资者的频繁互动，可以做出明智的决策。类似的，设计思维还概述了收集用户反馈的步骤，以构思高质量的想法，并根据收到的反馈来完善这些步骤。
For the lower level of tactics, Table 1 illustrates that many of the entrepreneurial methods provide tactics that are aligned with their overarching logics. For instance, the lean startup methodology includes tactics such as concierge, A/B tests, and making early MVPs. Similarly, design thinking offers prototyping, customer interviews, and mixtapes to help entrepreneurs navigate the five phases of design thinking. Table 1 shows that Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean...the scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods provide markedly less advice on this level than the practitioner grounded counterparts, illustrating a difference in inclinations for giving detailed and explicit prescriptions.
对于最低层次的策略，表1表明许多创业方法提供的策略与他们的总体逻辑是一致的。例如，精益创业包括礼宾策略、A/B测试和早期mvp（最小化可行产品）等策略。同样，设计思维也提供了原型制作、客户访谈和混合集锦等方法，帮助创业者顺利完成设计思维的五个阶段。表1显示通过比较效果逻辑理论与发现驱动型计划、规范性创业、商业规划、精益创业，以学术为基础的创业方法在这一层面上提供的建议明显少于以从业者为基础的同行，说明了在提供详细和明确的处方的倾向上的差异。
3.3Step 3: developing a framework of nine conceptual dimensions of entrepreneurial methods
开发一个包含九个概念维度的创业方法的框架
The framework shown in Fig. 1, with its disaggregation into three levels, allows for a structured review of entrepreneurial methods, which enhances the clarity and visibility across methods. As a result, the authors were able to more effectively identify patterns. For instance, having the level of logic in mind primed the authors to spot ideas about aspects of the venture creation process that corresponded to that particular level, namely providing and discussing ideas involving the cognitive aspects of the venture creation process (e.g., uncertainty management). The development of the framework of nine conceptual dimensions occurred in three stages. In the first stage, independent reviews took place over a period of 6 years, generating two different doctoral dissertations in which several conceptual dimensions for entrepreneurial methods were formulated (Mansoori 2015, p. 23–5; Lackéus 2016, p. 61). In the second stage, the independently formulated conceptual dimensions were integrated in five full-day workshops, during which the authors exchanged ideas to unite the frameworks. Some of the conceptual dimensions were merged to represent more inclusive dimensions. For instance, “nature of change”and "locus of agency” were merged to form”redirection power” Other dimensions were discarded, as they did not span a sufficientnumber of entrepreneurial methods. An example of a discarded dimension was “reliance on historical data”, an important aspect of planning.
图1所示的框架将分为三个层次，允许对创业方法进行结构化审查，这增强了不同方法之间的清晰度和可见性。因此，作者才能更有效地识别模式。例如，有了逻辑层次，作者就能够发现与该特定层次相对应的关于风险创造过程方面的想法，即提供和讨论涉及创造过程认知方面的想法，比如不确定性管理。该包含九个概念维度的框架的发展经历了三个阶段：第一阶段，进行了为期6年的独立审查，发表了两篇不同的博士论文，其中阐述了创业方法的几个概念维度；第二阶段，独立制定的概念维度被整合到五个全天的研讨会中，在此期间作者们相互交换了想法以统一框架，一些概念维度被合并，以表明更具包容性的维度。例如，“改变的本质”和“代理的地点”被合并形成“重定向权力”，还有其他维度被最终抛弃，因为它们没有跨越足够数量的创业方法，一个例子是“依赖历史数据”，这是规划的一个重要方面。
The entire process reduced the total number of conceptual dimensions to nine. As these nine dimensions were generated inductively from the six established entrepreneurial methods, none of the methods served as a baseline. This aspect of the process allowed for a more objective, unbiased, and generic comparison. In the final stage, the preliminary framework and dimensions were scrutinized by editors and peer reviewers, triggering minor revisions and eventually leading to these nine final dimensions: uncertainty management, resource management, knowledge expansion, redirection power, continuous learning, iterative process, stakeholder interaction, team collaboration, and value creation (see Table 2).
整个过程最终将概念维度的总数减少到9个。由于这九个维度是从六种既定的创业方法中归纳而来的，所以没有一种方法可以作为基准。另一方面，该过程还允许进行更客观、公正和通用的比较。在最后阶段，编辑和同行评审人员审查了初步的框架和维度，进行了较小的修订，并最终形成了这九个最终的维度：不确定性管理、资源管理、知识扩展、重定向能力、持续学习、迭代过程、利益相关者互动、团队协作和价值创造（请参见表2）。
On the level of logic, many of the reviewed methods advise that entrepreneurs cope with uncertainty (i.e., uncertainty management) by systematically drawing on what is already known and then determining what information needs to be gathered (i.e., knowledge expansion), effectively making use of available and necessary resources (i.e., resource management). Most methods emphasize the importance of letting the generated insights direct the forward momentum of the process in drastic ways if necessary (i.e., redirection power). In the lean startup methodology, a drastic turn triggered by insights is called a “pivot. ”On the level of model, several methods outline a cyclical model (i.e., iterative process) of learning from interactions (i.e.,continuous learning) with external stakeholders (i.e., stakeholder interaction). Effectuation (Wiltbank et al.2006, p. 992; Read et al. 2016, p. 195) and the lean startup methodology (Ries 2011, p. 81) both contain visualization of cyclical models. Design thinking suggests a more back-and-forth approach, also resulting in an iterative process (Rauth 2015, p. 20). On the level of tactics, some methods emphasize taking action throughteam-based efforts (i.e., team collaboration) to create value for external stakeholders (i.e., value creation). The lean startup method involves creating an MVP. Design thinking, on the other hand, hinges on the creation of a prototype,and in effectuation, a key objectiveis to secure the commitment of stakeholders. Next, the framework with its nine conceptual dimensions will be used to conduct a second round of comparisons of the six entrepreneurial methods.
在逻辑层面，很多审查过的方法建议创业者应对不确定性(即不确定性管理)应该系统地利用已知的信息，然后再确定需要收集哪些信息(即知识扩张)，有效地利用现有的和必要的资源(例如，资源管理)。大多数方法都强调让生成的洞察力在必要时以激烈的方式引导过程前进势头的重要性（即重定向能力），而在精益创业中，洞察力引发的剧烈转变被称为“支点”。在模型层面上，有几种方法概括了从与外部利益相关者（即利益相关者互动）的互动中学习（即持续学习）的循环模型（即迭代过程）。效果逻辑理论和精益创业方法都包含了循环模型的可视化。设计思维提出了一种更反复的方法，也产生了迭代过程。在策略层面上，一些方法强调通过基于团队的努力（即团队协作）)来为外部利益相关者创造价值（即价值创造）。精益创业包括创造一个MVP，另一方面，设计思维取决于原型的创造，而在实施过程中，一个关键目标就是要确保利益相关者的承诺。
接下来，将使用该框架及其九个概念维度对六种创业方法进行第二轮比较。

Findings调查结果
To yield insight into the foundational similarities and differences of the six entrepreneurial methods, this section examines the conceptual underpinnings that form the bases of their prescriptions. The section aims to bring to light where the methods overlap as well as where they diverge and differ. Table 2 helps carve out similarities and differences that these methods exhibit. The findings section is organized according to the nine conceptual dimensions developed in Section 3.
为了深入了解这六种创业方法的基本异同，本节将探讨构成其处方基础的概念基础，揭示这些方法的重叠之处，以及它们的分歧和不同之处。表2有助于挖掘这些方法所展示的相似性和差异性。调查结果部分是根据第3节提出的9个概念维度组织的。
4.1Uncertainty management 不确定性管理

The first conceptual dimension speaks to the way entrepreneurial methods conceptualize the inherent uncertainty present in current or future situations that entrepreneurs face as part of their venture creation efforts (cf. Gomory 1995; McKelvie et al. 2011). The view of future outcomes has important implications for how uncertainty should be managed (Sarasvathy and Dew 2005b). Apart from design thinking and business planning, the other methods explicitly or implicitly approach the notion of uncertainty, presenting it as one of the main reasons for the relevance of their prescriptions and proposing ways to manage or reduce it. The meaning of the term uncertainty, however, diverges along three main paths (cf. Packard et al. 2016). The first meaning is relevant to effectuation, in which uncertainty is ontological; that is, the future is unknowable in principle (Readetal.2016;Knight1921).Thus, the future is constructed by actors who are jointly creating it in unpredictable ways (Dew et al. 2008). The second meaning of uncertainty is seen in discovery-driven planning and prescriptive entrepreneurship, and frames uncertainty as epistemological; that is, the future is knowable through information gathering strategies (Fiet and Patel 2008). Here, uncertainty can be mitigated by entrepreneurs expanding their knowledge base. The third meaning for uncertainty reveals itself in the lean startup methodology, where a more implicit and colloquial meaning is found, incorporating concepts such as ambiguity and risk. It is most similar to epistemological uncertainty, the reduction of which hinges on the need to gather information (Murray and Tripsas 2004).
第一个概念维度说明了创业方法是如何概念化创业者在当前或未来的情况中所面临的内在不确定性，这些不确定性是他们创业结果的一部分，而对未来结果的看法对于如何管理不确定性有着重要的意义。除了设计思维和商业规划之外，其他方法也或明或暗地涉及到不确定性的概念，将并其作为其处方相关性的主要原因之一，提出了管理或减少它的方法。然而，“不确定性”的一词含义在路径上三个主要分歧。第一个含义与效果逻辑理论有关，其中不确定性是本体论的，也就是说，原则上未来是不可知的，因此，未来是由表演者以不可预测的方式共同创造的。第二个含义是在发现驱动型计划和规范式创业中看到的，将不确定性描述为认识论，也就是说，未来是可以通过信息收集策略了解的，在这方面，创业者可以通过扩大他们的知识基础来缓解不确定性。第三个含义体现在精益创业中，它提出了一种更含蓄、更通俗的含义，包含了诸如歧义和风险等概念，与认识论的不确定性最为相似，其不确定性的减少取决于收集信息的必要性。
4.2Resource management 资源管理
The second conceptual dimension is concerned with how to use existing resources and acquire new ones through various strategies. Scarce resources play an important and integral role in any entrepreneurial process (Ozdemir et al. 2016; Baker and Nelson 2005), and entrepreneurial methods often provide recommendations for acquiring and managing resources. Depending on the over arching logic of the entrepreneur methods, different standpoints are taken. Effectuation emphasizes the dynamic nature of the resources at hand by focusing attention on two issues: entrepreneurs should rely only on resources they are willing to lose, and self-selected stakeholders should be given the opportunity to (re)shape the future of the venture in exchange for committing resources (Dew et al. 2009). While discovery-driven planning grants more prominence to resources than business planning, they both offer guidance on how existing resources should be allocated (McGrath and MacMillan 2000; Shane and Delmar 2003). Yet, neither method suggests strategies for how to acquire these new resources. Within design thinking, there do not appear to be recommendations around resource management. Prescriptive entrepreneurship discusses resources primarily as information about the possible discovered opportunities and provides ways to acquire new ones (Fiet 2007). Finally, the lean startup methodology cautions that frugality must be exercised in initial tests of the venture idea, before the commitment of any major resources. Here, ideas around the scarcity of resources crystallize into the forewarning to fail early and fast (Khanna et al. 2016).
第二个概念维度是关于如何利用现有资源，并通过各种策略再次获取新资源。稀缺资源在创业过程的任何阶段都发挥着重要和不可或缺的作用，而创业方法通常会提供获取和管理资源的建议。根据创业方法的总体逻辑，提出了不同的立场，而效果逻辑理论强调手头的资源的动态性，要将注意力集中到两个问题上：创业者应该依赖他们愿意失去的资源，自我选择的利益相关者应该有机会重新塑造企业的未来，以换取承诺的资源。虽然发现驱动型规划方法比商业规划更重视资源，但它们都提供了如何分配现有资源的指导。然而，这两种方法都没有提出获取这些新资源的策略。在设计思维中，似乎没有关于资源管理的建议。规范性创业方法主要是将资源作为可能发现的机会的信息来讨论，并提供获取新机会的方法。最后，精益创业提醒我们，在投入任何主要资源之前，必须在对创业理念进行初步测试保持节俭。
在这里，关于资源稀缺的想法逐渐明确为早期和快速失效的预警。
4.3Knowledge expansion 知识拓展
The third conceptual dimension relates to activities aiming to expand the knowledge base beyond the level of personal and general knowledge an entrepreneur possesses at any given time in an entrepreneurial process. Knowledge plays an important role in entrepreneurship (Tang et al. 2012), and its importance is highlighted in most of the entrepreneurial methods. Except for business planning, in which the role of knowledge is more illustrative and representational,the other methods emphasize leveraging current personal and general knowledge in order to expand the repository of one’s own knowledge. Effectuation and prescriptive entrepreneurship strongly emphasize personal knowledge as the starting point (Fiet 2008; Sarasvathy 2001), whereas other methods stress the importance of expanding the general knowledge base, regardless of its origin. A key observable difference between the methods has to do with ideas about how knowledge should be expanded (cf. Lundvall1992).In effectuation, knowledge is expanded primarily when stakeholders in possession of newknowledge join the network, whereas in prescriptive entrepreneurship, the lean startup methodology, and design thinking, knowledge is expanded through carefully designed information gathering activities. These differences mirror the previously observed differences in conceptualizations of uncertainty management, suggesting a strong link between the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to manage uncertainty.
第三个概念维度与创业者在创业过程中任何给定时间段内所拥有的超越个人和一般知识水平的知识水平的活动有关。知识在创业中扮演着非常重要的角色，它的重要性在大多数的创业方法中都得到了强调。除了在商业计划中，知识的作用更具有说明力和代表性，其他方法强调利用现有的个人和一般知识以扩大自己的知识库。效果逻辑理论和规范性创业方法强烈强调以个人知识为出发点，而其他方法则强调扩展一般知识库的重要性，却不考虑其来源。这两种方法之间的一个关键区别是与知识应该如何扩展的观念有关。实际上，知识主要在当有新知识的利益相关者加入网络时才会得到扩展，而在规范型创业方法、精益创业和设计思维中，知识是通过精心设计的信息收集活动扩展的。这些差异反映了与之前观察到的不确定性管理概念化的差异，表明知识的获取和管理不确定性的能力之间有很强的关联性。
4.4Redirection power 重定向能力
The fourth conceptual dimension concerns the degree to which the methods recognize entrepreneurs’agency over the entrepreneurial process, especially in relation to new information, failures, and surprises (Garud and Karne 2003). Although all entrepreneurial methods except for business planning have a recursive understanding of the venture creation process, they permit varying degrees of process ownership (cf. Foss et al. 2007). Business planning has a linear understanding of its prescriptions, and although in reality there may be redirections in the process, the method does not, explicitly or implicitly, provide advice in this regard. While effectuation, design thinking, and the lean startup methodology explicitly embrace surprises and contingencies (Sarasvathy 2001; Johansson-Skldberg et al. 2013), discovery-driven planning and prescriptive entrepreneurship guide entrepreneurs to avoid future surprises. It is important to note that, in principle, entrepreneurial methods are receptive to the idea of a change in direction. But a difference between the methods emerges with respect to the point at which these redirections happen. In effectuation, design thinking, and the lean startup methodology, redirections can happen any time new information is unearthed. In discovery-driven planning and prescriptive entrepreneurship, on the other hand, the decision to redirect is made at the end of a completed cycle. It is worth noting that, although discovery-driven planning and prescriptive entrepreneurship have incorporated redirectional ideas into their prescriptions (Fiet 2007; McGrath and MacMillan 1995), they fall short in providing explicit justifications for why these changes to direction in the face of emerging understanding are relevant and necessary.
第四个概念维度涉及方法在多大程度上认可创业者在创业过程中的才能，尤其是与新信息，失败和意外有关的因素。尽管除了商业规划之外，所有的创业方法都对创业创造过程有一个递归的理解，但它们允许不同程度的过程所有权。商业计划对其处方有一种线性的理解，虽然在实际过程中可能会发生重定向，但该方法在这方面并没有提供明确或隐含的建议。而效果逻辑理论、设计思维和精益创业方法明确地包含意外和偶然性，发现型驱动型计划和规范性创业方法指导创业者避免未来的意外。值得注意的是，从原则上讲，创业方法是可以接受方向上改变的想法，但是在这些重定向发生的点上，两种方法之间出现了差异。在效果逻辑理论、设计思维和精益创业方法论中，只要新信息被挖掘出来，就会发生重定向，但在发现型驱动型规划和规范性创业方法中，重定向的决定是在一个完整的周期结束时才会做出的。
尽管发现型驱动规划和规范性创业方法已经将重定向的想法纳入到他们的处方中去，但他们没有提供明确的理由来说明为什么面对这些新兴理解，这些方向上的变化是相关和必要的。
4.5Continuous learning 持续性学习
The fifth conceptual dimension refers to the role of feedback and how it provides learning opportunities for entrepreneurs during venture creation activities. Continuous learning from feedback plays an important role in shaping the trajectory of the entrepreneurial process (Minniti and Bygrave 2001). Feedback can be the outcome of a deliberate process of information gathering, as in the lean startup methodology, design thinking, and discovery-driven planning. It can also be the result of serendipity and happenstance, as in effectuation and prescriptive entrepreneurship (Harmeling and Sarasvathy 2013). In all entrepreneurial methods except for business planning, a high value is placed on continuous learning and the philosophical grounding of the venture creation process in newly learned insights. Feedback from the external environment is stressed as a source of continuous learning (cf. Kolb 1984). Effectuation deviates somewhat from the other methodologies by placing less focus on continuous learning as an inherent strategy and moreasa by-product of following other recommendations. The lean startup methodology and, to some extent, design thinking are more explicit, using validated learning as a cornerstone of their main ideas. Such a continuous learning necessitates a need for revisiting and revising transient assumptions held by entrepreneurs in the face of newly acquired information (Ries 2011).
第五个概念维度涉及到反馈的作用以及它如何在创业活动中为创业者提供学习机会。从反馈中不断学习在塑造创业过程的轨迹中扮演着重要的角色。反馈可以是经过深思熟虑的信息收集过程的结果，就像精益创业、设计思维和发现型驱动型规划一样，它也可能是意外发现和偶然事件的结果，就像在效果逻辑理论和规范创业方法。在所有的创业方法，除了商业计划，都高度重视持续学习和新学到的创业洞察力的哲学基础，持续学习的来源强调的是外部环境的反馈。效果逻辑理论方法与其他方法有些不同，它较少的把持续学习作为一种固有的战略，而更多地把它作为遵循其他建议的副产品，在某种程度上，精益创业方法论和设计思维更加明确，将经过验证的学习作为其主要思想的基础。这种持续的学习需要重新审视和修正创业者在面对新获得的信息时所持有的短暂假设。
4.5Iterative process 迭代过程
The sixth conceptual dimension relates to the temporal and evolving nature of entrepreneurial models. Entrepreneurship is a dynamic process that requires flexibility and constant adaptation (Bruyat and Julien 2001). All entrepreneurial methods, with the exception of business planning, describe models that allow entrepreneurs to react to new information and environmental conditions in dynamic and iterative ways. Regardless of the fact that these models could be understood as heuristics or algorithm-based, there is an explicit circular and repetitive aspect to them that suggests a continuous revising of assumptions and the reinvention of the process as new information is unearthed (cf. Argyris 1976). A major difference between the models proposed in these methods is what triggers the restarting of the process. In effectuation, the restart occurs when new stakeholders join the process, bringing with them a new set of means and expanding the set of possible futures tocreate(Sarasvathy 2003).Inthe other iterative models, the restart is triggered when new information is acquired through external sources as well as when the entrepreneur intuits a need to revise key assumptions. A subtle difference between methods is an emphasis on iteration. The lean startup methodology, design thinking, and effectuation are fundamentally grounded in iterative processes, whereas discovery-driven planning and prescriptive entrepreneurship include relatively minor feedback loops that may or may not result in iterative processes.
第6个概念维度涉及创业模式的时间性和演变性质。创业是一个动态的过程，需要灵活性和不断的适应性。除了商业计划之外，所有的创业方法都描述了一些模型，这些模型允许创业者以动态和迭代的方式对新的信息和环境条件的变化作出反应。不管这些模型被理解为启发式方法或基于算法的模型，它们都有一个明确的循环和重复的方面，即随着新信息的出现，不断修正假设和重新创造过程。这些方法中提出的模型之间的主要区别是触发流程重新启动的原因。在效果逻辑理论中，当新的利益相关者加入时就会带来一套新的方法，并扩展一套可能的未来，从而重新启动这个流程。在其他迭代模型中，当创业者通过外部资源获得新的信息，或者直觉地认为需要修改关键假设时，就会触发重启。这些方法之间的细微区别是对迭代的强调。精益创业、设计思维和效果逻辑理论从根本上是基于迭代过程，而发现驱动型规划和规范型创业方法包括相对较小的反馈回路，这些回路可能会导致迭代过程，也可能不会。
4.7Stakeholder interaction 利益相关者之间的互动
The seventh conceptual dimension refers to the reliance on interactions with others. While it remains largely under-researched, intersubjectivity has had a central position in thinking about entrepreneurship (Sarasvathy and Venkataraman 2011). Entrepreneurs interact intensively with those who are directly involved in the process in various capacities as well as with more peripheral stakeholders who indirectly impact the direction of the venture creation process (Hart and Sharma 2004). Discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, and business planning do not provide advice about stakeholder interaction. Instead, they focus on activities to be completed by the focal entrepreneur, that is, the entrepreneur who ownsthe initial idea and process and has the largest impact on the direction of the new venture (cf. Kotha and George 2012).In effectuation, the lean startup methodology and design thinking interactions with stakeholders comprise important sources of feedback and new information (cf. Lundvall 1992; Tunisini and Zanfei 1998). These interactions constitute a large proportion of key activities, especially in the early stages of the new venture development. In the lean startup methodology and designthinking, stakeholders are defined as users, consumers, and customers who provide valuable insights that can be incorporated into and contribute to the evolution of the venture idea. It is noteworthy that these entrepreneurial methods limit the involvemen to fusers and customersto soliciting feedback; in other words, they recommend keeping them at arm’s length. In contrast, effectuation regards stakeholders quite differently. Effectuation scholars define active stakeholders as any individuals who commit resources; these stakeholders are participating in the collective process of shaping the destiny of the new venture.
第七个概念维度是指对与他人互动的依赖。虽然主要研究还不是很充足，但交互主体性在思考创业教育方面已经占据了中心地位。创业者与以各种身份直接参与创业过程的人以及间接影响创业过程方向的外围相关利益者进行了密切的互动。发现驱动型规划、规范性创业方法和商业规划不提供关于利益相关者之间互动的建议，相反，他们关注的是焦点创业者要完成的活动，即拥有最初的想法和过程，对新企业的方向有最大影响的创业者本身。效果逻辑理论、精益创业和设计思维与利益相关者的互动构成了反馈和新信息的重要来源，这些相互作用构成了关键活动的很大一部分，尤其是在新企业发展的早期阶段。在精益创业和设计思维中，利益相关者是指用户、消费者和客户，他们提供了有价值的见解，可以被整合到创业理念中，并对企业发展做出贡献。值得注意的是，这些创业方法仅仅将用户和客户的参与限制在征求反馈阶段，换句话说，他们的建议与他们保持一定的距离。
相比之下，效果逻辑理论对利益相关者的看法则截然不同，效果逻辑理论学者将积极参与塑造新企业命运的集体过程的利益相关者定义为任何投入资源的个体。
4.8Team collaboration 团队合作
The eighth conceptual dimension speaks to the role that individuals with complementary and diverse skill sets play as team members in an entrepreneurial process. Team-based efforts are increasingly emphasized in entrepreneurship research as a means to elicit and capitalizeona larger set of heterogeneous competencies(Klotzet al. 2014; Lechler 2001; Harper 2008). An important difference observed among the methods pertains to ideas about teams. In effectuation, the team boundaries are highly fluid and dynamic. Anyone who commits resources can be considered a team member and can play a role in the future of the venture. The group that forms is referred to as the “network of stakeholders,”which is in many ways similar to what some of the other entrepreneurial methods label as a “team.” Effectuating individuals are difficult to replace, as they have key roles in shaping the direction of the venture. These roles emanate from the idiosyncratic qualities these individuals possess (Sarasvathy and Dew 2005b). Design thinking, the lean startup methodology, and prescriptive entrepreneurship view teams differently. They regard them as a group of individuals with complementary skill sets who become responsible for specific aspects of the venture creation process based on their unique skills (Fiet2008 Brown 2008; Blankand Dorf 2012). Inthese methods, most team members can be replaced by individuals who possess similar competencies. A key difference is that teams are more important in designthinking and less important in prescriptive entrepreneurship and the lean startup methodology. In discoverydriven planning and business planning, no explicit advice on teamwork or on necessity for collective efforts could be identified.
第八个概念维度涉及到在创业过程中，具有互补性和多样化技能的个人作为团队成员所扮演的角色。在创业研究中，越来越强调以团队为基础的努力，以此引出了和资本化更大范围的异质能力。从这些方法中观察到，一个重要的差异是关于团队的想法。实际上，团队边界是高度流动和动态的：任何提供资源的人都可以被认为是团队成员，并可以在未来的企业中发挥作用，这样形成的团队被称为“利益相关者网络”，这在很多方面类似于其他一些创业方法所定义的“团队”。而实干家是很难被取代的，因为他们在塑造企业发展方向中扮演着关键角色，这些角色源于这些个体所拥有的特质。设计思维、精益创业方法论和规范型创业方法对团队有不同的看法，他们认为团队是一群具有互补技能集的个人，根据自己独特的技能，负责企业创造过程的特定方面。在这些方法中，大多数团队成员可以被拥有类似能力的个人取代，一个关键的区别是，团队在设计思维中更重要，而在规范型创业方法和精益创业方法论中则不是那么重要，在发现驱动型规划和商业计划中，则没有明确的关于团队合作或集体努力必要性的建议。
4.9Value creation 价值创造
The last conceptual dimension concerns the creation of value for entrepreneurs and others who may benefit from the outcome of the venture creation process. Creation of value, regardless of its recipients, is often the ultimate goal of the entrepreneurial process (Bruyat and Julien 2001; Korsgaard and Anderson 2011). All entrepreneurial methods except for business planning put value creation at the center. They make the venture creation process conditional on providing value to entrepreneurs and their teams, to active stakeholders, and/or to users and customers. This does not imply that business planning activities and outcomes fail to create value for entrepreneurs. They indeed help create legitimacy and act as a marketing tool to attract investors(Brinckmann et al. 2010; Karlsson and Honig 2009).Rather, the activities as part of it are not designed primarily to provide explicit value to external stakeholders. While the prime beneficiaries of value in effectuation, is discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, and the lean startup methodology are entrepreneurs and their collaborators, design thinking consumers (Martin 2009). Amid these subtle differences, Table 2 captures the role of value creation as an important factor for organizing new venture creation activities.
最后一个概念维度涉及为创业者和其他可能从企业创造的结果中受益的人创造价值。不管它的接受者是谁，创造价值通常是创业过程的最终目标。除了商业计划外，所有的创业方法都以创造价值为中心，他们创业过程以为创业者及其团队、积极的利益相关者和/或用户和客户提供价值为条件，但这并不意味着商业规划活动和结果不能为创业者创造价值，它们确实有助于创造合法性，并作为吸引投资者的营销工具。作为它部分的活动并不是主要为外部利益相关者提供明确的价值而设计的，相反，效果逻辑理论价值的主要受益者是驱动规划型方法、规范型创业方法和精益创业方法，是创业者的合作者、设计思维的消费者。在这些微妙的差异中，表2抓住了价值创造作为创业创造活动的重要因素的作用。

Discussion讨论
Table 3 summarizes the findings from the previous section, attempting to clarify similarities, differences, strengths, weaknesses, overlaps, and gaps on a conceptual level across all of the surveyed entrepreneurial methods. This is the first effort of its kind to compare entrepreneurial methods along nine broad conceptual dimensions. Each cell in Table 3 contains typical prescriptive statements, which have been either clearly articulated in the methodologies or inferred by the authors of thisarticle. Table3 also reveals conceptual gaps in some of the methods, particularly in business planning, underscoring the need for improvements.
表3总结了上一节的研究成果，试图在概念层面上阐明所有被调查的创业方法的相似性、差异性、优势、劣势、重叠点和差距，这也是第一次在9个概念维度上比较这些创业方法。表3中的每个单元格都包含典型的说明性陈述，这些陈述要么在方法论中清晰地表述出来，要么是由本文作者推断出来。表3还显示了一些方法的概念上的差距，特别是在商业规划方面，强调需要改进的必要性。
While some methods appear similar upon first glance, variations in the details are often relatively large. Whereas effectuation calls for entrepreneurs to manage uncertainty by taking action to create the future, in the lean startup methodology, entrepreneurs discover the future through testing carefully designed hypotheses. Effectuation further advises entrepreneurs to expand self-knowledge through introspection (Dew and Sarasvathy2010),in contrast to design thinking,in which entrepreneurs derive knowledge through observational studies of other people. While effectuation defines a redirection situation as an opportunity to “leverage contingencies,”the lean startup methodology frames redirection as an unfortunate but necessary “pivot”. In the lean startup methodology and in effectuation, continuous learning comes primarily from interactions with customers and stakeholders, respectively, whereas in design thinking, continuous learning comes primarily from testing prototypes on users. Effectuation describes the iterative process as revolving around stakeholder commitments, where as it erations in the lean start up methodo logy and design thinking have to do with building frugal prototypes. Effectuation is largely focused on value creation for oneself and the team, whereas the lean startup methodology and design thinking are focused on value creation for others (i.e., for customers and users).
虽然有些方法乍一看很相似，但细节上的差异还是比较大的。而效果逻辑理论要求创业者通过采取行动来创造未来和管理不确定性，而在精益创业方法论中，创业者通过测试精心设计的假设来发现未来；效果逻辑理论进一步建议创业者通过内省来扩大自我认识，而设计思维则是创业者通过对他人的观察研究来获取知识；效果逻辑理论将重定向定义为“利用偶发事件”的机会，而精益创业方法论将重定向定义为不幸但必要的“支点”；在精益创业方法和效果逻辑理论中，持续性学习主要来自于与客户和利益相关者的互动，而在设计思维中，持续性学习主要来自于在用户的原型测试；效果逻辑理论将迭代过程描述为围绕利益相关者承诺的循环，而精益创业方法和设计思维与构建节俭的原型有关；效果逻辑理论主要关注为自己和团队创造价值，而精益创业方法和设计思维主要关注为他人(即客户和用户)创造价值。
Table 3 also illustrates some key differences between entrepreneurial methods along the nine conceptual dimensions. Stakeholder interaction is a key theme in effectuation and in the lean startup methodology. It is present in design thinking alongside the imperative of observing stakeholders. It is, however, largely absent in discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, and business planning. Team collaboration is a key theme only in design thinking. It is partly or completely absent in the other entrepreneurial methods
表3还说明了创业方法在9个概念维度上的一些关键差异。利益相关者之间的互动是效果逻辑理论和精益创业方法论中的一个关键主题，它不仅存在于设计思维中，还存在于观察利益相关者的必要性中。然而，在发现驱动型的计划、规范性创业方法和商业规划中，这在很大程度上是缺失的。只有在设计思维中，团队协作才是关键主题，而这在其他创业方法中是部分或完全缺失的。
5.1Analytical visual comparison across methods and dimensions
跨方法和跨维度的可视化分析比较
In order to more powerfully illustrate the conceptual similarities and differences in Tables 2 and 3, the authors created a figure to show the weights assigned to each of The nine conceptual dimensions according to the extent to which they are emphasized by a given entrepreneurial method. A set of qualifying criteria was developed to assign a grade （2） for each dimension on a scale of 0 to 3. If a dimension was deemed fundamental to the theory or prescriptions of a given method, then it was considered a backbone dimension and was given a grade of “3” for that particular method. If an entrepreneurial method directly referred to a dimension in iscussions or prescriptions, that dimension was given a grade of “2” for that particular method. If a method made indirect or implicit reference to a dimension by touching upon similar or related concepts, a grade of “1” was given to that dimension for that particular method. And lastly, if an entrepreneurial method did not explicitly or implicitly address any aspects of a dimension, and it could be safely assumed that this dimension did not inform any relevant aspect of that particular method, a grade of “0” was given to that dimension. This quantitative exercise resulted in Fig. 2, which shows how the entrepreneurial methods compare to one another and to effectuation.
为了更有效地说明表2和表3中的概念的相似性和差异，作者创建了一个图表，根据给定的创业方法的强调程度来显示分配给这9个概念维度的权重，制定了一套资格标准，以每个维度在0到3的等级（2）上进行分配。如果某个维度被认为是给定方法的理论或处方的基础，则该维度被视为骨干维度，那么该方法在该维度的等级为“ 3”级；如果某个创业方法直接涉及讨论或处方中的一个维度，则该方法在该维度的等级为“ 2”级；如果某个方法通过接触相似或相关概念间接或隐式地引用了某个维度，则该方法在该维度的等级为“1”级；最后，如果某种方法没有明确或隐含地解决某个维度的任何方面，并且可以安全地假定该维度未告知该特定方法的任何相关方面，则该方法在这个维度的等级为“ 0”级 。根据这项定量的研究得出了图2，该图显示了创业方法相互之间，且和效果逻辑理论是如何比较的。
The inter-rater agreement betweenthetwo authorswho independently conducted grading was relatively high, with 41 of the 54 grades being the same. Consensus was achieved in the remaining dimensions through extensive discussions among theauthors and a detailedreview of literature. The 13 grades requiring such discussions and reviewing were distributedas follows: three each on team collaboration andvalue creation; two each on resource management, continuous learning, and iterative process; and one on knowledge expansion. All grades on uncertainty management, redirection power, and stakeholder interaction were in agreement between the two authors. The entrepreneurial methods involved the most in such discussions were those that were given a low grade, since absence of a dimension proved to be more difficult to substantiate than presence.
注释2：进行独立评分的两位作者之间的一致是性较高的，54个等级中有41个是相同的。通过作者之间的广泛讨论和对文献的详细回顾，最终在其余的维度上也达成了共识。需要讨论和评比的13个等级分布如下；三个单独的团队协作和价值创造；二个是关于资源管理、持续学习和迭代过程；一个是知识扩展，在不确定性管理、重定向能力和利益相关者互动的所有等级方面，两位作者之间是一致的。在这种讨论中涉及最多的创业方法是那些评分较低的方法，因为事实证明，缺乏一个维度比存在更难以证实。
While the grading exercise is subjective, the resulting figures illustrate patterns of potential relevance to the comparison. A similarity across most of the entrepreneurial methods is an emphasis on knowledge expansion, value creation, and iterative process, as well as a lack of emphasis on team collaboration. Given the methods were developed largely in isolation from one another, these similarities are somewhat unexpected. Some differences are also visible. Three of the entrepreneurial methods address the nine dimensions more comprehensively than the others: effectuation, the lean startup methodology, and design thinking. Moreover, redirection power and stakeholder interaction are important differentiators between them and the others. Business planning is largely mute on many of the nine dimensions.
尽管评分工作是主观的，但得出的数字却说明了与比较潜在相关性的模式。大多数创业方法的一个相似之处是强调知识扩展、价值创造和迭代过程，以及缺乏团队协作。考虑到这些方法在很大程度上是在彼此孤立的情况下发展起来的，因此这些相似之处多少有些出人意料，但一些差异也是显而易见的。其中这三种创业方法比其他方法更全面地解决了这九个维度，它们分别是效果逻辑理论、精益创业方法和设计思维。此外，重定向能力和利益相关者的互动是区分他们和其他人的重要因素。在这九个维度中，商业计划在的许多方面基本上是沉默的。
Although some of the entrepreneurial methods incorporate most of the nine dimensions, they can nevertheless benefit from further elaboration in order to makethem more comprehensible. For instance, the fact that effectuation is graded highly on stakeholder interaction does not necessarily mean that practical pointers are given for how individual entrepreneurs can form and leverage such interactions. In a similar fashion, the fact that the lean startup methodology is graded highly on continuous learning does not necessarily mean that the prescribed learning mechanisms are grounded in a theoretical understanding of continuous learning. In sum, the fact that an entrepreneurial method emphasizes a particular dimension does not make the emphasis actionable or rigorous.
虽然一些创业方法包含了这九个维度的大部分内容，但为了更容易被理解，它们仍然可以从进一步的阐述中获益。例如，尽管效果逻辑理论的利益相关者在互动性方面得分很高，这一事实并不一定意味着就单个创业者如何形成和利用这种互动给出了实用的指示。同样的，精益创业在持续性学习上得分很高，这也不一定意味着规范的学习机制是建立在对持续学习的理论理解之上。总而言之，创业方法强调的是一种特定的维度，但这种强调并不具有可操作性和严谨性。
In an attempt to deepen the surface-level observations for gaps, similarities, and differences shown in Table 3 and Fig. 2, two key themes will now be explored. The first describes two approaches to bridge the rigor–relevance gap in entrepreneurship. The second highlights three different venture phases, with implications for which methods are appropriate to follow during each phase.
为了加深对表3和图2所示的差距、相似点和差异的表层观察，这里将探讨两个关键主题。第一个主题描述了缩小创业当中严密性-相关性差距的两种方法，第二个主题重点介绍了三个不同的创业阶段，以及在每个阶段中应遵循的方法。
5.2Bridging the rigor–relevance gap: two new ways
缩小严格性-相关性差距的两种新方法
A key difference between the entrepreneurial methods compared here is their origins: some are scholarly grounded and others are practitioner-grounded. This was a purposeful sampling strategy, and the comparison conducted here sheds a new light on this key difference on a deeper level. Table 1 revealed that effectuation, discovery-driven planning, and prescriptive entrepreneurship are lacking on the level of tactics, especially when compared to practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods that offer rather large toolkits for managing different aspects of the venture creation process. Previous research indicates that, in order to trigger actions, detailed instructions and prescriptions for behavior must be given (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010). If behavioral tactics are what make entrepreneurial methods actionable and in turn relevant to practitioners (Romme 2003), Table 1 can explain why practitioner grounded entrepreneurial methods are so widespread, as evidenced by Blank (2013) and Christiansen (2009). This also lends credence to previous claims that scholarly grounded methods are difficult for practitioners to understand (Romme 2016). In the same vein, Fisher (2012,p.1044) notes hatitis “really difficult for a wide audience to understand and interpret what is meant by effectuation.” This comparison has illuminated, in a novel way, reasons why many scholarly grounded entrepreneurial methods are perceived by many as lacking practical relevance.
这里所比较的创业方法的一个关键区别是它们的起源：有些起源是基于学术性的，有些是实践性的，这是一种有目的的抽样策略，目的是在更深层次上揭示了这一关键差异。表1显示，在策略层面上，效果逻辑理论、发现驱动型计划和规范型创业方法是缺乏的，尤其是与以实践为基础的创业方法相比，这些方法为管理创业过程的不同方面提供了相当大的帮助。先前的研究表明，为了触发行为，必须给出详细的指示和行为处方。如果行为策略使创业方法具有可操作性，并反过来与从业者相关，那么表1可以解释为什么以实践基础的创业方法如此广泛，正如Blank和Christiansen所证明的那样，而这也印证了之前的说法，即以学术基础的方法很难被从业者理解。同样，Fisher指出，“对于广大观众来说，理解和解释效果逻辑理论的含义真的很难，就像帽子戏法一样。
”这种比较以一种新颖的方式说明了为什么很多人认为学术基础上的创业方法是缺乏的。

While Table 1 shows that all the entrepreneurial methods exhibit an overarching logic of some kind, the more fine-grained analysis in Table 2 reveals a number of shortcomings for practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods in terms of theoretical basis. Neither business planning nor design thinking provides articulated underpinnings of uncertainty management. Moreover,while the lean startup methodology discusses uncertainty to some extent, it does not engage in an ontologically or epistemologically sound discussion around what constitutes uncertainty, beyond referring to the need to eliminate it from entrepreneurial processes. Given that uncertainty is a fundamental charac teristic underlying entrepreneurship (McMullen and Shepherd 2006), its absence or weak presence in practitioner grounded entrepreneurial methods may indicate a lack of rigor. These key differences are illustrated through a polar chart in Fig. 3, which shows an evaluation of the six entrepreneurial methods in terms of core, explicit, implicit, or no focus in discussions on uncertainty management.
虽然表1显示了所有的创业方法都表现出某种总体逻辑，但表2中更细致的分析并揭示了基于从业者的创业方法在理论基础方面的一些缺陷。无论是商业计划还是设计思考，都没有为不确定性管理提供明确的基础。此外，尽管精益创业方法在一定程度上讨论了不确定性，但除了提到从创业过程中消除不确定性的必要性外，它并没有就构成不确定性的因素进行一种本体论或认识论上的合理讨论。考虑到不确定性是创业过程的一个基本特征，这种不确定性的缺乏或在以从业者为基础的创业方法中存在较弱可能表明它缺乏严密性。这些关键差异通过图3的极坐标图进行了说明。该图显示了在不确定性管理的讨论中对核心，显式，隐式或不集中的六个创业方法的评估。
This article provides a more fine-grained analysis of key characteristics of the rigor–relevance gap in relation to the six entrepreneurial methods. None of the surveyed methods are currently capable of fully bridging the rigor–relevance gap. In order to successfully do this, scholarly grounded methods need to be stronger on the level of tactics. Practitioner-grounded entrepreneurial methods, on the other hand, could benefit from improvments in the areas of ontology and epistemology in general and on their view of uncertainty management in particular.
本文对六种创业方法的严密性-相关性差距的关键特征进行了更为细致的分析。目前所调查的方法中没有一种能够完全弥合严密性-相关性之间差距。为了成功做到这一点，需要在战术层面上加强基于学术的方法。另一方面，以从业者为基础的创业方法可以从本体论和认识论领域的总体改进中受益，特别是在不确定性管理方面的改进。
5.3Importance of the venture phase for methodological fit
方法适配对创业阶段的重要性
Depending on which phase an entrepreneurial venture is in, redirection power in Table 2 seems to covary. In the early phase of a venture, redirection power, continuous learning, and relentless expansion of the knowledge baseare to be expected. Anexample of an entrepreneurial method that corresponds to the early phase is effectuation. In this early phase, whoever joins the venture will be a potential “stakeholder”, is allowed to reorient the venture, and will determine the path forward (cf. Sarasvathy 2001). Formal roles do not matter much since everyone is a stakeholder cocreating the journey, and any decision is the result of a joint process involving multiple negotiations and interactions among the stakeholders on board (Sarasvathy et al. 2005). In fact, one could argue that effectuation shies away from the notion of a core venture team and instead takes a more expansive view of a network of stakeholders, who eventually coalesce into a founding team (Wiltbank et al. 2006). This is similar to the notion of a nonteleological endeavor, in which arrival at an emerging goal is the outcome of the process itself (Dew et al. 2009).
根据创业企业所处的阶段不同，表2中的重定向能力似乎也有所不同。在创业的早期阶段，重定向能力、持续性学习和知识库的不断扩展是可以预料到的，一个例子是效果逻辑理论。在这个阶段，无论谁加入企业都将是一个潜在的“利益相关者”，都可以重新定位企业，并将决定企业前进的道路。正式的角色并不重要，因为每个人都是共同创造旅程的利益相关者，任何决策都是共同经历的结果，也包括董事会里股东之间的多次谈判和互动。事实上，有人可能会说，效果逻辑理论回避了核心风险团队的概念，而是以更广泛的视角看待利益相关者网络，这些利益相关者最终会合并成一个创始团队。这类似于非目的性努力的概念，即达到一个新兴目标是过程本身的结果。
In a later phase of the venture, there is a need for more structure (Clarysse and Moray 2004). Two prime examples are design thinking and the lean startup methodology. Here, redirection power, continuous learning, and knowledge expansion are more structured and organized through the process of hypothesis testing. Goals and visions are articulated by a small team known as”founders” (Blank and Dorf 2012) or “team members”(Brown 2009). The interactions are more formal and transactional than in effectuation, distinguishing those driving the process from their “customers” (Blank and Dorf 2012; Ries 2011) or “users”(Brown 2009). Here, redirection power is still quite high, but it is exploited at specific points in time. It is also referred to as“pivot”(Ries 2011) or “iteration”(Brown 2009; Liedtka 2015). It reflects a higher degree of complexity and relies on clear roles and division of labor. The roles of the focal entrepreneur (Ries 2011) or the founding team (Brown 2009) are more prominent in these methods and the losses are less affordable due to more time and resources having been invested into the process of a later phase venture.
在创业企业的后期阶段，需要更多的结构，两个主要的例子就是设计思维和精益创业。在这里，通过假设检验的过程、重定向能力、持续性学习和知识扩展更加结构化和组织化，企业的目标和愿景由一个被称为“创始人”或“团队成员”的小团队来阐述。与实际情况相比，它的交互更加正式和务实，以便将驱动过程的人与他们的“客户”或“用户”区分开来。在这里，重定向功能仍然很重要，但它只是在特定的时间点被开发利用，因此也被称为“枢轴”或“迭代”，它反映了更高程度的复杂性，依赖于明确的角色和分工。而且由于在后期创业过程中投入了更多的时间和资源，关键创业者或创始团队的重要角色在这些方法中的作用更为突出，一旦出现差错，后果将另他们更难以承受。

In mature ventures, redirection is not an affordable or desirable option except in very specific situations. An example of an entrepreneurial method appropriate here is business planning. This method exhibits little to no emphasis on redirection, continuous learning, or continuous knowledge expansion (see Table 2). Instead, it translates what is already known into plans before starting the journey and at predefined times throughout the journey. Business planning is focused on the execution of a goal defined at the outset, and all the activities are designed to further progress toward that goal (Shane and Delmar 2003; Karlsson and Honig 2009). An emphasis on necessity to plan carefully and avoid redirection whenever possible could be due to an implicit assumption that losses in mature ventures can be costly, as exemplified by later stage venture financing. Venture capitalists often request to review business plans before investing large amounts of money into a venture (Brinckmann et al. 2010).
在一个成熟的企业中，除非在非常特殊的情况下，否则重定向不是一个可以负担得起或理想的选择，适合这个阶段的创业方法是商业计划。这种方法很少或不强调重定向、持续性学习或持续知识扩展(见表2)，相反，它是在整个过程之前或具体实施之前按照预定的时间将已知的信息转化为计划。商业计划的重点是执行一开始就确定的目标，所有的活动都是为了进一步朝着这个目标前进，它强调必须仔细规划和尽可能避免改变方向，可能是因为有一种隐含的假设，即成熟企业的的投资损失可能是最昂贵的，这一点在后期风险投资得到了证明。风险投资家在投入大量资金之前通常会要求审查商业计划。
The key differences that this venture phase observation makes explicit are illustrated in a polar chart in Fig. 4. This chart shows an evaluation of the six entrepreneurial methods in terms of a core, explicit, implicit, or no focus on redirection, based on Table 2 and Fig. 2. A key implication here is that the choice of entrepreneurial method is highly contingent upon the phase of the venture. Existing venture phase models articulated in extant literature could then perhaps be applied when deciding which entrepreneurial method is appropriate to use (e.g., Clarysse and Moray 2004; Hanks et al. 1994; Levie and Lichtenstein 2010). This has also been tentatively proposed recently (Reymen et al. 2015), building on a four-phase model consisting of idea phase, prestartup phase, startup phase, and post startup phase (Clarysse and Moray 2004). In this case, effectuation could then be positioned as useful primarily in the idea and pre-startup phases, design thinking and the lean startup methodology could be useful primarily in the pre-startup and startup phases, and discovery-driven planning and business planning could be useful primarily in the startup and post startup phases. This, however, must be viewed as a tentative proposition. No empirical research has yet been conducted on covariance between venture age, size, and growth rate, on the one hand, and multiple entrepreneurial methods used successfully, on the other hand. Venture phase models can also be misleading, resting on a false assumption that entrepreneurship is a linear and predetermined journey of growth (Levie and Lichtenstein 2010). Further, some entrepreneurial methods are opposing the claim implicit in phase models that entrepreneurial processes are linear (e.g., Blank and Dorf 2012: 32).
在图4中，我们可以清楚地看到经观察创业阶段得到的关键差异。基于表2和图2，这张图表显示了对六种创业方法的评价，包括核心、显性、隐性和非焦点重定向。这里的一个关键含义是，创业方法的选择在很大程度上取决于创业所处的阶段。现存文献中所阐述的现有创业阶段模型，或许可以在决定哪种创业方法比较适合使用。最近也有人在基于创意阶段、启动前阶段、启动阶段和启动后阶段组成的四阶段模型的基础上的提出了一个设想，在这种情况下，效果逻辑理论在想法之初和创业前阶段可以是有用的；在创业前和启动阶段，设计思维和精益创业方法可能是有用的；在启动阶段和创业后阶段，探索驱动型规划和商业计划可能是有用的。然而这仅仅是一个试探性的提议，关于创业年龄、规模和增长率与多种创业方法成功运用之间的关系，目前尚无实证研究。创业阶段模型也可能会产生误导，如果它是建立在一个错误的假设之上，即创业是一个线性的、预先就确定的成长旅程。
此外，一些创业方法反对阶段模型中隐含的创业过程是线性的主张。
Despite the challenges in aligning entrepreneurial methods to existing venture phase models, the methods do seem to be complementary over time. When the stakes are low in a new venture, the applicable method might be effectuation, followed by a move to applying the lean startup methodology when the stakes are slightly higher. Then the time arrives for a venture ramp-up, for example, when bringing in large amounts of venture capital. At this stage, few investors would be willing to commit resources unless they were shown a detailed plan or proposal of some kind. Furthermore, having no explicitly stated goals necessitates constant change (i.e., effectuation viewed as a nonteleological endeavor),having fluid goals facilitates change (i.e., the lean startup methodology and design thinking), and having fixed goals leads to inflexibility in the face of change (i.e., business planning, discovery-driven planning, and prescriptive entrepreneurship).
尽管在将创业方法与创业阶段模型相结合方面存在挑战，但这些方法似乎随着时间的流逝是互补的。当一个新公司的风险较低时，可能适用的方法是效果逻辑理论；在风险较高的时，采用精益创业；然后到了进行风险投资的时候，例如在引入大量风险投资时，除非向投资者展示详细的计划或提议，否则很少有投资者愿意进行资源投入。此外，如果没有明确的目标就需要不断进行改变，即实现非目的性的努力；有流动性的目标会促进变更，即精益创业和设计思想；具有固定的目标会导致面对变更时缺乏灵活性，也就是商业计划、发现驱动型规划和规范性创业方法。
To avoid premature assignment of entrepreneurial methods to certain venture phases, a venture phaseagnostic metaphor of boating is proposed here to inspire future research.The size of the boat represents the phase of an entrepreneurial venture. Applying effectuation could then be viewed as traveling in a rowboat, where whoever boards the rowboat is allowed to row and thus reorient its direction somewhat. Any loss in speed or even of the boat itself is affordable, since the pace is slow and the boat is small. Space is limited, so each passenger needs to bring something of value on the journey. Applying the lean startup methodology could be viewed as traveling in a sailboat, where a redirection is analogous to upwind sailors tacking into the wind incarefully planned maneuvers. The more formal roles of a founder and a team are analogous to a captain and a sailboat crew, respectively, being a necessity on a more expensive and complex boat traveling in more dangerous waters. Applying business planning could be viewed as traveling in a large ferry toward a carefully planned destination, and where a loss of the boat is very costly.
因此，为了避免过早地将创业方法分配到特定的创业阶段，本文提出了一个创业阶段的“划船”比喻，来启发未来的研究。船的大小代表了创业的各个阶段：皮划艇上旅行可以看作是效果逻辑理论的应用，任何登上艇的人都可以划船，从而在某种程度上重新调整方向，而任何速度的损失，甚至是船体本身的损失都是可以承受的，因为船小，速度慢，空间有限，所以每位乘客在旅途中都需要带些有价值的东西；帆船上旅行可以看作是精益创业的应用，在帆船上重定向类似于逆风的水手在大风中精心规划的动作，创始人和团队成员等更正式的角色类似于船长和船员，在更昂贵、更复杂的船只上，在更危险的水域航行是必需的；乘坐大型渡轮前往一个精心规划的目的地可以看作是商业计划的应用，这个时候船只的损失的代价是非常昂贵的。

Implications影响力
6.1Implications for theory 对理论的影响
A key theoretical implication of this study is that scholars can use the key strengths of some entrepreneurial methods to improve aspects of other entrepreneurial methods that require theoretical and practical development. In particular, insights from this enquiry enable scholars to take advantage of the theoretical strengths that effectuation is grounded in and the strengths around actionable, tactical prescription that the lean startup methodology and design thinking provide. Our study also shows weaknesses among the six methods, especially in the areas of team collaboration and contextual sensitivity. For example, it might not make much sense to give effectuation based advice when potential losses are far from affordable, or when roles and responsibilities are already established and when continuous redirection of strategic choices is a less viable strategy.
本研究的一个重要理论影响是，学者可以利用一些创业方法的关键优势来改进其他需要理论和实践发展的创业方法，尤其是，从这个调查中获得的见解使学者们能够利用效果逻辑理论、精益创业和设计思维提供的可操作、战术处方的优势。同时，我们也研究了这六种方法的弱点，特别是在团队协作和情境敏感性领域。例如，当潜在的损失远远超出承受极限时，或者角色和责任已经确定时、持续重定向战略选择是一个不太可行的战略时，提出基于效果逻辑理论的建议可能没有多大意义。
To advance beyond the current state of entrepreneurial methods,researchers need to recognize entrepreneurial methods as a legitimate field of scholarly inquiry. One way could be to adopt an integrated approach, combining different methods into more comprehensive meta-methods that are both “theoretically-driven and empirically-tested”(Fiet 2008, p. 11) in a broad variety of contexts and situations. Such work could be guided by the three-tiered framework and the nine conceptual dimensions put forth in this article and could draw from and relate to extant literature, such as venture success factors (Hong et al. 2013; Marmer et al. 2011) and innovation and startup ecosystems (Gauthier et al. 2017),among others. An integrated approach could also further the development of a prescription-based and pragmatic view of the entrepreneurial process. It is argued in this article that a combined view may be the most accurate and effective one. Perhaps entrepreneurship is when individuals manage uncertainty by expanding their knowledge and resource base through continuous learning from feedback, in an iterative and interactive manner involving close collaborators, acting to create new kinds of value for oneself and for others.
为了超越目前的创业方法，研究人员需要承认创业方法是一个合法的学术研究领域。一种是方法是采用一种综合的方法，将不同的方法结合成更全面的元方法，都是经过“理论驱动和实证检验”的，可以在各种背景和情况使用，这项工作可以在本文提出的三层框架和9个概念维度的指导下进行，并可以借鉴现有的文献，如《创业成功因素》及《创新和创业生态系统》等。综合办法还可以进一步发展以处方为基础的、且务实的创业过程观，本文认为，综合观点可能是最准确和有效的观点。也许创业就是个人通过从不断从反馈中学习，以迭代和互动的方式来扩展他们的知识和资源库，通过密切的合作者的参来管理不确定性，为自己和他人创造新的价值。

6.2Implications for practice 对实践的影响
Some key implications for practice are also evident. Entrepreneurs should reflect critically on advice given to them to decide if and when an entrepreneurial method is suitable for their purposes, taking into consideration development stage and context (Reymen et al. 2015). Ease of use does not imply future venture success. The lack of theoretical rigor among the entrepreneurial methods, especially in the areas of uncertainty management and team collaboration, suggests that entrepreneurs might need to develop their own comprehensive understanding of these two key issues. For example, the methods have a tendency to provide ready-made answers instead of inspiring entrepreneurs to undertake their own processes of discovery when facing an unknown situation. Entrepreneurs could also benefit from being aware of the shortcomings of business planning, in terms of its misalignment with many key dimensions of the entrepreneurial process. Early-stage financiers could take stock of this discrepancy and draw upon other entrepreneurial methods when assessing which ventures to fund. If scholars act upon the theoretical implications mentioned above, entrepreneurs will have access to more comprehensive and empirically studied meta-methods that place the context and development stage of the venture at the center of prescriptive efforts.
对实践中的一些关键影响也是显而易见的。创业者应批判性地考虑提供给他们的建议，以决定是否以及何时采用一种适合自己的创业方法，同时兼顾考虑到发展阶段和发展背景。易用性并不意味着未来的创业会成功，创业方法之间缺乏理论上的严密性，尤其是在不确定性管理和团队合作方面，这表明创业者可能需要对这两个关键问题形成自己的全面理解。例如，这些方法倾向于提供现成的答案，而不是激励创业者在面对未知情况时进行自我的发现过程。创业者还可以认识从商业计划的缺点中获悉，它与创业过程的许多关键方面不符。早期的融资者可以评估这种差异，并在评估要资助哪些企业时借鉴其他创业方法。如果学者们根据上述理论含义采取行动，创业者们将有机会获得更全面和实证研究的元方法，这些方法会将企业的背景和发展阶段置于规范型工作的中心。
6.3Implications for educators and policymakers 对教育者和决策者的影响
This study also has implications for educators and policymakers. Educators can now use the three-tiered framework and the nine conceptual dimensions to help students make sense of the existing entrepreneurial methods, illustrating their strengths, weaknesses, and complementarities. The temporal, contextual, directional, and uncertainty-related differences presented here can also be explored in more depth in academic settings as a way of teaching and communicating them more effectively. The rigor–relevance gap, exhibited by entrepreneurial methods as well as other submanagement theories, calls for attention from educators who rely on these methods in practically oriented courses and modules. Educators could communicate with students in a transparent manner about limitations in theoretical rigor, applicability, actionability, empirical evidence base, and contextual sensitivity. Methods that are exciting or convenient to teach, such as the lean startup methodology and business planning, are not effective in all settings. Moreover, policymakers could address these shortcomings in research, education, and entrepreneurial ecosystems by demanding more practical relevance from their research grants. In this way, policymakers could inspire researchers, educators, incubator and accelerator coaches, university officials, entrepreneurship consultants, ecosystem designers, and others to raise the bar for theoretical rigor and at the same time, for contextual relevance and applicability. These efforts would strengthen the empirical evidence base of the entrepreneurial methods that are being studied, recommended, and implemented in a multitude of settings.
这项研究对教育者和决策者也有一定的影响。教育工作者现在可以使用三层框架和9个概念维度来帮助学生理解现有的创业方法，说明他们的优势，劣势和互补性，也可以在学术环境中更深入地探讨此处介绍的时间，语境，方向和与不确定性-相关的差异，作为一种更有效地进行教学和交流的方式。创业方法以及其他子管理理论所表现出的严格-相关差距，呼吁依赖这些方法的教育工作者在实践性取向的课程和模块中予以关注。教育者可以以透明的方式与学生交流有关理论的严谨性、适用性，可操作性、经验论证基础和语境敏感性等方面的限制。精益创业和商业计划等令人兴奋或易于教受的方法并非在所有情况下都有效。此外，决策者可以要求研究补助金更切合实际，以解决研究、教育和创业生态系统中的这些缺陷。通过这种方式，政策制定者可以激励研究人员、教育工作者、孵化器和加速器教练、大学官员、创业顾问、生态系统设计师等，以提高理论上的严谨性，同时又要提高上下文相关性和适用性。
这些努力将加强正在多种环境下研究、推荐和实施的创业方法的经验证据基础。

Conclusions 结论
The comparison undertaken here has positioned empirical, theoretical and prescriptive work on entrepreneurial methods as an emerging scholarly field of not only inquiry but also of design (Romme 2016). Instead of studying effectuation as a dominant logic for “the entrepreneurial method” (cf. Sarasvathy and enkataraman 2011), scholars and practitioners could use the plural term “entrepreneurial methods” as a vehicle for coming together in co-creation efforts to bridge a rigor-relevance gap. This could be a pragmatic way to make the entrepreneurial process more explicit, graspable, teachable, and ultimately more successful. Such collaborative work will likely require a partial departure from detached bservation-based research methods and instead require researchers to work closely with practitioners inprescriptive endeavors where empirical datais rigorously collected around what works, when, for whom, and in which context.
本文进行的比较将创业方法的实证、理论和指令性工作定位为研究和设计的新兴学术领域。与将效果逻辑理论作为“创业方法”的主导逻辑进行研究不同，学者和从业者可以将使用复数形式的“创业方法”作为一种桥梁，在共同努力中弥合严格-相关性差距，这可能是一种务实的方式，可以使创业过程更加明确、可理解、可教导，最终更加成功。此类的协同工作方式可能需要部分脱离基于观察的研究方法，而需要研究人员与从业者紧密合作，以规范性方式努力开展工作，严格收集经验数据，围绕什么工作、何时、为谁、在什么情况下工作。

点击